Pavement Design Guide - A Short Course

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 325

Principles of Pavement Design

A Short Course a
O
8&.<7,:āVUR57$QR
LIB y
UNlVEBsi1Y OF Km-.'TUCKY
Purpose and Scope

T he purpose of this short co urse is to provide information to the registered engineer


(with no previous background in pavement design or pavement technology) on the
structural design of pavements. Included in this course is a summary of background
information on the materials used in pavement construction and on the history and
evolution of pavement design. Included with this course is an updated Design Guide
or catalog to be used for designing new pavements in Kentucky. The intent of the guide
or catalog is to provide the road\\ a) designer with a simplified, straightforward
methodology for developing structural designs of pavements.

The methodology as presented herein has roots in both the AASHTO Guide for Design
of Pavement StructUre and also the Kentucky mechanistic-empirical pavement design
systems which are used for structural design of pavements in Kentucky. The procedure
as presented herein uses an AA HTO structural number concept to defme the
structural requirements of the pavement section. However, the minimum required
stru ctural number has been determined on the basis of the Kentucky mechanistic-
empirical pavement design procedure.

The pavements that are to be designed by the information presented in this course and
the accompanying design guide are to be limited to:

• Pavements off the ational Highway System,


• Pavements with less than 20,000,000 EASL's per 20 years in the design
lane,
• Pavements '"ith less than 20% trucks,
• Pavements with less than 15.000 Average Daily Traffic.

Presentation of Material
It is assumed that the participant bas no knowledge of pavement technology and/or
pavement design procedures. Therefore, the material begins with elementary
principles and defmitions. The material is presented in seven parts which can be
classified into five general categories:

Definitions Part I,
Materials---------- Part II, Part ill, and Part IV,
Overview of De ign Part V,
Pavement Failure Mechanism -Part VI,
Design Catalog Part VII.
Course Manual
A manual accompanies the short course. Included in the manual are the following
items:

1. A black-and-white copy of all the slides presented in this course,


2. The Design Catalog,
3. Applicable Standard Drawings, specifications, and special notes.

Course Notes
The slides are normally printed three to a page; however, when charts or graphs are
shown that contain an appreciable amount of detail, they are then printed two per page
or one per page. The pages that have three slides per page also have space provided by
each slide for the participant to write notes.

At the beginning of each part, the objectives for that part are listed, as well as the topics
to be discussed in that part Pertinent comments relating to topics to be discussed in
a particular part are also listed in the beginning of the section.

Computer Programs
Included with this short course is a CD-ROM that contains a full-color version of all
the slides presented in this course. In addition, the CD-ROM contains an EXCEL
spreadsheet program that calculates the life-cycle costs for a particular design project.
The CD-ROM also contains an ACCESS program to calculate ESAL forecasts. Both
programs will be demonstrated during the course.
Pavement Design Definitions

Foundation (Geotechnical)
Parameters

Unbound Materials

Bound Materials

Overview of Pavement
Design

Mechanisms of Pavement
Failure

Design Catalog

Submittal and Approval


Procedures

Pavement Design Guide

ESAL Forecasting Report


Part 1: Pavement Design Definitions

Objectives:
To familiarize the participant with all of the components of a pavement structure.

To defme the major methods or philosophies of pavement design.

To defme and discuss the traffic parameters necessary to design pavement structures.

Topics:

I. Pavement Design Definitions


A. Components of a Pavement System
1. Subgrade
2. Base
3. Surface
4. Portland Cement Concrete
B. Design Concepts and Terminology
1. Empirical
2. Mechanistic
3. Mechanistic-Empirical (Kentucky Method)
C. Traffic Parameters
1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
2. Percent Trucks
3. Axle/Wheel Loads
4. Load Equivalencies
5. Equivalent Single Axleloads (EASL)
6. Functional Class

Comments:
A pavement is an engineered structure designed to transmit loads from vehicle tires to the soil
or rock subgrade. Pavements are normally of multilayer construction with relatively weaker
materials below and progressively stronger ones above. Such an arrangement leads to the
economic use of available materials. Flexible pavements usually consist of several layers
starting with the unbound base on the subgrade (i.e. dense-graded aggregate), one or more
courses of bound base, and fmally the riding surface. Rigid pavements usually consist of two
layers - the concrete slab and the unbound base layers. Modern pavements will often have
a bound drainage layer immediately above the unbound base.
A number of different empirical methods of pavement design have been developed during the
last 60 years. Most are based on observations of the performance of existing roads under a
variety of traffic conditions. In this country, large test tracks using a variety of pavement
structures have been trafficked with specific vehicle types operating With known axle loads.
This has given valuable understanding of the relative damaging effect of different axle loads
on a variety of pavements constructed to different thicknesses. These experiments have
provided the basis for the design procedures used in many parts of the country. These are all
empirically based procedures.

Concurrently with the development of empirical design methods, work has been in progress
relating to a more fundamental design procedure based on structural theory and the behavior
of road material under repeated stress. These procedures are referred to as mechanistic
design. At present, the theoretical approach is proving most useful in interpreting and
extending the conclusions reached from experimental pavement research. Kentucky's
pavement design method currently follows this latter approach, and is called a mechanistic-
empirical procedure.

Traffic information is required by the pavement designer to associate the damaging effects of
the applications of an axle of any load applied to the pavement. The term equivalent single
axle load is used in pavement design methodologies to describe the relative amount of damage
done to the pavement. The most common expression of pavement damage is the 18,000-pound
(80 kN) equivalent single axle load. Load equivalency factors (pavement damage factors) are
used to describe the relative amount of damage for a specific axle loading and axle
configuration in terms of the amount of damage done to the pavement by some number of
equivalent 18,000-pound axle loads. It should be noted that relationships between load
equivalency factors (pavement damage factors) and load is not a linear relationship. Load
equivalency factors are calibrated to specific pavement design procedures. For example, the
load equivalency factors for the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures are
different from the load equivalency factors used with the Kentucky Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement Design Procedure which are different from the load equivalency factors used with
the Asphalt Institute Thickness Design Asphalt Pavements For Highways & Streets (MS-1).
Also, load equivalency factors used for the design of flexible pavements (asphalt concrete) are
different from the load equivalency factors used for rigid pavements (Portland cement
concrete) for some pavement design procedures. For example, the load equivalency factors for
the AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures include separate load equivalency
factors for flexible pavements and for rigid pavements. Conversely, the mechanistic-empirical
pavement design procedures developed in Kentucky have been calibrated on the basis of load
equivalency factors used for flexible pavements.
There are four key considerations which influence the accuracy of traffic estimates and which
can significantly influence the life cycle of a pavement. These are:

1. The correctness of the load equivalency values used to estimate the relative damage
influenced by axle loads of different mass and configurations.

2. The accuracy of traffic volume and weight information used to predict the actual
loading projections.

3. The prediction of ESAL's over the design period.

4. The interaction of age and traffic as it relates to the functional and structural
deterioration of the pavement and related changes in pavement serviceability.

Forecasting of ESAL's is perhaps the most critical aspect of pavement design since it involves
forecasting not only the growth in traffic volumes for a particular route but also forecasting
the change in the characteristics of vehicles in the traffic stream. For example, during the past
twenty years, there has been significant growth in traffic volumes and proportions of trucks
in the traffic stream for most major routes. At the same time, the sizes and weights of trucks
in the traffic stream have also increased. As a result, many pavements have deteriorated more
rapidly than expected because the combination of increased traffic volumes, growth in
proportions of trucks, and increases in sizes and weights of trucks.

A computer program to calculate ESAL forecasts is included with this manual. The program
will be demonstrated during the course of this study. Further details on ESAL forecasting is
included in the Design Guide accompanying this manual.
Principles of
Pavement Design

1· 1

Pavement Design
Definitions

I 1-2

Pavement:
• An Engineered
Structure Designed to
Support Traffic Loads
and to Distribute Those
Loads to the Roadbed.
1· 3
Definitions

1·4

Pavement Cross Section

~ Subgrade
(Foundation) 1· 5

Definitions

Subgrade
Top Surface of a Roadbed Upon
Which the Pavement Structure
and Shoulders are Constructed

1· 6
Subgrade
-Lowest Member
-Must Support Load
-Considered Top 24"
-Can Be Soil or Rock
-Can Be Modified
1-7

IDefinitions I

Base Courses

Pavement Cross Section

Courses 1-t
Unbound Base
Materials
• Immediately Above Subgrade
• Economical Strength
• Provide a Working Platform
• Can Provide Drainage
• Act as a Separation Layer
• Various Gradations fBi

s Section

Bound Base !Binder Courses


I · t1

Asphalt Base
Courses
-Provide Most ofPav~~~
Strength
-Can Provide Drainagc..ow:IO>A-
Asphalt Binder
Courses
-Finer Gradation Than Bases
-Coarser Than Surfaces
-Used in Leveling and Wedging

Surface Course ,_ 14

Definitions

Surface Course
-
The Layers of a Pavement Structure
Designed to Accommodate the Traffic
Load and Which Resists Skidding,
Traffic Abrasion, and the
Disintegrating Effects of Climate.
Also Called "Wearing Course."
1-15
Surface Course
•Top Layer
• Riding Surface
• Thin Lifts
• Finest Gradation t -11

Definitions
Portland Cement
Concrete Pavement
A Pavement Structure Which
Distributes Loads to the Subgrade
Having as One Course a Portland
Cement Slab of Relatively High
Bending Resistance 1-11

PCC Pavements
• Also Called Rigid or PCC
• A Coarse Aggregate, Fine
Aggregate and Portland
Cement Mixture
• Usually a Higher Initial Cost
But a Lower Maintenance
Cost
• Usually Jointed 1· 11
Definitions

Design Concepts and


Terminology

1·11

Empirical:
Relying on Experience and/or
Observatio:!i:!Ji/if/hout
Regard tu~ or Theory

I· 20

Mechanistic:
Mechanistic -
Em irical
Based on a Theoretical
System and Adjusted
or Calibrated by
Empirical Means
(Kentucky Method)

Layer Coefficient

Expresses the Empirical Relationship


Between the Structural Number and
Layer Thickness, and is a Measure of
the Relative Ability of the Material to
Function as a Structural Component
of the Pavement
I·~

Structural Number
An index number derived from an analysis
of traffic, roadbed soil con ditions, and
environment which may be converted to
thickness of flexible p avement layers through
the use of suitable layer coefficients related
to the type of material being used in each
layer of the p avement structure.
1· 14
Definitions

1·25

Average Daily Traffic


The total volume
during a given time
period (in whole days)
(ADT) greater than one day and
less than one year, divided
by the number of days in
that period.
1·26

Obtainin2 ADT
• Vehicle Classification Recorders
(VCR)
• Automatic Traffic Recorders
(ATR)
• Tube Counts (Volume Only)
• Visual Counts
• Weigh-in-Motion (WIM)
1·27
Vehicle Types
1. Motorcycles 8. 4 or Less Axles,
2. Cars Single Trailer
3. Pickup Trucks 9. 5-Axle, Single
4. Buses Trailer
10. 6 or More Axles ,
5. 2-Axle, 6-tlre,
Single Tra iler
Single Unit
11 . 5 or Less Axles,
6. 3·Axle, Single
Multi-Trailer
Unit
12. 6-Axle, Multi·
7. 4 or More Axles,
Tra iler
Single Unit
13. 7 or More Axle,
Multi-Trailer
•••

Percent
Trucks
The Ratio of the Number of
Trucks to the Total Number
of Vehicles in the Traffic
Stream, Expressed as a Percentage
1·21

Importance of
Percent Trucks
• Determines Pavement
Loads, Hence Pavement
Thickness
• Helps to Determine Highway
Capacity
• In a Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis, It's Important in
Calculating User Delay Cosf 1• 311
Lane Distribution
Factor

The percent of total vehicles or one vehicle type


(in one direction) in a particular lane of a
multi-lane fadlity

I·S1

Axle/Wheel
Loads

Whee/Load
-Load in Pounds or Kilos
on Each Wheel
-Wheel Load I Tire Pressure
Equals Tire Contact Area

I·SS
Equivalent Single
Axle Load
(ESAL)

ESAL:
The amount of damage done to a
pavement structure by a 4-tired,
single axle, carrying 18,000 pounds .
I·S7

Load Equivalency
Factor (LEF)
(AlsD C./led Damage F11ctor)

The Damage Produced by an


Expected Axle Load Converted
to an Equivalent Number of
. .Single Axle Loads

DAMAGE FACTORS FOR


VARIOUS TRUCK TYPES

........ ~ .::2

0
,~
~

- /

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150


TOTAL GROSS VEHCLE WEIGHT (KPS)
-TYPE 10 - TYPE 9 - TYPE 7 TYPE 6
Tandem:
Two Closely Spaced Axles

Tridem:
Three Closely Spaced Axles

1·40

Functional Class
The classification of
highways into different
operational systems based
on the character of service
they provide
1-41

Functional Class
Environment:
*Urban
* Rural
Hierarchy:
*Local
*Collector
*Arterial
1-42
Kentucky
Functional Classes
0 I - Rural Interstate 11- Urban Interstate
02- Rural Principal 12 - Urban Other
Arterial Freeways I Expressways
06- Rural Minor 14- Urban Other
Arterial Prlntlpal Anerial
07- R ural Major 16- Urban Minor
Collector Arterial
08 -Rural Minor 11 -Urban Collector
Collector 19 - Urban Local
09 - Rural Local
Part II: Foundation (Geotechnical) Parameters

Objectives:

To understand the important role the subgrade plays in the life and performance of a
pavement structure.

To familiarize the participant with the various methods of measuring subgrade


strength.

To discuss the methods of stabilization or modification of weak subgrades.

To discuss the importance of drainage to the performance of a pavement structure.

Topics:

II. Foundation (Geotechnical) Parameters


A. Measuring Subgrade Strength
1. CBR Laboratory Testing Methods (AASHTO, ASTM, KY)
2. In-situ Method
3. Resilient Modulus Laboratory Testing Procedure
B. Subgrade Stabilization
1. Criteria for Stabilization
2. Methods of Stabilization
C. Structural Parameters
D. Pavement Drainage

Comments:
The material property used to characterize the roadbed soil for pavement design is the
Kentucky CBR. Details for testing for the Kentucky CBR are presented in the current Edition
of the Kentucky Methods (KM 64-501). Generally, the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) was
originally developed by the California Division of Highways for evaluation of subgrade
quality. The test has been refined, modified, and adapted by others and today is the· most
common test conducted on soils to defme the structural quality of subgrade soils for pavement
design. The methods for performing the test are discussed in detail in this section.

Subgrades typically are constructed of soils from roadway excavation or borrow. However,
subgrades also may be composed of rock. Rock subgrades may exclude shale, include shale
with other rock types, or be constructed entirely of shale. Rock roadbed is utilized for the top
two feet of the roadway when sufficient quantities of suitable rock are available from roadway
excavation.

Shales are cemented or non-cemented sedimentary deposits of various chemical composition


in which the constituent particles are 0. 75 mm in diameter and includes siltstone, claystone,
and mudstone. Shales are classified according to Slake Durability Index (SDn results.
Sedimentary shale deposits are frequently interbedded with thin sections of carbonates or
arenaceous (sandy) partings which can produce distorted SDI values. Jar slake tests typically
are performed to provide additional information about rock disintegration to compare with
SDI results. A table is included in the Design Guide that illustrates typical ranges of estimated
CBR values for a range of material types. The design CBR also may be estimated on the basis
of soil classifications. A table is also included in the Design Guide for estimating design CBR.

The majority of pavements constructed in Kentucky are constructed on fine grained soils.
When first compacted, these fine grained soils usually have sizeable bearing strength. If
pavements are constructed immediately after compaction of fine grained soils, then major
problems typically will not be encountered when placing and compacting layers of paving
materials. Problems arise however, when surface and subsurface water penetrates compacted
fme grained soils. Water from rainfall, snow melt, and groundwater seepage enters the fine
grained soil subgrades, causing swelling, and producing a loss of bearing capacity in the
subgrade.

Recent experience in Kentucky has demonstrated the benefits of stabilized subgrades for
providing a stable platform for placement of pavement layers and also for extending the life
of the pavement structure. Methods for stabilization may be characterized into two broad
categories: mechanical stabilization and chemical stabilization. These methods and the
warrants for stabilization are discussed in this section. More detailed information on
stabilization is given in the Design Guide.

It has been demonstrated in recent years that pavement drainage is a critical factor in a
pavement's performance. Kentucky has been using positive drainage systems on major
highways for almost three decades. In general, w ater in pavements may be treated in one of
three ways:

1. Prevent water from entering pavement.


2. Provide a drainage system to remove excess water from the pavement system.
3. Construct the pavement sufficiently strong to resist the combined effects of loadings
and moisture.

Kentucky's guidelines are generally founded on the belief that water will enter the pavement
structure. Free water may be removed from the pavement system by daylighting the aggregate
base and/or by subsurface piping system. The use of filter materials is required to prevent
clogging of the free-draining aggregate base. Where daylighting is not possible or
recommended, pipe or strip drains are to be used .
The following are warrants for use of underdrain systems:

1. For annual ESAL accumulations of 250,000 or less, daylighting of the base will be
required except in cut sections or other geometries which make daylighting
inappropriate. In these areas, a closed drainage network will be provided.

2. For annual ESAL's greater than 250,000, daylighting will not be permitted. A
closed drainage network will be provided.

3. Open graded free draining aggregate bases will be required for all pavements in
urban areas. A closed drainage system that drains into a storm sewer will be required
for all urban pavement sections.
II
Foundation
Parameters
1·1

Measuring
Subgrade
Strength
1·2

California Bearing
Ratio Test (CBR}

-AASHTO
-ASTM
- Kentucky Method
1· 3
CBR:
Developed by the California
Division of Highways in 1929
to Classify the Suitability of
Soil for Use as a Subgrade

•••

CBR: Definition
CBR defmed as the ratio of the
unit load (psi) required to produce
a certain depth of penetration with
the penetration piston (area of 3.0 sq. in.)
into a compacted specimen of soil at some
water content and density to the standard
unit load required to obtain the same depth
of penetration on a standard sample
of crushed stone 1·5

Test unit load


CBR = X 100
Standard unit load

Penetration {ln.} Standard Unit Load {~I}

0.1 1,000
0 .2 1,500
0.3 1,900
0.4 2,300
0.5 2,600 1·6
Comparison of CBR
Testing Procedures

ASTM 01883 } Same


AASHTO T 193 Procedure

KM64-501
•••

CBR Compaction
ASTM Kentucky
AASHTO Method
• STANDARD • The compaction plunger
- Tbree l.ayers is inserted into the mold
- 56 Blows / l.ayer on the specimen and a
- 5.5 lb. Rammer pressure of 2,000 psi is
• MODIFlED applied gradually over a
- F1vt L.ayers
2-min. interval When
- 56 Blows I Layer
the maximum load is
- 10 lb. Ramm er
reached, it is held for
approximately 1 minute.
•·•
CBR Soaking Time
ASTM Kentucky
AASHTO Method
• Soak in the water Swell readings taken
tAnk for 96 hours. daily.
• Swell is read only at Swell is complete when
the end of 96 hours. two successive 24-hour
r eadings differ by no
more than 0.003 in.
• Minimum swell time must
be 72 hours.

CBR Load Intervals


ASTM Kentucky
AASHTO Method
• 0.025 • 0.025
• o.oso • o.oso
• O.Q75 • 0.075
• 0.100 • 0.100
• 0.150
• 0.200 • 0.200
• 0.300 • 0.300
· 0-400 (Optional) · 0-400
• 0.500 (OpllOilal) • o.soo
1-n

Penetration Values at
Which CBR is Calculated
ASTM Kentucky
AASHTO Method
• 0. 10 • The minimum CBR
• If 0.20 is greater value calculated at
rerun test. the five penetration
values of 0.10, 0.20,
• If 0.20 is greater the
second time, use 0.20. 0.30, 0.40, 0.50

1-12
CBR Soaking Tank
SUBGRADE COMPACTION

COMPACTION CONDITIONS
Dry of Optimum Wet of Optimum

"~s
-z
- =---

tn
~-i--
w
a

MOISTURE
1-211

Soil Suction
Negative
Pore
Pressure

~--------------------~·-~~ ~~----------------------
Apparent Cohesion
-~

Normal Stress 1· 22

PROCESS OF SATURATION
OF TOP LAYER OF SUBGRADE

Resilient Modulus
(M,)
Laboratory Testing
Procedure
Resilient Modulus

PlStr;~~
asJ
Resilient Modulus

Where:
Sd = deviator stress = s1 - s3
s 1 = vertical stress
s3 = horizontal stress
Er= resilient strain

Subgrade
Stabilization
- High Moisture Content
-High Clay Content
-Low CBR
1-28

CBR< 6 --Recommended
CBR> 6 --No
--·
Methods of
Stabilization
- Mechanical
-Chemical
-Others
I ·S1

Mechanical
Stabilization
• Compaction (Cohesive Solis)
- Fine-Grained Clays and Slits
- Strength Increases
- Density Increases
- Permeability Decreases
- Compressibility Decreases
- Shrtnkage Decrease s
• Equipment (Cohesive Solis)
- Sheepsfoot Roller
- Smooth-Wheeled Roller i 1-32

Mechanical
Stabilization
• Compaction (Coheslonless Solis)
- Clean Sands and Gravels
- Not Significantly Affected by Compaction
- Remain Permeable

• Equipment (Coheslonless Solis)


- Crawler Tractor

..,
Chemical Stabilization

*Lime
* Lime - Fly Ash
*Fly· Ash
*Cement
*Asphalt
* Waste by-products
( AFBC, Kiln Dust, et.)

li· SC

Chemical Stabilization
* Lime - Best for Fine-Grained
Soils

* Lime - Fly Ash - Medium to


Coarse
Grained Soils

* Fly Ash - Medium to Coarse


Grained Soils •·35

Chemical Stabilization
* Cement • Coarse Grained, All
Soils

* Asphalt - (1) Less than 25%


Passing 200 Sieve
(2) P.l. Less than 6
(3) Sand Equiv. Less
than 25
* Waste by-products - Exercise
Caution
•••
Other Stabilization
Methods
Geogrids
Geotextiles
Removal I Replacement

..,.,

Subgrade Structural
Parameters

Currently Using 0.08- 0.11


Layer Coefficient for
Stabilized Subgrades
•••
Part lll. Unbound Materials

Objectives:

To familiarize the designer with the various types of unbound base materials and their
uses.

To discuss the various gradations currently in use.

To discuss the characteristics and warrants for the various types of unbound bases.

Topics:

III. Unbound Materials


A. Dense-Graded Aggregate (DGA)
B. Crushed Stone Base (CSB)
C. Drainage Blanket Type I, Aggregate Base
D. Warrants for Use
E. Structural Parameters

Comments:

There are currently several types of unbound bases used in Kentucky. Dense-graded
aggregate (DGA), as its name implies, is a dense-graded mixture of crushed stone with a
considerable amount of fmes. These fmes generally contribute to the low permeability and
high stability characteristics of DGA. DGA was first used to take advantage of this low
permeability in trying to prevent water from entering the pavement structure. DGA can also
be used as a separating layer to prevent clay and silt-sized particles from fine-grained material
(such as soil subgrades) from intruding into more open-graded materials such as drainage
blankets.

Crushed stone bases (CSB) were developed in more recent years for use as a fairly high
stability product with a more free-draining ability when compared to DGA. Although the two
gradations currently overlap, changes currently underway in the CSB gradation will move
these two materials further apart. CSB will become a coarser material.

Type I drainage blankets are comprised of #57 stone. This is a very open-graded mixture
with very high permeability (10,000 to 20,000 ftJday). Very high permeability is required for
lateral flow of water through open-graded bases because of low hydraulic gradients in
pavements and the area of flow is small.

Proper filters must be used with an open-graded base to prevent clogging of the materiaL The
use of an open-graded aggregate base material over untreated subgrades and some treated
subgrades requires the use of a filter material to prevent the intrusion of soil into the open
graded aggregate base material. An open-graded aggregate base placed directly on a fine-
grained subgrade may become clogged with fine materials because of stress-induced intrusion
of the subgrade material into the base material and/or the potential for the finer particles to
be washed into the voids of the coarse material. Either condition will result in the overall
reduction of permeability.

It should be noted that the current gradation for DGA will meet filter requirements for use
with many of the fme grained soils in Kentucky. Geotextile fabrics are permitted as an
alternate to the use of graded aggregate filter materials. Specific fabric materials must be
selected so as to function equivalently with a graded aggregate filter. Theoretically, a very
thin, graded aggregate filter (approximately 1 inch) should function satisfactorily. However,
for practical purposes it is recommended that the filter layer be 3 inches thick.
III

Unbound
Materials

DGA Gradation
.• .-
.. -l I 11
... I . •t

It
..."'
c: ..
Iii -~
, II
Q. •
- '
:/ j

~---~-- H
;:
...
...~ .. ~ ~- ~
Q.
v l v VI
1--- -- ~---
•..... ...
Sieve Soze (ln.) •· s
DGA FIRST USED
• 1951-1952
• SOUTHLAND DR., LEXINGTON
• ROAD MIXED
• STABILIZED WITH CALCIUM
CLORIDE

r•.•

DGA NEXT USED

• 1953
• PHIL-PINE GROVE ROAD,
CASEY COUNTY
• PLANT MIXED
• NO CALCIUM CHLORIDE

• ·5

DGA Gradation

...,
.~~~~~~~~~=-~~
OA1 ..,
Steve Size (in.)
•••
DGA Permeability

1000 I':"'" ['::


' ;;
~· :
11
-;:: 100
"'
~
~
:0
10 ' ['\~
'-,
"'
"
E
4;
ill •

.""
Q.
0.1

0.01
10 100
Percent Passong No. 200 Soeve • _7

DGA Strength

120 ,- - - - -
;
..e
....
100

-/ •- ~
!

;;; 80
~
.2 / •
"
~
0
60

40
r/
·'
., -
=
:::
~ 20
.. I
"' •
" 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percent Passong No. 200 Soeve •. 8

WARRANTS FOR
USE OF DGA

• Economical Strength
• Working Platform
• Prevent Water from Entering
Stabilized Layers from Below
• Separation Layer

·-9
Crushed
Stone
Base
f--
r-
l•·10

o ~LW~~~Will~~~-LLUW

0.001 0.01 0.1 10


Sieve S1ze (m.)

In use since the


early 1990's

Ashland • Alexandria
Highway has sections
with crushed stone base
•·12
Crushed Stone Base
Permeability-
Approx. 1 00 to 1 000 ft./ day
Will Not Meet Filter Requirements

Crushed Stone Base


Strength-
High Stability
Comparable to DGA

Warrants for Use of


Crushed Stone Bases

More Drainage than DGA

Higher Stability than


Drainage Blankets
•·14
Gradation Co mparison of Drainage
Blanket, Type I with DGA
120
I I 111110 I I II IIIII
100 H Oralnage Blanket Type 1-
"'iiic OGA I
.."' 80

..
0..
c
~
60

40
0.. li
20

0
I-'ll
0.001 0.01 0.1 10
Sieve S1 ze

EARLY USES
•KY 55, Taylor
County
•Louisa Bypass,
Lawrence County

· - 17

Type I · Permeability
10,000 to 20,000 ft./day

Type I · Strength

Unconfined · Somewhat
less than DGA
Confined · Comparable to DGA
I •·18
,.

Warrants for Use of


Drainage Blanket Type I

Quick Drainage Response

Disadvantages of Use

Some Problems in Maintaining


Shape in Front of Paver •. 11

Structural Parameters
fo r Unbound Materials

-Layer Coefficient Usually


Assumed to be 0.11 to 0.14

•·20
Part IV: Bound Materials

Objectives:

To discuss and identify the various pavement materials that are cemented with an
asphalt binder or Portland cement.

To discuss the gradations and warrants for the various types of asphalt bound
pavement materials.

To explain the new "Performance Graded" asphalt binders.

To familiarize the participant with the old Marshall and the new Superpave Mix design
methods.

Topics:

IV. Bound Materials


A. Asphalt Materials
1. Drainage Blanket Type II
2. Base Mixtures
3. Binder Mixtures
4. Surface Mixtures
5. Structural Parameters
B. Asphalt Binder
1. PG Grading System
2. Superpave
C. Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
1. PCC Treated Drainage Blanket
2. PCC Pavement
3. Structural Parameters
D. Warrants for Use

Comments:

This section discusses all of the various types of asphalt bound materials, including the
gradations, normal range of percent of asphalt binder material, permissible range of layer
thicknesses, and some of the warrants for their use.
Asphalt binders are discussed. The old viscosity graded binders are discussed, including the
laboratory tests used to grade the binders. It should be noted that this system of grading
binders will shortly be obsolete in Kentucky. The new Performance Graded (PG) binders are
discussed in detail. The PG graded asphalts are a integral part of the new Superpave system
of mixtures. The laboratory tests used to classify the PG binders are mentioned briefly, as well
as how pavement temperature and air temperature are used to help determine the binder
grade to use in a particular mixture.

This section also discusses two asphalt mixture design systems - the Marshall mix design
method and the new Superpave system. The Marshall method also will be shortly obsolete in
Kentucky. The following five steps necessary to perform a Superpave design are discussed in
detail.

1. Calculate ESAL's
2. Select Materials
3. Design Aggregate Structure
4. Design Binder Content
5. Check Moisture Sensitivity

A discussion is also given in this section on Portland cement bound materials. PCC treated
drainage blankets are explained and illustrated (although currently none have been used on
Kentucky highways). The different types of PCC pavements are discussed and explained.
Discussion on the use of PCC pavements and their structural parameters are also given.
IV

Bound Materials
IV ·1

~ -
aterials

Drainage Blanket
Companson of Type II Drainage Blanket
with Type I
120
11n11n .tJJ
100 ~ TYPE I
TYPI! n -
.,
II 1111 II
AC Content • 1.5 • 2 .5%

~
v ~/'
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 10
SIEVE SIZE tiN.) IV- 4

Warrants for Use of


Type II Drainage Blanket

- High Stability
- High Strength
- High Permeability
- Integral Part of Pavement
Underdrain System
- Layer Thickness 4.0 - 6.0 in.
IY · 5

Base Mixtures
Types of Bases
Class I
Class Cl
Class CK
Asphalt Cement Content
3.5- 6.5 °/o
rv. 1

CLASS I BASE GRADATION


120

100
I
(!)
z
1
Cii ..
~
ll.
,....
z
w
.. v
ll
II

0
a:: 4()
w
0..

20
1--- v·.v
-~---
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 10

SIEVE SIZE {I N.j fV . S

COMPARISON OF CLASS I BASE


WITH CLASS CK BASE

SIEVE SIZE (IN.)


rv . g
COMPARISON OF CLASS I , CK,
AND Cl BASES
120 ........... 1-

100
llllllllf I f ll
(!)
z
Ill
CLASS I BA S E - '1;
~ 10 CLASS CK BASE_
CLASS Cl BASE !/
v
!Z
w
li
10

40
v
~ ....... ~ v~~'
v
0
0.001 0,01 0. 1 10
SIEVE SIZE (I N.J

1¥ · 10

Warrants for Use


of Base Courses
Strength
Reduce Rutting
Layer Thickness
I Base - 2.0- 4.0 inches
CI Base - 3.0 - 4.5 inches
CK Base - 3.5 - 6.0 inches
IV·11
CLASS I BINDER GRADATION
120 :-
r Ill
- ,-
CLASS I BINDER--
100 - CLASS I BASE._
C)
z
c;; 10
t7
~ / ~v
:/ / v
1- 10
z
w
~ <0
w
0.
20
!-" ?- /
IAC Content • 4.0 - 1.0•;.
-~
0.001 11.01 0.1 10

SIEVE SIZE (IN.I


IV -13

Warrants for Use of


Binder courses

High Strength
High Stability
Leveling and Wedging
Can be Used as Thin Base Course
Layer Thickness 1.5 - 2.0 inches
IV -14
Types of Surface Mixtures
• Class I
- Class 1..0
- Class 1-20130
- Class 1-40/20
• Class N
- Class N-30
• Class AK
- CiassAKJA
- Class AK/8
- CiassAKJS
IV - 16

Surface Mixture Gradations

SIEVE SIZE (IN..


IV ·17

Warrants for Use of


Surface Mixtures
Class I~
- Low Volwnt
- LowESAL's
Clau 1-20/30
- mpvotwnt
- RIPESAL's
- Som• Ratline Pottntial
Class 1-40/30
- lil&h Volamt
- H4hESAL's
- Use In latenec:tlo11s
IV -18
Warrants for Use of
Surface Mixtures
Class AK
- CI8S$ AKJA
• Highest l'(pe
• High Volume, High ESAL's
• High Skid Reslal&nce
-CiassAK/8
• Hlgn Type
• l..8s4 Polish Resistant Agg.-gate Requi red
• High Volume, High ESAL'I
- CI8S$ AKIS
• Lower Volume. Lower ESAL's
• No Polish Resistant Agg..-gete Required
IV ·19

Warrants for Use of


Surface Mixtures
• Class N
- Class N-30
• use When Surface Drainage Important
• Used In-Lieu of OGFC
• High Volume, High ESAL's
• Some Polish Resistant Aggregate Required

IV·20

New Specifications for Su rface


Mixtures
• Type A. 100 percent of the coarse aggregate shall be from
the Depanment's list of Class A Polish-Resistant
Sources. Ensure that 20% of total combined
aggrejjllte Is polish resistant fine aggregate.
• Type B. Provide one of the following
a. 100% of the Coarse Agg. From the Depar1ments
list of Class B Polish-Resistant Sources
b. The Coarse aggrega1e shall be a minimum of
50% from the Departments list of Class A
Polish-Resistant sources whicll may however,
exclude some limestones, dolomites, and
gravels
- For option a or b, ensure 20% or more of the total combined
aggregate Is polish resistant fine aggregate
IV-21
New Specifications for Surface
Mixtures
• Type C. Ensure that 40 percent or more of
the total combined aggregate Is
polish-resistance; unrestricted
Class A coarse, fine, or
combination.
• Type D. Ensure that 20 percent or more of
the total combined aggregate Is
polish-resistant; unrestricted Class
A coarse, fine, or combination.
• Type E. No restriction on aggregate type.
IV · Z2

Layer Thickness of Asphalt


Surface Mixtures

1.25 - 1.5 inches

Layer Coefficients
Asphalt Materials
• SUdace =0.40- OM '>
Asphalt Binder

Viscosity Graded (AC)


Performance Graded (PG)
IV-25

..

