GEOTECHNICAL

ASPECTS OF
PAVEMENT
ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL
ASPECTS OF
PAVEMENT
ENGINEERING

NISHANTHA BANDARA AND

MANJRIKER GUNARATNE

MOMENTUM PRESS, LLC, NEW YORK

Geotechnical Aspects of Pavement Engineering

Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—­
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.

First published by Momentum Press®, LLC

222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net

ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-540-3 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-541-0 (e-book)

Momentum Press Geotechnical Engineering Collection

Collection ISSN: 2376-4945 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2376-4953 (electronic)

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America

 Abstract

Familiarity with geotechnical aspects of pavement engineering is essen-

tial for any practicing pavement or geotechnical engineer. When design-
ing pavements on an existing roadbed or along a new alignment, accurate
characterization of the existing subgrade condition plays an important
and difficult task. In most situations, traditional geotechnical exploration
and testing methods have been used to characterize the existing subgrade
conditions. However, with the introduction of new Mechanistic-Empir-
ical (ME) pavement design methods, there is a need for improved and
more appropriate methods to characterize the exiting subgrade materials
in order to predict future pavement conditions with better accuracy. Hence
this handbook will be quite useful for practicing pavement engineers in
terms of selecting proper field testing methods, characterizing subgrade
materials, selecting proper pavement design, and treatment methods for
unusual field conditions, and thus for effective construction of pavement
foundations in general.
This book introduces field exploration and testing methods from low-
cost alternatives to accurate and efficient start-of-the-art methods. Another
important feature of this book is the inclusion of an entire chapter devoted
to dealing with unusual field conditions encountered in practice at times.
This particular chapter provides design details and treatment guidelines to
address such difficulties.
This book is a valuable resource for any practicing pavement engi-
neer or a civil engineering student who wishes to pursue a career in high-
way design and construction.

KEYWORDS

construction, design, exploration, mechanistic, pavement, subgrade,

testing
 Contents

List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
1 Introduction to Pavement Engineering 1
1.1 The Pavement System 2
1.2 Typical Pavement Types 3
1.3 History of Pavement Design 5
2 Geotechnical Input in Pavement Design 15
2.1 Geotechnical Inputs in AASHTO 1993 Pavement
Design Methodology 15
2.2 Geotechnical Inputs in AASHTO ME Pavement
Design Methodology 24
3 Geotechnical Exploration, Testing, and Subgrade
Characterization 31
3.1 Field Exploration 31
3.2 Geotechnical Testing 34
3.3 Resilient Modulus (MR) 43
4 Subgrade Conditions Requiring Special Designs 53
4.1 Soft and Unstable Subgrade Conditions 53
4.2 Treatments for Unstable Subgrade Conditions 58
5 Construction Specifications, Quality Control, and
Quality Assurance 77
5.1 Construction Specifications 77
5.2 Quality Control and Quality Assurance 78
5.3 Subgrade Compaction and Testing 79
5.4 Field Verification of Design Inputs 85
viii  •   Contents

Bibliography 87
About the Authors 91
Index 93
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Components of a pavement system (NCHRP 2004). 2

Figure 1.2. Typical flexible pavements types (NCHRP 2004). 4
Figure 1.3. Typical rigid pavement section (NCHRP 2004). 5
Figure 1.4. Typical composite pavement types (NCHRP 2004). 5
Figure 1.5. Conceptual approach for MEPD (NCHRP 2004). 12
Figure 2.1. Chart to estimate the modulus of subgrade reaction,
k∞ (AASHTO 1993). 20
Figure 2.2. Chart for modifying modulus of subgrade reaction to
rigid foundation at a shallow depth (AASHTO 1993). 21
Figure 2.3. Correction of effective modulus of subgrade reaction
due to loss of support (AASHTO 1993). 22
Figure 2.4. Example use of drainage coefficient in rigid pavement
design (AASHTO 1993). 24
Figure 2.5. Illustration of Poisson’s ratio. 27
Figure 2.6. Input screen for EICM inputs. 28
Figure 3.1. Typical soil boring location plan. 33
Figure 3.2. Hand auger boring operation in a typical pavement
soil investigation. 34
Figure 3.3. Behavior of fine-grained soils due to changes in
moisture content (McCarthy 2002). 36
Figure 3.4. Unconfined compressive strength test
(ELE International). 39
Figure 3.5. Direct shear test (ELE International). 40
Figure 3.6. Triaxial test (ELE International). 41
Figure 3.7. Field vane shear apparatus (Humboldt Mfg. Co.). 42
Figure 3.8. Laboratory miniature vane shear apparatus
(Humboldt Mfg. Co.). 42
x  •   List of Figures