~· I

_,~-T'
tt j II

-- ~ -
I
,...,

. ".........
J '

· "
PG Grades
jPG64-22 j
PG = Performance Grade

64 = Design High Pavement


Temperature, °C

-22 = Design Low Pavement


Tem erature, °C

...,.__-. os.. .... ,


, .......,. _ __,liM .... ---. ...... _

·.- ·.~,..,. ,.
Asphalt Mix
Design Methods
Marshall Method
Superpave Method

Marshall
Method

50 Blows
75 Blows
112 Blows
~~--- ~-

- I _.. • ~ I U 0

~~~
~=~ o U I U o

---_ -
Laboratory llx Design Properties

......... ~ ...._"'
·- - -....
Cit - uu ('lUI
0-
.. -!Mill
-!Mill ...
.......
U&a

......
uu
(Wit
Q.I(WII

,...
Ma!MAI
....
·-
uu
M- uu
-fla.t uu tufiU!
'----
IJ
f l•-•-••·-
--c.•·---
Five Steps in Superpave
Mix Design

1. Calculate ESAL's
2. Select Materials
3. Design Aggregate Structure
4. Design Binder Content
5. Check Moisture Sensitivity 'N·ST

1. Calculate ESAL's
<300,000
<1,000,000
<3,000,000
<10,000,000
<30,000,000
<100,000,000
~1 00 ,000, 000

'N ·38

2. Select Materials
A. Binder Grade
2. Select Materials
B. Coarse Aggregate Angularity
Depth from Surface
Tra ffic
ESAL's x106 <4.0 in. >4.0 ln.
<.3 551- ..J-
<I 651- -/-
<3 75/- 50/-
<10 85/80 60/-
<30 95/90 sons
<100 100/100 95190
> 100 100/100 100/100 ., .•

2. Select Materials
C. Fine Aggregate Angularity
(AASBTO T -304 Method A)
Depth from Surface
Traffic
ESAL's x106 <4.0 in. >4.0 in.
<.3
<1 40
<3 40 40
<10 45 40
<30 45 40
<100 45 45
> 100 45 45 IV-41

2. Select Materials
C. Fine Aggr egate Angularity
(AASBTO T-304 Method A)

~X
v lO<rto
2. Select Materials
D. Flat and Elongated Particles
(ASTM D 4791)

Traffic
ESAL's xJ06 Maximum, Percent
<.3
<1
<3 10
<10 10
<30 10
<100 10
> 100 10

2. Select Materials
D. Flat and Elongated Particles
(ASTM D 4791)

2. Select Materials
E. Sand Equivalent Test
{AASHTO T 176)

Traffic
ESAL's x106 Sand Equivalent Minimum, Percent
<.3 40
<1 40
<3 40
<10 45
<30 45
<100 50
> 100 50 IV-45
2. Select Materials
E. Sand Equivalent Test
(AASHTO T 176)
G1odoMod
__/ oyllllda
..lt-

..,..... - o.,..-,

IV-46

3. Design Aggregate
Structure
(Superpave Mixture Gradations)

37.5 mm (1.5")
25.0 mm (1.0")
19.0 mm (0.75")
12.5 mm (0.50")
9.5 mm (0.38") rv -c
Densification Curves for Trial Blend
100

10 100 1000
Number of GyratiOns

Mix Design Requirements

1. Air Voids = 4.0°/o


Mix Design Requirements
2. VMA Criteria
Nominal Max. Minimum VMA
Aggregate Size Percent

9.5 mm (0.38") 15.0


12.5 mm (0.50") 14.0
19.0 mm (0.75") 13.0
25.0 mm (1.0") 12.0
37.5 mm (1.5") 11.0
IV - 52

Mix Design Requirements


3. VFA Criteria
Traffic Design VFA
millions, ESAL's Percent
<.3 75-80
<1 65-78
<3 65-78
<10 65-75
<30 65-75
<100 65-75
>100 65-75
IV ·53

5. Check Moisture Sensitivity


A. Compact Samples to 7.0% Air Voids
B. Vacuum Saturate
C. Optional Freeze Cycle- Thaw for 24 hrs.
D. Indirect Tensile Test- On Control Samples
and Conditioned Samples
E. TSR = Conditioned I Control
F. Superpave Minimum = 80%
Three Levels of Superpave
Mix Designs
Levell: No Performance Information
Required, <1,000,000 ESAVs
Level 2: Some Performance Information,
<10,000,000 ESAVs
Level3: Detailed Performance Information,
>10,000,000 ESAVs

ortland Cement
Type ill Drainage Layer

Gradation Comparison of PCC


Drainage Blanket with DGA
120
100
' I flllfl[ l 11111111 I II l
"'c: UPCC Drainage Blanket -
]l 80 - DGA
~ I
c 60
~ 40 I I
8? l jJ
20
0
"' I w
0.001 0.01 0.1 10
Types ofPCC Pavements
Il'n aav.rat Jo11\U vhh or
vh hclut Oo"'th '\

IS to JO It 1J to lO tt
(1)/I'Cl' 0>) 11CP

Wit'•~
Stnad a.~

(c) CllCP (ci)PCP


IV·61

Structural
Parameters
Elastic Modulus - 3.5 to 5.5 million psi
Flexural Strength- 500 to 750 psi
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, (k)
IV-62

Portland Cement Concrete


Typical Use

High Volume, Urban Locations


Reduced Rehab Cycles
Rutting Susceptible Intersections
Other Engineering Considerations
IV-63
Part V: Overview of Pavement Design

Objectives:

To give a historical perspective on highway design, including early highways, and early
road tests conducted in this country and in Kentucky.

To give the participant a thorough understanding of the major design philosophies or


methods currently in use in this country.

To give an overview of the state-of-practice of pavement design in this country.

Topics:

V. Overview of Pavement Design


A. Historical Context of Pavement Design
1. First Paved Roads
2. Early Road Tests
a. Maryland
b. WASHO
c. AASHO
3. Later Activities
a. SHRP
b. Mn!Road
c. WES Track
4. Kentucky Activities
a. Full-Depth Asphalt Test Road- US 60
b. Aggregate Base - KY 627
c. Pavement Management Data
d. Non-Destructive Testing
e. Special Test Projects
B. Methods of Design
1. E mpirical (AASHTO 1993 and Previous Guides)
2. Mechanistic
3. Mechanistic-Empirical (Kentucky Method)
C. Current Practices in Pavement Design
1. Number of States
2. Number of States Using Other Empirical Procedures
3. Number of states using Mechanistic-Empirical Procedures
4. Catalogs of Design
Comments:

Pavement design has been an evolutionary process throughout history. This section gives a
brief review of some of the highlights and advancements in pavement technology and
pavement design through time. In this country, much of pavement design information and
procedures are based upon early road tests conducted in the last 60 years. Major strides were
made in the understanding of pavement behavior, performance, failure and design as a result
of these early road tests. The most used pavement design system in this country today
(AASHTO) was a direct development of one of these road tests.

Research and large-scale road tests are continuing today. The Strategic Highway Research
Program, begun in the late 1980's and continuing through the early 1990's was the most
massive highway research program ever attempted in this country. The Superpave mixture
design system was one of the major products of that r esearch effort. In addition, massive data
bases were developed on design and pavement performance from hundreds of pavement
sections scattered throughout the nation. Pavement performance data is still being collected
and analyzed from these sites. Other large-scale test roads are currently in operation in the
country. The Mn!Road test site in Minnesota is providing valuable performance data on PCC
pavements. The WES Track project in Nevada is currently testing numerous design sections
of flexible pavements.

The Kentucky Highway Department has maintained a aggressive research program since the
early 1940's. Research in the pavements area has always been a high priority of Department.
Research projects such as full-depth asphalt pavements, design and testing of aggregate bases,
break-and-seat and overlay of PCC pavements, various asphalt mixture designs, pavement
performance analysis, and development of Kentucky's pavement design method have all been
a major part of the research effort of the Department.

Since the early 1980's, the Department of Highways has been actively engaged in the
development, maintenance, and implementation of a pavement management program. There
is currently almost 20 years of pavement performance data available. This information is used
in predicting future conditions on various highway networks in the state, and it is also used
in helping to develop future rehabilitation and funding needs.

Non-destructive testing has been an important part of the highway program in Kentucky since
the early 1960's. Roughness testing for ride quality has been used for several decades in
Kentucky. Kentucky now uses second and third generation devices that measure roughness
and rutting. Skid testing to determine pavement slipperiness is also regularly used at selected
sites. Kentucky began non-destructive structural testing of pavement in the early 1970's with
Models 400 and 400B Road Rater. The Road Rater imparts a sinusoidally varying (at a rate
of 25 Hz) load to the pavement and the pavement response is measured by a series of
geophones. The Division of Operations, Pavement Management Branch currently has a Model
2000 Road Rater. The Kentucky Transportation Center operates a JILS 20 model falling
weight deflectometer (FWD) for measuring the structural capacity of a pavement. It differs
from the Road Rater by imparting an impulse load to the pavement instead of a sinusoidal
load. Much information can be obtained from these devices including the effective structural
thickness of an in-service pavement that can be used in determining overlay thickness on a
rehabilitation project.

This section also discusses in detail the three major methods of pavement design. The
AASHTO pavement design equations for rigid and flexible pavements are discussed. Design
examples are given. The AASHTO design method was developed from empirical data from
the AASHO Road Test of the late 1950's and early 1960's. The system has undergone a
number of revisions from the 1972 Design Guide. There have been revisions in 1986 and in
1993. A new AASHTO Design Guide is scheduled to be published in 2002. It will be a radical
departure from the earlier guides and will be largely a mechanistic design method calibrated
with empirical data.

The theory for a simplified mechanistic design method was frrst developed in 1885. A major
improvement to the method was published in 1943 by Burmister in which his system permitted
multiple layers to be in the pavement structure. Mechanistic systems depend solely on
theoretical information to develop the pavement thickness design. The Asphalt Institute has
a mechanistic design method. Example designs from the Asphalt Institute' s method are given.

Kentucky's pavement design method is a mechanistic-empirical method. The history of


Kentucky's method is given in detail beginning in 1942 and going through the development
of the 1981 thickness design curves. Examples of Kentucky's method will be given in Section
VII of the course.

Finally, the current state of the practice in pavement design is given in the section. The
number of states using the various methods are discussed.
v
Overview of
Pavement Design
Y·t

Historical Context of
Pavement Design

Y· 2

Romans First Real Road


Builders in Europe
1. In Britain, Romans Built 3000 Miles
of Roads in Only 150 Years
2. Two Trenches Dug 5 Meters apart for
Drainage, Subgrade Excavated and
Backfilled with Granular Material,
Paved with Flat Quarry Stone.
3. Military Purposes Only v.s
Early Pavements
1. Medieval T imes - In Cities
- Stone Sett (3 in x 8 in x 9 in)
-Brick
2. American Cities (1870 to 1890)
- Cer amic Block
- 2 to 3 inches thick
-Built on Natural Sand Bed
- Leveled Periodically
3. E uropean Cities (1850's)
- Wood Block T-4

Beginnings of First
Modern Paved R oads
1. Asphalt Pavements
• Parts, 1854
• Natural Rock Asphalt
• Crushed to Fine Gradation
• Lay-Down Temperature • 250 °C
• Spread with Rakes
• Compacted with Heavy
Iron Rammers
V·5

Beginnings of First
Modern Paved Roads
1. Asphalt Pavements
- First Asphalt Pavement In U.S.,
1870, Newark, N.J
- First Sheet Asphalt Pavement In
U .S., Pennsylvania Ave., 1876,
Washington, D.C.
- First Asphalt Concrete Specs,
1890's
V· l
Beginnings of First
Modern Paved Roads
2. Concrete Pavements
• Portland Cement • Patented
1824- .Joseph Aspdln
- Portland Cement - Refers to
Portland Stone Mined in
Dorset England
- Early Experiments in
Scotland in 1865 v-7

Beginnings of First
Modern Paved Roads
2. Concrete Pavements
- Weak Concrete First Used
as Base for Stone Sett, Brick
- First Concrete Pavement in US
Was Bellefontaine, OH, 1891
-First Serious Concrete Use
Was in the U.S. in the first
Decade of the 20th Century v-•

Early Road Tests


-Maryland
- WASHO
-AASHO
2. Objective: Check Re
Effect of Four Axle
3. Loads Were:
- 18 kip and 22.4 kip Single Axles
- 32 kip and 44.8 kip Tandems
4. Length = 1.1 miles
5. Two 12-foot Driving Lanes
6. Thickness: Variable
¥·10
f
91n. 71n.
f
91o.

1. Slab Cracking and


Increased with Lo
Order:
18 kip- Single Axle;.
32 kip - Tandem
22.4 kip - Single Axle
44.8 kip - Tandem
2. Pumping Occurred with Fine-Grained
Soils, But Not Granular Soils
V-11

3. Pumping Caused Large~rrll>ltH~ di'!C


Increases for Comer L

4. As Pumping Increased, Slab De c,....~­


Increased Correspondingly

5. Stresses and Deflections Caused by


Comer Loads and Edge Loads Were
Greatly Influenced by Temperature Curling
V·12
WA 0 Road Test
1. Constru te
2. Two TesftiootJS..with 1900-ft Tangents
3. Each Lo · ed:

-Four
4. Loads:
-18 ki ~~~'-7KD~~ Axles
-32 ki ....P"~~ ag~ Axles
Atl~le&IEJ&J~:JH~!!)l Load v.13

0 Road Test

2. The Beh~UtiM'-bf.
4-inch
oad Test Results
Outer Wbeelpath Was
ore Than in the Inner

ASH{)-Road
L..
Test Results
6. Develop~of Structural
Distress Was
Confmed~o Critical Periods:
7 1953

ASHG-Road Test Results

nJ.ckiM••

li.UO
U,IH
... ,..
ts,OOO
1. tlt

19. )50
u.na
.u.soo
u 6.14o lll .OOO J&.6to 11,1-00

ll 9U . OOI 1,561,000 llS, tOO Jtl,OOO

16 1, 750,000 s.uo.ooo ua,oco 1• ..z.o,ooo

y ASHO T1I'IDIMG5

(SUIMM nJ,drae .. Fo..& M•q"U&&t fo1' 119, t tO Trtpa )

10 Ia. 4 \a . IS Ia. • La.


Thic!Nss in.Inches Thlcttness in r.cnes

0 ~ 0 (J "'0 "'
(J ~0 0 ~ 0 - "'0 Ul"'
~ 0~
I
Marjlond I
1' M1ryYf¥ld I
I'

~ 00
Afqbalflq
~
North Car~ 1m I
Col~tdo
It'D$~;,.911 n I
.."'
0
Washingfotl
ColorHe I
-
..(»
0 0 ~

==
Pwto Ric 0 Alaimta,, I
0 0

~
~ ~· .,
Delaware 0
i
-
CD/ifornia
~
CD I Califon1ia
Orlawrttr II
n..(» CDr
~
.....-...
I ~ .

=~
I
l(orthCor ,,.{1(]

>
I

-z
Pulfto Ricp
-2
CJ)

l ~ ,
~
NewNt1./c
~0 New ltltxicc
,r
Q
~
~111
Arilon. • A1izant1
~ WJ'"i"9 11
W'l, '"f
00
~
I>
'tfut Virgil qf II
a
~
WtsfViroin l> l>

=
< X
Ttl(as
Missoun·
. II

c
.,
Q
,r Tuas
l~ssDuri
Q
I
- ,
r
(7)
X

Q
~

- NI
0 ~=
..,
O'l
(D:
~
~ ~
= ....
MarJ/altd Noqland I
Alob(llfla
I
Waslungtc
NO!IIt CrJr ,,. .., I

r .........
~

~
NorlhCat 'fltitrl
~as!Ji.BJI.Ic n

Dtlawarr
P~rlo
Arizona
·:}~

Ri 0
l l 0~

!18
1\)0

Arizo11a
Alabam11
.A

California
C1lorado
..,
I
I
~~
-,t.
•o
0
r
~
c. ....
~
~

~ riJ
~ ~
CD
California #twMtric I CD
NtwMtxic~
~ Pvedo Ric~ t I
~~ -z ~
CJ)
Colorado I z Dtloratt ~
, ~
~
Wyowting ~ 0 Wnt Vi'l' i9
(j)
t r riJ
....
),
Wtsl Yirg1~ia < ~ W~~n~ittt
riJ
I ~-
Tfras I •
I ., l>
TutiS l> rot
~

-, ~
M/Uollri a X NiSJfflri X

=
I
~i i

-cob rr1
- C»
I riJ
I
l
=
t I
riJ
W ASHO Road Test Results
MINIMUM LABORATORY C B R" VALUE

2 ~
4 I
s 7 8 • to 20 ~0 440 !!0 ED 10 ~0~10 00
en
l&J ~-
- ~----
G
z •
---
,

t-r 6
(.';\ [.......--"'
v v
/
,.,.. ~
~

_...
---
[:::::==- L---
z
~ 8
....,....,.... ...... (il
v
/

v
./
v
.........
v-- ---- ------ Curve Umltlno E WL
W\Jn loft)
f-
/
-----
1&1 lA lAM than 112
> / (lil.. / .........
--- Leu thon 1

---
I
/ /
:. 10

~ ,• v
/ v ~
--
- -- - ---
II
Ill
1- 2
2- 3
f-

_---- -- - ---
a / / /
/
. ..... ,., N 3-S
z 12
v v
f-

~~/
6 - 10
ct I.-/ I.., V1 10 - 20
l&J
en
ct
m
14

v/ ~ //
~"'
~/
-7

/
/

v
....
--
-- --- --- -- V11
V111
IX
20-40
40-eo
80-160
-

- -
/
1 16 ~
~

.,.., r- - X IS0-320

~~
en / /"' /
en
1&1 18 / ~ ........
/
/
.,..,...-
~ v~
_,/ /
/ / /,
() 20 ........... /
""
X
t- / / v~ v ,. . . , /
ez 22
v "'
hi"\
vy
m 24 ~ ""
:J! v"' I .54
8 26
t<entuctly Department of Hlthwa'a
PC1

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN CURVES


AASHORo
61C

HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD


Special Report 61C

v·21
OBJECTIVE:
To Determine Relationship
£___r--< '
Between Number of
Repetitions of Specified Axle " ,,.....-,.--,...,
Loads of Different Magnitudes ,..___,-"'-..J...J
and Arrangements and the
Performance of Different
Thicknesses of Flexible
and Rigid Pavements

Test

6. Axle Load~s,~~~t;t;rl:r
7. Cost- $27,000,
8. Tangent Lengthv U.,...--L_j
Loops 3 throug ~6"'-F.....>f'=.:(
Loop 1 = 2000 ft.
Loop 2 = 4400 ft. V-23

1111111111 Tilt
AASHO Road Test

........
J"- T• lle.flto'el~

j..-. T••' r......., -----f


1.001' '
,_, ......._J __

IIIII Raii Test


Design
Sections
Mi nimum Length of Test
Sections • 100 ft.
y . 'Z1
Test
Loop 1
Lane 1 - No - 18000 Single
Lane 2 - N '--....I"i""""'--1 - 32000 Tandem

LoopJ
Lane 1 - 12000 Single r--1--1-h'*'e 1-30000 Single
Lane 2- 24000 Tandem "1--',.--t.-,t-,.;" e 2 - 48000 Tandem

--h
Gl f ... .
lGlh
r... h r
Gl l= ~ !.!'
r... ~ I I
~ l¢ ..... •••
fct h ••
Gl t¢-..... •••
(<I: ~
1lt., .......
V-21

AASHO ROAD TEST RESULTS


Flexible Pavements
1. The Best Bases were in the following
Order: Bituminous Treated, Cement
Treated, Crushed Stone, Uncrushed Gravel
2. Greatest Damage in Outside Wheelpath
3. Most Rutting Occurred in Pavement (92%)
Only 8% in Subgrade
4. Most Surface Cracking Occurred in Cold
Weather
5. Greatest Deflections Occurred in Spring

V-30
AASHO ROAD TEST RESULTS
Rigid Pavements
1. Of Panel Length, Subbase Thickness, or
Slab Thickness, only Slab Thickness had
Significant Effect on Strains
2. Faulting Mostly Occurred at Cracks, not
Transverse Joints
3. No Cracking Attributed Solely to
Environmental Changes (in Traffic Loops)
4. Pumping a Major Cause of Failures (most
material ejected along the edge, not joints: Y-S1

Later Activities

-SHRP
-Mn/Road
-WesTrack
y.s:z

SHRP
(Strategic Highway
Research Program)
$150,000,000 Research Program
Financed by Congress under the
Federal-aid Highway Program
Y-SS
SHRP
Began in 1987

Concluded in 1993

Additional $1 08,000,000
for Implementation

FHWA and AASHTO • Manages


V·:M

SHRP
Four Major Areas of Research
Asphalt
Concrete and Structures
Highway Operations
Pavement Performance
V·SS

SHRP Products

Asphalt
Superpave System

v. 36
SHRP Products
Concrete and Structures
1. !'.'DT Tools to Assess Condition of
Concrete Pavements
2. New Strategies to Protect and
Rehab Concrete Pavements
3. New Concrete Mix Designs
4. New Ways to Detect, mitigate, and
Prevent Alkali-Silica Reactivity
5. New Guidelines for HPC in Pavements
y.~

SHRP Products
Highway Operations

1. Pavement Preservation
2. Work Zone Safety
3. Snow and Ice Control
Y·38

SHRP Products
Long-Term Pavement
Performance (LTPP)
Over 2000 Pavement Sections
Monitored (20-Year Program)
General Pavement Sections (GPS)
(7 inKY)
Special Pavement Sections (SPS) v.s
SHRP Products
Long-Term Pavement
Performance (LTPP)
Pavement Monitoring Procedures
Materials Testing Procedures
Equipment Standards
Calibration Procedures
¥· 40

Mn/Road Project

Constructed
1990
* Otsego, MN
V· 41

Mn/Road Project
Objectives
1. Evaluate Effects of
Heavy Vehicles on
Pavements
2. Evaluate Seasonal
Changes on Materials
* 3. Improve Design and
Performance of Low-
Volume Roads v.u
Mn/Road Project

Two Test Roads


I -94 WB Lanes
Low-Volume Test Road
40 Test Sections
* 4,572 Sensors
Y·CS
WesTrack
1. Located at Nevada
Automotive Test

* Center Proving
Ground

v-• 2. Constructed in 1995


WesTrack
Objectives
1. Develop PRS for HMA Construction
and detennlne the Impact of
Deviation of Material and Construction
Properties on Perfonnance

2 . Field Verification for SUPERPAVE,


Level Ill
y ••
-· -·_ , - -· _, ...._. _, -·

Kentucky
Activities
Y-55

Full-Depth Asphalt - US 60
Constructed 1971
Boyd County
Design CBR = 3
Thickness = 10"-18"
Length = 5 miles
Control Section
6.5" AC
19" DGA
Y-56

Full-Depth Asphalt - US 60
Experimental Instrumentation

Weigh-in-Motion Scales
Solar Radiation
Temperature Measurement
Road Rater Testing

Y·r1
Full-Depth Asphalt- US 60
Findings
VIbratory Rollers were Accepted
for General Use

NDT Methods Developed and Refined

Calibrated Kentucky's Full-Depth


Thickness Design Curves

Difficult to Get Density on First AC Lift


y ••

~Dregate aaS8
JBSI -KY&ij
KY627

From Boonesboro to Winchester


Constructed 1975-1976
Ten Test Sections
Three DGA Gradations
Three Design Thicknesses
Y·tt

Comparisons of Base Gradations

Cl 100
c
~ ~r-~~~~~--~-.~~~--~

-"'
~
c
~~----~-----+~-+--~-----

~ ~~----~--~~~----~--~
Q)
~20 ~------:!.-.-;....o~-+--_;_:;._~.;.._-

0.001 0.1 10

Sieve Size (inch)


Y·l2

KY627
..... .._.._ ca-••,_
. . c.. .----··"-
~..._.._.
....

.; 00 r-l--1-- r-,..... 1-
·; 1--..--
i- I-
~ •o
g
•o
0~~~~~~~-L_L
I•H . . . . 1•'"- · - ...... *"L a-H ..... S- t,..
WI'IC ... u .... a lltft
14VCAAOC S T ftC.&a A ft C A
W IM I : e1, e a o IN
W IIC a _ 4ST a o IH.
w•• • :. •• .• a o ' ""'·
v.a
KY627

KY627

y.g

KY627
IConclusion I
No Significant Difference
in the Performance of
Any of the Sections
y ••
Comparisons of Base Gradations

Ol 100
c
·~ ~f---~~~~~~~~~794-------~
('0

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~-+~~~-
'E
C1l
...
(,.)

C1l
00

~ 20

O.D01 0.1 10

Sieve Size (inch)


y.~
PAY6K£11T COJroiTJOI\ EVALUATION FOM 1196
IIIT!AS TATES AXD PAAKWATS

=
.,....
Q
ROAD NO: I 64
COUt'TY:
,..011 :
TO: US 60
FII~KLIII

us 127

ADT (96): 28)70


COIISTIIUCT£0 NOV 62
POSTEO SP'EED: 6S KPH
DCA: 6 IIICKES Cl ll:
!lOAD NAilL : Loui avill e - Leatna ton
o1snrcT:

LEIICTH:
liP' : H .ll
KP : S7.90

JOINT SP'ACI IIC: SO


4. 78
~

.,....
I l
COWTIIACTOR rOll HOY 62 ACTION : !load l uild era In, .

NOV 62 COtiS TIIUCTED 10.0 PCC


PCC Repa i ct &. Joint Seala

~
StP 8) EDGE DIIA liiS

=
Q
YlS~AL COSDITIOW S~RYtY
(Ot~tk :l

CRACKISCi /1.~,1.11
POISTSI
IWCIKU!I
~

18 I)
_!!._ -"- .z ()

u liAS£ fA l LUktS' -
FA\:LTJNCi/
RAYtllliG - WW

or; or
S P4Lll NG

P'ATCIUNG
stCtl OI'
9

6
l2
9

6
i/ $

z --
:J
---- 5
.2_ ~.5 L
~

3
5 _L

3
II.~

..£...!!!...
~
=
·~
APPE AA~Ct

>·-·· l ~l Ai. ·---l> )I


il
49 Q
~eta
U ..IV.RitS :
or LA~ts: 4 I llS .J!!1 ~ on
I
PRtVID\:S R: (9S I: 2. 78 2. 44 2.64 2 . 40
~I (96): 2 . 85 2 . 1.1 LJ!~
D£.CRUS£ I~ II I : - - 0.03 0 . 0 6 --
~ ~TTI~Ci tiiiCHtS ):
SKID
GUARDRAI L:
N U~tll :

~"i:!i)cooo SHOULD£): SLGSEAL AC


----
: (r_.-oo_R_F_A._ity GOOD

IIECO!f!W;DED: ~ CRU:D IIIEA.K &. SE.Al HILL


ACTIOW(S); EDGE DRAINS SAIII REPLACt PAVEXENT
tSTIIIATtD lltxAII\ l iiG StlV ICE LIFE (T EAAS): ~ !:B YEAR: {99,
CYEAAS): 0 WI ttA.R : ! '1~6
~A7tRS : I URCHtll ~ DATE:: _!_V..~!~_{!6
RL~KS: RANKING

flGLRi A-1. PA\'E"!£1\1 COI\011101\ EVAlt: ..;TIO)\ fO~


KENTVCKY TRAN8PORTAT10H CA8INET

=
DEPAR'l'M!:NT OF HIGHWAYS
Ollllllon ol Openlone

0 Dlltrlal
ICounty IRNI IRoedName
From To

·~
~ t...qlh ,.La_ IPrqedNo. ,~

·~ Nole:

~ I. CONXT10N SURVeY

=
EXTENT 8EVERfTY POINTS
F- In~ ~ Sight Mode riM s--
Ctlddr1! 1 2 3 .. 5 s 2 3
• 5 s
S.. Flllulw (f•~AW 1 2 3
• 5 1 2 3 4 5

0 Ra"*G ~lng)
~ Ofs.dlon
1
1
1.5
1.5
2
2
2.5
2.5
3
3
1
1
1.5
1.5
2
2
2.5
2.5
3
3

u
~raoo. Fw - 1 Poor -3 V«yPoof · 5
2 ..
~

.. RIOEABIUTY
~=
8/W:
~=
Rl

Ill. RVTl1NO 8NV: OWICtl


Poinlll J( fKtor
rv. 8100 RES18TNK:E 8N J(

v. TRAFf1C VOl..tME INJT


TRAVEl. SPEED M'ti

~ Total

C..: ~
RONJWAY CHARAC'TeRSIJTlC RATER A88Essr.ENT
PCC N; AC I PCC ~~? 0 .... o ... v- 0Na~U~~r __
Curt.&O~ ~ IIWC&a.. T~~(AC) Oller
---------------·
Shouldera
-
Hgh / Low
--------- Pr.....-on: ~ & ~ (Pefcenl)

Wdll Mlq(ln.) 00..


'TyPe OIMf:
lndUit!W Hllul 1YPe
R_.P~~

I
STATEWIDE RANKING:
DI8TRK:T RECOMMENlATlONS DISTRICT RANKING:

Prapeniklr. _ __ _ _ T~Code: eo.t~: - - -- - - -- -


R~:-------------------------------
Rideability/Serviceability Scale

5.0
Very Good 4.0
Good
3.0
Fair
2.0
Poor 1.0
Very Poor 0.0
V·71
Pavement Condition Criteria
RJDEABD..ITY INDEX {PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEXl

ADT POOR CONDITION FAIR CONDITION GOOD CONDITION

Above 8000 2.8•(0.0) or lower 2.9(0.1) to 3 .2(0.4) 3 .3(0.5) or higher

6201 - 8000 2.7(0.0) or lower 1.8(0. J) to 3. 1(0.4) 3.2(0.5) or b.igher

4401· 6200 2.6(0.0) or lower 2 .7(0.1) ro 3. 1(0.5) 3 .2(0.6) or higher

2701· 4400 2.5(0.0) or lower 2 .6(0.1) to 3 .0(0.5) 3. 1(0.6) or bigb.er

1501-2700 2 .4(0 .0) or lower 2.S(0.1)ro2.9(0.S) 3 .0(0.6) or higher

llOl- 1500 2.3(0 .0) or lower 2.4(0.1) to 2.9(0.6) 3.0(0.7) or bigb.er

90t- 1100 2.2{0.0) or lower 2 .3(0. n to 2 .8(0.6) 2 .9(0.1) or hi~r

701 - 900 2.1(0.0) or tower 2 .2(0. J) to 2 .8(0.1) 2 .9(0.8) or hiJber

601 - 700 2 .0(0.0) or Jower 2 .1(0.1) fO 2 .7(0.7) 2 .8(0.8) or higher

501- 600 1.9(0.0) or lower 2.0(0.1) to 2 .7(0.8) 2.8(0.9) or bigber

401- soo 1.8(0.0) or lower 1.9(0.1) to 2 .6(0. 8) 2 .7(0.9) or higher

301- 400 1. 7(0.0) or lower J .8(0.1) to 2.6(0.9) 2. 7( 1.0) or b.igber

20l- 300 1.6(0.0} or Jower 1.7(0.1) to 2.S(0.9) 2.6( l .0) or higher

1- 200 1.5(0.0) or lower l.6(0. l) to 2.5( 1.0) 2.6( 1.1) or higbet

•Critical Rl' s
Condition Points

~ llo!-d County, WP 180.tl ·185.A7

" •
.. .. ·--
• <-..o

..... • •

f
~

'
••
•..

••
I
~
:

••
... :
....

.... ... ... .... .... ... ... ....


YMr
.. .. -
, ,
Y·73

Rideability

~ llo!-d County, WP 180.81 • 185.A7

i ... • • t I
t..
I •••••
~=

f: If~
u
:I
.." .. Ii
... ·I .... .... .... I
u

IOU 1M2 ,... , ... , .. -

Y·74

Rutting

~ llo!-d County, WP 180.81 • 185.A7

• ··--
. _..,..
.i . I....••••
I ,
f


.....
~

' • ••
f
,.., , .... , ... ,.. lOOt

YMr y. 75
Backcalculation of Materials Properties

--
1-64 Carter County, MP 161.0- 171 .61

~A~\
!-
.5
j-

l:
-
,...'a ,., ,.., '" "'
w._..,
tC7 "'
,. tft t7t 1n
Y·IO
Breaking and Seating, FHW A SP 202
(Western Ky. Parkway), 1-71

Long Term Pavement


Performance
AAHighway

Modified Asphalt, 1-64


Montgomery County

ethods of Design
1. Empirical (Concept of AASHTOJ
Examples
2. Mechanistic
Examples
3. Mechanistic-Empirica
Exam les v-•
Y· t1

AASHTO Design Parameters

O.,ll~tn Traffic, ESAL's


- 18 ldp ule loads over the performance period
Serviceablllry- loldal aod TermlmJ
- ~1easure or tbe Pa•·emeat Smoothness or RJdeabUll)
- 0 • 5 scale
!Utubiliry lA•·eJ
- Probablllry that a Pa•·emeot Strucmre Will Survl.e tht
dtsigD period traffic
Overall Standard O.,v!adon
- Error or Varlablllry Auociated with Coostrucdoo aod
O.,sl.~tn Inputs
Roadbed SoU Stnnetb (resUleot modulus.CBR k-va lue) V-IZ

Terminal Serviceability

High Volume (> 10,000 ADT) 3.0-3.5

Medium Volume (3,000 -10,000 ADT) 2.5-3.0

Low Volume (<3,000 ADT) 2.0-2.5


, ..
Reliability Level

Funcdonal Classlflcadon l.!!:!a!l Rural


Interstate and Other Freeways 85.0- 99.9 80.0-99.9
Principal Arterial 80.0- 99.0 15.0-95.0
Collectors 80.0 - 95.0 15.0-95.0
Local 50.0 - 80.0 50.0-80.0

Y·M

Overall (Standard) Deviation


• Overall Variability of Design Inputs
• Materials, Soil Properties, Traffic, Etc.
• Flexible Pavements
- 0.45-0.49
• Rigid Pavemen ts
- 0.35-0.39

Y· l5

Flexible Pavement Parameters


• Pavement Material Parameters
- Layer Coefficients
• AC Surface 0.40-0.44
• AC Base 0.38-0.44
• Granular Base Layers 0.14-0.18
• Treated Base Layers 0.14 - 0.21

y ••
Structural Number
• Determined from the AASHTO Equation
or Nomograph
• Relates Material Thickness and
Structural Value
SN • [¥>1
Where lit • mater1&llayer coefficlent for lAyer I
0 1 • mater1&l thlckness for layer I

i Y· f1

Pavement Drainage

Quail tv of Drainage Water Removed Within


Excellent 2 hrs
Good 1 day
Fair 1 week
Poor 1 month
Very Poor Water WUJ Not Drain

y ••

Drainage Coefficient

Quality of Less Than Greater


Dra inage lli 1..:.lli i..:..1lli Than 25%
Excellent 1.25. 1.20 1.20. 1.15 1.15. 1.10 l.IO
Good 1.20-1.15 1.15. 1.10 1.10. 1.00 1.00
Fai r 1.15- 1.1 0 1.10. 1.00 1.00. 0.90 0.90
Poor 1.10. 1.00 1.00. 0.90 0.90. 0.80 0.80
Very Poor 1.00. 0.90 0.90. 0.80 0.80. 0.70 0.70

y ••
SN/Elastic Modulus Relationship
Asphalt Concrete

. v
~,,

/
1/
I

,.... u
0

o-o.-...-......_~.,~
- ...... ...... .......

....... c-...
.._. • 0. o..k <a.-..u ........ Ul

V-100

Layer Coefficients, AC Treated Base

'"" ••
OlO - - - - - - - - - - lG

.....
'""
,.
.,.,
~

I
---------~-

:
----------
'. - .:;,

i
i:. ____________il ________ _.. I
ll

u
...

~ v·101
Layer Coefficient, Cement Treated Base
ll ------------- ------------

,.
.
___________ .,._
- -~---------
•••

.
u

.... ... ' . 6

. r---------:---f--------.; 1
" : 1 1

:: j ----- -------1---------~
l
fll $u4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,..... . . . . ~..,..,­

"' s.c-....,.....--.c.-••.......,rt l.).

V-102

Layer Coefficient, Granular Base

OlD

ou ----tOO -----.:~- ______ , I! ----'XI i

: : = .. fj
1
•.• J : -c : ~ ! ,,
!·----,; -------.a----- ·}----+:
0~ l .. ..
- " .."
... -----;;-
...

............. ,....._ ......

nr"" 1.1.
Ql

---
''' ""· ~~
Scttt dP<IftiOfirOI!'I~OI'M....,.....,9", .... ~.,.....,.. c,.J!I.....

01 ~ 0. ._,~.,.,.\ION
WI k*........,.,..N(;MRI"~
....... ~h ...
1J1

~ 1.a Gtu..W ~ ....,._, ~ <••) wttia \W1.oot S.~ ScturcUI


,.._.

,.,.._...UI
\ v-103
Estimation of Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction
Erampl e

0 58 : 6 1n<:hes
E 511 : l0,000 p SI

M11 : 7,000 psi

Salul oon • k• : 400 pel

1,000,000
'40oo,ooo
0,000 ~
......
I'--
........
,:;::: :---t:---
I I II I I
Su b ba se EIOIIIC:
"'"' "''"- ·'
~
1'\.
1'\.
Compo site Modulus of
Sub9r ade Reoc:t10n,

" '-I':
k• (pel)

~~i
Mo dulus , E (pao)

- --
~ 58
1:::::- 1--. r- -...I' :::..: t--
..... 1:3= ::::: ....... t'~t:--.,
'-... ~
i'\.. I'. "" i'.. Au1:;.:;, . ' ; : : ; , . ,.

-
1'--- I' ~ ~ ........ t:': ~ "' :\. o., l ~ )

~~~
15,000 1"--- ['..
..... r:--: ~ b.. ....... ~
t--- ....... ::-...; ~ ....... ~ ~
........ ...... 10 ~t.::::~ "' "' "~ I'\. I'\.
I'\. I'\.
1-
I ' ::--;:~ ~~ "" 1'\. 1'\. "' I'-: 1'\.

~~ '<.~
1'..::: ["\.. '-I'-:

-~.
~ I'-:
1'-I'-: "'
f- -f-
I 1'\. "' "' ['\. ['\. '\:
·"
1'\.
" " "\ '\:
I_
1-
' ~ ~SB '\ '\ r'\
_.. 14 10
• ~ "" "
-- -- --
1000-- _II 12 I
r-
2000 r- "" "" 1'\.
lOOO

:1000
1'000
-
---- - -
:::::::
r- ..._
1--
1-- r- !-....
t---
1'-

1---
r--
'
'\~,~~
10,000
12,000 ::::: ::- t-- ..._ 1-- r-~ t- 1'-
"<<
tG,OOO
l.O,OOO

- 1-- r--
~ r- ......
r-- 1-- r-- 1-- r- t--- ....... f'..
I'--
-
r- t- :::-... f'..
~
r- ....... '1::'-
r--
;-.._
'
:'\., ~/

" 1"\
....... r-.. "
" "
['\..
I-
1-
Roadbe d
Soil Rn 1loen t
1- Modulus , M 11 (p si)
I'
"' ~

I'\:
~
1'-
I I I I I I I '"' "'
Figure 3.3. Chart for Estimating Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k., Assuming a
Seml-lnflnlte Subgrade Depth. (For prnctlcal purposes, a seml-lnnnite depth l~
considered to be greater than 10 feet below the surface or the subgrude.)
Flexible Pavement Design Chart

,..,.f..:~:. ~
- O.:ID + - - - - - - - + 2. 32*109lh- 8.07
1094
0.40 + - - 5 19
(SNt-1) •

Oesion Sel"viceobility Lou, D.PSI /

./
<40
~"
-zo / ~"
~·o
=
v ~r
/
~7
~
/

7
/
/
/
~
//)
w
/ '?-'
as/
/J ~
TO ~./. /~ tr
10
Eaomple: ti'.
z.o ~
50
1 I T -, 2
W 11 x 5 al0 '' T I' 4
R • 95 °/o o..lon Structural Number, SN
so: 0 .35
M : 5000 pai
11
6PSI ~ 1.9
Solution: SN : 5.0

Figure 3.1. Design C hart for Based on Usin~ Mean Values for Each Input
Rigid Pavement Design Chart, Part I

~
t
75 18.42
215.63" rfJ. - b 25
(tc!k> .

.,
4.0 u
'0

u
(I) l .S .:\
c

~
.;
...
::ll

:J
a:
u
u
-s•
:g

"~ r·c;•...
o.

:J ~
'0 ..J
~ 0

~
•...
u
-ti
~
a
6
u
fj
E ffectlve Modulus of SubcJrode •
2
f:aomple :
Reaction, k (pci)
... . 72 pel So • 0 . 29
Ec • 5 • Kf> pel R • 95% (Z 11 • · l.a45)
sic • 6150 pal !::::. PSI • 4 .2 - U : t.l'
J • ! .2 w. • 5J a 106 (lllllp ESAU
cd • 1.0 Sohllon o 0 =10.0 iftc:Ma (11eore1t
llalt ·lncll , fr- ....... , 2)

Figure 3.7. Design Chart for Rigid Pavement Ba.o;ed on Using Mean Values for Each Input Variable (Segment I)
Rigid Pavement Design, Part II

0.109" Slob fhlct.Mu., 0 hftCMI) / v // /


/ V. v / /
/ '/ vv / /
/ "/ v v v v v
/ r/ v v v v v
1// '/ v v v v v 1/
v 17/ f/ v v 1/ I/ / /
14/.'v.'z/.v;,/ !La/ v y
v
~

f7 / / / / / /

~ r7[Iv
/

/ v v/ / / / /
v v
/ v 17v / / / v v
0

[7 [7
/
17
v v ./
v v v
[7 17 17 v v 1/ /
v v v 1/ 7 /

I 0>

ooo

NOTE• AH~cotlon of r-lltr


10'""' cllorl ••~ ..
tho ••• of......,·- ·
tor .. tho fr1><>1 •«lablu.

----------+--------------~

...
I
1::

I
... ~.~
s•...,\
ft •11()
I
'\
I
tO
I •
10
I I
toO
I I
to
I

At hobllttr, R (%)

f1gllre 3.7. Contlnutd- Oeslln Chart ror RJcld Pa..,ments ~on Using Mnn Values ror
ltlocb Input Yarlablt (Sqmtnl 2)
Loss of Support

1000

- - /
f-----·
- v /
11701 /
v
-m
n::::
gg
<I>~ 100 r--- v vv
-,____ --
n ~
lO'" ~ -
c.l: v /
28. 50 f- - /
"'0!;.
0
-"'
:: / v
~v
CD 0
"'- / /
&(/)
-c / v
:;-g vv / ~
tl iii
v
~
.-"
2.~ /
(/)::0
c: ..
'C'" 10 () "" //
'8g0
~ <:> ~
:: "',.. IL
L \.. I

v0
5
~ v/ I' L \..

1/
l( v v . . . v I

~v
v v v ..
/
v f 0l
5 10 50 100 500 1000 2000
Effec:live Modulus of Subgrade Reacloon. k lpcol

Figure 3.6. Correction of Effective Modulus or Subgrad~ Reaction for Pot~nllal Loss or Subbase Support (6)
Rigid Pavement Design Parameters

• 28-day Mean PCC Modulus of


Rupture (bending)
• 28-day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab
• Mean Effective Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction (k)
- base, subbase, subgrade
- k (psi/in)= Mr(psi)/19.4
• Loss of Support
[Y; 109

Load Transfer Coefficient (J)

Shoulder Asphalt Tied PCC


Load Transfer Yes No Yes No
Devices
Pavement Type
Plain Jointed and 3.2 3.8-4.4 2.5-3.1 3.6- 4.
Jointed Reinforced
Continuously 2.9-3.2 N/A 2.3-2.9 N/A
Reinforced

I v:11o
Typical Loss of Support Values
Cement Treated Granular Base
(1,000,000 - 2,000,000 psi) 0.0- 1.0

Cement AggrOBate Mixtures


(500,000- 1,00 ,000 psi) 0.0- 1.0
Asphalt Treated Base
(350,000 - 1,000,000 psi) 0.0-1.0
Bituminous Stabali.zed Mixes
(40,000- 300,000 psi) 0.0- 1.0

Lime Stabilized
(20,000 - 70,000 psi) 1.0-3.0
UnBound Granular Materials
(15,000 - 45,000) 1.0- 3.0
Fine Grained or Natural Subgrade Mtls
(3,000 - 40,000 psi) 2.0-3.0 r v-111

Flexible Pavement Design


Example I, Design Inputs
• Design Traffic-- 18,000,000 ESAL's
(12,000 ADT)
• Subgrade CBR -- 7.0
• Initial Serviceability-- 3.75
• Terminal Serviceability -- 2.5
• Reliability-- 95°/o (Rural Arterial)
• Overall Deviation -- 0.49
• Good Drainage 15°/o of the time-- 1.00
V.!112
Flexible Example I

,..lOt •. :~: .• ]
- 0.20 + - - - - - -- + 2.32*1091o"R - 8.07
1094
0 . 40 + - - 5 u
(SNt-1) •

\_
~.i ..: -c -E
Oesion S«vlceobility Lou, 6PSI /
!! • ~~
~~ ~~
.... f/)0
s.o;:: ~~
..; ..
....2
I~
-; ~~, --~~~- c
1-20
/~,.
IJ"
v~
-
<::'
4!!} ~
~~,
1.0 c;<t
t
-.., as -
v ~7

1C
0 ::>
c! ' ~g
..,_, "8
a:
G>~
5

....
b

• - •o -
€~
-. ·g c:
Q>.!!
:: = /
/
/
~ w
• .os =
.':::=;n!! go
w"'
~ -1
/ /
~
-.a
i7i ml
// ~
ro l/ lh r
1.~,
-, ~
10
Eaomple• ZD
50 I I
W11 x 5 xi01 t

R • 95 °/o Onl9'1 Slruelurol Number, SN


so: 0 .35
M : 5000 pel
11
6PSI = 1.9
Solution: SN = 5.0

Figure 3.1. Design Chart for Flexible Pavements Based on Using Mean Value.c; for Each Input
Flexible Example I
Design Inputs
• SN = 5.7
• Layer Coefficients
- AC Surface -- 0.44
- AC Base -- 0.40
- Type II Drainage Blanket-- 0.18
- DGA --0.14

rv-114

Flexible Example I
Thickness Determination

Layer SN
AC Surface 1.5" x 0.44 0.66
AC Base 8.5" X 0.40 3.40
Type II DB 6" x 0.18 1.08
DGA 4" X 0.14 0.56
Total 5.70 v -115
Rigid Pavement Design
Example I
• Design Traffic-- 18,000,000 ESAL's (12,000 ADT)
• Initial Serviceability -- 3.75
• Terminal Serviceability -- 2.5
• Reliability-- 95% (Rural Arterial)
• Overall Deviation -- 0.39
• PCC Modulus of Rupture-- 600 psi
• PCC Elastic Modulus -- 4,000,000 psi
• Subgrade CBR -- 7.0
• Load Transfer Coefficient-- 2.7
rY:; 116

Rigid Example I
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

• Subgrade Resilient Modulus -- 10,500


• Base Resilient Modulus -- 30,000
- 4" Type ll Drainage Blanket
- 4" Dense Graded Aggregate
• Base Thickness 8"
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction -- 555

v·117
Rigid Example I, Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Exomplt

Dsa =6 1nches
Esa = 20,000 psi
M11 : 7,000 Pll

Solullon ' k. = 400 pet

['\
1,00 0,000

•'
00,000
t--.. ':--.... I'- I\: ' '\
~
" Composite Modulus of

' "!'-. I'-


00,000 Subbase Elosttc t-.... Subgrode Reo elton,
.......
r-..: t-..... r--. I" I'-
~i "'"'
2 t- Modulu s , E (psi) k., (pei ) -
88
~ 1-... r--. f-.... 1'\. I'- ~ ~~
!'-.
....lnllnlle
"'"'" ' S•'ora
•"'1- fo
r-- r-.; ~ l::::--
15,000 t- I"--
t-.....
" 1:::': t--.
'r::::: ~ t-..r--;: 1'-- t': ~ '" ""'!'\: r'\: '
1'\.
1'\.
Oe plh l

' "' ~~
~~
t-. t-.
.......
I' J-::::::t-..
t--.. f". ~ ~ c"- ~ ~ ' ['.,["\.. I'\. I'\.
f"'-.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r--. L' ~ !:': ~
['.,
' r-...
v,' ~
I'\. I'\.

I" ~
1'\.
' "<q. !'\. 1'\, '' 1'\.~

~
['., 1'\.
" ~
' I'\. " 1'\.
1-
~· " t-....
"""\ ~
r'\: !":. R
t'\. ['., ~
"'
l <mch~) "' t'\.. ' '
I
~
I·~ ~SI 1'\. r'\ I'-K
1000 '- IB IS

2000 t- t-
r- t--t-...
-~--
14 li 10
' 1'\
1'\
I'\.
3000 1-t- r--1--t-... 1"-- 1'\
~i'<
!1000 1-1- t-- t-.._ t--- r-... t"--
7000 t-
t- t- t-- 1-- 1"-- f'.
10,000
12,000 ~ t- 1--
16,000 1-t- ..... t-
20,000
t-- t- I"-- r-...
~ t-. '- r- t-. ~
1"-- t"--
t"-- r-...
"';<., f\.}..1
t--- t- 1--..... t- r-... t-- r--.. f', ['\,
t- t-.. t-. 1-... ....... :--.... f"'-.. :-....
1""-- ....... ........ ......
.......... ' "' ['.,
-
- Roadbed
Soil Res thtnl
t--..
" "" "
1"'- ...... :--... 1'\::
1'\::
- Modulus , M 11 (ps i )
"" 1'\::
I I I I I I " K
Figure 3.3. Cba rt for Estimating Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k.., Assumlng a
Seml-Jnfln lte Subgrade Depth. (For practical purposes, a seml-lnnnlte depth Is
cons idered to be greater than 10 feet below the surface of the subgrade.)
Rigid Example I
109
r a 1'61 ]
lo[ 4.5 - 1.s

7
1.624*10
1 + - --.....
(0+1)8.16

1100

I I OC')

t OOO

.00

~
.;
....
:J
-s•
100

r
·~
!
-1
0
ti
0

100 ~ 10 2
800 500

Effective Modulus of SubQrodt [aOiflple :


Reaction, k (pci) ll • 72 pel So • 0.2 9
Ee • 5 a .cP pe l R • 95% (Z 11 • ·1.645)
s1e • 6!10 pal /.). PSI • 4.2 - 2.5 : 1.1
J : ) .2 w8 a !U a 106 (II kip ESAU
cd • 1.0 Sollillon • 0 • 10.0 lftdlet (~teorett
llolf ·lncll, fr- ......, 2)

Figure 3.7. Design Chart for Rigid Pavement Based on Using Mean Values for Each Input variable (Segment 1)
Rigid Example I
Do- Slob T~u. 0 hncl>n ) / v v/ /
/ vv VL VL L
v/ v /
/ / /_

-
vv / '/_ / v v
)I'> '/ v v v v v
0

IO - v/ '/ v v v / v/
- 7/17/ '7 1/ v 1/ / / /
- s ·Y.00v•o79/ ~ y' . ~ ~
7 / / / / / / / v
••,_ -;~ / 7 7 •/ / / / v /

·- .
i
..
0

/ 7 [7/ / / / /
/ / v
c ••
'/ / v/ ,/ /
/ v v/
"7 v v / 7 v /
?0 17 7 [7 / ./ /
·- / / v 17
/ /
(ll>,...lt~~ 18- u p EquowoiMt So"9t. A• l..

·- '- ~ ) Apol;cot;..,, , W (nulocnd


·~ ·
11

\
1000- 100 .., lO > I 0>

100
·-
NO TE• Applicotlon o l rellobllly

\
1n lhlt cl>orl r equlfea
lhe uae ol mean values
lor al lhe lnpul vorklblu .

~\.
0

Oi>t~.~
~.~,;~
·t
.... " 'f ... o:> ~ 1 'j'

Figure 3.7. Cootlnued- Oulgn Chart for Rigid ~vemeots Based on Using Mean Values for
Each Input Variable <Se!lment 2)
Rigid Example I
Structural Thickness

• PCC Pavement -- 12.0"


• Type II Drainage Blanket -- 4.0"
• Dense Graded Aggregate -- 4.0"

v-121

Computer Software
• AASHTO Darwin 3.0
• ACPA •• PAS-S
• Other

V-122
Mechanistic (Single Layer)
1. Developed by Boussinesq - 1885
2. Surface < 4.0" thick
3. Ratio of EP/ Es < 1 (Thin Surface
and Thick Base)
4. Load Radius Large Compared to
Pavement Thickness
5. Pavement Consists Primarily of
One Layer - Mostly Subgrade
l v-123

Mechanistic (Single Layer)


Conclusions from Using
Boussinesq Theory
1. Vertical Stress Decreases with
Depth and Radial Distance
2 Maximum Stress Occurs
Directly Under the Load
3. Stress Independent of Material
Properties (Poisson's Ratio = 0.5)
4. Stress Distribution is Bell-Shaped
on a Horizontal Plane v-124
Mechanistic (Single Layer)
r- 2: I
!III
I
II
a
2.

'zr
i
2.

ar
!
E
a~
v

~r~ V-125

Mechanistic (Single Layer)


Vertical Stresses
a
q t xlOO ( \ )

1.' ().2 o.J 0.' 0.6 o.a 1.0 2 • ~ 6 • 10 20 30 ~ 5060 801CIO

I
b._ -r::;::::~r-u-z.or--:.
I~ ~~
t--J_-+--lJ.L ,~~; ~ I I ) J~ ~pro.25
2
-
~~-"s{j ~1s
1

3
"' \ 1\ } I

~"''~"'-I"
1\l i\
' ::'\_l• h
I ~iP 11 1
\ //~ NUIDbers on curves f.-
.. s ·, indicate r/a
~
6
\ ', \ f\ I\ " . II~~ ~ .__
1
'\ \ \ I I!J~
8
\\ I 'II
9 \ liM
10 \ I I I!If V-126
Mechanistic (Single Layer)
Tangential Stresses
0
..l xlOO (\ )
q
0.1 Q.2 0.3 OA Q.6 Q! 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 31 40 50 60 Ill 100

~
0
1-.....,
1\
r... D I~ ~o.zs ~
~ t; ~Iii
1
II 1.5/ k::;;;
2/ J,' 1--- I
/ v: vv ~ ~ I;;; ~ Nuabers on curves
indicate r/a
~ I I

l#~ I I I
5 I I i I I i I l
V-127

Mechanistic (Single Layer)


Radial Stresses
a
-t xlOO (\ )
CU o.2 G.3 OA G.3 G:1 l.D 2 3 • 5 6 7 I · 10 20 30 00 S060 10 100
0
r- , r-:u 1-- ~~
- ~
2
.~ r---;;::: t--. 6
p 5 - · - 1'1
~
ho.' a,
f' \ ~ ~
fl~-?.
~
1'\ ~ 1\
~
n ri ~
_.-o
J..--
v ~~
....
.....
_,nij
~~ l,.a.o/
/ w N1.111bers on curves
indic:ato r/a
-
I/ ~~
/ !/ ~ ~~
V j ~ f#~

//;II"A~
v;~ rrJ V-128
Mechanistic (Single Layer)

1
e z =E [a z - f.! (a r + a1)]

1
e r =E [a r - J..L(a t+ az )]

1
et ==E [a t - r11(a z +a)]
r

Equations to Calculate Strains


V-129

Mechanistic (Multi-Layer)
(Layer-Elastic)
1. Multi-Layer Theory- Burmister, 1943
2. Material Properties of Each Layer Ar.:
Homogenous (Isotropic)
3. Each Layer Has Finite Thickness
Except Bottom Layer
4. Bottom Layer - Infinite Half-Space
5. All Layers Infinite in Horizontal
Direction
V-130
Mechanistic (Multi-Layer)
(Layer-Elastic)
6. Full Friction Developed Between
All Layers
7. Surface Shearing Forces (Frictional)
Are Not Present
8. Only Two M aterial Properties per
Layer:
Poisson's Ratio
Elastic or Resilient Modulus
V-131

Mechanistic (Multi-Layer)
p · ..,., • ..t b ...

k E J4 _ ,...,, C...C u••


__..:.;'.,•_..:..•·_;_'- - 1 - - - - INTERFACE 1

-----f-. -:--A- - INTERFACE 2


........s
- - - - - f - - - I N T E R F A C E n-1

••. n.t.~· · ., &,...,:f • f' • •

v-132
Mechanistic (Multi-Layer)
Limitations of Layer-Elastic Theory
1. Assumes All Materials Are Linear
Over All Stress Ranges- Not True
2. Assumes Material Response Is
Non-Viscous (Strain Remains
Constant Over the Time Which the
Load Is Applied)- Not True
3. Assumes All Deformation is
Recoverable - Not True V-133

Mechanistic (Multi-Layer)
Deflection at Interface of Two-Layer System

0
.. .. .~ .. .. .. ..F . . ... ... ... ... .. ..
· '1 r.r:.i P' J:u~ ·
~E
l = t=;

I ---~~ ..,.
0

"'
E
)

I a,
..
. .L~Ja-
:.:.::- T'"
r- .
~
L
I'

§ I E1
- =1 Deflection= ~a F
E2 2

V-134
Mechanistic (Multi-Layer)
Critical Strains
eo.pr... • t.v• · ~r&La - cv.cc1.q .

I T •o.e:l..l.a • c.Ta ia - tacs..v- or a.l..LS..aaC.or era.oll.i..a.a .


eo-pra &&i.'Y& • C:ra b - ~CC.t.a.a•

ec-.r••• l•• • cra.La - rv.c.cs.a.a . . .pr••• lA'aA ·

.
I WHEEL LOAD

ASPHALT CONCRETE

GRANULAR BASE

GRANULAR SUBBASE

TYPICAL FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT


WITH GRANULAR BASE
v-135

Mechanistic ulti-La
Failure Criterion for Fatigue
(Tensile Strain - B ottom of Asphalt)
1 .E~3 ~ .
" i Asphalt Institute Equation~
c
...
I'll
......... ...........,
~
i
-Shell Equation r
<i5
C1> 1.E-04
~
II)
c --=
Q)
..... '" ...........
"
1 .E~5

1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06 1.0E+08


""" ~
1.0E+10
""" ~
1.0E+12 1.0E+14

N urn ber of Repetitions V-136


Mechanistic ulti-La
Failure Criterion for Permanent
Deformation
...,..r..
1 .0E-03 '
·.
...... ...... ,~

r..... ....... " ,, T.l- 1 ';.~ '.!\.-· ·••I J: ~=

........ 7•• 1 ··~;-,· :!.l

""
'J.. 1"
.~ ~-, '
~'-.,.
I
-
""' ~~ ~
I•
-

....... ......
,...
i- -Asphalt Institute Equation
I
~

'"
""'"""" t'--..
1

1.0E-05
-Shall Equation

' "~
1 .E+04 1 .E+06 1 .E+08 1 .E+10 1 . E+12 1 .E+1
Number of Repetitions V-137

Mechanistic (Multi-Layer)
Co1nputer Prograins
ELSYM5
* Multiple Wheel Loads
* Interface Slip
CHEVRON
* Layer-Elastic Only
BISAR
*Interface Friction Can Be Specified
*Horizontal Loading (Braking)
SDEL
* Stress Dependent Elastic Theory V-138
phalt Institute
Mechanistic
Design
Method
v-139

Asphalt Institute Mechanistic


Design Method

Based on Modified CHEVRON


Program- DAMA

V-140
Asphalt Institute Mechanistic
Design Met"'od
Example 1
Untreated Aggregate Base 12.0 ln. Thickness

,i


-- f-- 1--
t--

Design Chart A-30


Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method)
Timeline of Pavement
Design Progress

' 40 ' 50 ' 60 '70 ' 80 '90

I I II II II I II I I
' 42 ' 48 '59 '68 '73 ' 81 ' 87
V-142

Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method)

Prior to 1949 Kentucky Used


Design Curves Developed by
California Department of Highways
in 1942 v-143
Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method - 1948)

In 1948 Kentucky Conducted a Field


and Laboratory Study. Conducted
Performance Survey of 435 Miles of
Roads and Sampled 185 Locations

t v-144

Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method - 1948)

v·145
Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method -1948).
2 - 2
(f) 1
w
I
u
z
,_~

z
w ~
~
w
~
a.
0
z
<t
w
(/)
<t
en I I I
I i
- -"1
I
I 1. l
aI I

(/)
(f)
w
l. . 1- '' ! I

1
z
--,
• J

~-!
l'
~
u ! I 1
:I: I
1-
i
0
w
z l 1- -
Q'l ' I
~ I
-- - -- 1 -
0
u
_CL I

Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method - 1948)
MINIMUM LABORATORY CBR VALUE

. --i---·- - -l-l--1- .

0 I
2 2 t - - - - + - - - 1 - - 1-.J---1~-l--i---------t--+---11--+- 1---l-+--l--1
~ I
CD
~ 241-----1--- -+--1 --t---t--J-t-t-----J--~---t--t.- +-~-~
0
0 26l----_.l._ __,__.____._ -1--L---L-l--1._ ____ __. _ _ _ .. - - __......___...__ - '- ' - -

Fig. 22
Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method - 1948)
MJNIMUM LABORATORY C B R VALUE
2 3 4 ~ 7 8 ! 10 :;10 ::t~n -to !!O 110 70 1n~1n nn
(I)
l.IJ ~-
-~--
:X:
0
z
4

v
iG\ v~
v - ~~
~ -- l------
...,:-
z
6
~ ...... v v v t::===-::
(j) - ~
~ Curve UmltlnG E WL

~ ....... I- CmiHion)
8 v vv v v ~
l.IJ
> v (ii).. vv. 1/ v ~
--
l------
--
lA
I
LaM than 1/2
L.Me than I

v ~ v vv v ------- -- --- _._,--


:. 10
v 1----"
II
Ill
1-2
2-3
f-

a ....... / 3-S
"'v
I / --
z 12 f-

~~v -----
~

ct 6 - 10

-- -- /
I/ V1 10-20

v/ ~ v7v,. v v --- - --
/
l.IJ 14 V11 20-40 f-
(I) ./ ~----_.;:-:;;. VIH 40-80
C(
CD IX 80-160
·-
-- -
/ /
I 16 X 1&0-320
v /. v v ~--=
I--

v~
(I) /
(I)
l.IJ 18 v ... " /
/
~-
z
X: v/ ""~
,-..... /""
v""'
/
/
0 210
:X:
t- v / ,..,~ 1.-/
..," ./V\ v,.
e 22 // ,.'9
z _,"'
a:a 24
~ v"'
8 26
Kentuck~ Deportment of HIGhwct~• Materiel• fteaearctl
OC1
Laborotor'
I ~~·

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN CURVES


Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method - 1959)

In 1957, Kentucky Performed a New


Study of 389 Miles of Pavements,
Totaling 57 Projects.
This Was to Verify and/or Revise
the 1948 Curves.
V-149

Mechanistic-Empirical
(Kentucky Method - 1959)
Design Data
Traffic Analysis
Traffic vs. Pavement Life
Performance Inspections
Rutting Measurements
Roughness
Pavement Deflections
(Benkelman Beam) m".
I;;,V-150
Benkelman Beam
18,000

v-151

,, :Benkellna
- Z5 -
.120

.100
~

'
AIWEMEJifT

TRAFFIC - D£FLECTtON

4i1ROUP

'
' '· ~-
' ..... r....
0


---
_, l ...... t..-r'F . .. _ \ . e
....... t.._.,..... ..._..., •
~

......
........... ......_
'
~~
'""''! .......
......

.000
lA II • IV V VI vtl IX
~ GROUPS BY ~ EWL'S

Fig. 1 3: P a ve-anent. Deflection•. 18. 000-Lb. Single Axle.


Obtained Fro:an Both Sati.£actory and Un eati•L&c:~ry
Paveanente Plotted A ccording ~ Tra.ffic Groupe
Cor r eeponding to Accu.znulat:ed EWL'•·

.J

fj "\
I '
~ 08

~
~.()60 r\.
...i5 '\.
i'..
~ .040 i'-.
~

·- ~

.000
Ql 10 100 1000
E WL' a (MI LLIO NS)

Fig. 14: Pavement Defle c tion• • • Obtained in. Fig. 13.


Plotted ac co rding to the Loga.rit.h-.n o£ the Mid -
Point Value o£ the Respective EWL Groupe.
.120
PlllVEMENT DEFLECTION
ve
r--... T0'1'aL PIINEMENT THICKNESS
.JOO .........
r-...:
·""' ~
• ~ -
'- .• .
"" """ •
~

~"'-........
--....... t--.1
..
.0000 2 .. •
"TOTAL PAVEM~T
8
THICKNESS
10
EXCLUOfNO
12
TISM
...
(INdHES)
•• 18

Fig . 1 5: Pavement Defl e ction s Representing only Satie!acto ry


Paveme nt s P lotte d According to Corre s ponding P a v e -
ment T hi c knesses . The c ur ve , as drawn , impli.e•
that defle ctio n• o£ equal or lesser magnitude would
be within e a.!e l i rnits.

28
;:;;
~
<.:> v
~
~
2-4
v
.....
20
v
~
d v I('
1--'

~
w
w
16
v
I 12

./
/
/

I
8

. :,....
v
~ 0
0.1 10 100 1000
EWL ' • (MILLIONS)

F ig. 16: Plot o £ Thi c knesses and E WL'e Inte rpo l ated ! rorn
Figs. 1 4 and 1 5 £or Co rreapondi.ng D e£\ec tio ne .
Kentucky Method - 1959 Revision
LA80RATORV CBR \.MU IE

(I)
Ill
X
-
4

,.,. ·- ...- - --
~

-- 7

b.'-'~
I !t ' l

-
4110 ~[) <11110 ~o fiO 1n 10 Q, .IU

0
z
6
_.,......- :..-~
~
---
...- ...- ~ -- -
.-" -~:~o.•
,.....,.. ';:;-'"
~

eur- u......

....- -
EWL
(i) / ..........
-
----
.......
8

~ v v v v ------
?
(ij)..,.
/
-- -- ~
Ill
lA
I .....
t.e.s ...... 112
~
---<

v -- --
10
v 7 f--'

~ ~ .,. v
II t-2
JY
0
z
4
12

vv/ ~ /
v - --
- -- ---------
---- ---- ---
J" ~ ,
.... ~V' ........ 1........
Ill
IV
v
VI
2-3
3 - 6
6 - 10
10 - 20
-
Ill ,...__

-- --
14 Vtl 20- 40
v~ ~./ ~~
~ ---
(I)
~ ~--- ~ 40- 80
Ci IX

--
..,; ~ 80- 160
-
v ,.,.,. ... vu
-
l 16 7 X 160 - 320
~-
1
(I)
~/ f.-
(I)
Ill v ..,; ~/ /
...--
z 18 "'
liC // ,"' .r-
_,~ ./
0
-··-· ,~
- /..,;
,.,. /

~
IX
//
. ~ ,_,"" ~
0
I&J
z
22
v . . , ,"" ~X
m 24
2
0
v'
o a , .,
l<enlud& o.p, ...... H
••
Fl.ElCIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN CURVES
Kentucky Method - 1959 Revision

MINIMUM LABORATORY COR VALUE

2 3 4 5 6 7 89!Q_ 20 30 40 50 60 708090100

v ~ f-
.....
~
~~~~"
~~------ .--- ~ ~~
~ r- ~ r-:; ""
(I)
LLI
::J:
0
z
,.
-
-
A /~
(M) ~

~
v 1--- r-
,.....
~
v-----
__ ~ -t:=::: ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ /
~

...... an / 1--' ~ ~0 ~ ~~ ~ /
z
V"/ " L_ v;l v v ~ 1--' ~~
I"'"""

~ [::2; ~ V"
LLI
:E
LLI
·-I"' VL v ~v
~v
> ~

f . L ~ ~~ ~ ~
v
lA
~ v v .....
v/ / v v v ~~
0
z v®.
c(

LLI
(I) .
·-
~

.·-.... / / ~/ /~ v
.L.

v ,
v ,. ~
I""

....
(j
v / ~L v~ vL / c v,.. /
"'
~ Cww l.llllittng EWL

-- v/
~

VL ~ ~ ~ I'" v v L-• lA tharr "2


2:
/L_ L ~ v
I ~ lbon I
II 1- 2

-
nA
v
Ill
IV
2-3
3-6

0
-
n~ /L VL v
VI
6-10
10 - 20
LLI
z
_ L~ v VII
VII
20-40
40-80

~
n..,.
... IX eo- 160 \

V/
X 160 - 320 .
0
,. .... I I J
::v DNISION OF RESEARCH .MI«JARY. 1959
Kentucky Method - 1959 Revision
MINIMUM LABORATORY CBR VALUE

2 4 6 7 8 9 10 20

en
lLI
%
z0

Curve

IA Less than 1/l 4,000


I Leas than 1 6,000
II 1-l 8,000
Z41~~~~-7~~~~-+-+~~------~ tu l-3 10,000
IV 3-6 1l,OOO
v 6-10 14,000
VI 10-ZO 16,000
VII .z-o--to 18,000
~~~~~~----r-~~~-4~~~--------~ VIU 40-80 20,000
IX 80-160 22,000
X 160-JZO 24,000

DIVISION OF RESEARCH JAH.JAitY, 1~59


Kentucky Method
1959 Revision

Based on S-kip Wheel Loads

Empirical Data Based on


Surface Deflections Only
v-158

e( 4..
~~ rov
i~ "C!J
,o'f. ~~~
~~ e~
~0 0~~
~e~~e' 1. AASHO Design System
~0 Based on EAL
2.Increased Traffic
v-159 Volumes and Weights
1968 Revision
1. Extensive Benkelman Beam
Measurements Throughout State
2. Tremendous Scatter in Data
3. Partially Due to Effects of
Temperature
4. Temperature Corrections
Reduced Scatter But Not Enough
' v -160

1968 Revision
5. Concluded that Surface Deflections
Were Not the Key Attribute
6. Concluded Only a Layered System
Analysis Would Provide More
Insight
7. CHEVRON N-Layer Computer
Program Used to Run a Large
Array of Problems v-1s1
~ lltft..( C TIC N
IN'C MI!: '
..
Q "'
•O C l eo-~.

...=I)
'~ O lUO~ ------.- ••••
---._

..
~
\C
aJ Q-\
~ ~

~
..UJ, '"' ..

~
I
1.)
<
1
. .....---
~
~
lL
w
c.

~ .c')
<
J

_....
Cl
. • I·

--
=
1-
0... --
?.J ' 5 OXIQ~ 1 •.!~--------
- -~ , __ ~ J -

I ) n 4 oxro·
l
_....
r;#j

=
l +

~~ I . t

=
I I
- • t-1·
I .. ' I I

aJ 3 . 0XIO-~
. - -~'

=
2(. i

..--.-- ---
1
t·. L,
I

~
__\.OXlO" -~-- 1 t·
Z8! • I. .:.J


0 •
I .

O(~f.C TI I:'N
111CN£1

"
10 ox•o-:----_

"
t S.OXIO~--

Z OOXI'O~
t' !t 0 1(10-
-......
--
----• ....____

--
-

9 ~
~ ~O.OlliO

•o r- -
'·' t~

.....
r --
~ -

-- 1
I
....... - ....... I - ....

r ··-
1~~~-- --
.A --- ~I -

-- ! . ...
1 95~

L- - · - --
1
KENTUCKY
FLEX8.E ..: II· ··-. l
~ l- - --
VI
l= . .t 'H.
1
. - I·!-
.: ' ~·t·
---------~ - 11 l.L1··
I '
-- • • ... 1
Kentucky Method - 1968 Revision

Critical Strains
1.E-02

c
n:l
.!:: 1.E-03 + - - - - - - " "-......:'
Cl)

~
(/)
cQ)
......
U 1 .E~
<(
- SHELL - AS PH. IHST.

1.E-OS L------------___;.;.---'---
1.E+OO 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+OS 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08

Number of Repetitions
V-164

Kentucky Method - 1968 Revision


Subgrade Critical Strain Criteria

1.E..05 - ' - - - - - - - - - - . . - - , . - - - - - - - ' - - . - - " - - - - , --"-----1


1.E+OO 1.E+<l1 1.E+<l2 1.E+()3 1.E+<l4 1.E+<l5 1.1:<+()6 1.E+<l7 1.E+08 ___ _
REPETITIONS V-165
OEI' L [ ( I I(l 'l
I" CHES ~
1!)0);t0

200)(10~
~ -- •.

' ....
- ·-">-'- -
...
·-..
- \C
~
25 O lCIO '~'-, /

30 0lC IO-~ ,

""-·.,.'.,. ,
Yll
~
1.oxto8

~
SUBCR.t.DE VIII
STR AIN

70XIO~ - 4 <JTIOI- -rx-:


41 6 ox to- L ....:./
' 1 OX lOG X

18 OXI0 6 lll
~
<
••
\lj
••
Q

TRAFFIC -COR - lHtCIC NESS


t·t AC TO DGA
CURVES
THICK NESS
=
60 . ,.
STYLIZED 1
DE SGN CURVES

Jut AC TO OGA
AASHO EAL
so· F
Kentucky Method
1973 Revision
1. AC Modulus Substituted for
AC Temperature
2. Unlike 1968 Curves, DGA
Modulus Allowed to Vary
3. The Idea of Traffic Level Curves
Abandoned for EAL's
v-168

1973 Revision
10

E 2 = F x caR x 1500 1968 Curves


DGA Modulus
Held Constant at
25,000 psi

10 100 10,000
C B R

v -169
~?
1973 Revision
ll J~--rTJ I I:~~f I I I

30
--+- ~ I· II I t~--
DESIGN CURVCS
Kentucky ethod
1981 Revision

1. Based on an Asphalt Modulus


of 480 ksi
2. Mechanistically Based EAL's
Kentucky ethod
,
-1
I
Four Tires
Single Axle /
_I I I
I~
Eight Tires Twelve Tires
Tandem Axles
,
7
. L
"
., 7
Three Axles !!!
~
~ I ~ ~
I Sixteen T~ V"
~ / ~" "'"our Axles ~
=
= I / /
7
./ ,...., I =
=
Twenty Tir~
i-
i--
Two Tires
;--- 1- Sing le Axle /
- f-
, IL- - - 7
/
Five Axl~
/ / .JI' ~ -~

...0 ~
§ I 1/
I
I
. ---'- I=
/
1

v
/
.....
7
17 / - ~
""""
,.,
~
<:; .....
~ ...,.,..
0
u.. I - ~ - / / / ~wentyFou]
I=
"7 J
1--
/ l/ v ..,. Tires I ::::

1
G.l 10°
C7'
0 - Six Axles:~
E I I 1-7 f-· II"' 7
0
1
I
II
I
-1- 1- '-- v t-- ./
./
~ ./
IL iii
0
_,
17-= 1-
__, ~
_I I / ./ ..... - I--I-
I I I 1/ / v
E I I II / v -~ v ==
t=
I= I 1/ l .-J
v / / ./
v =
=

-
1- 1--
[1L. - lr-
J 7 ~ / /

I , 7 7
7 ..-'
·-
I
I
I
'(

17 7
7
7
~
7
7 - v - I--
1-

=
~ I J ~
V- f-- ~
-
~~~J II lrl r 111 J IIII Jj k'; II ~I ~ III I I IIIII II II II II II II IJII UHI IIIII I1111 IIIII IIIII IIII I IIIII IIIII III II II II II I I 1111 IIIII II Ill
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Tota l Load on Configu ration. K ips
Kentucky ethod
34 34
)'

~-
~

r ~~~rM ~I
1--, !.-
32 1--
'-- 1-
1-
~ ll 32

30 1 -
__.

- ,;'
a~
VI ~!Ltr
30

28
/v v ·//
28
v
26
- -
, 3$'~ Aej 1- 1-
1-
1- /
v~--"
v
,;'
~ ltV
vv.
Vol 'I t,lll 26

V/V. v ~~~
r. l ·~· ~~
1- v ·' ,;' /
v
~ vv V/
1/ / 'I
24
It ·- - / _..3
v k v
,;'
~v /
24

v I en
~
. . . v ,"'
/
"' ~o)" ~VII' w
IJJ
X 22 - ,_ ,- - ~ .....
kv~-' /
/ / :Lk:: v
22 i3
/ 17 ,"'
u / ~~ z
~ / /
- J
v ,"' Vv~-"
/
/ / [;.0V l/ v -
"'
....
"' 20 - !7' v / / ~
, "v /..o!"" /
v:;v v v· v
20 :!)"'
~
z z
X - ......... 1/ l/ X
u
u
x - / / .a"'V /-::: 1/
i I8 ~
..... 18 /.,.. _,9
~ ;....- ,. . v v v
_J
~
..... ,..,~-' v [/:; /
/
,.., ....
//
/ I;
~~-
v ,/ / V.v /
./
/
~~
..J
~
.....
0
..... 16 - - -· ·-1-
/
~ /
)"' v 7 / 7 :..... / / I;
,I••
v / ,,. /~
I6 ~

/ ....~--
/ :..... 17,.., ~ ?.....- / ,16.
~ v v .,/
14 I4
L ~)" / :..... '/" V: ~/ ~ / ,~ /
v - ,7
/
/
/ /
vv / ,v ~ :/ /I/:..... /
::;;; I;
~ 1-1-
~/~
12 I2
k
/ / /
/ ~
v
/
/ "'v
7:,... ~
/
:;:
~ vt
,..:..... ~v
,30·
.......... /

~~ ~~ ~~bv vvv
/ / !-'
/ / / /
10
, I0

~
/ /
~ 1- "y ~ (-
....
v"
~~
/
1-
t7 v v ~)"' vv v-.;o
8
/
~ P' t:/ ~-- ~ 1- vv 1- 8
/ 1/ v v loo t--
v 1/v I/
/

6
v t%- j v / v .-· [/ ,v
6
lo• 10~ 108

REPETIT ION S OF AN 18 KIP (80 KN l EQUIVALENT AXLELOAO


Kentucky ethod
22

20

- - 1-1--4--1-1-1-++-1 6

-1--1- 4

! - 1 - 1- 1--
1- r-+-t- t- 1- 2

1- 1-1--1-

RI:PETITIONS OF AN 18 KIP(80 KN) EOUIVAl..ENT AXl..El..OAO


Kentucky ethod
28

(I)

·'H-~- ~~~+-~~~~~~ ~AH~~20~


0
z

REP ETITIONS OF AN 18 KIP (80 KN) EQUIVALENT AXLELOAO


Kentucky ethod
28 28

26 26

24

16 -

-1~2

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
~· ~& ~6 ~· ~·
REPETITIONS Or AN 18 KIP ( 80 KN) EOUIVALCNT 1\XLCLOAO
Current Practices
in Pavement Design
-Number of States Using AASHTO

-Number of States using Other Procedures

-Number of States Using Mechanistic


Procedures

-Catalogs of Design

v-1n

Current Practices
in Pavement Design

V-178
Current Practices
in Pavement Desi
Alaska -State Procedure
California- State Procedure
Hawali - California Procedure
Idaho- Mod. California Procedure
Kentucky - KY Method
Minnesota - State Procedure
New Hampshire- State Procedure
New York- State Procedure
Pennsylvania- State Procedure
V-179

Current Practices
in Pavement Desi
Alaska- No Rigid Pavements
California- State Procedure
Hawaii - PCA Method
Iowa - PCA Method
Kentucky - KY Method/AASHTO (86/93)
New Hampshire- State Procedure
New York- State Procedure
Pennsylvania- State Procedure V-180
Current Practices
in Pavement Desi n

Illinois
Rigid (Finite Elements)
Flexible (Finite Elements)
No State - Asphalt Institute
V-181

Current Practices
in Pavement Desi n

New York- State Procedure


Missouri - AASHTO
Washington - AASHTO
V-182
Part VI: Mechanisms of Pavement Failure

Objectives:
To acquaint the participant with the various methods or modes of pavement failures.

To help the participant recognize the causes of the modes of failure.

To discuss and illustrate the results of an improper pavement design.

Topics:

VI. Mechanisms of Pavement Failure


A. Flexible Pavements
1. Rutting
2. Cracking
3. Base Failures
4. Rideability
B. PCC Pavements
1. Cracking
2. Joint Fa.ilures
3. Faulting
4. Base Failures
5. Scaling
6. Pumping
7. Rideability

Comments:

Pavements may fail in a variety of modes. Failures may be the result of poor materials, poor
construction techniques, environmental distress, poor drainage, weak subgrades, heavy traffic
loads, or any combination of the preceding items.

Pavements that are designed with insufficient thickness will provide a poorer quality and
shortened service life, and the effects of all the factors listed above will be magnified. It is
important for the designer to be able to interpret pavement distresses and to be able to identify
the causes of those distresses. This ability will assist the designer, in the future, when choosing
among competing alternate rehabilitation strategies.
VI
Mechanisms of
Pavement Failure
.... . f

Failure Mechanisms

Flexible Pavement

Yl - 2
VI
Mechanisms of
Pavement Failure
Vl -1

Failure Mechanisms

Flexible Pavement

Vl-2
.:..~_._,_,.;."" ..~ .. ·~

. .
0

..... -~
••

---
L

.. - ;

II.,_______,,
Time
lk T ime

Maxwell Model

s
E=- ( 1 +-t)
G
2G 11

Time Vl· 8

Kelvin Model

G
E=-
s [1 - exp( - -G t)
2G 11

~
c
0
':1

..
~
l:!
c::
Q

Time
Vl·l
Burgers Model
s Go s Gt
e=- (1 +- t ) +- ( 1 - exp(- -t)J
2G0 11 2G 1 11

Time Vl-10

G
·~
' ...........:..,
'• ,..

Yl -11

DYNAMIC MODULUS

G'

I G"

G' (Stora e Modulus) Y1-1z


-. G*/ sino
-="'=
"'0
0
G'
~
~ G"
I
I

G' (Stora e Modulus) ~-13


---- .
_ Base Failures
(PCC)
,
VII

Design Catalog

Yl-1

Why a Design Catalog?

• Kentucky Pavement Design, Currently a


3-layer System, (AC, DGA, Subgrade)

• AASHTO Design Procedure Allows for a


Multi-Layer System

• Design Catalog Developed to Allow for


Additional Pavement Layers (Drainage
Blanket, etc)
Vl-2

Current Warrants for Use

• Off the National Highway System

• Less Than One Kilometer (0.6mile)


Length

• Less Than 5,000,000 Equivalent Single


Axle Loads

YI·S
Updated Warrants for Use

• OFF National Highway System


• No Length Restrictions
• Less Than 20,000,000 ESALS/20
Years in the Design Lane
• Less Than 20% Trucks
• Less Than 15,000 ADT
VII· .A

Design Catalog Development

YI·S
Catalog Development,
Flexible Pavements
• Kentucky's Mechanistic-Empirical Procedure
• Utilize Standard Parameters
- Structural Layer Coefficients
• Asphalt Concrete 0.44
• Dense Graded Aggregate 0.14
- 33 o/o AC Design
• Convert to AASHTO Structural Number
• 95o/o Reliability or Better

Kentucky Mechanistic
Empirical Design Procedure

• Design Traffic-- 2,000,000 ESAL's

• Design Subgrade Strength -- CBR 4


33 o/o Design Chart
34

- / J
- -- I I v 32
I v v1/V
32
1- II
~
2,000,000 ESAL's v v 7 v 1/ VII
30 I 30
Subgrade CBR 4.0 v I IVV
I
v vI~ ITv Jl~
...._ - J
v
-
~ II
28 28
/ 'JI
~ vv vv
- -,1
/
~ IV v
~ I 'I IV
... . /
33'1C. AC
Y(
;zVj vv
26 26
z' / v vv II
~
I - ·-!... v x / ~~ / ~ 24

en
24
/ :1

v
"L v
v
v t%v.~ v.~ I I
Ul
w
r 22
II V j
4
/ :; ~ w
22 ~
u v '//V/ VI
~
Total Pavement Thickness /'I" /v; !/ z
v ,)"v // v
~ / II'
. 23.8 inches II'
,..:~
// ~v 1/
en VI /
"'~
en 20
w
z v y -"'Vv~ /
6'
v ,/ v Y. v ~v v 20
z
~ ~
~ .... 7
~
r 18 - --. - ,,Y / /v / II' 8 v ""l.·)' v" /
I' l'
18
u
t
.....
...J / v v -"'v /9
10 ~ ..... II' / V/
/
/ v ...J

v vy ,..Y~ ~v
<l / ~~ <l
..... II' / ;" ~ I ..... / I .....
7v
~vvv
0 16 16 ~
.....
/
/
/ v 1-'.Y .... /v 12

14
/
/ :..- "'~-" /I v
/ v / /~ _... 16 ~/ / // I

~v Vk"
14 ~ 14
v /v / II' v :, ~a
20 - ~ /
v I/ v -"')" --/v v .... /v ,,/ "
,7

v~
12 / 12
/ /v ii' ~ v .... v /v ~- /
v V- 7~ ,/ :711'
Vv
/ 1-"

10
/ / /v / / vJO /
10
/v
~
/ v
~~
,-"
~ ~v ~ ~/
/ /
·-
v I .I v /II'
~
/v v ;K)
8

6
vv / v /)I
Vv / v
~ ~ ~v v /
V/ j v 1/ II' /!.-"
~ .....
/ /
·- "T " r-
8

6
10. 10.
REPE Tl TIONS OF AN 18 KIP I 80 KN I EQUIVALENT AX LE LOAD

VII· 8
e
Kentucky Mechanistic
Empirical Design Procedure

• Total Pavement Thickness 23.8 Inches


(Kentucky 33°/o Mechanistic-Empirical
Design Procedure)

• Convert to Layer Thickness


- AC Layer 7.8 inches
- DGA Layer 16.0 inches

IVR-9

Conversion to AASHTO
Structural Number

• Determine AASHTO Structural Number

- 7.8 inches AC x 0.44 (layer coefficient) = 3.43

- 16 inches of DGA x 0.14 (layer Coefficient =2.24


- Total SN =3.43 + 2.24 =5.67
Vll-10
Catalog of Structural Numbers
3/16/1999
CBR
ESAL'S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10,000 3.83 3.31 2.89 2.59 2.32 2.12 1.97 1.83 1.73 1.60 1.50
25,000 4.41 3.86 3.46 3.11 2.84 2.66 2.48 2.33 2.23 2.10 1.97
50,000 4.78 4.26 3.84 3.50 3.24 3.02 2.84 2.69 2.55 2.45 2.33
75,000
100,000
250,000
5.00
5.14
5.59
4.49
4.64
5.13
4.06
4.22
4.72
3.74 3.47 3.25 3.0~
3.90 3.63 3.40
4.42 4.13 ~ 3.70
,.no ,""'I J~:.;~ T2 .53
1 .68

500,000 5.93 5.51 5.14 4.81 4. ~ 4.29 4.07 3.90 3.76 ~ 3.47
750,000 6.16 5.74 5.37 5.07_,... A.78 4.55 4.32 1)2-- ~7 3.82 3.69
1,000,000 6.35 5.93 5.57 [723 4.94 4.7j_ ~ 4.28 4.12 3.97 3.83
2,000,000 6.81 6.39 6.02 5.67 ~ [0.13 4.87 4.69 4.49 4.33 4.20
3,000,000 7.16 6.71 6.31 5.95 5.64 5.37 5.14 4.92 4.72 4.56 4.42
4,000,000 7.39 6.94 6.52 6.16 5.85 5.57 5.30 5.08 4.91 4.72 4.58
5,000,000 7.60 7.11 6.68 6.32 6.00 5.72 5.44 5.23 5.05 4.87 4.72
6,000,000 7.76 7.30 6.85 6.45 6.13 5.82 5.57 5.36 5.15 5.00 4.84
7,000,000 7.95 7.41 6.97 6.58 6.23 5.93 5.67 5.44 5.27 5.08 4.92
8,000,000 8.09 7.57 7.10 6.68 6.32 6.02 5.n 5.56 5.36 5.15 5.01
9,000,000 8.19 7.67 7. 18 6.80 6.44 6.10 5.86 5.63 5.43 5.27 5.08
10,000,000 8.32 7.76 7.30 6.87 6.51 6.21 5.93 5.70 5.50 5.34 5.15
11,000,000 8.42 7.88 7.37 6.95 6.58 6.28 6.00 5.77 5.57 5.38 5.23
12,000,000 8.54 7.96 7.46 7.03 6.65 6.32 6.08 5.82 5.63 5.44 5.30
13,000,000 8.62 8.03 7.53 7.1 0 6.72 6.39 6.13 5.87 5.70 5.51 5.36
14,000,000 8.71 8.12 7.60 7.16 6.78 6.45 6.16 5.95 5.73 5.57 5.43
15,000,000 8.81 8.19 7.67 7.23 6.82 6.51 6.23 6.00 5.79 5.63 5.46
16,000,000 8.90 8.26 7.73 7.26 6.88 6.57 6.29 6.03 5.85 5.66 5.51
17,000,000 8.97 8.32 7.80 7.33 6.94 6.61 6.32 6.09 5.87 5.72 5.57
18,000,000 9.04 8.39 7.83 7.39 6.97 6.67 6.38 6.15 5.93 5.77 5.60
19,000,000 9.11 8.47 7.90 7.44 7.03 6.71 6.44 6.18 5.99 5.80 5.66
20,000,000 9.19 8.52 7.96 7.47 7.08 6.74 6.45 6.22 6.02 5.86 5.70
Catalog of Structural Numbers

9
• CBR 1
CBR2
•• CBR3
CBR4
8 •
-o--
CBR 5
CBR6
CBR7
CBR8
7
--<>- CBR9
CBR10
z CBR 11
en 6
0
....
:I:
en 5
~
4

4 2 3 4 5 61 5 2 3 4 5 61
10 10 106 2 3 4 5 61
101 2 3 4

ESAL
Catalog Development,
Rigid Pavements
• PCC Thickness Determined Using the Kentucky
Rigid Pavement Design Catalog

• PCC Thickness Determined Using the Kentucky


Procedure

• PCC Thickness Also Determined Using the


1986/1993 AASHTO Procedure

• Final Design Thickness Chosen Based on a


Comparison of These Two Procedures

• Thickness Rounded to Whole Inch Increments


... Vl-13

Catalog Development Cont.,


Rigid Pavements
• Catalog Based on 6" of Dense-Graded-
Aggregate Over Unstabilized Subgrade

• PCC Pavements Generally not Used Below


1,000,000 ESAL's

• Other Base Materials May Be Utilized


- Treated Subgrades
- Permeable Bases

Vll-14
Catalog of PCC Pavement Thickneses
03/16/99
ESAL
1 2 4 5 7 9 10 11
1,000,000 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
2,000,000 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0
3,000,000 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
4,000,000 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
5,000,000 9.0
6,

11 ,000,000
12,000,000
13,000,000
14,000,000
15,000,
1
Catalog of PCC Pavement Thicknesses

12

• CBR2

--
.~ 11 •
CBR6
CBR 11

t /)
t/)
Q)
r:
~
u 10
·-
.r::.
1-
u
u
D. 9 -
8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 107
ESAL

Vll-16
e
Catalog Design Parameters

Vl - 17

Catalog Design Procedure

• Determine Subgrade Strength


- Geotechnical Data
- Estimate Based on Soil Type

• Determine Design Traffic


- Division of Multi-Modal Programs
- Estimate From Traffic Parameters

Vl-18

Catalog Design Procedure, Cont.


• Select Structural Design
- Shoulder Design
• < 5,000,000 ESALS, Designed for 20% of
Mainllne Traffic If not used for traffic
• 5,000,000 • 20,000,000, Designed for 20% -100%
of Mainline Traffic , Decision Based on Project
Specific Informatio n
• Select Paving Materials
• Conduct Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
- < 5,000,000 ESAL's, lnltial Cost Only
- 5,000,000 • 20,000,000 ESAL's, Include fixed
Rehabilltation Cycle and User Costs
Vl·19
Subgrade Strength

• Defmed by the Ken tucky Method CBR Test


(KM 64-501)

• Determined by the Division of Materials or


Other Approved Testing Laboratory

• Determined from Bag Samples from


Roadway Cut and Fill Sections

Subgrade Strength
Design Value Selection

• Lowest Value of Laboratory Test

• For Larger Projects, 20 or More Tests, 90th


Percentile is Selected

• Higher Design CBR's May be Recommended


for Rock Roadbed or Bank Gravel Subgrades

Vl-21

Estimated CBR Values

Material Estimated C8R


Rock (lmntone, ........ -.dltone 7 tD 11
......,. ...... nondurable Andstone)

Rock (nondurable shllle) 2 1o 5

Bank Grrlel liD •

Soli andlor other shale mlxtul'M 1 ID 5


Vl-22
Estimated CBR, Based on Soil
Classifies tion

Fine Grained Solis, High Compressibility 1 to 4


(PT, 00, CH, MH
Fine Grained Solis, Low Compres.s lblllty 3 to 5
(OL, CL, ML)
Coarse Grained Solis, Sand and Sandy Solis 5 to 7
(SC, SM , SU,SP,S~
Coarse Grained Solis, Gravel and Gravel Solis 5 to 7
(GC, GM, GU, GP, G~

VI-2S

Subgrade Stabilization
• Subgrade CBR Less Than 6
• Chemical Stabilization (Lime or Cement)
- 5 - 6 percent by dry weight

• Mechanical Stabilization
- Blending of Soil Aggr egate MU:tures
- Coarse Grained Soils Only

Analysis of Design Traffic


Traffic Characterization

• Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)


• Kentucky ESAL's Utilized for the Design
Catalog
• Critical Aspect of Pavement Design
• Division of MuJti-Modal Programs Best
Suited to Determine ESAL's for Pavement
Design

Vl-26

Estimation ofESAL's

ESAL's may be estimated from the following equation:


ESAL's ; ADT x T x (ESAL' s/Truck) x DL x 365 x L
where:
ADT ~ Average Daily Traffic at the mid-year of the design life,
with appropriate growth rate apphed
T ~ Percentage of Trucks in the traffic stream,
ESAL' sffruck • Pavement Damage associated with a I)'Jlical
crock in the traffic stream.
DL = Design Life or Design Period in years,
L = Proportion ofTraffic in the design lane.
Vl-27

ESAL Estimation Cont.


General Traffic Stream Knowledge
Light Trucks (delivery trucks, very few heavily
loaded trucks with few overweight vehicles)
ESAL's/Truck - 0.70 to 1.0
Heavy Trucks (trucks hauling aggregates, grain,
steel, coal or concrete with numerous overweight
trucks)
ESAL'sffruck - 4.0 to 10

Vl-28
ESAL Estimation Cont.
Detailed Traffic Knowledge
SI!!IJie Unit Trucks Gross Vehicle Weight ESAL's/Truck
Two Axles 13,000 pounds 0.1 to 0.2
26,000 pounds 1.1 to1.3
40,000 pounds 1.7 to 1.9
Three Axles 42,000 pounds 0.8 to 1.0
46,000 pounds 1.2 to 1.4
50,000 pounds 2.2 to 2.4
90,000 pounds 28.0 to 52.0
Four Axles 66,000 pounds 1.3to1.5
70,000 pounds 2.3 to 2.5
74,000 f:nds 2.7 to 2.9
100,00 pounds 9.0 to 11.0
Automobiles 4000 oounds 0.01 ESAL's/Auto
Vl-29

ESAL Estimation Cont.


Detailed Traffic Knowledge
Semi-Trailer Combination Trucks
Gross Vehicle Weight ESAL's/Truck
Three Axles 48,000 pounds 2.5 to2.7
56,000 pounds 2.8 to 3.0
Four Axles 60,000 pounds 1.7 to 1.9
64,000 pounds 2.2 to 2.4
70,000 pounds 3.0 to 3.2
Five Axles 80,000/:nds 1.9 to 2.1
100,00 pounds 4.8 to 5.2
120,000 pounds 11.0 to 13.0
Six Axles 80,000 /:nds 1.4 to 1.6
100,00 pounds 2.2 to 2.6
120,000 pounds 6.4to8.4

Vl-30

ESAL Estimation Program

• Developed To Estimate ESAL's for


Selection of SUPERPAVE Mix Designs

• Can Be Used with Caution for Estimation


of Pavement Design ESAL's

• Utilizes Division of Multi-Modal


Programs Historical Data
Vl-31
Selection of Structural Design

VII· 32

Design Parameters
• Design Subgrade Strength
- CBR3
- Obtained from Geotechnical Branch
• Design Traffic
- 13,829,000 ESAL's
- 14,900 AADT
- Mainline Pavement
- Obtained From the Division Multi-Modal
Programs
VII· 33
Catalog of Structural Numbers Catalog of PCC Pavement T hick neses

GBR
ESAL'S
1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10,000 3.83 3.31 2.89 2.59 2.32 2.12 1.97 1.83 1.73 1.60 1.50
25,000 4.41 3.86 3.46 3.11 2.84 2.66 2.48 2.33 2.23 2.10 1.97
50,000 4.78 4.26 3.84 3.50 3.24 3.02 2.84 2.69 2.55 2.45 2.33
75,000 5.00 4.49 4.06 3.74 3.47 3.25 3.05 2.91 2.76 2.66 2.53
100,000 5.14 4.64 4.22 3.90 3.63 3.40 3.20 3.05 2.91 2.81 2.68
250,000 5.59 5.13 4.72 4.42 4.13 3.90 3.70 3.54 3.38 3.25 3.12
500,000 5.93 5.51 5.14 4.81 4.55 4.29 4.07 3.90 3.76 3.61 3.47
750,000 6.16 5.74 5.37 5.07 4.78 4.55 4.32 4.12 3.97 3.82 3.69
1,000,000 6.35 5.93 5.57 5.23 4.94 4.71 4.48 4.28 4.12 3.97 3.83
2,000,000 6.81 6.39 6.02 5.67 5.37 5.13 4.87 4.69 4.49 4.33 4.20
3,000,000 7.16 6.71 6.31 5.95 5.64 5.37 5.14 4.92 4.72 4.56 4.42
4,000,000 7.39 6.94 6.52 6.16 5.85 5.57 5.30 5.08 4.91 4.72 4.58
5,000,000 7.60 7.1 1 6.68 6.32 6.00 5.72 5.44 5.23 5.05 4.87 4.72
6,000,000 7.76 7.30 6.85 6.45 6.13 5.82 5.57 5.36 5.15 5.00 4.84
7,000,000 7.95 7.41 6.97 6.58 6.23 5.93 5.67 5.44 5.27 5.08 4.92
8,000,000 8.09 7.57 7.10 6.68 6.32 6.02 5.77 5.56 5.36 5.15 5.01
9,000,000 8.19 7.67 7.18 6.80 6.44 6.10 5.86 5.63 5.43 5.27 5.08
10,000,000 8.32 7.76 7.30 6.87 6.51 6.21 5.93 5.70 5.50 5.34 5.15
11,000,000 8.42 7.88 7.37 6.95 6.58 6.28 6.00 5.77 5.57 5.38 5.23
12,000,000 8.54 7.96 7.46 7.03 6.65 6.32 6.08 5.82 5.63 5.44 5.30
13,000,000 8.62 8.03 7.53 7.10 6.72 6.39 6.13 5.87 5.70 5.51 5.36
14,000,000 8.71 8.12 7.60 7.16 6.78 6.45 6.16 5.95 5.73 5.57 5.43
15,000,000 8.81 8.19 7.67 7.23 6.82 6.51 6.23 6.00 5.79 5.63 5.46
16,000,000 8.90 8.26 7.73 7.26 6.88 6.57 6.29 6.03 5.85 5.66 5.51
17,000,000 8.97 8.32 7.80 7.33 6.94 6.61 6.32 6.09 5.87 5.72 5.57
18,000,000 9.04 8.39 7.83 7.39 6.97 6.67 6.38 6.15 5.93 5.77 5.60
19,000,000 9.11 8.47 7.90 7.44 7.03 6.71 6.44 6.18 5.99 5.80 5.66
20,000,000 9.19 8.52 7.96 7.47 7.08 6.74 6.45 6.22 6.02 5.86 5.70
Structural Cross Section

• Flexible Pavement Select Structural Number


- SN = 7.59

• PCC Pavement Select Pavement Thickness


- PCC Thickness 11"

V11- 35

Flexible Pavement Thickness


Determination
• Select Material Thickness
-Asphalt Surface Course 1.5" (a1 =o.44)
-Asphalt Binder Course (a2 =o.42)
-Asphalt Base Course (a3 =o.40)
- Drainable Base 4"
• Untreated (~b = 0.11 • o.14)
• Asphalt Treated (~b =o.1s. 021 )
-Aggregate Base 4" (ad11• =o.14)

V11- 36
Flexible Pavement Thickness Determination,
Maxim urn Asphalt Design

Layer SN
AC Surface 0.44 x 1.25" 0.55
AC Base 0.40 x ? .? ?.??
Type II DB 0.18 x 4.0" 0.72
DGA 0.14 x 4.0" 0.56
Total 1.83

SN remaining = 7.59- 1.83 =


AC Base = 5. 76/0.40 = 14.40", use 14.5'
VII- 37

Flexible Pavement Thickness Determination,


Maximum Asphalt Design

Final Layer Thicknesses

Luu SN
AC Surface 0.44 x 1.25" 0.55
AC Base 0.40 x 14.5" 5.80
Type n DB 0.18 X 4.0" 0.72
DGA 0.14 x 4.0" 0.56
Total 7.63>7.59
Design OK
Vll-38
Flexible Pavement Material Selection, Maximum
Asphalt Section
Material Type Lift Thickness (in)

Asphalt Concrete Surface 1.25 to 1.5


Asphalt Concrete Binder 1.5 to 2.0
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class I 2.0 to 4.0
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class Cl 3.0 to 4.5
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class CK 3.5 to 5.0
Aggregate Base (DGA or CSB) 4.0 to 6.0
Untreated Drainage Blanket, Type I 4.0 to 6.0
AC Treated Drainage Blanket, Type II 4.0 to 6.0
Chemically Modified Roadbed 8.0 to 12.0

Tmet Desi&n
Surface 1.25"
Base 14.5"
Type IT DB 4.0"
DGA 4.0" VII- 39

PG Binder Selection

• Warrants for Asphalt Binder Selection

• All Mainline Pavements Designed Using


This Guide Will Utilize PG-64-22

• For Severe Rutting and High Pavement


Stresses, Such as Intersections and Truck
Lanes, Increase PG Grade

VII- 40
• PG 64-22
• <5% Trucks or
• < 7,500 ADT or
• < 5,000,000 Design Lane ESALS
• PG 70-22
• 5- 10% Trucks or
• 7,500 - 15,000 ADT or
• 5,000,000- 10,000,000 Design Lane ESALS
• PG 76-22
• > 10% Trucks or
• > 10,000,000 ESALS

VII- 41

Flexible Pavement Final Design,


Maximum Asphalt Design
• AC Surface
- 1.25" (single layer)
• AC Base
- 14.5"
- Class I, (4.0 + 4.0 + 3.5 + 3.0 )
• Drainage Blanket
- 4"
- AC Treated Type IT
• DGA
- 4.0"
• No Intersections,
- AC Binder Grade PG-64-22
VII - 42
Flexible Pavement Thickness Determination,
Maximum Aggregate Design

Surface Courses are Assumed to be 1.25", Dsurtace = 1.25"


Therefore:
DAC = D Surface + D Base = 1.25 + D Base

For a maximum aggregate design, D00A = 2 x DAc


Therefore:
DDGA = 2 X (1.25 + Dease) = 2.5 + 2Daase

Where:
D00A = depth of the DGA
Dease= depth of the AC Base
DAc = total depth of asphalt materials
----------~= ----------------
Vll-43

Flexible Pavement Thickness Determination,


Maximum Aggregate Design
By substituting for the Depth of DGA (DooA =2.5 + 2D 8858 ) ,
the Equation of SN becomes the following :
Sn =a D
5 5 + a8 D8 +a 08 D08 + a00A( 2.5 + 2D8 )

Y.w .stf
AC Surface 0.44 X 1.25" 0.55
AC Base 0.40 X D8 ?.??
Type II DB 0.18 X 4.0" 0.72
DGA 0.14 X ( 2.5 + 2D8 ) ?.??
Total 1.27

=
Remaining SN 7.59- 1.27 6.32, =
Therefore:
6.32 = 0.40 x D8 + [0.14 X (2.5 + 2D 8 )],
Solving for D8 gives 8.8, use 9.0
Therefore:
D VII- 44
Flexible Pavement Thickness Determination,
Maximum Aggregate Design

Final Layer Thickness

Layer SN
AC Surface 0.44 x 1.25" 0.55
AC Base 0.40 x 9.0" 3.60
Type II DB 0.18 x 4.0" 0.72
DGA 0.14 x 20.5 2.87
Total 7.74 > 7.59
Design OK

V11- 45

Flexible Pavement Material Selection, Maximum


Aggregate Section
Material Type Lift Thickness (in)

Asphalt Concrete Surface 1.25 to 1.5


Asphalt Concrete Binder 1.5 to 2.0
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class I 2.0 to 4.0
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class CI 3.0 to 4.5
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class CK 4.0 to 6.0
Aggregate Base (DGA or CSB) 4.0 to 6.0
Untreated Drainage Blanket, Type I 4.0 to 6.0
AC Treated Drainage Blanket, Type ll 4.0 to 6.0
Chemically Modified Roadbed 8.0 to 12.0

Target Design
Surface 1.25"
Base 9.0
Type U DB 4.0"
DGA 20.5'' VII· 46
Flexible Pavement, Final Design,
Maximum Aggregate Design
• AC Surface
- 1.25" (single layer)
• AC Base
- 9.0"
- Class I, (3 + 3 + 3)
• Drainage Blanket
- 4"
- AC Treated Type II
• DGA
- 20.5" ( 5 + 5 + 5 + 5.5)
• Non Intersections,
- AC Binder Grade PG-64-22
VII· 47

Rigid Pavement, Material Selection

• PCC Pavement
-11.0"
• Drainage Blanket
- 4.0"
- AC Treated, Type II
• DGA
- 4.0"
VII· 48
;

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

VII- 49

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

• Maximum AC Design • PCC Pavement Design


- AC -- 16.25" - PCC - 11.0"
- DB-- 4.0" - DB-- 4.0"
- DGA -- 4.0" - DGA -- 4.0"
• Maximum Aggregate Design
- AC -- 10.25"
- DB = 4.0"•
- DGA = 20.5"

VII- 50
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Parameters

• Analysis Period 40 years


• Standard Rehabilitation Alternatives
- AC Pavements
• Year 10, Mill1.5", 1.5" Overlay
• Year 20, Mill1.5", 3.5" Overlay
• Year 30, Mill 1.5", 1.5" Overlay
- PCC Pavements
• Year 15, Clean and Reseal Joints
• Year 30, Clean and Reseal Joints

VII- 51

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Parameters, Cont.

• User Cost
- less than 5,000,000 ESAL's No User, Cost Initial Cost
- 5,000,000-10,000,000 ESAL's $1,000/day
- 10,000,001- 15,000,000 ESAL's $2,000/day
- 15,000,001 - 20,000,000 ESAL's $3,000/day

• Length of Construction
- Initial Construction -- 120 days
- Rehabilitations - 30 days

• Material Costs -- Average Unit Bid

• Pavement Salvaged Value Determined as the Cost of Paveme


terms ofDGA

• Discount Rates of 2 - 10 Percent


VII - 52
Material Parameters

• AC Surface, AK/S • Drainage Blanket


- Unit Weight= 110 lbs/sy/in - Unit Weight= 100 lbs/sy/in
- Unit Bid Price= 37.80 $/ton - Type II- 27.44 $/ton
• AC Base, CI - Type I- 16.00 $/ton
- Unit Weight= 110 lbs/sy/in • DGA
- Unit Bid Price= 33.50 $/ton - Unit Weight= 115 lbs/sy/in
.
• AC Base, CK - Unit Bid Price= 13.60 $/ton
- Unit Weight= 110 lbs/sy/in • PCC Pavement
- Unit Bid Price= 33.36 $/ton - 8" -- 29.8 $/sy
• AC Base, I - 9"-- 29 $/sy
- Unit Weight= 110 lbs/sy/in - 10" -- 27.87 $/sy
- Unit Bid Price= 31.01 $/ton - 11" -- 38.10 $/sy
- 12" -- 40.04 $/sy
- 13" - 39.48 $/sy
Life Cycle Cost Comparison
DiSCOlJlt AlE
Maximum As halt Desi n 0 2 4 6 8 10
YEAR COST P/F PW P/F PW P/F PW P/F PW P/F P/F
0 PW OF CONSlRUCllON 1,738,263 1.00 1,7J8,263 1.00 1,7J8,263 1.00 1,7J8,263l 1.00 1,7J8,263 1.00 1.00
10 PW OF REHABIUTAllON 11 297,719 1.00 297,719 0.82 244,234 0.68 201,128 0.56 100,245 0.46 0.99
20 PWOF REHABIUTAllON 12 1.00 418,953 0.67 281,943 0.46 1l>,632 0.21
~ PW OF REHABIUTAllON IS 1.00 0.31 0.10

Discount Rate
n 0 2 4 6 8 10
YEAR COST P/F PW P/F PW P/F P/F PW P/F PIF
0 PWOF CONS1RUC1TON 1,917,652 1.00 1,917,652 1.00 1,917,652 1.00 too 1.917,6521 1.00 1.00
10 PW OF REHABIUTAllON #1 297,719 1.00 297,719 0.82 244,234 0.68 0.56 1~245 0.46 0.39
20 PW OF REHABIUTAllO~ 12 418,953 1.00 418,953 0.67 281,943 0.46 0.31 1ll,6S2 0.21
l) PW OF REHABIUTAllON f3 297,719 1.00 297,719 0.55 164,362 0.31 0.17 51,836 0.10
(1,1,M,22Z) (1, 100,222) 0 (534,511) 0 (114,744)
1,751, 1,751,82

DisC<UltRae
0 2 4 6 8 10
YEAR P/F P/F PW P/F PW P/F PW P/F P/F
0 PW OF CONSlRUCllON 1.00 1.00 1 .~.555 1.00 1.~.555 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 PW OF REHAB IUTAllON 1#1 1.00 240,AOO 0.68 197,978 0.56 0.46 0.!1
~ PW OF REHABIUTAllON 12 1.00 197,218 0.46 1~747 0.31
40 PW OF SALVAGE (2341746) 0 (107,962) 0
ost 2,188,4
'
9) 18
Spreadsheet Procedures
• Selection of Structural Number and PCC
Thickness
• Determination of Initial Cost and Life
Cycle Cost

VII- 55

Pavement Design Catalogs


. Deslgo Mem2 1Q·9Z . New Design Catalog . lolecsl~le Qesigo
- < 5,000,000 - <20,000 ESALS CataiQg
ESALS - < 20% Trucks - 20,000,000 •
- CBR1 ·1 1 - <15,000 ADT 100,000,000
- CBR 1 • 11 ESALS
- < 1 km in Length - Non NHS
- Life Cycle Cost - CBR 2 ·11
- No Length Restrictions
Analysis - Life Cycle Cost Analysis - Life Cycle Cost
• Initial Cost - Simplified Analysis
Only Spreadsheet • Refined
- Users • Mean Unit Costs Spreadsheet
• Fixed User Delay • Range of Unit
• Design
Consultants - Users Costs
• Design Consultants • Deterministic
• District • District User Delay
- Users
• Central Office
Staff

VII- 56
Pavement Design Workshop

Kentuck} Transportation Cabmet


Division ofHig.hwa~ Design

Design Catalog 1999


• OfF The Nauonal H1ghwa~ System
• < 20.000,000 ESAL·s
• < 15.000 ADT
• < 20% Trucks
• No Length Rcstncllon

m .

Design Submittal PTocedures


"' .
- . <5,000,000 ESAL's & :S1 mile <
• Does Not Need to be Approved by Central
Office Design Staff*
• Signatures Needed only by Designer (P.E.)
and Project Manager
• Designers \\ill submit designs to C 0
Pa, ·ement Staff for archi\'al and distribution
purposes

<5,000,000 ESAL's & <1 mile


• *Designs Wll.L BE Re\'iewed and
Approved for Pavement Type Selection
Justification
• C.O. Staff,\ill be allowed 10 working days
to review type selection. after \\·hich. if no
comments are made, design \\ill be
presumed appro\'ed

>5,000,000 ESAL 's or > 1 mile


• Designs W ILL BE Submined to Central
Office Pavement Design for Approval
• Signatures Needed by Designer (P.E.),
Project Manager, and T.E.B.M for
Pavement Design
Approval Process '"'

• Intended to \'erif\ tmplementallon of


process and JUSllficatton for paYement t\ pe
selection (Asphalt/PCC)
• lmtially I00% of Dcstgns \\ill be approYed
• Graduall~ the review and approval will be
reduced to some lesser level of re,·ic''

Distribution Responsibilities
• Project Manager ~5.000.000 ESAL ·sand
~I mile
• C 0 . Destgn Stan· >5.000.000 FSAl s or
>I mJie

Project Mgr Distribution List


• C 0. Pavement Dcstgn
• Location Engmecr
• Plan Processmg
• Consultant (If Necessary)

. -.
C.O. Staff Distribution List
• Location Engmcer
• Project Manager
• Plan Processmg
• Consultant (lfNeccssarv)

Pavement Design Folder


• Required For All Pa,·ement Destgns
• Should Include Two(2) Copies of the
Pavement Destgn.

Pavement Folder Contents 1\Zl


• Design Executtve Summary
• Pavement Destgn Schedule
• Design Calculattons
• Type Selection Justificatton
• GeotechrUcallnfonnatton
• Traffic lnformatton
Pavement Folder Contents (cont) ~
• Typtcal Sections and Details
• Companson of Altemauves Iruual and Ltfc
Cycle Cost
• Spcctal Notes and Provtsions
• Other Documentation

Pavement Folder Cover Sheet

Revised TD 61-29E
• Pavement Destgn <20.000,000 ESAL's &
Off the NatiOnal Htghway System
• Re' tsed Stgnature Block .
KENTUCKY
. ................ ... .
......... ....
TRANSPORT AT ION CABINET
!PAVEMENT DESIGN FOLDER I
.!

.. ' .. ... .. ...... ·f


County Item No. 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : :' UPN
------~----~------
..........................................................f....................... f........ " ......................................................~ ......................................................,......................... ,... ......................................................................._..........................1,
Road ~ Route---------:
·s·ia·~ 'io. .sia. ~. . . . . . . .t ..................... ··1............. ·
: :
............ "iVi"P . to . . iV1 P .... t.....................,. . .....to. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~

~----~------------~------ .......... ·····


~·l?es'i'~i~:~~···$Y.:·:····.!""_
!- "'"_
""_
"'''_
"" _
""!-
!""_
"'"_
""_
""'_
"" _"_
"" __
....._
....,_....._...._
....._
.... _. . ............................
. . .;, Pr.oie·~_i . . .L.e·n-9ft1. . . . . . . . . . .;. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .:::·~:u~:~:.,:··:::::·:~~::::·. .,::::~
·:Type
...................A.Selection
c. . . . . . o . . . . . .1".................... ~ ESAL's
·-r~s-:tJ'oo-:-t)o o o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Desi_9..~ .~s~~~s........ ..,___.,._________----!·...........................
PCC .... ti""'"'"[""' .... .. . r;s,ooo,ooo 0 i_; ... ..... - I . . . ~.-. . . . . . . . . _,i'" ..... _..........~
:Doc.uivfE.NT'Af . l·cii\i.... .!......... ... . .. ......... ·,····· ... ·..·.... ·.-....... f,_ . . . . . . . . . .. ..... . ...... ... . .. ................ . . . . ..... ......... .... .. . .. . --- ~ ~-=:::::~.;
........

;.... ... ..... ... ...................... ·r , ....... ....... T. ....... ...... .. ... . . ......... ... t·· .... ......... .. ·~·

:. . . . .o. . . . . . . . .'D·~-~-i9·~. ·E:~;~~ii~~ . s·~-~~~ ·:,y..................i. · · . .o . . . . .;. T.y.p·i~-~-i. s·e·~·ii~~·~. ~-~·d- . O'~b·i·i~................. . .........1
:. . . . .0 .............P·a·v·a·r:n-e·ni.D'e.s'i'g.n. schedule ..... · .. ·o ·. .l comp.ariso.n (;I :Aitern.a tives................
r1. . . .o0 . . . . . . . . .Special. Notes and aii(;".. .......................................
. Provisions ;
fy:r;·~ s·~·i·~~~ic;·~ 'J·~-~-iir.·~
1 0
,.......b . ..........Initial
ijf'8.. Cost l
. . T......................... ~~=-----•
,,.. ·,.. ,,. ,·.: .. C'ycie"c·0-~t· :M <:.·~-=··"~

,. . . . .P.................~.~-~-~-~-~. ~.~~-~.l...!.~.f.~. ~~-~.~~-~ ~.....................................Q...........J..9..~~-~-~..P..~.~.~-~-~-~-~-~~~.~........... .i..........................,................................................................;..........................,


· 0 Traffic Information ~ List: 1 1 ~ 1
. . ~ -~ t . ~
; , , , , , , , , •• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ooooooooo~o o oooooooooooooo••o•ooooooo ~,._, •••• oooo••oooooo ••••••·••••••• •••• oo • ooooooouo•oo'ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo <• •••••••••••••••·•• '*'''''''''':'''''''''''''''''' •••••= •••••••••••••••••••••••••••:••••••••••• •••••••••••••••L ••••• ••••••••••••••••••• ••••••ooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooolooooooooooouoooooooo-.ooo~

·SUBMITTED:
)•''' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " " '' ' ' ' ' '
I . , : P .E .
: . ''
00
'
0
'" ''
0000 0000
'' "'''''''''''''''
:
•>••••••••••••••••••••••••••!
~ Date: 0
'' ''''''"'''''''''
, j
~'''"'''''''''"'''''''''';
i
·APPROVED: j Project Manager . jDate: .....,:
~----~------------------~

iAPPROVED: C.O. Highway Design ~ Date:


~----~------------------~
Important Contacts

Yfultimodal Programs
• Contact for mformallon and quest1ons
regarding ESAL."s
• Contact Rob Bostrom
• (502) 56-t-7686

Djvision of Materials
• Contact for l.Jlformauon and questions
regardmg asphalt
• Contact Allen Mcvcrs
• (502) 564-3 160
~ Geotechnical Branch
• Contact for information and questtons
regardmg subgrade and soil stab1hzatton
• Contact Bill Bro~ les
• (502) 56-1-2374

New Pavement Design Memo


• Should go m to effect rn Jul~ 1999
• W1ll replace Des1gn Memo I 0-97
• All Des1gns should be submmed dtrectl~ to
the Central Office PaYement Design Branch
StafT
PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE

For Projects
Off The National Highway System
less than 20,000,000 ESAL'S,
less than 15,000 ADT,
and less than 20°/o Trucks

DIVISION OF HIGHWAY DESIGN


PAVEMENTS BRANCH

April1999
Table of Contents
Background and Scope ............................................................. .................... ............................ 3

Subgrade Strength .................................................................................................................... 4

Subgrade Stabilization ............................................................................................................ .. 7

Equivalent Single Axle Loads ................................................................................................... 9

Historical Data for Forecasting Eq uivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL,s) ............................ 10

Catalog of Structural Designs ................................................................................................. 13

Pavement Des ign Computations ............................................................................................. 16

Shoulder Design ................................................................................................................... 17


Pavement Drainage ................................................................................... ........................... 17
Development of Alternate Pavement Designs ..................................................................... 17
Comparison of Alternate Pavement Designs ...................................................................... 18
Selection of the Best Pavement Design ................................................................................ 18
Life Cycle Cost Analysis ...................................................................................................... 19

Submittals and Approvals ............... .. .................................... ............................. .... .. .............. 20


!Pavement Design Guide April 1. 1999 3
Background and Scope

This guide is intended to be used for new construction projects only. This guide provides a
methodology for the structural design of pavements for projects off the National Highway
System, less than 20,000,000 ESAL's, less than 15,000 ADT, and less than 20% trucks. The
methodology as presented has roots in both the AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement
Structures and also the Kentucky mechanistic-empirical pavement design systems which are
used for structural design of pavements in Kentucky.

The procedure as presented uses an AASHTO structural number concept to define structural
requirements of the pavement section. However, the minimum required structural number has
been determined on the basis of the Kentucky mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedure.
The structural capacity of the subgrade soil has been defined in terms of a California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) determined by the current Kentucky Method (Note: The Kentucky Method for
CBR Tests is different from the AASHTO and ASTM Methods for CBR Tests). The fatigue
requirements of the pavement structure used in this guide are based on Equivalent 18,000 lb Axle
Loads (ESAL's) as determined using load equivalency factors developed for the Kentucky
mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedure. (Note· Kentucky load equivalency factors
are different from AASHTO load equivalency factors)

The intent of this "guide" is to provide the roadway designer with a simplified, straightforward
methodology for developing the structural design for pavements off the National Highway
System, less than 20,000,000 ESAL's, less than 15,000 ADT, and less than 20% trucks. Thjs
guide is intended to be self-sufficient with the exception of (1) forecasts for ESAL's, (2)
recommended design CBR, (3) special notes and special provisions not included in the Standard
Specifications or Standard Drawings, and (4) pavement policy guidelines which may be subject
to periodic modifications such as guidelines for surface type selection. This guide includes a
discussion relating to ESAL' s and the prediction of ESAL's. Also included is a discussion
relating Kentucky CBR with typical soil types and provides general guidelines for estimating a
design CBR. A listing of Special Notes and Special Provisions most typicall y used in pavement
design is included in an Appendix of this guide. Applicable policy documents are included in an
Appendix.

Also included are discussions defining the responsibilities of the roadway designer for
documentation of pavement design computations and related submittals. The guide also includes
discussions regarding the role of the Pavements Branch, Division of llighway Design for
providing assistance in the implementation of this guide.
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 4

Subgrade Strength

The material property used to characterize the roadbed .soil for pavement design in this guide is
the Kentucky CBR. Details for testing for the Kentucky CBR are presented in the current
Edition of the Kentucky Methods (KM 64-501). Generally, the California B earing Ratio (CBR)
was originally developed by the California Division of Highways for evaluation of subgrade
quality. The test has been refined, modified, and adapted by others and today is the most
common test conducted on soils to define the structural qual ity of subgrade soils for pavement
design.

Briefly, the test consists of (1) compacting a subgrade sample at optimum moisture content, (2)
applying a surcharge to the sample to represent the thickness of pavement over the subgrades, (3)
soaking the sample to simulate a saturated subgrade condition, and (4) forcing a three square
inch plunger into the sample. The amount of force required to obtain a penetration of 0.1 inch is
expressed as a percentage of the standard load for crushed road base material 1000 lb to
determine the CBR value. The variations in procedures for conducting the CBR test primarily
relate to the application of the surcharge and the duration of soaking the sample.

Subgrades typically are constructed of soils from roadway excavation or borrow. However,
subgrades also may be composed of rock. Rock subgrades may exclude shale, include shale with
other rock types, or be constructed entirely of shale. A Rock roadbed is utilized for the top two
feet of the roadway when sufficient quantities of suitable rock are available from roadway
excavation.

Typicall y, CBR tests and soil classification tests will be performed by the Division of Materials,
Geotechnical Branch. If the design CBR is determined by the Division of Materials, CBR and
soil classification tests will be performed on bag samples of soil obtained from roadway cut
sections. A similar set of tests will be performed for CBR and classifications from fill sections
whenever the project is expected to be in a borrow situation. Typically, the design CBR for soil
subgrades will be recommended as the lowest value from laboratory tests (unless there is an
isolated value). For larger projects with twenty or more CBR tests, the design CBR will be
selected statistically as the 90 th percentile value. Higher design CBR' s may be recommended
for projects involving rock roadbed or bank gravel.

Shales are cemented or non-cemented sedimentary deposits of various chemical composition in


which the constituent particles are 0.75 mm in diameter and includes siltstone, claystone, and
mudstone. Shales are classified according to Slake Durability Index (SDI) results. Sedimentary
shale deposits are frequently interbedded with thin sections of carbonates or arenaceous (sandy)
partings which can produce distorted SDI values. Jar slake tests typically are performed to
provide additional information about rock disintegration to compare with SDI results.
!Pavement Design Guide Apri l 1, 1999 5
The tables below illustrate typical ranges of Estimated CBR values for a range of material types.

MATERIAL ESTIMATED CBR

Rock (limestone, durable sand stone, 7 to 11


durable shale, nondurable sandstone)

Rock (nondurable shale) 2 to 5

Bank Gravel 6 to 9

Soil and/or other shale mixtures 1 to 5

The results of slaking tests are used to classify shales as " durable" or "nondurable. Nondurable
shales are subdivided into classes for design purposes only. Classifi cation of shales and typical
correlations with Jar Slake Test results are listed in the table below.

SHALE RANGE OF SLAKE SLAKING


CLASSIFICATION DURABILITY CATEGORY

Durable Shale ~ 95 6

Nondurable Shales

Class I 80 to 94 4 or 5
Class II 50 to 79 3 or 4
Class ill ~ 49 1 or 2
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 6
The design CBR also may be estimated on the basis of soil classifications. The following table
may be used to estimate design CBR.

DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED CBR

FrNE GRAINED SOILS

High Compressibility
(Liquid Limit Greater Than 50)

PeaL Organic Soils (PT)


Fat Organic Clays (OH) I to2
Fat Clavs (CH) 2 to4
Micace~us Clays (MH) 2 to4

Low Compressibility
(Liquid Limit Less Than 50)

Organic Silts or Lean


Organic Clays (OL) 3 to 5
Lean Clays. Sand)
Clays. or Gravely
Clays (CL) 3 to 5
Silts. Sand~ Silts.
Gravell} Silts (ML) 3 to 5

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

Sand and Sand) Soils

Clayey Sand. Claye)


Gravelly Sand (SC) 5 to 7
Silry Sand. SilT)
Gravelly Sand (SM) 5 to 7
Sand or Gravell)
Sand (uniformly
graded) (SU) 5 to 7
Sand or Gravelly
Sand (poorly
graded) (SP) 5 to 7
Sand or Gravelly
Sand (well
graded) (SW) 5 to 7

Gravel and Gravelly Soils

Clayey Gravel or
clayey sandy gra,ei(GC) 5 to7
SilT) Gravel or
silT) sand:. gravel (GM) 5 to 7
Gravel or Sandy
Gravel (uniformly
graded) (GU) 5 to 7
Gra,·el or Sandy
Gravel {poorly
graded) (GP) 5 to 7
Gravel or Sandy
Gravel (well
graded) (GW) 5 to 7
!Pavement Design Guide Apri l 1, 1999 7
Subgrade Stabilization

The majority of pavements constructed in Kentucky are constructed on fine grained soils.
Approximately 85 percent of the soils consist of clay and silt. When first compacted, these fine
grained soils usually have sizeable bearing strength. If pavements are constructed immediately
after compaction of fine grained soils, then major problems typically will not be encountered
when placing and compacting layers of paving materials. Problems arise however, when surface
and subsurface water penetrates compacted fine grained soils. Water from rainfall, snow melt,
and groundwater seepage enters the fine grained soil subgrades, causing swelling, and producing
a loss of bearing capacity in the subgrade. The most susceptible, adverse period occurs when a
fine grained soil subgrade has been exposed to the wetting conditions of winter and early spring.
During periods before paving, rutting may develop in the softened subgrade. This may slow or
even halt construction traffic. This also may impede compaction of the lifts of the pavement
structure, resulting in a weaker pavement structure than initially designed . Therefore, the
weakened subgrade not only slows construction but also limits the long-term life of the pavement
structure.

Recent experience in Kentucky has demonstrated the benefits of stabilized subgrades for
providing a stable platform for placement of pavement layers and also for extending the life of
the pavement structure Methods for stabilization may be characterized into two broad
categories· mechanical stabilization and chemical stabilization.

Methods for mechanical stabilization of subgrade soils include the following approaches.

a. controlling subgrade density-moisture,


b. undercutting poor materials and backfilling with granular materials,
c. proof rolling and re-rolling of the subgrade,
d. using granular layers, and
e. using granular layers reinforced with geofabrics.

The above techniques for mechanical stabilization of subgrade soils have been used in Kentucky
to varying degrees. Laboratory studies of blending stone aggregate into soil subgrades have
shown that mixing stone aggregate with subgrade soils of minimum clay content is effective in
improving the bearing capacity of the subgrade soil. Conversely, if the percent finer than 0.002
mm-particle size is greater than 15 percent, there is a reduction in bearing strength. Therefore,
mechanical stabilization by adding stone aggregate to the soil may be ineffective in soils with a
high clay content. The use of geofabrics, such as geogrids, also have been used in Kentucky
These have been demonstrated to improve the bearing capacity of granular bases and granular or
coarse grained subgrade soils. However. the use of geogrids with fine grained soils having high
clay contents should be approached with greater caution.

Chemical stabilization of subgrade soils were used sparingly in Kentucky prior to the mid
1980' s. Stabilization prior to the mid 1980's was with portland cement. Since then, there has
been much greater emphasis on the use of the chemical stabilization of subgrades.
Commercially available stabilizers have included hydrated lime and cement. Both have been
demonstrated as effectively stabilizing subgrade soils as stable paving platforms and are believed
to contribute to extending the fatigue life of pavement structures. Portland cement has been
!Pavement Design Guide Apri l 1, 1999 8
demonstrated to be more effective at stabilizing more granular, coarse grained subgrades.
Hydrated lime has been demonstrated to be more effective at stabilizing fine grained soils with
high clay content. Other by-product materials such as lime or cement kiln dust have been used
experimentally for soil stabilization.

Typically, all subgrade soils having a CBR 6 or less are recommended for stabilization. The
stabilized subgrade soil layer typically is treated as both an improved subgrade layer serving as a
stable paving platform as well as a structural layer for extending the life of the pavement
structure. Typically, blending about 5-6 % of hydrated lime or portland cement by dry weight
with the subgrade soil will result in a stable paving platform and structurally significant layer of
the pavement system.

Analyses of chemically stabilized subgrade soils have indicated very high strengths of the
stabilized layers (much greater than a CBR 7). However, the long-term strength gain
characteristics still are not completely defined As such, structural credit for these layers in
excess of a CBR 7 are not currently recommended The layer coefficients associated with these
structural parameters to be used in this design guide will be defined elsewhere in this document

Analyses of mechanically modified subgrades have indicated varying strengths of stabilized


layers dependent upon the characteristics of the soil being modified. Blending aggregate with
coarse grained granular soils may increase the strengths of the stabilized layers to strengths
similar to that of aggregate bases. However, blending aggregate with fine grained soils with high
clay contents may do nothing to increase the bearing capacity of the soil or at best will be
minimally effective. The layer coefficients associated with mechanically modified subgrade
soils will be defined elsewhere in this guide
!Pavement Design Guide April I , 1999 9
Equivalent Single Axle Loads

Traffic information is required by the pavement designer to associate the damaging effects of the
applications of an axle of any load applied to the pavement. The term equivalent single axle load
is used in pavement design methodologies to describe the relative amount of damage done to the
pavement. The most common expression of pavement damage is the 18,000-pound equivalent
single axle load. Load equivalency factors {pavement damage factors) are used to describe the
relative amount of damage for a specific axle loading and axle configuration in terms of the
amount of damage done to the pavement by some number of equivalent 18,000-pound axle
loads. As an illustration, one application of a 12,000-pound single axle load would be expected
to do an amount of damage to the pavement equivalent to 0.2 applications of one 18,000-pound
single axle load. Stated another way, five applications of a 12,000-pound single axle load will
do the same amount of damage to the pavement as one application of an 18,000-pound single
axle load. It should be noted that relationships between load equivalency factors (pavement
damage factors) and load is not a linear relationship.

Load equivalency factors are calibrated to specific pavement design procedures. For example,
the load equivalency factors for the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures are
different from the load equivalency factors used with the Kentucky Mechanistic-Empirical
Pavement D esign Procedure which are different from the load equivalency factors used with the
Asphalt Institute Thickness Design Asphalt Pavements For Highways & Streets (MS-1). Also,
load equivalency factors used for the design of flexible pavements (asphalt concrete) are
different from the load equivalency factors used for rigid pavements (portland cement concrete)
for some pavement design procedures. For example, the load equivalency factors for the
AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures include separate load equivalency factors
for flexible pavements and for rigid pavements. Conversely, the mechanistic-empirical
pavement design procedures developed in Kentucky have been calibrated on the basis of load
equivalency factors used for flexible pavements.

Equivalent 18,000 pound Single Axle Loads (ESAL' s) for pavement design purposes typically
will be provided by the Division of Planning. However, the following discussion is provided as
a general description of the parameters associated with the determination of ESAL' s for
pavement design purposes. There are various approaches which can be used to convert a mixed
stream of different classifications of vehicles, different axle loads, and different axle
configurations into an equivalent number of 18,000-pound single axle loads (ESAL' s) and to
sum these over the design period.

There are four key considerations which influence the accuracy of traffic estimates and which
can significantly influence the life cycle of a pavement. These are:

1. The correctness of the load equivalency values used to estimate the relative
damage induced by axle loads of different mass and configurations;

2. The accuracy of traffic volume and weight information used to represent the
actual loading projections;

3. The prediction ofESAL' s over the design period; and


!DRAFT Pavement Design Guide March 19, 1999 10

4. The interactions of age and traffic as it relates to the functional and structural
deterioration of the pavement and related changes in pavement serviceability.

Historical Data for ForecastingEquivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL's)


Forecasting of ESAL' s is perhaps the most critical aspect of pavement design since it involves
forecasting not only the growth in traffic volumes for a particular route but also forecasting the
change in the characteristics of vehicles in the traffic stream. For example, during the past
twenty years, there has been significant growth in traffic volumes and proportions of trucks in
the traffic stream for most major routes. At the same time, the sizes and weights of trucks in the
traffi c stream have also increased. As a resu lt, many pavements have deteriorated more rapidly
than expected because the combination of increased traffic volumes, growth in proportions of
trucks, and increases in sizes and weights of trucks. The Division of Transportation Planning
maintains historical files of this information and is best suited to apply this information fo r
foreca sting of ESAL's for pavement design purposes. Thus for purposes of this Guide, it is
assumed that ESAL's will be provided.

A procedure has been developed for the forecasting of ESAL's for selection of
SUP E RP AVE mix d esig n criteria has been developed by the Kentucky Transportation
Center a nd is outlined in Research Report KTC-99-1, " Development of ESAL Forecasting
Procedures for SUPERPAVE Pavement Design" . This procedure has been developed
utilizing M icrosoft ACCESS and historical data obtained from the Division of
Transportation Planning, it provides a means to estimate ESAL's from known historica l
data or information provided by the user. Th is procedure should be used with caution, in
that its original intent was the estimation of E SAL's for SUPERPA VE mix design and not
(or pavement structural design.

There may be those occasional circumstances when ESAL's are not provided by the Division of
Planning. For those limited conditions, the following discussion is provided to allow the
designer to estimate ESAL's for purposes of pavement design :

ESAL ' s may be estimated from the following equation:

ESAL ' s = ADT x T x (ESAL' s per Truck) x DL x 365 x L

where: ADT is the average daily traffic at the mid-year of the design life,

T is the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream,

ESAL ' s per Truck is the amount of pavement damage associated with one
application of a typical truck in the traffic stream,

DL is the design life or design period in years, and

L is the proportion of the traffic in the design lane


!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 11

The Division of Transportation Planning maintains historical records of ESAL's per truck. As
the size and weights and styles of trucks change, so do the typical ESAL's per truck. Following
are some general guidelines for ESAL's per truck which may be used for estimating ESAL's in
the absence of more definitive information from the Division of P lanning.

If the Pavement Designer has only General Knowledge of the Traffic Stream

Trucks are predominately Light Trucks (delivery trucks, very few heavily loaded trucks with few
overweight vehicles)

ESAL's per Truck---- 0.70 to 1.0 ESAL's per Truck

Trucks are predominately Heavy Trucks (trucks hauling aggregates, grain, steel, coal, or concrete
with a significant number of overweight vehicles)

ESAL' s per Truck---- 4 .0 to 10 ESAL's per Truck

If the Pavement Designer has more detailed knowledge of the Traffic Stream

An Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) is the measure of the amount of damage done to the
pavement by one application of a single axle load (four tires) weighing 18,000 pounds. Thus, the
ESAL ' s per truck varies dependent upon the number of axles per truck and the specific loadings
on each axle or axle group. Following are typical ranges for ESAL's per truck based on
assumed gross vehicle weights (GVW) and assumed distributions of loadings to the various
axles or axle groups.

Single Unit Trucks

Gross Vehicle Weight E SAL' s per Truck

Two Axles: 13,000 pounds 0.1 to 0.2


26,000 pounds 1.1tol.3
40,000 pounds 1. 7 to 1.9

Three Axles: 42,000 pounds 0.8 to 1.0


46,000 pounds 1.2 to 1.4
50,000 pounds 2 .2 to 2.4
90,000 pounds 28.0 to 52.0

Four Axles: 66,000 pounds 1.3 to 1.5


70,000 pounds 2.3 to 2.5
74,000 pounds 2.7 to 2.9
100,000 pounds 9.0 to 11.0
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 12
Semi-Trailer Combination Trucks

Gross Vehicle Weight ESAL's per Truck

Three Axles: 48,000 pounds 2.5 to 2.7


56,000 pounds 2.8 to 3.0

Four Axles: 60,000 pounds 1. 7 to 1.9


64,000 pounds 2.2 to 2.4
70,000 pounds 3.0 to 3.2

Five Axles: 80,000 pounds 1.9 to 2.1


100,000 pounds 4.8 to 5.2
120,000 pounds 11.0 to 13.0

Six Axles: 80,000 pounds 1.4 to 1.6


100,000 pounds 2.2 to 2.6
120,000 pounds 6.4 to 8.4

Automobiles

Gross Vehicle Weight ESAL ' s per Auto

4,000 pounds 0.01


!Pavement Design Guide Apri l 1, 1999 13
Catalog of Structural Designs

The following CATALOGS OF STRUCTURAL DESlGNS will be used to define the structural
requirements for a given pavement section based on the CBR for the subgrade soil/rock and the
forecast ESAL's for the design life. The Kentucky procedure for flexible pavement design is
based on layer elastic principles. The required pavement structure layer thicknesses are
determined on the basis of critical strains at the bottom of the asphaltic concrete layer and top of
the subgrade layer. The results of these analyses have been summarized in the form of graphical
illustrations for various percentages of asphalt in the total pavement structure (33% Asphalt, 50%
Asphalt, 75% Asphalt, and 100% Asphalt). There also have been computerized solutions for
these analyses. However, these analyses still require the designer to apply judgement and
experience in the selection of the appropriate percentage of asphalt concrete in the pavement
structure. For example, what conditions are more appropriate for a 33% Asphalt design as
compared with a 75% Asphalt design . AJso, the mechanistic concepts used in the development
of the Kentucky system are such that substitution ratios for materials varies from one percent
asphalt design to another percent asphalt design. Thus, proper adjustment to a percent asphalt
design not already evaluated requires a detailed elastic layer analysis. Detailed elastic layer
pavement analyses are not practical for projects such as those covered by this guide.

The AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993 Edition and earlier editions) is an
empirical pavement design procedure. The AASHTO procedure is based on structural layer
coefticients which define the structural capacity of the various layers in the pavement structure.
The summation of the various layer coefficients multiplied by the thickness of each layer results
in a Structural Number (SN) which is an index value defining the structural integrity of the
pavement structure. This concept is much less theoretically sophisticated than
mechanistic-empirical procedures such as those developed by the Asphalt Institute or the
Kentucky procedure. However, the structural number concept is easily used.

The CATALOG OF STRUCTURAL NillvfBERS is founded on the Kentucky procedures for


design of asphalt pavements. The required pavement structures derived from the Kentucky
procedures have been converted to equivalent structural numbers. These structural numbers are
the required structural numbers for each specific combination of CBR and ESAL's as derived
from the analyses using the Kentucky procedures. The catalog of structural numbers for flexible
pavements is given in Table 1.

The CATALOG OF PCC STRUCTURAL DESIGNS has also been developed based on the
AASHTO and Kentucky procedures, thicknesses of portland cement concrete pavement (PCC)
for selected levels ofESAL's and CBR' s wherein the use ofPCC pavement has been historically
and economically feasible are included in Table 2.
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 14

T abl e 1 CataIog ofFI ex1"bl e Pavement structura INurnbers


ESAL'S CBR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10,000 3.83 3.31 2.89 2.59 2.32 2.12 1.97 1.83 1.73 1.60 1.50
25,000 4.41 3.86 3.46 3.11 2.84 2.66 2.48 2.33 2.23 2.10 1.97
50,000 4.78 4.26 3.84 3.50 3.24 3.02 2.84 2.69 2.55 2.45 2 .33
75,000 5.00 4.49 4.06 3.74 3.47 3.25 3.05 2.91 2.76 2.66 2.53
100,000 5.14 4.64 4.22 3.90 3.63 3.40 3.20 3.05 2.91 2.81 2.68
250,000 5.59 5.13 4.72 4.42 4.13 3.90 3.70 3.54 3.38 3.25 3.12
500,000 5.93 5.51 5.14 4.81 4.55 4.29 4.07 3.90 3.76 3.61 3.47
750,000 6.16 5.74 5.37 5.07 4.78 4.55 4.32 4.12 3.97 3.82 3.69
1,000,000 6.35 5.93 5.57 5.23 4.94 4.71 4.48 4.28 4.12 3 .97 1 3.83
2,000,000 6.81 6.39 6.02 5.67 5.37 5.13 4.87 4.69 4.49 4.33 4.20
3,000,0001 7.16 6.71 6.31 5.95 5.64 1 5.37 5.14 4.92 4.72 4.56 1 4.42
4,000,000 7.39 6.94 6.52 6.16 I 5.85 5.57 5.30 5.08 4.91 4.72 4.58
5,000,000 7 .60 1 7.11 I 6.68 I 6.32 I 6.00 5.72 1 5.44 5.23 5.05 4.87 4.72
6,000,000 7.76 7.30 I 6.85 6.45 6.13 5.82 5.57 5.36 5.15 5.00 4.84
7,000,000 7.951 7.41 I 6.97 I 6.58 6.23 5.93 I 5.67 5.44 5.27 5.08 I 4.92
8,000,0001 8.09 7.57 7.10 6.68 6.32 6.02 5.77 5.56 5.36 5.15 5.01
1
9,000,000 8.19 7.67 I 7.18 6.80 6.44 6.10 5.86 5.63 5.43 5.27 5.08
10,000,000 8.32 7.76 I 7.30 6.87 6.51 6.21 5.93 5.70 5.50 5.34 5.15
11,000,000 8.42! 7.88 7.37 6.95 6.58 6.28 6.00 5.77 5.57 5.38 5.23
12,000,000 8.54 7.96 I 7.46 7.03 6.65 1 6.32 6.08 5.82 5.63 5.44 1 5.30
13,000,0001 8.62 8.03 7.53 7.10 6.72 6.39 6.13 5.87 5.70 5.51 5.36
14,000,000 8.7 1 8.}2 1 7.60 7.16 6.78 6.45 I 6.16 5.95 5.73 5.57 5.43
15,000,0001 8.81 ' 8.19 7.67 7.23 6.82 ! 6.51 6.23 6.00 5.79 5.63 5.46
16,000,000 8 90[ 8.26 7.73 7.26 6.88 6.57 6.29 6.03 5.85 5.66 5.51
17,000,0001 8.971 8.32 7.80 I 7.33 6.94 6.61 6.32 6.09 5.87 5.72 5.57
18,000,000 9.04 1 8.39 1 7.83 7.39 6.97 6.67 6.38 6.15 5.93 5.77 5.60
19,000,000 9.11 8.47 I 7.90 7.44 1 7.03 I 6.71 6.44 6.18 5.99 5.80 1 5.66
20,000,0001 9.19 8.52 7.96 7.47 7.08 6.74 6.45 6.22 6.02 5.86 5.70
IPavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 15
T abl e 2 C ata Iog ofR eqmr. ed PCC Th.ICknesses
I
ESAL I CBR1
- 1,000,000 19.0j 8.0 2 3 : 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
8.0 I 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
2,000,000 9.0 9.0 9.0 I 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
r--1ROO, 0001 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 I 8.0
4,000,000 10.01 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
5,000,0001 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0
6,000,000 10.01 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0
7,000,000 11 .01 10.0 1 10.0 1 10.0 I 10.0 ,._..2.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
8,000~0001 11.0 10.0 I 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 ~.0 9.0 9.0 I 9.0 9.0
~000,_000 11.0 11.0 11.0 I 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0
10,000,000 11.0 11.0 11.0 ! 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0
11,000!_000 11.0 11.0
I
11.0 I 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0
122000,000 11.0 11.0 11.0 i 10.0 I 10.0 r-w.o 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0
1-13,000,000, 12.0 12.0 11.0 I 11.0 I 11.0 11.0 I 10.0 10.0 I 10.0 10.0 10.0
14,000.LOOO 12 0 12.0 11.0 110 11 o I 11.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 I 10.0
15,000,000 12.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 11 0 11.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
16,000,000 12.0 12.0
f--17,000,000 12.0 12.0
11.0
11.0 -
11.0 . - 11.0 I 11.0 10.0
110 110 110 10.0
-
10.0
10.0
10.0 10.0
10.0 10.0
10.0
10.0
~.000,000 13 .0 12.0 12.0 12.0 11 0 11 0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
19,000,000 13.0 12.0 12 0 12.0 110 11 0 11.0 11 .0 11.0 11.0 110
20,000,000 13.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 110
!Pavement Design Guide Apnl 1, 1999 16
Pavement Design Computations

The required pavement design for this project is determined on the basis of the required
STRUCTURAL NUMBER. The required pavement STRUCTURAL NUMBER is determined
from the CATALOG OF STRUCTURAL NUMBERS for the design CBR and design ESAL's.
Required pavement thicknesses are determined using the following equation:

where: SN is the required STRUCTURAL NUMBER determined from the


CATALOG OF STRUCTURAL NUMBERS

a 1 is the structural layer coefficient for the first layer of the pavement structure,
typically the asphalt surface layer for pavement designs in Kentucky. Typical
layer coefficients for asphalt concrete surface courses in Kentucky are 0.40 to
0.44. This range of layer coefficients applies for all surface courses used in
Kentucky except for Open Graded Friction Courses (OGFC) which are assigned
no structural credit for pavement design purposes.

d 1 is the thickness of the pavement layer corresponding to layer 1.

a2 is the layer coefficient for the second layer of the pavement structure.
typically the asphalt concrete binder layer or asphalt concrete base layers for
pavement designs in Kentucky. Typical layer coefficients for asphalt concrete
binder courses in Kentucky are 0.40 to 0.42. Typical layer coefficients for asphalt
concrete base courses in Kentucky 0.36 to 0.40.

d2 is the thickness of the pavement layer corresponding to layer 2.

a3 is the structural layer coefficient for the aggregate base layer of the pavement
structure. Typical layer coefficients for aggregate base layers in Kentucky are
0. 11 to 0. 14.

d3 is the thickness of the pavement layer corresponding to layer 3.

a., is the structural layer coefficient for chemically modified roadbed soils.
Typical layer coefficients used for chemically modified roadbeds in the design of
pavements in Kentucky are 0.08 to 0.10. These are based on the assumption that
chemical modification increases the CBR of the soil to a value greater than a CBR
6.

d~ is the thickness of the pavement layer corresponding to layer 4.


!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 17
Typical values for structural layer coefficients are:

a1 = 0.44 for asphalt surface materials


a2 = 0.42 for asphalt binder materials
a2 = 0.40 for asphalt base materials
a3 = 0.14 for DGA base and Crushed Stone Base
~ = 0.08 for lime modified roadbed

Structural layer coefficients for other materials typically used in Kentucky are:

mechanically modified roadbed-- 0.06 to 0.08


aggregate drainage blanket-- 0.11 to0.14
asphalt treated drainage blanket-- 0.18 to 0.21

Sh ould er Design
Pavement shoulders should be designed to meet appropriate geometric criteria. Thickness
should be determined to insure adequate structural support is provided to meet any anticipated
shoulder traffic. Typically shoulders should be designed to accommodate a minimum of 20% of
the mainline ESAL's In situations where earth shoulders would be warranted, it may be
necessary to provide an additional 2 feet of full depth pavement to insure adequate edge support.

P avement Drainage
Adequate drainage should be provided to the pavement structure to insure a successful pavement
service life is achieved. Various types of pavement drainage systems have been utilized
throughout Kentucky. For pavements designed using this guide the following criteria should be
utilized:

Design ESAL's
Less than 1,000,000 ESAL's DGA Base
1,000,000-5,000,000 ESAL' s Daylighted Crushed Stone Base (CSB)
5,000,001 - 20,000,000 ESAL's Drainage Blanket and Piping System

Development of Alternate Pavement Des igns


The equation for STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN) indicates that there are an infinite number of
combinations of layer thicknesses of the various paving materials that will satisfy the
STRUCTURAL NUMBER requirement specified in the CATALOG OF STRUCTURAL
NUMBERS. The number of potential solutions is reduced somewhat when considering the
practical limitations of placing the various pavement layers. Layer thicknesses of common
paving materials in Kentucky are:

Asphalt Concrete Surface-- 1.25 to 1.5 inches per course


Asphalt Concrete Binder-- 1.5 to 2.0 inches per course
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class !-- 2.0 to 4 .0 inches per course
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class CI-- 3. 0 to 4. 5 inches per course
Asphalt Concrete Base, Class CK- 3.5 to 5.0 inches per course
Aggregate Base (DGA or CSB)-- 4.0 to 6.0 inches per course
Aggregate (Untreated) Drainage Blanket-- 4.0 to 6.0 inches per course
Asphalt Treated Drainage Blanket-- 4.0 to 6.0 inches per course
Chemically Modified Roadbed-- 8.0 to 12.0 inches per course
!Pavement Design Guide April l, 1999 18
This guides does not include provisions for the utilization of SUPERPA VE asphaltic
con crete mixtures. The utilization of SUPERPA VE mixtures will be coordinated between
the Division of Design, Division of Materials, and the District Office for proj ects identified
as SUP ERPA VE candidates. During the continued implementation of SUPERPAVE,
updates to this guide will be provided as necessary to addresses SUPERPAVE
requirements.

From a pavement engineering perspective, there are some variations in proportions of paving
materials which are better suited to specific engineering applications that others. For example,
pavement structures with thick aggregate bases (33% to 50% asphalt concrete) typically would
be expected to provide better performance over soil subgrades with the water table close to the
surface or where the soils are known to be highly moisture sensitive. Conversely, pavement
structures with thick asphalt layers typically will provide better performance over rock roadbed
subgrades or chemicall y modified roadbeds

Development of alternate pavement designs should typically involve a " maximum aggregate"
design, a " maximum asphalt concrete" design, and a Portland cement concrete design for
comparative analyses. Other alternate pavement designs should be considered where specific
project considerations indicate a need. Each alternate considered should meet or exceed
Structural Number requirements identified in the CATALOG OF STRUCTURAL NUMBERS.

Comparison of Alternate Pavement Designs


The positive and negative engineering aspects of each alternate pavement design must be
evaluated. Principal considerations include the characteristics of the traffic stream,
characteristics of the subgrade, constructibility of the pavement, climatic and other
environmental considerations, recycling considerations, and economic considerations.
Secondary considerations include performance of similar pavements in the area, adjacent
existing pavements, conservation of materials and energy, the availability of local materials or
contractor capabilities, traffic safety and maintenance of traffic during construction
considerations, incorporation of experimental features, stimulation of competition, and the
preferences of local municipalities or the recognition of local industries.

Selection of the Best Pavement Design


Selection of the best pavement design for a given project is a combination of engineering
judgement, experience, and economic analyses. Generally, pavement design alternates not
satisfying project specific engineering considerations should first be eliminated. Thereafter, the
primary and secondary considerations discussed above should be used to eliminate other
alternate pavement designs being considered. Economic analyses should be used as the final
determination of the best alternate pavement design if all other considerations are equal. For
purposes of this GUIDE, economic analyses should be developed on the basis of initial
construction costs only for projects having design ESAL's less than 5,000,000. For projects
having design ESAL's greater than 5,000,000 and those involving comparisons of asphalt
concrete pavement designs as compared to portland cement concrete pavement designs, a life
cycle cost analysis should be considered.
!Pavement Design Guide Apri l 1, 1999 19
Life Cycle Cost Analysis

The Life Cycle Cost Analysis will include the analysis of both initial construction costs and
rehabilitation costs at selected intervals over a analysis period of 40 years. In addition, user costs
will be considered at various levels based on the design ESAL of the project. Material costs will
be determined based on values obtained from the average unit bid summary. The rehabilitation
scenarios which are presented may not be the actual rehabilitation schedule for a specific
pavement, however they do provide a good estimation of the cost associated with maintaining a
pavement structure for 40 years. A spreadsheet is avai lable to assist in conducting the life cycle
cost calculations. Specific inputs to this procedure are as follows:

Analysis Period: 40 years

R ehabilitation Scenarios:

Flexible Pavements

Rehabilitation 1, Year 10
Mill 1 5" - l 5" Overlay

Rehabilitation 2, Year 20
Mill 1 5" - 3 5" Overlay

Rehabilitation 3, Year 30
Mill 1.5" - 1.5" Overlay

Portland Cement Concrete Pavements

Rehabilitation l , Year 15
Clean and Reseal Joints

Rehabilitation 2, Year 30
Clean and Reseal Joints

User Costs:

Less Than 5,000,000 ESAL's o user cost, initial cost only


5,000,000 - 10,000,000 ESAL' s $1,000/day
10,000,001 - 15,000,000 ESAL' s $2,000/day
15,000,001 - 20,000,000 ESAL' s $3,000/day

Length of Construction

Initial Construction: 120 days


Rehabilitations: 30 days
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 20
Submittals and Approvals

The intent of this expanded pavement design guide is to provide the roadway designer with
sufficient information for effective design of pavements off the National Highway System, with
less than 20,000,000 ESAL's, less than 15,000 ADT and less than 20% trucks. The CATALOG
OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL NUMBER S presented earlier in this GUIDE
provides required STRUCTURAL NUMBERS (SN's) for CBR's 1 to 11 and for a range of
ESAL's from 10,000 to 20,000,000. The CATALOG OF REQUIRED P CC TIDCKNESSESS
presented earlier in this GUIDE provides required PCC THICKNESSES for CBR's 1 to 11 and
for a range ofESAL's from 1,000,000 to 20,000,000.

There will be two sets of criteria for the process of submitting and approving pavement designs
done under the guidelines of this guide. These criteria and procedures are as follows:

Less Than or Egual to 5.000.000 ESAL's & 1 Mile


These designs Do Not need to be approved by Central Office staff The required approval and
signatures are needed only by the Designer (P E) and the Project Manager. These designs must
be submitted to the Pavement Design Branch of the Division of Highway Design for archival and
pavement management purposes. These designs Will B e Reviewed and Approved for pavement
type selection justification (Asphalt/PCC). Central Office Staff will be allowed 10 working days
to review type selection, after which, either comments or an approved pavement design will be
returned to the designer.

The Project Manager will be responsible for distribution of the approved pavement design for
these projects. The distribution list includes the Location Engineer, Plan Processing Review, and
the consultant, if necessary.

Greater Than 5.000.000 ESAL's or 1 Mile


These designs Will Be submitted to the Pavement Design Branch of the Division of
Highway Design for approval. These designs will require approval and signatures from the
Designer (P.E .), the Project Manager, and the T.E.B.M. for Pavement Design. Approval by the
Central Office Pavement Staff is intended to verify implementation and justification for
pavement type selection. Initially, all of these designs will be approved by the T.E.B.M. for
Pavement Design. Gradually, once it is determined that appropriate and consistent application of
this design procedure is being followed, the review and approval by the Central Office w111 be
reduced to some lesser level of review.

The Pavement Branch staff in the Division of Highway Design will be responsible for
distribution of the approved pavement design for these projects. The distribution list includes the
Location Engineer, P lan P rocessing Review, and the consultant, if necessary.

IMPORTANT: The District designers will be responsible for submitting an updated


pavement design with aU plans that they submit to the Central Office.
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 21
PAVEMENT DESIGN SUBMITTAL FOLDER

All pavement designs will be submitted to the Pavement Branch of the Division of Highway
D esign in a Pavement Design Folder. The cover sheet for this folder is attached to this
document. The cover letter will identify the project information and a summary of the pavement
design type selection. The cover letter will also show a checklist of what documentation is
included in the pavement design folder. The fo llowing items should be included in the pavement
design folder:

* Design Executive Summary * Pavement Design Schedule


* Design Calculations , * Type Selection Justification
* Geotechnical Information * Traffic Information
* Typical Sections and Details * Comparison of Alternatives: Initial & Life Cycle
* Special Notes and Provisions * Other Documentation

Pavement designs prepared by the roadway designer should be documented in a format


consistent with the format used for submittal and approval of pavement design documents.
Examples of pavement designs are presented in Appendix A. Typically used Special Notes are
included in Appendix B . Special Provisions and applicable pavement policy documents are
included in Appendix C. The pavement design folder cover sheet and submittal forms are
presented in Appendix D. There are also electronic copies of these two forms on the diskette
provided as part of the pavement design training course.

The Division of Highway Design Pavement Branch will send out periodic updates of all
applicable notes and provisions to all district design personnel.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Staff from the Division of Highway Design will be available to provide assistance to roadway
designers for application and implementation of these guidelines. The Central Office pavement
design staff have been assigned as liaisons for support purposes. When pavement designs are
submitted to the Central Office they should be directed to their respective district liaison. The
following page lists district assignments for the pavement design staff.
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 22

Appendix A
Examples
KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET D 61-29E
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY DESIGN REV . 3- 99
PAVEMENT BRANCH
Pavement Design <20,000,000 ESAL's Sheet 1
& off the National Highway System

County Example 1 Item


-1-00
------ UPN N/A

Road Name Troubled Water Bridge F. P . . .;N: . ;.:/. . :A:. :. . .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Replacement of bridge and approaches .

Traffic 2,200 11997 4,700 ,2017 E . S . A. L . 5 x 10 5


~~~:..:....._ ___________
Existing : Type Asphalt on DGA Thickness 9~" on 4"
~~-~~------------- ~~~~~--------

Length _....;_0_.~1- Miles . Design Speed 55 M. P . H. Design CBR 3

FOR TYPICAL SECTION SEE ATTACHED SHEET(S}

PAVEMENT
Traffic Lanes
1 DGA BASE 4" DEPTH
120 ASPH BASE CLASS I PG64-22 10~" DEPTH (4"+ 4"T2~")
154 ASPH SURF C~ASS I-20/30 PG64-22 1~" DEPTH

Shoulders
(2' @ 2%)

1 DGA BASE 4" DEPTH


120 ASPH BASE CLASS I PG64-22 10~" DEPTH (4"+ 4"+ 2~")
149 ASPH SURF CLASS I-0 PG64-22 1~" DEPTH

(Remaining 6' @ 8 %)

NOTE :
Shoulders shall be paved full width within the guardrail limits or 200 feet .
The remainder of the project shall be constructed with shoulders as other-
wise shown or matching existing .

SIGNED DATE----- P.E .


--------------
APPROVED --------------------- DATE ----- Project Manager

APPROVED - - - - - - - -- - ---- DATE c .o. Pavement Design


(As Required)
PAVEMENT (Cont . )

Shoulder Paving Within Guardrail Limits


1 DGA BASE FULL DEPTH
120 ASPH BASE CLASS I PG64-22 2\.:t" DEPTH
154 ASPH SURF CLASS I-20/30 PG64-22 1\.:t" DEPTH

Asphalt Seal required from outside edge of paved shoulder to a point two
feet down existing ditch or fill slope . Two applications of the following :

291 EMULSIFIED ASPHALT RS-2 2 . 40 LB/SQ YO


100 ASPHALT SEAL AGGREGATE 20 LB/SQ YO (No . 8 or 9M)

PLAN NOTE NO .: 448


;r:
-J:O
fTl AMPLE I
.!.n
om ITEM " 1.00
...rv:o
3 fTl
Q ><.
0 I>
;) .:
"tl 2 8' II' II' 8' 6'
,-
,....
DITCH
O. Gm
GRADE POINT

_2·_: 2%
-
8%

EARTH

SEE DETAIL " B"


SEE DETAIL " A"

EXAMPLE
(I) SHOULDER SHALL BE WIDENED 2 FEET WHERE GUARDRAIL IS REQUIRED.
0 ASPHALT SEAL.

Q) SEE CROSS SECTIONS FOR SLOPES OUTSIDE THE SHOULDER POINT.


0 SHOULDER PAVING WI THIN GUARDRAIL LIM! TS .

8' SHOULDER TRAFFIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE 8' SHOULDER

1 1 '~ ·· AS T-20/30 PG64-22


2 1/~ 'AS T PG64-22 2'
PAVED
2 1k' AB T PG64-22

4/.

EARTH
4" DCA 4" DCA

DETAIL II A" DETAIL ''8" (/')


:r
Cll

TYPIC L T GIE T §IECTKO Cll


-+

TROUBLED WATER BRIDGE


EXAMPLE 1
KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET D 61-29E
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY DESIGN REV . 3-99
PAVEMENT BRANCH
Pavement Design <20,000,000 ESAL's Sheet 1
& off the National Highway System

County Example 2 Item 2-00


__.;.... _____ UPN FSP 010 0060 010-012 057D

Road Name U. S . 60 (13 th Street in Ashland) F.P. OOSTP 02601 015

Widen and reconstruct U. S . 60 (13 th Street)from KY . 168 (Blackburn Ave . )

to Oakview Road/Pollard Road

Traffic 14,900 ,1995 22, 100 1 2015 E. S . A. L . 13,829 , 000

Existing : Type Asphalt on PCC on DGA Base

Length __0_._5_ Miles. Design Speed 40 M. P . H. Design CBR


-3 - - -- - -
FOR TYPICAL SECTION SEE ATTACHED SHEET(S)
PAVEMENT
Traffic Lanes
New Pavement
1 DGA 4" DEPTH
18 DRAINAGE BLANKET TYPE II-ASPH 4" DEPTH
120 ASPHALT BASE CLASS I PG64-22 11~" DEPTH(4"+4"+3~")
118 ASPH BASE CL I PG' 0 -22 3" DEPTH
158 ASPH SURF CL I-40 / 20 PG70-22 1,..." DEPTH

Traffic Lanes
Widening
1 DGA 4" DEPTH
18 DRAINAGE BLANKET TYPE II-ASPH 4" DEPTH
120 ASPHALT BASE CLASS I PG64-22 11~" DEPTH(4"+4"+3~")

Overall
190 LEVELING AND WEDGING PG64-22 TON (Est . from X-Sect . )
118 ASPH BASE CL I PG70-22 3" DEPTH
158 ASPH SURF CL I-40/20 PG70-22 1,..." DEPTH
Shoulders
1810 STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER LINEAR FOOT
Longitudinal Pavement Edge Drains
78 CRUSHED AGGREGATE SIZE NO 2 TON
1000 PERFORATED PIPE-4IN FOOT
1010 NON-PERFORATED PIPE-4IN FOOT
8100 CONCRETE-CLASS A CU FT

(Cont . on Sheet No . 2)

SIGNED DATE P.E.


-------------- -----
APPROVED -------------~-- DATE ------- Project Manager

APPROVED -----~-----­ DATE ----- C . O. Pavement Design


(As Required)
PAVEMENT (Cont . )

NOTES :
(1) All longitudinal pipe drainage systems for the pavement drainage blanket shall
be outletted to a Headwall , Median Box Inlet , a Ditch Box , or Curb Box Inle
Outlets shall be in a fill section whenever possible . Outlet spacing sha
not exceed 500ft except grades 1 ~ or less , then the spacing of outlets shal
not exceed 250ft . All sags shall have an outlet . The Design Engineer shall
spot these on the plans or in the proposal .

PLAN NOTE NO .: 448

SPECIAL NOTE
(2068) WET BOTTOM BOILER SLAG (1-1-99)
(2128) MINERAL ADMIXTURES IN PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (1 - 1-99)
( ) PAVEMENT SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE OUTLET (3-16-98) Attached
( ) PERFORATED PIPE - 4in FOR AGGREGATE BACKFILLED TRENCH
(3-16-98) Attached
BOYD CO.
OOS TP 02601 015
\_.....---T
_R_A_F_F_IC TRAFFJ C LANE <WIOENI N~-......~
_ L_A_N_E_ _.....f-_
ITEM • EXAMPLE 2
1.25 AS I 40 ,20 PG70·22 !OVERALL)
3" A8 "I" PG70-22 <OVERALL)
20" ;EE CRO~CTIO..NS
3. 5" AB "I" PG64·22 STD. CURB &
KEYWAY GUTTER SEE
4" A8 T' PG64-22

2%
4 " AB " I " PG64-22
2%
CUR. STD.
DWG. RPM-100 I S'l.
----=
12" EARTH

4' DCA
TYPE II ASPH
4 'Perforate d P~e

WIDENING
TRAFFIC LANE <NEW PAVEMENT> SEE CROSS SECTIONS

1.25" AS "1-40/20" PG70-22

STD. CURB & GUTTER


SEE CUR. STD. DWG. RPM- 100

B'l.
2%
EARTH

4" DRAI NAGE BL ANKET TYPE II ASPH 4" DC A No. 57's


Fabric Geotex tile Type IV
NEW PAVEMENT 4" Perforated Pipe

TYIPIC L IP VEME T DE§IG <D


<D
Vl
~

13th STREET KN ASHLAND <U.S. 60) N


-+

FSP 010 0060 010-012 057 D


!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 23

Appendix B
Listing of Typically Used Special Notes
March 18, 1999
-8PECIAL NOT E-
SP ECIAL NOTE FOR

BITUMINO US
5X (2104) ASPHALT PAVEMENT REINFORCEMENT (l-1-99)
( ) ASPHALT PAVEMENT REINFORCEMENT WITH GEOGRIDS (EXP) (3-16-98) Attached (project specific)
( ) POLYPROPYLENE FIBER REINFORCED ASPHALT MIXTURES (EXP) (11-6-92) Anacbed
( ) ASPHALT LEVELING AND SEAL COURSE (3-16-98) Attached
9X (2134) SUPERPAVE MIXTURES (1-1-99)
( ) STONE-MATRIX ASPHALT SURFACE (EXP.) (3-3-98) Attached
( ) STONE-MATRIX ASPHALT BASE (EXP.) (3-3-98) Attached
9Y (2 135) MATERIAL TRANSFER VEHICLE (1-5-99)
( ) ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE REPAIR (6-30-98) Anached

PORTLAND CEMENT CONC RETE


9K (2128) MINERAL ADMIXTURES IN PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (l-1-99) Use with any PCC Pavement.
7J ( ) LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE FOR USE IN PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (6-9-92)

ROADBED PREPARATION Al"'D OR REPAIR


2E (2018) ROADBED STABILIZATION AT BRIDGE ENDS ( 1-1-99)
( ) ROADBED REINFORCEMENT (EXP) (6- 10-98) Anached
( ) MECHANICAL MODIFICATION OF SOIL ROADBED (3-16-98) Anached
( ) SOIL SUBGRADE MODIFICATION (3-16-98) Anached

** - Always used with Edge Drains


LONGITUDINAL PAVEMEJ\T"f DRAINS & BLA~TS
( ) PAVEMENT SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE OUTLET (3-16-98) Anached
( ) PERFORATED PIPE - 100 mm FOR AGGREGATE BACKFILLED TRENCH (3-16-98)Anacbed Use
hold up fabric
-Rehabs only

GENERAL
3M (2068) WET BOTTOM BOILER SLAG (1-1-99) Boyd, Greenup, Lawrence, Lewis
Note that Blast Furnace Slag may be utilized...
Est. at 110 /b/sq ydlin. (2.35 kglsq mlmm)
( ) EXCELSIOR BLANKET (9-2-94) Anached
11 (20 I0) VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS (1-1-99)
( ) SMARTSONlC CONSTRUCTION ZONE SAFETY SYSTEM (6-30-98) Attached
8K (2129) STABILIZED SOIL SHOULDERS(Approval Pending)

c: 'data wp\specnot.wp
SPECIAL NOTE FOR PAVEMENT SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE OUTLET
Lse ooproximorel y one rretric ton of Crushed Aggregate Si ze No. 2 at
all Perforated Pipe Headwall Out ets as illustrated in the detail below .
Place Crushed Aggregate Size No. 2 to o minimum depth of IOOmm as
detailed belo w.
Use Dense Graded Aggregate <DGA> removed during placement of The
Crushed Aggr-eogote Size No. 2 to dress exis t ing shoulders where DGA is
exposed . Waste other materials removed during placement of the Crushed
Aggr-egate Size No. 2 as direcred by the Engineer . The Deportment will
make no direct payment for disposal of wasted material.
The Deportment will consider payment for- Cr-ushed Aggregate Size No. 2 as
full compensation for all materials. labor. and other- i nciden tals necessary to
place Crushed Aggregate Size No. 2 for vegetation control and/or erosion
control or pavement edge drain outlets .
See current Srondord Drawing RDP-010 for dimensions and other dera·ls.

' 4
0. 60m
I. 0 . 60 m

PERFORATED PIPE HEADWALL OUTLET

March 16. 1998


c1 \u\catOYt \o,..onoot\nl" 96.oon
SPECIAL NOTE FOR
Perforated Pipe - 100 mrn
For Aggregate Backfilled Trench

Apply section 704, Underdrains, of the current edition of the Standard Specifications except use
coarse aggregate for the backfill and partially wrap the aggregate with geotextile fabric as shown
in the edge drain derails. Apply section 215.03.04 of the current edition of the Standard
Specifications except use Type IV fabric secured ro the inside face of the trench with steel pins at
intervals of 1.5 meters. Place the fabric on the s ides and bottom of the trench with suitable
equipment without stretching it. Place the filter aggregate in the trench without damaging.
displacing or dislodging the fabric. Fold the fabric over the backfilled trench and secure ir with
steel pins at inrervals of 1.5 meters.

March 16, 1998


!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 24

Appendix C
Listing of Typically Used Special Provisions &
Pavement Policy Documents
March 18, 1999
- SPECIAL PROVISION-

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR


(1069) No. 69G (99) EMBANKMENT AT BRIDGE END BENT STRUCTURES(l-1-99) Plan nore 270, bid#2223
(1076) No. 760 (99) CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR (1-1-99)
(1079) No. 79B (99) STRESS ABSORBING MEMBRANE lNTERLA YER (SAM[) (1-1-99) UseS.P. 70

c:\data\wp\specnol. wp
3/30/99
NOTES (MYBIDCODE)

1.) USE A MINIMUM OF 4" (100mm) AGGREGATE BASE UNLESS SUBGRADE IS AGGREGATE AND
AND CBR IS GREATER THAN 6
2.) LIFT THICKNESSES- 2" TO 4" (50mm-100mm) ASPHALT BASE CLASS I
3" TO 4.5" (75mm-115mm) ASPHALT BASE CLASS CI
4" TO 6" (100mm-150mm) ASPHALT BASE CLASS CK
1. 5" TO 2" (40mm-50mm) ALL ASPHALT BINDER CLASSES
1. 25" (30mm) ASPHALT SURFACE CLASS I (1" -1. 5" or 25mm-40mm)
1. 5" (40mm) ASPHALT SURFACE CLASS AK/B OR AK/A OR AK/S
3.) AASHTO STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENT -ASPHALT SURFACE - 0.44
ASPHALT BINDER - 0.42
ASPHALT BASE - 0. 4 0 (0.30 for old asphalt)
STABILIZED AGG BASE - 0.20
(Use Break & Seat curves) BREAK & SEAT CONC. - 0.20 (up to 0.35)
CONCRETE OVERLAY- 0.30-0 . 50 (0.6 7 new cone.)
DGA/CRUSHED STONE - 0.14 (use 0 .11 for old DGA)
DRAINAGE BLANKET-II - 0.18 to 0.24 (0.14-TYPE - I)
LIME/CEMENT/ROCK ROADBED - 0.11
(FROM TTN: BR1) WHEN USING TENSAR: DDGAnew = 0. 8* (DDGAold) - 2
NOTE - Put Tensar at midpoint of DGA if Dnew>10" and at bottom of DGA if Dnew<10")
NOTE - TRAFFIC BOUND BASE IS #610's OR #710's MIXED INTO #2 STONE.
4.) RESILIENT MODULUS= 1500*CBR
5.) USE DGA WHEN< 11000 1000 ESALs DURING DESIGN LIFE (OR FOR CURB & GUTTER)
ALWAYS USE DGA WHEN USING A DRAINAGE BLANKET LAYER
USE CSB FOR 110001000 TO 5 1000 1000 ESALs OVER DESIGN LIFE (EXCEPT CURB & GUTTER)
6.) NOTE FOR BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS -
SEE STANDARD DRAWING NO. RBB-001 FOR SHOULDER PAVING AT BRIDGE ENDS. APPLY THE 1:25
PAVED SHOULDER TAPER TO BOTH SHOULDERS AT BOTH ENDS OF THE BRIDGE. IF THE SHOULDERS
ARE TO BE PAVED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT 1 THEN CONTRARY TO THIS STANDARD DRAWING 1 THE
SHOULDERS WITHIN THIS TAPER AREA MAY BE PAVED THE SAME AS THE REMAINING SHOULDER."
7.) NOTE FOR FULL DEPTH DGA SHOULDERS (NOT 2 1 SHOULDERS WITH EARTH OUTSIDE PAVEMENT):
ASPHALT SEAL REQUIRED FROM OUTSIDE EDGE OF PAVED SHOULDER TO A POINT
TWO FEET (0.6 METERS) DOWN THE DITCH OR FILL SLOPE. TWO APPLICATIONS OF
291 Emulsified Asphalt RS-2 2.40 lb/sq yd (1.3 kg/sq m)
100 Asphalt Seal Aggregate 20 lb/sy (size no. 8 or 9m) (10 .8 kg/sq m)
8.) CHANGED PLAN NOTES:
275 - CALLS FOR CEMENT STABILIZED ROADBED
276 - CALLS FOR LIME STABILIZATION
447 - OPTION A WARRANTS
448 - OPTION B
9.) 358 ASPHALT CURING SEAL APPLICATION RATE
LIME MODIFIED ROADBED (Special Provision 84C) 2 . 0 lb/sy (1 . 1 kg/sq m)
PORTLAND CEMENT MODIFIED ROADBED (Stnd Specs 304) 2.0 lb/sy (1 . 1 kg/sq m)
OR 0.25 gal/sy
DGA FILTER LAYER FOR DRAINAGE BLANKETS 1.6 lb/sy (0 . 9 kg/sq m)
STABILIZED AGGREGATE BASE (Special Provision 70D) 1.2 lb/sy (0 .7 kg/sq m)
10.) 2702 SAND FOR BLOTTER 2 to 3 lb/sy (1.1 - 1.6 kg/ sq m)
OR 5 lb/sy (2.7 kg/sq m) MAX.
11.) CARRY LOWER COURSES OF PAVEMENT 12" PAST CURB AND GUTTER (whether Asphalt. or DGA)
(MYBl!.. vuE)
FOLLOWING IS A LISTING OF BID ITEM CODES, BID ITEM DESCRIPTIONS, POLISH
RESISTANT AGGREGATE REQUIREMENTS, AND GUIDELINES FOR I MPLEMENTATION:

BID ITEM BID ITEM POLISH-RESISTANT I MPLEMENTATION


CODE DESCRIPTION AGGREGATE REQUIREMENTS GUIDELINES
-------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------ --------- --
1 DGA BASE <50,000 ESALs/YR (1,000,000 ESALs)

3 CRUSHED STONE BASE BETWEEN 50,000 and 250,000 ESALs/YR.


(1,000,000 to 5,000,000 ESALs TOTAL)

15 DRAINAGE BLANKET CONSIDER FROM 50000-250000 ESALs/YR.


TYPE I-UNTREATED USE WHEN> 250,000 ESALs/YR.

18 DRAINAGE BLANKET CONSIDER FROM 50000-250000 ESALs/YR.


TYPE II - ASPHALT USE WHEN > 250,000 ESALs/YR.
PG 64-22 * Engineering judgement should be
used based on project length
190 ASPHALT MIX LEVEL AND WEDGE PG64-22

ASPHALT ALL MAINLINE AND SHOULDER


BASE CLASS I PAVEMENTS EXCEPT FOR
120 PG64-22 CLASS CK WARRANTS
118 PG70-22
119 PG76-22 W/50%ER

ASPHALT MAINLINE AND SHOULDER PAVEMENTS


BASE CLASS CI EXCLUDING CLASS CK WARRANTS YET
137 PG64-22 RUTTING IS A CONCERN - SAY
138 PG70-22 VERY HIGH ADT OR ON PARKWAYS AND
139 PG76-22 W/50\ER INTERSTATES (OVER CLASS CK BASE)

ASPHALT ALL INTERSTATES, COAL HAUL ROADS


BASE CLASS CK WITH EXTENDED LIMITS, AND ALL
134 PG 64-22 OTHER ROUTES WITH MORE THAN
135 PG 70-22 250,000 ESALs PROVIDED TONNAGE
136 PG 76-22 W/50\ER EXCEEDS 10,000 TONS
(9000 metric tons) BASE

ASPHALT 0% POLISH RESISTANT ADT LESS THAN 1,500 (OR AS A


BINDER CLASS I -0 WEARING COURSE FOR ADT<1,500
128 PG 64-22 FOR EXTRA RUT RESISTANCE)
126 PG 70-22 ADT 1,500 TO 3,000 &
127 PG 76-22 W/50%ER SPEED LESS THAN 45 MPH (70 kph)
NOTE - A LOWER CLASS SURFACE MAY BE USED IF THE QUANTITY OF SURFACE IS < 500 TONS

ASPHALT 0% POLISH RESISTANT ADT LESS THAN 1,500


SURFACE CLASS I-0 ADT 1,500 TO 3,000 &
149 PG 64-22 SPEED LESS THAN
147 PG 70-22 45 MPH (70 kph)
148 PG 76-22 W/50\ER

ASPHALT 20% POLISH RESISTANT ADT 1,500 TO 3,000 &


SURFACE CLASS I-20 /30 (COURSE, FINE, OR SPEED 4 5 MPH ( 70 KPH) OR
154 PG 64-22 COMBINATION) , GREATER
160 PG 70-22 MAX 3 0% UNCRUSHED ADT 3,000 TO 6,000 (ALL SPEEDS)
161 PG 76-22 W/50\ER SAND PERMITTED

ASPHALT 40% POLISH RESISTANT ADT 6,000 & GREATER


SURFACE CLASS I-40 / 20 (COURSE, FINE, OR SPEED LESS THAN
157 PG 64-22 COMBINATION) , 50 MPH (80 kph)
158 PG 70-22 MAX 20% UNCRUSHED
159 PG 76-22 W/50\ER SAND PERMITTED

AK SURFACES

ASPHALT 100% POLISH-RESISTANT INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS


SURFACE CLASS AK/A COARSE AGGREGATE, and PARKWAYS WITH
211 PG 61 -22 20% OF TOTAL COMBINED ADT 6, 000 & GREATER
242 PG 70-22 FINE AND COARSE SPEED 50 MPH (80 kph)
243 PG 76-22 W/50\ER AGGREGATE SHALL BE AND GREATER
POLISH RESISTANT ALL OTHER ROADS WITH ADT> 1S,OOO
FINE AGGREGATE, SPEED SO MPH (80 kph)
MAX 20% UNCRUSHED AND GREATER
SAND PERMITTED

ASPHALT 100% POLISH-RESISTANT ADT 6,000 TO 1 S,OOO


SURFACE CLASS AK/ B COARSE AGGREGATE, SPEED SO MPH (80 kph)
245 PG 64-22 20% OF TOTAL COMBINED AND GREATER
240 PG 70-22 FINE AND COARSE
241 PG 76-22 W/50\ER AGGREGATE SHALL BE EXCEPT INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
POLISH RESISTANT *** NOTE - MAY USE AK/A INSTEAD
FINE AGGREGATE

ASPHALT SHOULDER MIX FOR PAVEMENTS


SURFACE CLASS AK/S UTILIZING CLASS AK/B OR AK/A
246 PG 64-22 SURFACE MIXES

ASPHALT
OPEN-GRADED SURFACE
267 PG 64-22
266 PG 70-22
268 PG 76-22 W/50\ER

NOTE - SLAG MIXES HAVE THEIR OWN BID CODE


GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF BITUMINOUS SURFACE COURSES
TRAVEL
CATEGORY SPEED (mph) SURFACE COURSE

I. All Interstate Roads, Parkways with ADT greater than 6,000, and all other roads with ADT greater than 15.000

A. 50 mph or higher Bituminous Concrete Surface, Class AKIA

B. Below 50 mph Bituminous Concrete Surface, Class I-40/20

II. Roads with ADT between 6.000 and 15.000

A. 50 mph or higher Bituminous Concrete Surface, Class AK/A or Class AKIB

B. Below 50 mph Bituminous Concrete Surface, Class I-40/20

ill. Roads with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000

All Speeds Biturrunous Concrete Surface. Class I-20/30

IV. Roads with ADT between 1.500 and 3.000

A. 45 mph or higher Bituminous Concrete Surface, Class l-20/30 (20% polish resistant aggregate
required and limit amount of uncrushed sand to maximum of 30%)

B. Below 45 mph Bituminous Concrete Surface, Class I-Q (No restrictions on

V. Roads with ADT below I ,500

All Bituminous Concrete Surface, Class l-Q (No restrictions on aggregate type)

OTHER SURFACES - Considered on a project to project basis: Open Graded Friction Course, Bituminous Concrete
Surface, Class N-30, Bituminous Concrete Binder Class I-0, and Sand Asphalt, Type II.

Note 1. Traffic volumes shown are for two lane roadways. For four lane roads, determine the equivalent two lanes volume
for the shoulder or outside lanes from the attached chart.

Note 2. Lower category surfaces may apply when the project quantity of the wearing course is less than 500 tons.

Note 3. Stage construction or special mixtures may be specified for roadways where pavements may develop significant rut
depth.

Note 4. Class N-30 surface may be applied for roadways with traffic volumes greater than l ,500 ADT and speeds less than
50 MPH where pavements require extraordinary rutting resistance. Class N-30 mixtures are specificaHy noted for
application at intersections with high truck and turning movements. Class I-0 Binder may be used for roads with
ADT less than 1,500 at locations which require extraordinary rutting resistance.

Note 5. Higher category surfaces and aggregate may be utilized when warranted by design, materials, or traffic and safety
considerations. Exceptions for use of a lower category surface may be made with the approval of the State
Highway Engineer in special cases when warranted by design, materials, or traffic consideration.

APPROVED:
WARRANTS FOR ASPHALT BINDER SELECTION

CATEGORY BINDER GRADE

1. Mainline PavementS Wilh:· PG 76-22 with 50% Elastic Recovery

2,500,000 ESAL's per year or greaur in design lane,


or
30,000 Average Daily Traffic for both directions,
or
30 Percent Trucks.

2. Mainline Pavements With: PG 70-22

1, 000,000 ESAL 's per year or greaJer in design lane,


or
15,000 Average Daily Traffic for both directions,
or
20 Percent Trucks.

3. AJI Other Pavement for Mainline and AJl Shoulders: PG 64-22

4. Locations of Severe Rutting and Demonstrated *lncrease Required PG Grade Binder


High Pavement Stresses such as lntersections, and by one or more grades.
Truck Climbing Lanes.

*For Example:

If lhe required PG Grade Binder is PG 64-22 and the pavement conditions are such that there are
locations of severe rutting and demonstrated high pavement stresses, increase the performance
grade (PG) of the asphalt binder to a PG 70-22 or PG 76-22 dependent upon lhe extent and
severity of the distresses.

5. The use of other melhods for modification of asphalt binders and techniques for pavement reinforcement
may be considered on a project specific basis. Examples of olher applications include lhe use of fibers,
paving fabrics, geogrids, stress absorbing membrane interlayers, etc.

6. A PG 58-22 asphalt binder may be used as lhe virgin binder in mixes containing Recycled Asphalt
Pavement (RAP).

7. PG 76-22 wilh 50% Elastic Recovery and PG 70-22 Asphalt Cement Binders shall be used only in the top
ponions of lhe pavement srrucrure (lhe top 100 to 125 mm ( 4 to 5 inches)) for the driving lanes only. A
PG 64-22 Asphalt Cement Binder will be used for all olher applications excepting for Recycled Asphalt
as discussed in Category 6 above or olher special considerations identified on a project specific basis.

8. Exceptions for lhese warrantS may be made by the Designer on a project specific basis. The basis for
exceptions shall be documented in lhe project file. This documentation will be used for refmement of lhese
guidelines.

APPROVED: /Z-L~tP
~
/~£?
Paul Toussaint, Division Administrator ~
Federal Highway Administration

pa·Jrodc/1211611996
,.

ce&
Cc-1r
9L ss

Commonwealth of Kentucky
j ames C. Cadell, Ill Transportation Cabinet Paul E. Patton
Secretary of Transportation Frankfort, Kentucky 40622 Govemor

T. Kevin Flanery
Deputy Secretary March 2, 1999

Mr. Jesse Story


Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Frankfort, KY 40601

Dear Mr. Story

Subject: Asphalt Paving Guidelines and Warrants

As a result of our February 19, 1999 Pavement Committee meeting, we have revised our asphalt
guidelines and warrants. The revisions are intended to be effective with the January 2000 bid
letting. Attached for your review and approval are:

1) Guidelines for Method of Compaction Acceptance of Asphalt Mixtures


2) Guidelines for Superpave Shoulder Mixture
3) Warrants for Asphalt Binder Selection

If you concur with these guidelines, please provide a signature of approval in the designated
signature block and return to Mr. Trevor Booker, Division of Construction, 501 High Street,
Frankfort, Kentucky 40622.

If there are any questions or if additional information is needed, please advise.

Sincerely,

~-!.
~ta~· ~~wa
.. Engineer
JMY/IKDffB

Attachments

cc: David Smith DeJtter Newman


Joe Deaton Jim Burchett
Marcie Mathews Charles Briggs
Dudley Brown EDUCATION
John Sacksteder
Jim Stone Trevor Booker PAYS
Gary Sharpe KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET
"PROVIDE A SAFE, EFFICIENT. ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND. AND FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
WHICH PROMOTES ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENHANCES THE QUALffY OF UFE IN KENTUCKY:'
'AN EQUAL OPPOQTUNITY EMPLOYER M/F/0'
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF IDGHWAYS
WARRANTS FOR ASPHALT BINDER SELECTION

EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 1, 2000

BINDER PERFORMANCE
GRADE {PG) CATEGORY

1. PG 76-22 Mainline Pavements With:

2,500,000 ESAL 's per year or greater in design fane,


or
30,000 Average Daily Traffic for both directions,
or
30 Percent Trucks.

2. PG 70-22 Mainline Pavements With:

1,000,000 ESAL 's per year or greater in design lane,


or
15,000 Average Daily Traffic for both directions,
or
20 Percent Trucks.

3. PG 64-22 All Other Pavement for Mainline and All Shoulders.

4. Increase Required PG Binder Locations of Severe Rutting and Demonstrated High


by One or More Grades* Pavement Stresses Such as Intersections and Truck-
Climbing Lanes.

• For Example: lfthe required PG Binder is PG 64-22 and the pavement conditions are such that
there are locations of severe rutting and demonstrated high pavement stresses, increase the PG
of the asphalt binder to a PG 70-22 or PG 76-22, depending on the extent and severity of the
distresses.

5. The use of other methods for modification of asphalt binders and techniques for pavement
reinforcement may be considered on a project-specific basis. Examples of other applications
include the use of fibers, paving fabrics, geogrids, stress-absorbing membrane interlayers, etc.

6. A PG 58-22 Asphalt Binder may be used as the virgin binder in mixes containing Recycled
Asphalt Pavement {RAP).

7. PG 76-22 and PG 70-22 Asphalt Binders shall be used only in the top portions of the pavement
structure (the top 4 to 5 inches) for the driving lanes only. A PG 64-22 Asphalt Binder will be
used for all other applications except for RAP as discussed in Category 6 above or other special
considerations identified on a project-specific basis.

8. Exceptions for these warrants may be made by the Designer on a project-specific basis. The basis
for exceptions shall be documented in the project file. This documentation will be used for
refinement of these guidelines.

APPROVED: J -/- 9'9


Date

Jesse Story, Division Administrator Date


Federal Highway Administration
KENTUCKYDEPARTMENTOFIDGHWAYS
GillDELINES FOR METHOD OF COMPACTION ACCEPTANCE
OF ASPHALT MIXTURES

EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 1, 2000

When the plan quantity is 1,000 tons or greater of one mixture type, apply compaction Option A
of Section 402 of the Standard Specifications to all of the following:

1. New construction projects.

2. Interstate and Parkway projects.

3. Mixtures containing PG 70-22, PG 76-22, or other specialty modifiers.

4. Resurfacing projects with mixtures requiring Type A - TypeD polish-resistant


aggregate.

Use compaction Option A, of Section 402 of the Standard Specifications, for all individual
mixtures placed on driving lanes at one inch or greater thickness on the above-listed applications.
For group jobs, any single pavement/subsection must be 1,000 tons or greater before Option A
applies.

Accept other mixtures and quantities of less than 1,000 tons, including those for shoulders,
leveling and wedging, and thin scratch courses (those less than one inch thick), by compaction
Option B of Section 402 of the Standard Specifications. For resurfacing mixtures requiring
Type E polish-resistant aggregate, apply Option B density requirements.

The Department may apply compaction requirements to other mixtures, or quantities, when
deemed necessary because of specialty applications or other considerations. The Division of
Highway Design, the Division of Highway Operations, or the Division of Materials will
recommend special applications to the State Highway Engineer for approval.

The Department will include a statement in the project proposal indicating whether compaction
Option A or Option B applies.

APPROVED

APPROVED
Jesse Story, P. E. Date
Kentucky Division Administrator, FHWA
KENTUCKYDEPARTMENTOFIDGHWAYS

EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 1, 2000

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
GUIDELINES FOR ESAL CLASS SELECTION FOR
SUPERPAVE SHOULDER MIXTURES

When selecting the ESAL Class for Superpave asphaJt mixtures for shoulder applications, the
Department will use one Class lower than that specified for the corresponding mainline
Superpave mixture. When the mainline Superpave mixture is a Class 1 mix, the Department will
use Class 1 for the corresponding Superpave shoulder mixture also.

The Department may apply a different ESAL Class to a particular Superpave shoulder mixture
when deemed necessary because of specialty applications or other considerations .

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
GUIDELINESFORSELECTINGSUPERPAVESURFACE
MIXTURE SIZE AND LIFf THICKNESS

When selecting a Superpave asphalt surface (wearing course) mixture, the Department will
specify:

1. A 0.38-inch nominal-maximum size Superpave mixture, at a 1.0-inch lift


thickness, for ESAL Classes 1 and 2; and

2. A 0.5-inch nominal-maximum size Superpave mixture, at a 1.5-inch lift


thickness, for ESAL Classes 3 and 4.

The Department may select a different size of, or lift thickness for, a particular Superpave
mixture when deemed necessary because of specialty applications or other considerations .

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

APPROVED

APPROVED
Jesse Story, P. E. Date
Kentucky Division Administrator, FHWA
!P avement Design Guide April 1, 1999 25

Appendix D
Pavement Design Submittal Forms
KENTUCKY TRANS ORTATION CABINET
PAVEMENT DESIGN FOLDER

County Item No. UPN


-----------------
Road Route

Sta. to Sta. MP to MP to

Designed By Project Length miles

Type Selection ESAL's Design ESAL's


AC 0 D
~5. ooo, ooo
PCC 0 >5,ooo,ooo D
DOCUMENTATION

D Design Executive Summary D Typical Sections and Details


D Pavement Design Schedule D Comparison of Alternatives
D Special Notes and Provisions D Initial Cost
D Type Selection Justification D Life Cycle Cost
D Geotechnical Information D Other Documentation
D Traffic Information List:

SUBMITTED: P.E. Date:

APPROVED: Date:
----------------------- Project Manager
APPROVED : Date:
----------------------- C.O. Highway Design
KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET D 61-29E
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY DESIGN REV . 3 - 99
PAVEMENT BRANCH

Pavement Design <20,000,000 ESAL's Sheet 1


& off the National Highway System

County Item UPN _____________________________


------~------------

Road Name F. P .

Traffic ,19 ,2 0 E . S .A. L .

Existing : Type Thickness

Length Miles . Design Speed M. P . H. Design CBR

FOR TYPICAL SECTION SEE ATTACHED SHEET(S)

e \ VEMENT
l raffic Lanes

Shoulders

e DESIGNED DATE------- P . E .

APPROVED ------------------------ DATE------- Project Manager

APPROVED --------~---------­ DATE _______ C . O . Pavement Design


(As Required)
!Pavement Design Guide April 1, 1999 26

Appendix E
Example Pavement Design Submittal Folder
KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET
PAVEMENT DESIGN FOLDER

County Harlan Item No. 11 -133.00 UPN FD04 048 0038 001-005 065D
-----------------
Road Harlan-Evarts Road Route KY 38

Sta. to Sta. 1+005 to 6+859.25 MP to MP to


Designed By I. M. Designer Project Length 3.64 miles
----~~---------------
Type Selection ESAL's Design ESAL's 20 yr@ 2,594,000
AC D ~5. ooo , ooo D
PCC 0 >5,ooo,ooo D

DOCUMENTATION

D Design Executive Summary 0 Typical Secti ons and Details


D Pavement Design Schedule 0 Comparison of Altern atives
D Special Notes and Provisions 0 Initial Cost
D Type Selection Justification D Life Cycle Cost
D Geotechnical Information 0 Ot her Documentation
D Traffic Information List:

SUBMITTED: P.E. Date:


-----------------------
APPROVED: Project Manager Date:
-----------------------
APPROVED : C.O. Highway Design Date:
-----------------------
KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET D 61-29E
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY DESIGN REV . 3-99
PAVEMENT BRANCH

Pavement Desi gn <2 0 , 000 , 000 ESAL's Sheet 1


& off the National Highway System

County Harlan Item 11-133 . 00 UPN FD04 048 0038 001-005


~~~~------------

Road Name Harlan-Evarts (KY 38} F.P.

Reconstruction from Clovertown East to Brookside .

Traffic 7,500 ,1996 13,200 ,2019 E . S . A. L . 2 , 594 , 000

Existing : Type
------------------------------- Thickness
Length 3 . 64 Miles . Design Speed 45 M. P . H. Design CBR 9*

FOR TYPICAL SECTION SEE ATTACHED SHEET(S}


*2ft Rock Roadbed
PAVEMENT
Traffic Lanes
1 DGA BASE 6 . 5" DEPTH
120 ASPHALT BASE CLASS I PG64-22 8" DEPTH (4" + 4"}
157 ASPH SURF CL I-40/20 PG64-22 1. 25" DEPTH

Shoulders
1 DGA BASE FULL DEPTH
120 ASPHALT BASE CLASS I PG64-22 4" DEPTH
149 ASPH SURFACE CL I-0 PG64-22 1. 2 5" DEPTH

Asphalt Seal required from outside edge of paved shoulder to a point 2


feet down the ditch or fill slope . Two applications of the following :

291 EMULSIFIED ASPHALT RS-2 2 . 40 lb/sq yd


100 ASPHALT SEAL AGGREGATE 20 lb/sq yd

NOTE :
Increase bottom 6 . 5" of DGA 10% by weight for Rock Roadbed construction ,
including shoulders .

PLAN NOTE NO .: 242 ; 444 ; 447

e DESIGNED DATE P . E.

APPROVED DATE Project Manager

APPROVED DATE C . O. Paveme nt De sig n


(As Required}
,.
%
HARLAN CO.
=• r ;JO
;:;;,. ITEM • 11-133.00
~z
• 11'1
o.m
0
;) ...."lJ
\D
a> TRAFFIC LANE 8 ' SHOULDER

6' PAVED 2'


2'
I. 25" AS "1-40/20" PG64-22
1. 25" AS "1·0" PG64-22
4" AB "I" PG64-22 4" AB 'T' PG64-22

21.
4/.

2' ROCK ROADBED


6. 5" OGA

PAVEMENT DETAIL (HARLAN -EVARTS ROADJ

(D SHOULDER SHALL BE WIDENED 2 FEET WHERE GUARDRAIL IS TO BE INSTALLED .

PAVEMENT DESIGN DETAIL


HARLAN - EVARTS ROAD <KY 38) 1./l
I
fT1
FDO.otl O.otl 8 0038 001-005 065 D fT1
-4

N
Pavement Design Catalog Version 1.0 Apri/-99

Structural Ot~lgnlnput! .<i&J<~~"l'fk"*-q... ... ~


~~t.etfff4rl.ooflocl;,..,.~...,_w",IIMII.,.,__~-·---
OulgnCIII lM¢ol..._.,_.,
l>o'9'ES.II.'s la~V!1bo<or~o...o.­
Tob1Lono W'ldllo. ON Ow- (II)
l>o'9' Uo (INn) IV!1bo<ol0w....,_(lor2)
lrcU Us« Dthdll*l.nts,.. ~1 htido~••l'l
WyoosPonod(I'Nn) Q,aido--ou
Slab*od ~llldnooo(il) L...ge,ollniiii~(Dtfdl20oiot•)
SUb ~- !Ono Dh<llon) !WrU.. Cott(Sl

Maximum Asphalt Oeslqn

Sufact
~lOIII In
U)oo<l
li)'0<2
llylll
.. Dos~
125

440
4 40
OOD
-
U)oor Tlwckntn (n)

us[
4SO
4.SO
G.OD
U~erDc-riMd Thk.'-ne» (m.)
lot"'*"
•~I
4.119
40D
0.00
Sl1ooAder SN
1.251 D55

4.0D 110
110
O.OD
M.w*w
125

40D
40D
OOD
-
c-.- ThctMu Cnl
125

40D
DOD
DOD
SN
DSS

UCI
UCI
000
Maximum Asohalt Oeslan

Sort-
eo..
loy~~
li)'0<2
lrr•l
I
lornCodo
I
~
MoiNno -
miA>p~~ s..~ CL ~ PG54-22

120 Bi Cone e... Cl&ts I


120 Bi Cone Sao Clusl
120 BiConc8osoCI&tsl
lnltlal Cast:
Soloctoon
lh!Coot
I 38.6

3101
3101
3101
2 056 679

I
l«nCodo
I
ShdclotiiUN!Solodlon
Dol<lll*>n
14$11111 Cone SUfoto a- 1-0

120 84 Cone lloso Cl&ts I


120 llil Cone 8oso Cl&ts I
120 84 Cone 8oso Cl&ts I
lh!Cott
34.28

3101
3101
)Ia!
I

Uyll4 OOD OOD 000 000 li)'0<4 Ill! BiConce...a... l )101 120 llil Cone a- Cl&ts I lte1

~
DB DOD O.OD a.oe a.eo O.OD DOD 000 DOO !8 ~llri•T,.I-Asph IJ 44 18 ~-•T,.I-At!il 21•.&4
DGA 40D 40D e.so IIJ.IO Ul ISO IOSO Otl I DGA 1351 I DGA 1158
MoclfiodR-..1 O.OD OOD 0,00 000 O.OD 000 000 IIMR-.d 13 Uociliod R . - ..... IJIWiodR.- lA
ToiiiSN 4M TaSN 4M
o.-O<

- --
llooo'IO<

- -
Maximum Aqqreqate Oeslan Maximum AQareoate Oesian Initial Cost 2.3-4&618
llyOI Tl'l<lnon (i\)
UOOrOolnod ~ '"' c:.noou;....,-'"'
SU!oto
-1-!nSS
0.11!10
us l?sl us! usI
SN
055 125 I~
SN
o.ss ~ ... 8oso
I
..... Coclo~
mr-"""'iifa.1-ml 1'()54.22
lh!Coot
I »• I 148 Bi Cone Sorfou Clusl-0 l4lJ

U)oorl 2.74 30D u 10 120 lOD lOD 120 llylll Ill! ~Cone 8oso Cl&tsl ltOI lllllliiConc8osoCiml 3101
li)'0<2 2.74 10D ).0 00 120 lOD OOD 120 llyll2 120 Bi Cone llo10 Cl&ts I 3101 120 Bi Cane 8oso C... I 31.0~

llyorl OOD DOD 00 O.OD 000 OOD 000 llyOI) 1211 Bi Cone S..o Cluol SIOI 120 Bi Cone 8oso Cl&ts I )Ia!
llyor4 a.o OOD 000 000 000 li)'0<4 120 1M Cone S..o Cl&ts I 3101 120 Bi CaneS... Cossl nat
ta~a....,..TmU\slft tt ~-~~- rmu.;.n 1144
~
DOO DO 0.0 DOD 000 OOD 000 27 44
~
000
1147 1lSO IS-S ItS 16 I) SO 18SO 150 I DGA 13.58 I DGA n.sa
ModiMdR.-d 000 000 00 000 000 000 000 l.lodR.-d 131.lod&4~ IAI ll llod&dRo~ 1M
ToiJISN 454 TalliSH ··a. ·"
l>o'9'0K DosirO<

-
PCC Pavement PCC Pavement Initial Cost: 2 920 459
llylf Thkknoll (n.) U...Ow_l_lt>l C...OU:ion1 -In I
Dosign Ncminal lloHone Shcl.ldo< u.-
I ~
~!I
PCC P1Yomonl Tticknooo fll) 8D 8.01 ~~·-:o:. 8.01:: . : 800 000 PCCPIYimOnt • 2011IPCcP.v0111611l·ll"""'...,.,...r I 2CIIIIPCCPI\Iomonl-llincllnon<tlnf I 381
AC Sl>ol*j" s..fJ<o 0.00 1,25 ACSI!ooJdorSorf,., ,,, ·::--:"
ACSI>oul4o<8oso 000 000 AC-e...
loyorl 4 000 4 00 Uylll 120 84 Cone a... Cos• I 31 ,01
lly0f2 000 000 loylf2 12! 84 Cane Ban Clna I 31.01
loy•) 000 OOD ll'f'tl, llll 84 Cone Boso et.u I 31.01
uy"4 DOO 000 loy0f4 120 Bi Cane e... a... J )( 01
OBTiwclnou (") 00 ool 0,0 0.0 000 000 08ThidntiJ I 1BIDrNo81"*ol· lrt:•._~ 12744 18 Dt~Siriii-Trt:•._~ ,, 27.44
DGA Tliclnus {in) 40 40 4.0 lS 400 5SO DGA l DGA lS8 1 DGA 11.58
Mo<l6od R-..1 0.0 0.0 :: 000 DOD IIMR.-d ll Modilo<llluodbtd 1-48 lll.lodf'06R.- 1.481
Hoskinston

Project

VICINITY MAP

LOCATION & VICINITY Ml


KY 38 (Harlan - Evarts Roa(
LOCATION MAP FI>04 048 0038 001-005
Item No. 11-133.00
HARLAN COUNTY KY.
/3 J!!_JJP.o ~. . . ,, TC 61-9

/) /J-o..c~·
Transportation Cabmet l/90
Pace 1
Deparunent of Highways
Division of Design
) .
I: . '-
. ,.
DESIGN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

County -----=Ha=r..:.:la::.:n.:.....__ _ Item No -~1~1-~1~33~-~00~--------­

Federal ProJect N o . - - - - - - - - - UPN FD04 048 0038 001 -005 065D

Project DescriptiOn: HARLAN-EVARTS ROAD (KY38)


Reconstruction from Clovertown East to Brookside

Roadway Classification:
Local_ _ _ _Collector_ _..:..X~_.....Arterial _ __

~__Urban_ __
Interstate_ _ _.Rural_ _....:X

ADT (current) 7500 ADT ( 201 9 ) 13200 DHV ( 2019 ) 1400

Posted Speed Limn: 55 (rural) X 35 (urban) _ _ __


Other (specify)_ _ _ _ __

Selected Design Speed.___:7~0...!K:.::;mlh=.:.!!r_ _ _ _ _ __

__X_ Concurrence m a reduced design speed to be obtained from Director of Design

_ _ _E
. xception to design speed critena Wlll have to be obtained from FHWA

DESIGN CITERIA REQUIRED UTILIZED EXISTING

Number of Lanes 2 2 2

Pavement Width 3.6m lanes 3.6m lanes 3.2m lanes

Shoulder Width, Slope 2.4m 4% 2.4m. 4% .6m.8%

Ditch Width, Slope 1.8m. 1:4(1} 1.8, I :4 {I} .9m. 1:3

Bridge Width N/A NIA 6.lm

Earth Cut Slope 1:2 nun (2} 1:2 min (2}

Fill Slope 1:2 min {2} 1:2 min {2}

Minimum Radius 175m 175m

Maxunum Grade 9.5% 4.15%

Minimum Sight Distance lOOm 126m

(1) 4.2m. 1:4- rock cuts


(2) l :2 Mln - l :4 or flatter desirable
.. TC6

Access Con&Tol Type Permit

Envirorunental Action _ _,LNl.Jo::.J.-f'_L.:re.:::.."\~


, )..___ Approval Date - - - - - - - - - - -
E~sting Pav~nentD ep ili s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ ____

Attaclunents: (1) Provide map showing project location


(2) Discussion of all considered alternates. including Do Nothing, and a brief
description of maintenance of traffic schemes
(3) 8 1n, x 11., Typical Section

Sub.;.tted By: u.lil·J-~constn.tcuon


tn
A 1 i_
Eizgmeer

RecommendedBy:~~ ~it? auon gmeer


Z'7.
7
~~~7

/1 . ~~
Approved By:_-w:;::;;~::;.,....,,..........,....,..,
w:;;l=i(j T E.B.M;....,.-- ,!V
.---,...
--:----------
for LOCallon Da1e I

Comments:
Alternate 1B is the recommended alternate

GEOMETRIC APPROVAL GRANTED BY:

Date 7 7
Harlan County, Item No. 11-133.00
Harlan- Evarts Road (KY 38)
FD04 048 0038 001 -005 065D

COMMENTS

KY 3 8 in the area of the subject project is posted for a 55 mph speed limit. The Design Team has
selected a 70 km/hr design speed for the subject project (reconstruction of KY 38). Projects to
reconstruct KY 38 from the end of the subject project at Brookside to Evarts have been completed
within the past 8 years. The projects reconstructed the existing road to a 40 mph design speed in
spots and just resurfaced other areas leaving sections of roadway that do not meet any design speed.
The 70 km/hr design speed was selected for this project because it allows the use of a 175 meter
radius for horizontal curves. A 90 kmlhr design speed has a minimum radius of305 meters. Using
this radius places the new roadway further into the mountain, increasing the excavation and the thus
the construction cost from 12 million dollars (70 km/hr) to 19 million dollars for a 90 kmlhr design
speed.
ll
SUFNEY
J.6m J.6m 2.4m
IBm 0.6m'lJ.6m0.6m
P/IVED (f)
®

..2fro/ohf U~ Stop,

TYPICAL SUPERELEVAT£0 SECTION

li
SUFNEY
J.6m J.6m

®
I ... 4D7. 2.D7. 2.D7. 41)7.

TYPICAL SECTION

~
"Tl~

~
ooo
-o..-

-· (; ~::X::
3 0~

-
("") ~"'1
C) z ooc;;-
0. 0:::2
0
(]) Widen 0.6m wtrx-e Guordrollls r(J(1Jir«J.
® 811umlnous Seol '
\./) ::: ~ I
!'T> , oo
-gtT1

("")
~ c...> <
c...> ..... ~

0
;:j
(-'>
g, a NOTE:
SUPERELEVATED SHOOWERS - CONSTRUCT TO
STANDARD SUPERELEVATKJH. EXCEPT NCJT FLATTER
T SWPE INDICATED FOR NORIIAL SECTKJH.
Harlan County
(KY 38) Harlan - Evarts Road
FD04 048 0038 001-005 065 D
Item No. 11-133.00

ALTERNATES

The project begins at east end of the Corps of Engineers roadway improvement for the
tunnel project and extends a distance of approximately 5. 8 kilometers to the west end of the
bridge over Clover Fork at Brookside.

Five alternates were studied along with a "Do-Nothing Alternate".

Alternate 1B is the recorrunended alternate.

Three Alternates (1, 2 & 3) were presented at the preliminary line and grade inspection.
Alternate 1 generally followed the existing roadway. Alternates 2 and 3 provided for improved
horizontal alignment and were generally located fwther from Clover Fork. The cost estimates were
$12,600,000., $19,100,000., and $16,800,000 respectively.

The Do-Nothing Alternate would retain the existing roadway which does not meet the
needs of the traffic.
Alternate 1A was proposed for discussion at the Preliminary Line and Gtade Inspection
because of the difficulty of maintaining traffic at Coxton during construction. This Alternate would
primarily use Alternate 1 except moving the alignment south to the west of Coxton and north of
Clover Fork at Coxton adding two river crossings. It was determined that the aligrunent north of
Coxton would be in the floodway. It would be difficult if not impossible to obtain approval for this
alternate.
Alternate 1B was then proposed to move the aligrunent back to the south side of Clover
Fork at Coxton and provide a temporary detour to the north of Clover Fork using the existing
crossing and providing a temporary crossing. The estimated cost is $10,700,000.

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC

Maintain traffic on existing roadway except at Coxton where a temporary detour will be provided.
Construct new roadway outside limits of existing roadway. Construct temporary connections to
connect full and partial sections of the new roadway and divert traffic to these locations using one
lane and the shoulder to maintain traffic where necessary. Complete construction of the remaining
left and right halves of the new roadway. Construct the approaches to the bridges, railroad and
beginning of project. Traffic may restricted to one lane at approach construction during working
hours. Shift traffic crossover points allow completion of roadway at these points and complete
construction
Harlan County
(KY 38) Harlan - Evarts Road
FD04 048 0038 001-005 065 D
Item No. 11-133.00

Alternate lB

ASSESSMENT OF WATER-RELATED IMPACTS

1. There may be wetlands on this project subject to Environmental Analysis by the Department.

2. The proposed alignment of the relocated Harlan-Evarts Road (KY 38) crosses a drain at
Station 4+640+/-. The existing 914 x 914 mm (3'x3') reinforced concrete box culvert at 0 degree
skew is being replaced with a 1200 mm (48") pipe culvert at the same skew. The proposed pipe
fits the existing channel on the inlet end. The proposed pipe provides for a 40 meter channel
change (the proposed roadway fills the existing channel) and moves the outlet 35 m southeast.

3. The proposed alignment of the relocated Harlan-Evarts Road(KY 38) crosses a drain at
approximate Station 4+840+/-. The existing 1219 x 1219 (4 'x4') mm reinforced concrete box
culvert at 0 degree skew is being replaced with a 1350 mm (54") pipe at the same skew. The pipe
fits the existing channel on the inlet end. The proposed pipe provides for the filling of 30 m of
existing channel under the proposed roadway and provides for the minimization of any water-
related impact at this crossing.

4. The proposed alignment of the relocated Harlan-Evarts Road(KY 38) crosses a drain at
approximate Station 5+240+/-. The existing 5 m reinforced concrete bridge at 0 degree skew is
being replaced with a 1800 x 1200 nun (6 'x4 ' ) reinforced concrete box culvert at 30 degree skew.
The culvert fits the existing channel on both ends. The proposed culvert provides for the filling of
3 5 m of existing channel at the KY 3 8 crossing of the existing drain and provides for the
m.irUrnization of any water-related impact at this crossing.

5. The proposed alignment of the relocated Harlan-Evarts Road(KY 38) crosses a drain at
approximate Station 6+560+/-. The existing 1372 mm (54') reinforced concrete pipe at 15 degree
skew is being replaced with a 2400 x 1800 nun (8'x6 ' ) reinforced concrete box culvert at the same
skew. The culvert fits the existing channel. The proposed culvert provides for an avoidance of any
channel change at the KY 3 8 crossing of the existing drain and provides for the minimization of
any water-related impact at this crossing.

Note: Proposed pipe and culvert sizes shown hereon are preliminary estimated sizes.

1
.:PA?Vdn-. 6-/
L&.o lii./INic
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY &/Jl!!J Aibc,Jro,V
J AMES c. CODELL, Ill TRANSPORTATION CABINET
40622
&:rt;;c_r P AUL E. PATTON
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY fr<_ ~ G OVERNOR

T. KEVI N FLANERY
D EPUTY SECRETARY

INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO

TO: John B. Sacksteder, Director


Division of Highway Design

ATTN : Daryl Greer

FROM : Bruce S. Siria, Director ~


Division of Transportation Plan~

DATE: November 11 , 1 996

SUBJECT: Harlan County Traffic Forecast


KY 38 from KY 3454 to Cloverfork Bridge
Item No. 11-133.00

In response to your October 16, 1996 request for traffic fo recasts on the subject
project, we are providing current year ADTs, construction yea r (1999) ADTs, design
year (2019) ADTs, truck percentages, and estimated equivalent axleload
accumulations on the attached map and worksheet.

If you have any questions, please call Rob Bostrom of this Division.

BSS:KL
Attachments
c: Gary Sharpe
Daniel Jewell, D-11

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATlON CABINET MISSION


'PROVIDE A SAFE. EFACIENT, ENVIRONMENTALlY SOUND, AHO ASCAU.Y RESPONSIBLE TRANSPORTATlON
SYSTEM WHICH PROMOTES ECONOM IC GROWTH AHO ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF UFE IN KENTUCKY"
'AH EQUAL OPf>ORTUNITY EMPLOYER MIF/0'
l\1 <i · (). ~5 1111 West of KY 34 54 (Turn c1 lltlll{d) at the
Corps ICCOit Siructed KY J8 (MP 1. 1 18)
END : C luvcrlmk Uridge at Orooksidc (f\1P4 . 7D)
LENGTII : 1.62 mi.
N
'\ ,.. -- __., .. . -

zo YEAR fORECAST

1996 AOT 7,500


1999 AOT = 8,100
2019 ADT 13,200
2019 OHV : 1,400
2019 XT (AOT) ~ 9
2019 XT (OHV) = 6
20 Yr EALs = 2,594 , 000
FORECAST OF EQUIVALENT AXLE LOAD ACCUMULATIONS - DESIGN TO 10-1 No •.•
COUNTY •• •••••...•.•••.•• ·I HARLAN
~------------------------------~
DATE. . .......
TIME.. . ......
11/11/96
7:59 am
NAME •.••• .. .. K. Luljak
ROUTE 10:
Road Name •••••••••••••• KY 38
Route No •.••. KY 38
Project Nos ••.•.••. •. •• FD04 Item No • •• • • • 11-133.00
File No .•••.. 96 126.\/KS
Project Limits •.• •• •••• KY 3454 to Brookside T.E. No .••••• - 96.126
Se!JI)ent .••••.

Ref. Stations .• • •.•••.. 1995 Vol. Count Q Stn 758 1995 Aggregated ESALs, FC 7
PTR Rpt, Stn 758 1995 Aggregated ESALs, FC 7
11995 Coal Haul Report

FUNCTI ONAL CLASS:


Rural - Urban -
01 Interstate 11 Interstate
02 Principal Arter l 12 Othr Fre•ws & X-~
06 Minor Arterial 14 Othr Prncpl Arterl
07 Moj or Collector X 16 Minor Arterial
08 Minor Collector 17 Collector
09 Local 19 Local

DATES: Constrct ion Design Year at


Year Period Mid-term
1999 20 2009

TRAFFIC PARAMETERS:
Cnstrctn Yr Amual Years to Mid-term Cnstrctn Yr Mid· term
Forecast Change Mid-term lncrennt Forecast Forecast
Vo l~.~ne ( AAD T) 8,069 X 1.0250 10.0 = 2,260 + 8,069 = 10,329
Percent Trucks CXT> 7.5 X 1.0071 10.0 = .551 + 7.500 = 8.1
Percent Trucks Hauling
Coal (XCT) 1.6 X .9735 10.0 = -.389 + 1.6 = 1.3
Non-Coal Trucks:
Axles/Truck (A/NCT) 2.881 X 1.0014 10.0 = .040 + 2.881 2.921
EALs/Axle (EAL/NCA) .244 X 1.0000 10.0 . 000 + .244 = .244
Coal Trucks:
Axles/Truck (A/CT) 4.5n X 1.0000 10.0 = .000 + 4.5n = 4.5n
EALs/Axle (EAL/CA) 1.625 X 1.0000 10.0 = .000 + 1.625 = 1.625

DAILY EALs AT MID-TERM:


4-Tired Vehicles: 10,329 X .919 X .005 = 47.486
AADT 1-(XT/100)
Non-Coal Trucks: 10,329 X .079 X 2.921 X . 244 = 585 . 302
AADT (XT /100)x A/NCT EAL/NCA
(1-XCT/100)
Coal Trucks: 10,329 X .001 X 4.5n X 1.625 = n.946
AADT (XT/100)X A/CT EAL/CA
CXCT/100)
Total Mid-term daily EALs ..••••.••.• • •... = 710.734

DESIGN EALs: 710.734 X 365 X 20 X .5000 2,594,000


Mid· term Design Lane
Daily EAls Period Ad justment Des ign EAL
in Critical Lane
No. of Lanes •• .•• .• •• •. j 2 1 or 2 Way .. ... , 2
Form TF96_950
rp . ~

M E MOR AN D U M

TO: David Kratt, P.E.


TEBM fo r Location
Division of Highway Design

ATTN: Benn Powell, P.E.

FROM: William Broyles, P.E.


Geotechnical Branch Manager
Division of Materials

BY: DrumyMole~
GeotechniccJB';'~~h '-

DATE: January 30, 1998

SUBJECT: Harlan County


FD04 048 0038 001-005 065 D
Harlan-Evarts R oad (KY 38)
Station 1+ 005 to 6+859.25
Item Number 11-133.00
Geotechnical Engineering R oadway Report

An abbreviated geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the subject project.
The drilling and sampling was obtained by Rhodes , Incorporated. The testing was performed by
the Geotechnical Branch. The purpose of the investigation was to define the soil and subsurface
conditions. Reduced size geotechnical notes sheet, cut stability and embankment stability sheets
are attached. The CADD input for the cut and embankment stability sheets is being sent to T.H.E.
Engineers via E-Mail for incorporation into the roadway plans.

Stability analyses were performed at station 6+400 which indicated no problems to be


expected for the embankments. The drawing is attached showing the result of these analyses.

A Select Rock Quantity Estimate was submitted by the design consultant. Based on these
estimates. a sufficient amount of durable sandstone from roadway excavation will be available on
this project for all embankment construction and to perform all the following applicable notes
requiring this material.

Our recommendations are listed below:

1). All soils, whether from roadway or borrow, may require manipulation to obtain proper
moisture content prior to compaction. Direct payment shall not be permitted for
rehandling, hauling, stockpiling, and/or manipulating soils.
Memorandum(R-4-98)
D. Kra tt
Page 2 of3

2). In accordance with Section 207 of the current Standard Specifications, the moisture content
of embankment material shall not vary from the optimum moisture content as determined
by KM 64-511 by more than + 2 percent or less than -4 percent. This moisture content
requi rement shall have equal weight with the density requirement when determining the
acceptability of embankment construction. Refer to the Family of Curves for
moisture/density correlations.

3). Excavation of surfaces ditches and channel changes adjacent to embankment areas shall be
performed prior to the placement of the adjacent embankments. The material excavated
for the channel changes and surface ditches is suitable for embankment construction if
dried to proper moisture content in accordance with Section 207 of the current Standard
Specifications.

4). The contractor is responsible for conducting any operations necessary (such as construction
of temporary drainage ditches, etc.) to excavate the cut areas to the required typical
section. These operations shall be incidental to the roadway price.

5). The contractor shall conduct grading operations in such a manner that durable sandstone
from roadway excavation shall be stockpiled separately or otherwise manipulated so that
ample quantities are available for those areas requiring said material. No direct payment
will be allowed for such necessary manipulating as stockpiling, hauling and/or handling
the material.

6). All embankment construction shall be sandstone from roadway excavation.

7). All Earth Cores shall be constructed with non-erodible material only, meeting the
requirements of the current edition of Special Provision 69.

8). Soil horizons and slopes on the project may be subject to erosion. Necessary procedures
in accordance with Sections 212 and 213 of the Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction. current edition, shall be followed on construction to control the
erosion and water pollution.

9). Any saturated, unstable material encountered in existing creek beds and/or drainage swales
within embankment foundation limits shall be drained.

lQ). Foundation embankment benches shall be placed in accordance with Standard Drawing
RGX-010 at the locations listed below and/or as directed by the Engineer.
6+430 to 6+450. left side

11 ). The project should be designed for a 0.6 meter rock roadbed utilizing durable sandstone
from roadway excavation, using a CBR design value of 9.0.
Memorandum(R-4-98)
D. Kratt
Page 3 of3

12). The recommended rock swell factor is estimated to be ten (10) percent for material
excavated below the rock disintegration zone (RDZ).

cc: Kentucky Transportation Center


Division of Design (Roadway Plan Review Section)
ftEBM for Pavement Design
Division of Construction
TEBM for Construction (District 11) 2 copies
TEBM for Preconstruction (District 11)
T.H.E. Engineers

Attachment
VI C> ...... ::r:
0 0 ~
Q. Ql l>
Ql 3 :0
::r: r
~
II 0 z -< l>
z
J.. p
0 VI ()
.7 :J = CXI
0
.
N
.A
:::::
I
c
'.0'""""
0 0 z
0 -i
~ -<
. ........ . - 0

.I' , ,
~S8en

J ,/\
I 7
Research Report
KTC-99-1

Development of ESAL Forecasting


Procedures for Superpave Pavement Design

by

Brad W. Rister
Research Engineer

and

David L. Allen
Chief Research Engineer

Kentucky Transportation Center


College of Engineering
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

in cooperation with
Transportation Cabinet
Commonwealth of Kentucky

and

Federal Highway Administration


U.S. Department of Transportation

The contents of this report reflect the views of the


authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy
of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of
the University of Kentucky, th e Kentucky Transportation
Cabinet, nor the Federal Highway Administration. This report
does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The inclusion of manufacturer names and trade names are for
identification purposes and are not to be considered
as endorsements.

March, 1999
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
KTC-99-1
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date March 15, 1999
Development of ESAL Forecasting Procedures
for Superpave Pavement Design 6. Performing Organization Code

8. Perform ing Organization Report No.6


7. Author(s) Brad W. Rister, David L. Allen KTC-99-1

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Kentucky Transportation Center


11 . Contract or Grant No.
College of Engineering
KYSPR 99-194
University ofKentucky

13. Type of Report and Period Covered


12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Final
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
State Office Building
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Frankfort, KY 40622

15. Supplementary Notes


Publication of this report was sponsored by the Kentucky Transportation
Cabinet with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration

16. Abstract

This report documents the analysis methods used to develop the Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) forecasting program for
Superpave projects. In addition, this report discusses the procedures used in the ESAL forecasting program to forecast ESALs in the
design lane for pavement resurfacing/overlay projects which are consistent with the Superpave process of asphaltic mixture design.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement


Equivalent Single Axle Load
ESALs Unlimited

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21 . No. of Pages 22. Price
20
Unclassified Unclassified
EXECUTfVESU~Y

This report documents the analysis methods used to develop the Equivalent Single
Axle Load (ESAL) forecasting program for Superpave projects. In addition, this report
discusses the procedures used in the ESAL forecasting program to forecast ESALs in the
design lane for pavement resurfacing/overlay projects which are consistent with the
Superpave process of asphaltic mixture design.
ACKNOWLEGEGMENTS

The comments and suggestions by Mr. Rob Bostrom, employees of Multimodal


Programs, and employees of the Division of Planning helped in the successful
development of the "ESAL Forecasting Program." We thank all these people for their
contributions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... ... ................. 3

2.0 ANALYSIS METHOD ................................................. . ..... . .............. 4

3.0 PROCEDURES FOR ACCESSING THE "ESAL


FORECASTING" PROGRAM ............................................................. 5

4.0 PROCEDURES FOR USING THE "ESAL FORECASTING" PROGRAM ....... 8

5.0 ACCESSING THE REPORT FROM CD .............................................. 16

6.0 CONCLUSIOKS & RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 16

APPENDIX A: DATABASE FILES ............ ....................................... .. 17

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE OUTPUT ...................................................... 20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I. Introduction Screen-(Start Screen) ....................... .. ......... . ........... 7


Figure 2. Screen One ........................................................................... 8
Figure 3. Screen Two .......................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Screen Three ....................................................................... 10
Figure 5. Screen Four ......................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Screen Five ........................................................ ... .............. 14

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Lane distribution factors or equations ........................................... .4


Table 2. Lane distribution factors or equations .......................................... 11
Table 3. Functional class growth rates .................................................... 12
Table 4. Lane distribution factors or equations ........................... .. ............. 15
Table 5. Functional class growth rates ............................. ..... ... .. ..... .. ....... 15

2
1.0 INTRODUCTION

In 1985, a procedure was developed by the Kentucky Transportation Center


(report UKTRP 85-30) to estimate Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) for the
purposes of flexible pavement design. Maximum use was made of historical data and
well-accepted procedures were used in developing the prediction model. This model was
based on a series of computer programs that summarized truck-weight and classification
data such that traffic characteristics could be estimated from a matrix of data classified by
geographic area, Federal highway system, volume, and extent of coal haulage. In
addition, an equation was developed to calculate average daily ESALs using the
following seven traffic parameters as independent variables; annual average daily traffic
volume (AADT), percent trucks in the traffic stream (%T), number of coal hauling trucks
in the traffic stream (CT), average number of axles per coal truck (A/CT). average
number of axles per non-coal truck (A!f), average number of equivalent axleloads per
coal-truck axle (ESAL/CA), and average number of equivalent axleloads per non-coal
truck axle (ESAL A). The equation to calculate average daily ESALs can be viewed in
equation 1 below.

[1] (AADT*(l -%T)*.005)-(((AADT*%T)-CT)*Aff*ESAUA)•(CT*A/CT*ESAUCA)

The prediction model developed in UKTRP 85-30 is still used by the Cabinet's
traffic forecasting function. However, the advent of Superpave as the Cabinet's asphalt
pavement mix has been the impetus for this study since all Superpave mixes require an
ESAL value. Therefore, it was necessary to develop a simplified model to be used for
Superpave projects. The model developed uses the same traffic parameters used by the
Cabinet's traffic forecasting function, but makes several simplifying assumptions to
arrive at a forecasted ESAL value. These assumptions consist of applying growth rates to
the present independent variables (AADT, %T, Aff, ESAL/A, AICT, and ESALICA)
based on the functional class growth rates provided in the Aggregated 1997 ESAL table
(Appendix A.). Note, a default growth rate of 2 percent is used for the AADT growth
rate for all functional classes in this model. The functional class growth rates are applied
to the present independent variables using the compound interest equation at the median
forecast year, i.e. present %T* ((l-growth rate)" (number of forecasted years/2)]. After
the application of all growth rates, the new independent variables are substituted into
equation 1 to calculate a total median year daily ESAL value. Next, ESALs are
forecasted in the design lane for Superpave projects, by taking the product of the total
median year daily ESAL calculation and multiplying it by (365 days * number of
forecasted years * a lane distribution factor) (equation 2). Note, it is not recommended to
use this procedure of forecasting ESALs for the Superpave Mix Design except for a
"ballpark" estimate.

(2] (Total median daily ESALs)*365*(N)*(Lanedist)

N = number of forecasted years

3
Lanedist = lane distribution factors are based on report UKTRP 85-30,
modifications have been made for 6 and 8 lane roads (Table
1).

Tabl e 1 Lane eli stn'buti.on £ac t ors or equa 10ns


Lane layout Lane distnoutioo factor or equations
I lane !way I
2 or 3 lanes 2 wav .5
4 lanes, I way .35
4 or 5 lane, 2 way .497-{1.84+ 1.42•(%trucks))•(AAD1)•(J 0"-6)
Slane, I way .3
61ane !way .325
> 6 lane, I way { I/ # oflanes}.,.O.l
6Jane 2 way .325
> 6 lane, 2 way .25

2.0 ANALYSIS METHOD

This program was designed to give the user two different functions for forecasting
ESALs in the design lane for Superpave projects. The first function will allow the user to
forecast ESALs in the design lane using collected traffic data, collected by the Division
of Planning. In order to forecast ESALs in the design lane using collected traffic data the
user will perform a search on the data base by typing in the county name, route prefix,
route number, route suffix, beginning rnilepoint, ending milepoint, and the number of
forecasted years. The second function of the program will allow the user to forecast
ESALs in the design lane, using user defined data input. Both procedures for forecasting
ESALs in the design lane will be discussed in detail in the, "Procedures for using the
ESAL Forecasting program" in section 4.0 of this report.
In order to forecast ESALs using collected traffic data, five databases of traffic
information provided by the Division of Planning were combined into one master
database using Microsoft Excel. The five databases consisted of: Volume.dbf;
Class97b.txt; Sta_tonsC.xls; the lane file (Countsta.xls) from the Highway Inventory
System (HIS) database; and the Aggregated 1997 ESAL table with three-year averages
with smoothed growth rates. A brief description of each database, a sample of the
databases, and where they can be located for future reference is listed in Appendix A.
"Volume.dbf' was used as the base file for the master database to which the other
four databases were attached. The "Volume.dbf' file provided county number, station
number, route prefix, route number, route suffix, beginning milepoint, ending milepoint,
and an estimated annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) for 23,237 stations located
in the 120 counties in Kentucky. The second database used was "Class97b.txt" which
matched up to "Volume.dbf' by county and station number. "Class97b.txt" contained
actual multiple year AADT counts, percent trucks, axles per trucks, percent coal trucks,
and axles per coal truck for various station numbers. For each station number, the latest
actual data for (percent trucks, axles per trucks, percent coal trucks, and axles per coal
truck) was matched to the "Volume.dbf" file. The third database used was
"Sta_tonC.xls" which matched up to "Volurne.dbf' by county and station number. This
database contained annual coal tonnage hauled on coal hauling routes in Kentucky. The

4
annual coal tonnage hauled was divided by (365 days * 40 tons per truck) to obtain the
number of coal trucks per day. This calculated number of coal trucks per day was
compared to the number of coal trucks per day found in the "Ciass97b.txt" database in
which the higher of the two values was used in the master database. The fourth database
used was the lane file "Countsta.xls" obtained from the HIS database housed at the
Division of Planning. This database matched to "Volume.dbf' file by county and station
number and provided the number of lanes and functional classification for each station
number in the master database. The last database used was the 1997 aggregated ESAL
table with three-year averages with smoothed growth rates. This database was used in
two ways. First, in the insistence that the "Ciass97b.txt" database did not provide data on
percent trucks, axles per truck, or axles per coal truck to be attached to the "Volume.dbf'
database--values for these categories were based on matching the functional
classification. Second, the equivalent single axle loads per axle for both trucks and coal
trucks (ESALIA, ESALICA) were used based on the matching functional classification of
the two databases.
After completing the master database in Microsoft Excel, it was then imported
into Microsoft Access 97. The completed master database can be viewed in the ESAL
Forecasting program by holding down the shift key on the keyboard as the program is
loading. The data file name is combine 22. However, precaution should be taken as to
not alter the original data. The column headings used in the master database are as
follows: county number, station number, route prefix, route number, route suffix, starting
milepoint, ending milepoint, ADT, percent trucks, axles per truck, ESAUaxle, functional
classification, number of lanes, number of coal trucks, axles per coal truck, ESAL/coal
axle, lane adjustment factor, an indication if percent trucks is actual or estimated data, an
indication if axles per truck are actual or estimated, an indication if the number of coal
trucks is actual or estimated, and a RSE_UN IQUE code so that this database can be used
with Arc View software.
This program can be updated, on a yearly base, by importing an identical database as
described above into the program. Data formatting should parallel that of the combine 22
master database, which can be viewed in the design view of the combine 22 database. To
update the query, the new database would replace the combine 22 database in the
calculate ESAL's query. To update or change growth rates for the Aggregated 1997
ESALs table, simply go to the 3-year average table and update. To change lane
distribution factors go to the lane table and update. To change the AADT growth rate go
to the ADT growth rate table and update.

3.0 PROCEDlJRES FOR ACCESS! G THE ' ESAL FORECASTING"


PROGRAM

To access the ESAL forecasting program, there are a few hardware and software
requirements. The requirements are listed below as well as on the inside jacket of the CD
case.

5
Hardware/Software:
1.) i486 or Pentium processor.
2.) Windows 95, 98 or Windows NT.
3.) If using the CD version from the CD reader the CD-ROM drive
must be 1Ox or higher. If the CD-ROM drive is less than a lOx it
is recommended that the ESAL forecasting program be copied to
the hard-drive.
4.) The hard drive will need a total of 100-MB, and approximately 6
MB of hard disk space to store the program.
5.) A minimum of 16MB ofRAM is required.
6.) Screen resolution set at either 800x600 or 1024x768.
7.) Microsoft Access 97.

Instructions to access the ESAL forecasting program from the CD are listed below
and on the inside jacket of the CD case.

1.) Insert ESAL forecasting program CD into CD-ROM drive.


2.) From start menu go to programs.
3.) Click on Windows Explorer
4.) Select the CD-ROM drive containing the ESAL forecasting
program CD.
5.) If your computer satisfies numbers 3 & 5 above in the
Hardware/Software requirements then double click on the ESAL
forecasting program. If your computer does not satisfy numbers 3
& 5 above then copy the ESAL forecasting program to the hard
drive.
6.) After opening the program a pop up screen displays "Database is a
read-only" click O.K.
7.) In introduction screen (Figure 1) of program click button to enter
into program.

Instructions to install the ESAL forecasting program from the 3.5" diskettes to the
hard-drive are listed below and on the front label of the diskettes. Note: in order to copy
the ESAL forecasting program to your hard drive the program must be unzipped. The
diskettes have a self-extracting program loaded on them called PKUNZIP version 2.60.
This program is a SHAREWARE product, and is being used as an evaluation copy.

1.) In Windows, go to "My Computer".


2.) Insert ESAL Forecasting diskette number 1 into the A drive. and
double click on the A drive icon.
3.) Double click on ESAL Forecasting Program.exe, and follow the
on-screen instructions.
4.) After both diskettes have been read; define a directory where the
ESAL Forecasting program will be extracted to.

6
5.) After choosing the proper directory, click "Extract" button. If the
user has not already created the directory to extract the program to,
click Yes to create directory.
6.) Follow the on-screen instructions and insert diskettes.
7.) The program will be extracted when the (A) drive directory is
displayed.
8.) Go to the directory where the ESAL forecasting program has been
stored.
9.) Double click on the ESAL Forecasting program.
10.) In introduction screen (Figure 1) of program click button to enter
into program.

This program forecasts Equiv alent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) in the design
lane for Superpave projects
The collecled traffic data ust'd in thi' program io; from the Kenruck:
T ran,.nonar ion ( ahin£'1. Divi\ion of Plan ninf!.

Click: ro
open
program

Figure I : Introduction Screen-{Start Screen)


7
4.0 PROCEDURES FOR USING THE "ESAL FORECASTING" PROGRAM

The next section will outline the procedures for using the ESAL forecasting
program to forecast ESALs in the design lane for pavement resurfacing/overlay projects
which are consistent with the Superpave process asphaltic mixture design. When
opening the program, the first screen that will appear is the Introduction Screen (labeled
Start in the database) (Figure 1). After arriving at this screen, the user will need to click
on the box "Click: to open program". This will take the user to Screen One (Figure 2).

This !JCreen dlsptays the organlmJon chart of the ESAl forecasting program and Hetp (?)
buttons for each Screen used In the program.

Figure 2: Screen One

Screen One displays the organization chart or layout of the ESAL forecasting
program. At the bottom of Screen One, the statement "Click raised buttons to proceed"
indicates that the user can go to multiple sections of the program from Screen One by
clicking on any of the raised buttons. The buttons consist of; Start Screen which takes
the user back to the Introduction Screen, Screen Two-standard data input, Screen
Four-detajled data input, or any of the Help screens. Note: after entering Screen Three
the user has the option of going to Screen Four, and the Help screens can be accessed
inside any of the other screens.
Screen Two is the standard data input screen (Figure 3). The purpose of this
screen is to forecast ESALs in the design lane using the master database. First, the user

8
will need to identify the search criteria for searching the master database. The search
criteria are the seven yellow boxes located on Screen Two; county name, route prefix,
route number, route suffix, beginning milepoint, ending milepoint, and number of
forecast years. Second, after identifying the search parameters the user will click on the
button labeled "Click: to find matching records". This will take the user to Screen Three
(Figure 4).

Yellow boxes rndlcate that the user must Inputs value:

Enter county name:

Enter route prefiX.

Entar route number:

Enter route suffix

Enter beQ\nnlno mllepoint. r


Enter ending milepolnt:

Enter number of years: 20

Figure 3: Screen Two

The details for filling in the seven yellow boxes found on Screen Two are listed
below and on the Help screen for Screen Two in the Program.

I. Enter county name: in this box the user v.<ill type in one of the 120 county
names in Kentucky. In addition, there is a drop down box that will allow
the user to pick from a list of county names in Kentucky if desired.
2. Enter route prefix: in this box the user \\<ill type in the route preftx. There
is a list of route preftxes for all of the Parkways in Kentucky located on
the right side of Screen-Two.
J. Enter route number: in this box the user will type in the route number.
There is a list of route numbers for all of the Parkways in Kentucky
located on the right side of Screen-Two.
4. Enter route suffix: in this box the user will type in a route suffix if
applicable. Applicable route suffixes for this box are located in the drop


down menu. If a route suffix is not applicable to the route the user is
evaluating, then the user must leave the default value of "Na" in this box.
The following is a list of route sufftxes that appear in the drop menu: A,

9
B, C, E, ED, EN, EX, H, J, M, N, Na, RA, RP, S, T, U, W, WB, WN, X,
XN.
5. Enter beginning m.ilepoint in this box the user wiJI type in the beginning
m.ilepoint of the section of roadway to be evaluated. Note that the
beginning m.ilepoiot must be less than the ending m.ilepoint.
6. Enter ending m.ilepoint: in this box the user will type in the ending
m.ilepoint of the section of roadway to be evaluated. Note that the ending
milepoint must be greater than the beginning milepoint.
7. Enter number of years: in this box the user will type in an integer value
from I to 50 to represent the number of years the user would like to
forecast the design ESALs in the critical lane.
8. Click to fmd matching records: by clicking this button the program will
query the database for the records that match the criteria input in numbers
1-7 above, and send the user to Screen-Three. Screen-Three will allow
the user to view all of the matching records, print preview all of the
matching records, and go to Screen-Four to calculate ESALs, if the data
shown in Screen-Three is inadequate or if no matching records were
found for the criteria

Screen Three is the standard data output screen (Figure 4). This screen shows the
results of the search criteria defined in Screen Two. As an example, Figure 4 shows
actual output that was obtained from a search on I-75 in Fayette County.

HIGHWAY DETAILS
·~: 11'Pfl'"WI'Jii1i·lilii'lii"1
' County number: I 34 AOT: 54,000 . FC: jl
, Station number: I 34P90
Route prefix: I PSfceoltrucJ(s: r;- r 17.700 AIT: r;-1 ~.53 ESAIJA: 0.217

Route number: I 75 I I of coal trucks!day: [T ~ AICT: fEI 4.n8 ESAUCA: 0.88


Route suffix: I na
Beglnnlng Mllepolnt: I 98.516 Data type A= actual data E=estimated daia I = insufficient data
Ending Milepolnt· I 103.69

#ollanes: [4 Total median daily ESALs: (rounded)

Lane distribution factor: I 0.384 I 9,640

Previous screen Print prev!eW


Use arrows below to scroll through matching recotds

Figure 4: Screen Three


To look at all of the matching results, the user can use the small arrow buttons
located at the bottom left hand corner of the Screen Three to scroll through the matching
records. Note: the scroll arrows are not shown in Figure 4 in this report. The user is also
given the opportunity to print preview all of the matching forecasts that met their search
criteria on Screen Three by clicking "Print preview" button. An example of the print
preview page is located in Appendix B. Once in the print preview page, the user can
print the forecasted ESALs to any printer that is connected to the personal computer, or
publish the print preview page in Microsoft Word or Excel.
The following describes what is displayed on Screen Three. The descriptions can
also be found on the Help screen for Screen Three in the program.

' ote: ~cr~t· n-Threr di~pla~~ the record' that match thl' critcri:l that "ere entered on Screen-T"o. If
th ere "ere no matching record\ for the <.pt•dfied crit<-ri:l then the u~er can go bach to ~creen-T"o to
perform a IH'" \carch or go to ~crecu-Four to calculatl' 1:- ~\I.\ ''ith u~cr defined d:~ta.

l)j,,J.aunt a·: I hi' pam·t·tlurl ul lua tl ''tau:... I " \ I ' ll'l'' dt l.ault llllurnwli(ln
It \,llllplt luawtion.ll d:a-' rll'lault' .ttlcl :.,!1"111\ th r ,tit <kt.urlt a"umption') tu
fHodllll I" \ I ' lui \uplrp.aH \II\ lh·,•~• It j, lltfl 1\'.llflllllll tllcllur "'' 111
prudurin:.. [ ' \l' 1111 P:t\ t>lllt>lll Dl',a:..n t-\l'eptlor .t "hallparl," t''tintatt'.

I. Highway details: displayed in the highway details box are the items such
as: county number, station number, route prefiX. route number, route
stffix. beginning milepoint., ending milepomt. number of lanes, and lane
distribution factor for the records that match the search criteria.
Lane distribution factors are based on Kenrucky Transportation
Research repon UKTRP-85-30. Modifications have been made
for 6 and 8 lane roads (Table 2).

Ta ble 2 Lane d'IStn'bUt!On


. £actors or equauons
Lane layout Lane dJsoibution factors or eouations
I lane !way I
2 or 3 lanes, 2 way .5
4 lanes, I wav .35
4 or 5 lane 2 way .497-{ 1.84+ 1.42 •(%uucks ))•( AADTI*( I0"-6)
Slane. I way .3
61ane. I way .325
> 6 lane, I wav (I # oflanes) .-.o.l
61ane. 2 way .325
> 61ane 2 wav .25

2. ESAL calculating information: displayed m the ESAL calculating


information box are values such as: AADT, functional class, percent
trucks, axles truck. ESAL axle. number of coal trucks per day, axleslcoal
truck, ESALJcoal truck axle. The Division of Planning collected the base
data that produced this information. I' \ 1.• 1 n '••'·'
I' ••
.. I. ..-
( 1-502-
56~-7686).
~. The factors for percent trucks, axles per 1ruck, number of coal trucks/day,
and axles per coal trucks are defmed with either a A.,for actual collected
data, 1. for estimated data based on the functional class using the three-
year averages from the aggregated 1997 ESALs developed by the
Kenrucky Transportation Center. or! for insufficient data. I ·• .-.... ,t...,l

II
t..., \1,: c .1 hit.:l ~ ''"~" 1 ~ ·11• uld !'It' ~J.J,d;t'd \\llh lht' 11 1 \l~,,,n of
.l .... 1 p,,;,. _n,, • l ..c "'"'urn~~ ,,f th, numbt'l ,,f ~Cl:ll 11\h.k~ per

-'· The equation to calculate total median daily ESALs is

(AADT*( 1-%T)"'.005)-((AADT*% T)-cn*(A!T)*(ESAUA)+(CT* A/CT*ESAUCA)

where growth rates have already been applied to (AADT, %T, AfT, ESAUA,
A/CT, and ESAUCA) based on the Functional Classification growth rates
provided in the Aggregated 1997 ESALs table. Note: in order to get median year
daily ESALs, the growth rates are calculated at the median year using the
compound interest equation i.e. : %T*[(I .,.growth rate)"(N/ 2)). The growth rate
for AADT was assumed to be 2 percent for all functional classes. The
Aggregated 1997 ESALs table with growth rates can be viewed below.

Table 3: Functional class growth rates.

Functional Class Gro wth Ra tes (o/o)


AADT %T AfT ESAUA AICT ESAUCA
2 1 0.092 1 0 1.989
.:~ 2 1 0.535 1 0 2
-a~ 2 1 0.983 0 0 0

.::- ..:
11 2
2
1
1
1
0.398
0
0.556
0
0
1.989
0
• " 1- .- 2 1 0.946 0 0 0

The equation to forecast design ESALs in the Critical Lane is

(Total median daily ESALs)*365*(N)*( Lanedist)

AADT Annual average daily rraffi c


%T Percent trucks
CT ~wnber of coal trucks per da}
Arr Axles per truck
ESA U A Equivalent single axle loads per truck axle
AICT Axles per coal truck
ESA U CA = Equivalent single axle load per coal truck axle
N Nwnber of forecast years
Lanedist = Lane distribution factor

3. Mainline or ramp indicates where the data was collected.


6. "Insufficient data, either no lanes or no AADT', message indicates that
the values needed to forecast ESALs are not complete.
7. Print preview allows the user to view the matching records on the
computer screen. Once in the print preview, click the printer icon to print
out the repon. or click close to go back to Screen-Three.
8. To scroll through all of the matching records. use the right and left arrows
located in the bottom left band comer of Screen·Three.

Screen Four is the detailed data input screen (Figure 5). The purpose of this
screen, and with the addition of Screen Five (Figure 6), is to forecast ESALs in the design
lane based on user defined data. This function of the program can be used if the
information obtained from a forecast on Screen Three proves to be inadequate, if no
information is available from the master database to forecast ESALs in Screen Three, or
for a widening project where the lane information provided from the master database
would be inadequate.

12
Ew•lttMlC.._
t - IUII~ 11 · ~1n~

2 • Run! PrinciPII ~ 17 • ur1)aO F1"811fiY Of~.-,


Enter functional ctauification:
6 • Runll MincK AIW1al 14 . \kbln Pnnctpll Anlflal

T • AutJI Mil4or Coltldor 16 . ~ ~tin()( Al1antl

8 • Rural Mtr\01 Col*1of 17 . ~ ColleQof

9 • Aur•l l()(ljl! 18 • \JI1Jin ~

l.n Dtltr!bybon fiN Rltn!lct f


11 • I lllle, I WI'( 61 • i 11M. 1 -.y
Enter lane distribution factor reference •~
22·7or3llne,l111Y ~-illftl.l"f

41· • ..,., I WJY i 1A • >6 . . . \ Wlf'l

42 • ' or 5 Iaine, ' WJY W ·>6 11n8. 2WJY

S1 5 liN, I WIY

Figure 5: Screen Four

The details of using Screen Four are listed both below and in the Help screen for
Screen Four in the program.
I. Enter functional classification: the user must enter a numeric value in this
yellow box. The different functional classes are located on the right side
of Screen-Four. There is a drop-down box located in the yellow box to
allow the user to pick the functional class from a list.

2. Enter lane distribution factor reference #: the user must enter a value from
the Jane distribution factor reference # list located on the right side of the
screen. The values correspond to the rype of Jane layout the user is
evaluating. A value must be entered into the yellow box. There is a drop-
down box located in the yellow box to allow the user to pick the Jane
distribution factor reference # from a hst.

3. Click to calculate ESALs: after both one & two above have been
completed, click this button to go to Screen-Five to complete the ESAL
calculating process with user defmed data.

13
Screen Five is the continuing screen to forecast ESALs using user-defined data
(Figure 6). The values entered on both Screen Four and Screen Five will be used to
forecast ESALs on Screen Five.

ADT )I lent COIIIIgM1Ion .. ( > 6


.... 1 ..., ) . . EnW ftUIIIblf
Yms olllnea In box. II 111ne
~llnot (> &lene., 1
wy ) Dltn IMYt 1M 611MIIl
1::} r
'tiiUI ot 1 In 1M bDl.
It
1 ol ooatttucu per day Annu•lcoel~age. 0111

Da111 •r ur• 1~'.1 ~tggrng~:r.1 I-SIII < -hr£'i' l '-•<'• .OU<'> .. ~,.. C:1lc:ulltt your own I-SAI s Willi rout o.tt· valu~
<m~tn"-1 I)!(INi r •alto>

r 11'"\etlonal ct.aultlcatlon r--


P«cent 11\JClb. r-==-
Axle-s pet~ ~
ESAU pet mt ~
Ane:J per coei!NCI ~
ESAls pet COM Ule
~
To~IL! INIOlan ct..lty ES.t.Ls
I
l..arl<' ~lllbutlon factor r--

Figure 6: Screen Five

The details of using Screen Five are listed both below and in the Help screen for
Screen Five in the program.

I. Enter ADT: in this box an ADT value as spectfied in the adjacent box
"Enter one way ADT", or"Enter two way ADT' must be entered
2. Enter number of years: in this box a numeric value greater than zero must
be entered to forecast ESALs.
3. Enter a value for one of the following if applicable: if the user is
calculating ESALs in a coal-hauling region, there are two different ways
to input in the number of coal-trucks per day. The user can enter the
number of coal trucks per day or the annual coal tonnage. If annual coal
tonnage is entered, the number of coal trucks per day is derived by
dividing annual coal tonnage by (365 days • 40 tons). NOTE: only enter
coal information in one box; leave the other box defaulted to zero. If
there are no coal trucks on the srudied route, leave both values equal to
zero. ' t' ......

-1 . J\.~:·--.··.. , . , : > " . :1 ' '~.tl: 1 ,,.,I Pr, ;: .. m- .: (1-502-


56-i-7686 ).

14
.t. If lane configuration is ( > 6 lane, 1 way ) then Enter number of lanes in
box. If lane configuration is not ( > 6 Lane, I way ) leave the default
value of 1 in the box:_this box should always have the default value 1 in
it, unless the user has picked the ( > 6 lane, 1 way ) configuration on
Screen-Four. If the user has picked the ( > 6 lane, I way) configuration
then the user must input in the number of lanes in the yellow box.
5. ESALs can be calculated for two different scenarios on Screen-Five. The
user can use the values from the 1997 aggregated ESALs 3-year average
values based on functional class, or the user can calculate ESALs with
user defined data. NOTE: if the user calculates ESALs with user deftned
data, all yellow boxes (percent trucks, axles per truck, ESALs per axle,
axles per coal truck, ESALs per coal axle), must have a value entered.
6. Lane distribution factors are determined by the lane distribution factor
reference # the user entered on Screen-Four. Lane distribution factors are
based on Kentucky Transportation Research report UKTRP-85-30.
Modifications have been made for 6 and 8 lane roads (Table 3).

. f:actors or equations
T able 4 Laoe d'tStn'buuon
Lane layout Lane d1stribuuon factors or equations
I lane. !way I
2 or 3 lanes, 2 way .5
4 ian~. I V.11Y .35
4 O! S lane. 2 WO\ 497-(1.84... 142"(%uucks))•{ADn•( 10"-6)
5 lane. I wa~ 3
G lane, I way 325
> 6 lane. I wa\ (I =oflanes)4>.1
~~e.2"'?.Y. 325
> 6 lane, 2 way 25

7. The equation used to cakulatc total median daily ESALs is

(ADT*( 1-%T)*.OOS)"'((ADT*%T}-CT)*(Arr)*(ESAUA)-(CT*A/CT*ESAUCA)

where growth rates have already been applied to (ADT, %T, AfT, ESAUA,
A/CT, and ESAUCA) based on the Functional Classification growth rates
provided in the Aggregated 1997 ESALs table. Note: in order to get median year
daily ESALs, the growth rates are calculated at the median year using the
compound interest equation i.e.: %T*((l+growth rate)"(N/2)]. The growth rate
for ADT was assumed to be 2 percent for all functional classes. The Aggregated
1997 ESALs table with growth rates can be viewed below.

Table 5: Functional class growth rates

Functional Class Growth Rates (%)


ADT o/oT AIT ESAUA NCT ESAUCA
2 1 0.092 1 0 1.989
I!~· 2 1 0.535 1 0 2
-=.:; 2 1 0.983 0 0 0
11 2 1 1 0 0 1.989
~~ .. ~ 2 1 0.398 0.556 0 0
'c . - ~
2 1 0.946 0 0 0

The equation to forecast design ESALs in the Critical Lane is

(Total median daily ESALs)*365*(N)*(Lanedist)

ADT Average daily traffic


%T Percent trucks

15
cr Number of coal trucks per day
AT Axles per truck
ESAUA Equivalent standard axle loads per truck axle
NCT Axles per coal truck
ESAUCA = Equivalent standard axle load per coal truck axle
Number of forecast years
Lanedist = Lane disaiburion factor

8. Type in Reference Location: this box is optional. It allows the user to


rype in lhe location of calculated ESALs so a reference name will be
included on the printed output.

5.0 ACCESSING THE REPORT FROM CD

An electronic copy of this report is located on the CD version of the ESAL


Forecasting Program. In order to view the report, ADOBE ACROBAT READER
software must be installed on the user's computer. ADOBE ACROBAT READER is a
free shareware program that can be distributed with word-processed documents that are
saved in PDF format. Most computers have ADOBE ACROBAT READER already
installed if the user views reports published on the Internet. If the user bas ADOBE
ACROBAT READER software already installed on their computer, then simply double
click on the ESAL-Repon.PDF file when viewing the directories on the CD to view the
report.
If the user does not have ADOBE ACROBAT READER installed on their bard-
drive the user can install ADOBE ACROBAT READER version 3.02 by double clicking
on the directory "AR302.exe" on the CD, or going to the ADOBE ACROBAT READER
website at Imp '' '' '' .adobe.c.:om pmdmde\ acrobat read~tep hunl. After installing the software,
the user will then go back to the ESAL Forecasting Program CD and double click on the
ESAL-Report directory.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is encouraged that the user consult with the Division of Multirnodal programs (1 -
502-564-7678) when using the ESAL forecasting program to forecast ESALs in the
design lane for pavement resurfacing/overlay projects. The information used in the
ESAL forecasting program uses default information to produce ESALs for Superpave
Mix Design. It is not recommended for use in producing ESALs for Pavement Design
except for a "ballpark" estimate.
In the event that this program will become a tool in future ESAL forecasting, it is
recommended that the collected traffic data utilized in this program be standardized, and
updated annually. Also, consideration should be given to editing the forecasting
equation. Applying growth rates only to the median year does not fully estimate the total
ESAL value in the design lane for the full design life of the Superpave project. A
suggested measure would be to integrate the equation as follows (present independent
variable* SXo axdx = axlln a) where a = (1 + growth rate) and x =years. By integrating the
application of the growth rates, a more accurate total ESAL value would be obtained,
thus allowing for a more accurate ESAL forecast.

16
APPENDIX A
(database files)

Volume.dbf

Volume.dbf file came from the Division of Planning's "historic.dbf' file that is
stored on the mainframe Traffic Volume Summary file. The data contact person is Greg
Witt from the Division of Planning (1-502-564-7183). The ADT value used from this
database is located in column VOL1. The last number in the four-digit number in the
VOLl column is a power of ten number. For example the number 6581, is
658*10" 1=6580, and 1302 is 130*10"2= 13,000. When receiving this file, the last
number in the VOLl column will need to be separated from the first three. In Excel,
highlight the VOL! column, then go to the data command. In the data command list
pick fixed width, then separate the first three munbers from the fourth. In the adjacent
column write an equation that will multiply the first three numbers by the fourth raised
to the tenth power. This will give the ADT value for this record. Copy the equation
down for all ADT values.
For the files from the other database to match to this "Volume.dbf' database, the
county number must be combined with the station number. To do this, make a separate
column adjacent the station number. Write an equation using the concatenate function
to combine both county number and station number into one. NOTE: the station number
has three values. It can be three numbers or a mixture of numbers and text values.

Volume.dbf
CONUMBER S1ATION RTPREFIX RTNUMBER RTSUFFIX STARTMPT ENDINGMPT VOL1
1 A57 KY 55 9.335 10.059 6581
1 A47 KY 55 10.059 10.316 1302
1 A46 KY 55 10.316 10.47 1272
1 A43 KY 55 10.47 10.61 4 2002
1 A41 KY 55 10.614 10.72 2452
KY
--- 1 A 58 55 10.72 10.84 1912
1 A26 KY 55 10.84 11.17 1962
1-·
1 A13 KY 55 11.17 11.19 2592

Class97b.txt

Class97b.txt was a text file that was originally called "Class97.pm". This file comes
from the processed classification summary data developed by the Traffic & Safety
Section at the Kentucky Transportation Center. The data contact person is Greg Witt
from the Division of Planning (1 -502-564-7183). In this file the county number must be
combined with the station number. However, the station number does not have three
values in all cases. The length (len) function combined with an (IF) statement must be
used in Excel to add a leading zero or zeros to any station number that does not have
three values. The length function would be used to tell how many values were present in
each cell in the station number column. The (IF) statement would be used after the
length function. If the station number length equaled 1, then add two zeros, if the station
number length equaled 2, then add one zero, and if the station number equaled 3 then put

17
the station number as it exists in the cell. Then copy this equation down for all station
numbers.
Next, the latest year data was saved in each identical county number/station number
combination. This gave the most up-to-date information for each station number. This
saved data was copied to a blank sheet in the ''Volume.dbf' file where an (Vlookup)
equation was used to match identical station numbers between both files. The (Vlookup)
equation was used to match the percent truck ''TR", axles per truck "A_T", percent coal
trucks "CTR", and axles per coal truck "A_CT" values to the ''Volume.dbf'. If there was
not a match between station numbers, a ''N/ A" value was placed in the cell. To eliminate
the ''NIA" value the (ISERROR) function was used to put a zero in for all cells that had
the ''N/A" value.

Class97b.txt
CoN umber Station# Rt.Prefix Rt.# Milepoint ADT TR CTR A_T A_CT FC AF Year
1 A54 0 0 745 0.015 0 2 0 9 1 86
1 8 KY 55 12.5 9150 0.113 0 3.257 0 6 0.932 96
1 A07 KY 55 11 5961 0.078 0 2.492 0 6 0.981 79
1 A07 KY 55 11 3925 0.093 0 2.667 0 6 0.97 80
1 A07 KY 55 11 7716 0.088 0 3.104 0 6 0.954 83
1 A07 KY 55 11 7716 0.064 0 2.905 0 6 0.972 86
1 A07 KY 55 11 5961 0.078 0 2.492 0 6 0.981 79
1 A07 KY 55 11 3925 0.093 0 2.667 0 6 0.97 80
1 A07 KY 55 11 7716 0.088 0 3.104 0 6 0.954 83
1 A07 KY 55 11 7716 0.064 0 2.905 0 6 0.972 86
1 A13 KY 55 10.5 10800 0.044 0 3.835 0 6 0.961 92
1 A13 KY 55 10.5 10800 0.044 0 3.835 0 6 0.961 92

Sta tonsC.xls

Sta_tonsC.xls was an Excel file that came from the "Coalseg.lst database. The
"Coalseg.lst", file comes from the Division of Planning's coal haul team. This coal haul
team converted the "Coalseg.lst" to a format that included station numbers along with the
annual tons hauled.
To determine how many coal trucks were hauling daily through these station
numbers, the yearly tonnage was divided by 365 days * 40 tons per truck. The combined
county number/station number was compared to the station numbers of the "Volume.dbf'
file. In the 'Volume.dbf' file, the number of coal trucks provided from the
"Class97b.txt" file and the "Sta_tons.xls" were compared. The value that gave the largest
number of coal trucks per day was used.

Sta tonsC.xls
County# Station# Route pre Route# Beg mile End mile tons
1 1288 cu 9008 48.9 57.791 16931
1 1A47 KY 55 10.1 10.316 16931


1 1A46 KY 55 10.316 10.47 16931

l8
Countsta.xJs

Countsta.xls was an Excel file that came directly from the Division of Planning's
Highway Information System (HIS) database. The data contact person is Greg Witt from
the Division of Planning (1-502-564-7183). This file matched to the ''Volume.dbf' by
the combination of county and station number. The (Vlookup) function was used to
bring in the functional class information (FC) and the number of lanes.

Countsta xJs
County# route Route# start. Mp End mp station# F.C. #of lanes
1 CR 1026 0 2.722 1053 9 2
1 CR 1041 0 2.064 1095 9 1
1 CR 1043 0 0.849 1122 9 1
1 CR 1045 0 0.44 1121 9 1
1 CR 1046 0 1.477 1096 9 1
1 CR 1046 1.477 1.887 1074 9 1
1 CR 1046 1.887 2.3 1074 9 1
1 CR 1049 0 1.856 1069 9 1

Aggregated 1997 ESALs- Three-year averages using smoothed growth rates

Aggregated 1997 ESALs - The three-year averages using the smoothed growth rates
table comes from the Traffic and Safety Section at the Kentucky Transportation Center.
The data contact person is Dave Cain ( 1-606-257 -4513). The table is generated each
June with the latest year traffic data.
The data for percent trucks (%T), axles per truck (NT), and axles per coal truck
(NCT) are matched based on functional class to the records in the "Volume.dbf' file if
the values for these categories are zero. The values for EALs/A and EALs/CA are
matched between the two files by functional classification.
After the master database is completed the (ISERROR) function is run on all cells to
take out any ''N/ A" values since Microsoft Access will not recognize ''N/ A" values. In
the event that a blank space is found in the database, a zero value is entered because
Microsoft Access cannot recognize blank spaces. Also, four columns are created to
determine if the percent trucks, number of coal trucks per day, axles per truck, and axles
per coal truck are actual or estimated data.

e growth rates
Aggre1 ated 199 7 ESALs - Three-year averages usmg smoothd
Agg. Class FCs T% GR AfT GR EALs/A GR AJCT GR EALs/CA GR
I 1 28.653 1.000 4.493 0.092 0.217 1.000 4.778 0.000 0.880 1.989
II 2,6 11.635 1.000 3.490 0.535 0.251 1.000 4.956 0.000 2.639 2.000
Ill 7,8,9 7.770 1.000 2.936 0.983 0.219 0.000 4.595 0.000 1.235 0.000
IV 11 13.406 1.000 4.076 1.000 0.183 0.000 4.778 0.000 0.880 0.000
v 12,14 6.262 1.000 3.042 0.398 0.209 0.556 4.590 0.000 1.048 0.000
VI 16,17,19 5.238 1.000 2.772 0.946 0.171 0.000 4.083 0.000 0.594 0.000

19
• •
APPENDrX B
(sample output)

Data type
Forecasted ESAl.Js A = actual data E = estimated data I = insufficient data

County Fayctle

County# Station Rt.Preflx Rt.# Rt.Sufflx Mllepolnts ADT %T Data AfT Data ESAUA FC Lanes Dally# ot Data AICT Data ESAUC Lane Years Forecasted
type type coal trucks type type dlst. ESALs
Star End

)4 J 4P90 75 na 98.5 16 103.69 54000 17 70 A 4.530 A 0.217 4 7 E 4 778 [! 0.88 0.384 20 40,156,077

34 34336 75 na 103.69 108.2 35700 2810 A 4 .456 A 0.217 4 101 A 4 906 A 0.88 0.417 20 46,299,338

34 34250 75 na 108.2 109.70 50600 13.41 I· 4 .076 E 0183 II 6 7 E 4.778 E 0.88 0.325 20 18,695,649

34 34392 75 na 109.70 111.22 55800 2090 A 4331 A 0.217 6 140 A 5 257 A 0.88 0.325 20 41 ,237,517

20

You might also like