Figure 3.9.  Laboratory setup for repeated load resilient modulus

test (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/). 44
Figure 3.10.  Typical CBR testing setup (ELE International). 46
Figure 3.11.  DCP setup. 47
Figure 3.12.  Typical LWD setup (Dynatest). 48
Figure 3.13.  Field CBR setup (ELE International). 50
Figure 4.1. Estimated locations of swelling soils (NHI 2006). 55
Figure 4.2. Conditions for frost heave (NHI 2006). 56
Figure 4.3. Average rate of heave versus percentage finer than
0.02 mm (NCHRP 2004). 58
Figure 4.4. Thickness design curve for geosynthetics (NHI 2008). 62
Figure 4.5. Decision tree for selecting stabilizers for use
in subgrade soils (NCHRP 2009). 65
Figure 4.6. Decision tree for selecting stabilizers for use in base
materials (NCHRP 2009). 65
Figure 5.1. Density and LWD moduli versus moisture content
relationships.83
Figure 5.2. Typical IC roller-generated plot (White, Vennapusa,
and Thompson 2007). 84
 List of Tables

Table 2.1. Geotechnical inputs in AASHTO (1993) pavement

design15
Table 2.2. Typical values of K1 and K2 for untreated base
materials (AASHTO 1993) 17
Table 2.3. Typical Values of θ for base course (AASHTO 1993) 17
Table 2.4. Recommended drainage coefficients for untreated bases
and subbases in flexible pavements (AASHTO 1993) 18
Table 2.5. Typical Values of K1 and K2 for untreated subbase
materials (AASHTO 1993) 18
Table 2.6. Typical Values of θ for Subbase Course
(AASHTO 1993) 19
Table 2.7. Typical ranges of LS factor for various types of
materials (AASHTO 1993) 23
Table 2.8. Recommended drainage coefficients for rigid
pavements (AASHTO 1993) 23
Table 2.9. Geotechnical inputs in AASHTO ME pavement design 25
Table 2.10. Recommended typical Poisson’s ratio values
(NCHRP 2004) 27
Table 2.11. Typical values for specific gravity of solids (NHI 2006) 29
Table 3.1. Type of laboratory tests for pavement designs
(NCHRP 2004) 35
Table 3.2. USCS soil designations (ASTM 2016) 37
Table 3.3. AASHTO soil designations (AASHTO 2003) 38
Table 3.4. Typical resilient modulus values for unbound granular
and subgrade materials (NCHRP 2004) 51
Table 3.5. Typical resilient modulus values for unbound granular
and subgrade materials (MDOT 2009) 52
Table 4.1. Frost susceptibility classification of soils (NCHRP 2004) 57
xii  •   List of Tables

Table 4.2. Transportation uses of geosynthetic materials

(NHI 2006) 60
Table 4.3. Appropriate subgrade conditions for stabilization with
geosynthetics (NHI 2008) 60
Table 4.4. Bearing capacity factors for different traffic and rut
conditions with and without geosynthetic separators
(NHI 2008) 63
Table 4.5. Geotextile survivability requirements (NHI 2008) 63
Table 4.6. UCS requirements for lime-stabilized pavement
applications (NLA 2006) 67
Table 4.7. Cement requirement for AASHTO soil groups
(PCA 1992) 68
Table 4.8. Range of UCS values for cement-stabilized subgrades
(NCHRP 2009) 69
Table 4.9. ODOT guidelines for soil stabilization (ODOT 2009) 72
Table 4.10. Design guidelines for soil stabilization and modification
(INDOT 2008) 73
Table 4.11. Properties of lightweight fill materials (NHI 2006) 73
Table 4.12. Details of ground improvement methods (NHI 2006) 74
Table 5.1. Tests to determine maximum density (MDOT 2010) 80
Table 5.2. Minimum frequency of tests required for acceptance
(MDOT 2010) 81
Table 5.3. Penetration index method: Maximum seat and DPI
(MNDOT 2016) 83
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Pavement
Engineering

With the introduction of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design

(MEPD) procedures, an emphasis on collecting reliable material prop-
erty data has been seen in the recent past. This is due to the fact that,
when properly calibrated performance models are used by specifying
accurate material inputs, realistic pavement performance predictions can
be obtained from the MEPD procedures. The majority of materials used
above the subgrade of a pavement structure are engineered in nature, and
hence they could be produced to specifications and tested for accurate
material properties. However, in situ subgrade materials show consider-
able variability from point to point in terms of its engineering properties.
Therefore, accurate and easy-to-use methods to characterize pavement
subgrade properties have been gaining popularity in the recent past.
Geotechnical aspects of pavement engineering are different from tra-
ditional geotechnical engineering due to the marked differences in loading
mechanisms associated with highway pavements. Traditional geotechni-
cal engineering generally deals with static, concentrated, or distributed,
large-magnitude loading conditions, while pavement structures mostly
deal with fast-moving and dynamic loading situations. Furthermore,
effects of environmental and climatic conditions play a major role in pave-
ment structures due to their proximity and the constant exposure to the
atmosphere.
The objective of this introductory chapter is to provide an overview
to the subject matter covered in the book. The components of a pave-
ment system, types of pavement, and the historical evolution of design are
briefly introduced in the following sections.
2  •  GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING

1.1 THE PAVEMENT SYSTEM

The pavement system consists of distinct layers of materials placed on the

subgrade, including select materials, subbase, base, and a surface course,
as shown in Figure 1.1. The subgrade of the pavement system includes
natural ground prepared either by mechanically compacting, stabilizing,
or building with select borrow fill materials to create a platform for the
construction of upper pavement layers. However, as the subgrade acts as
the foundation for the entire pavement structure, proper evaluation of the
subgrade materials and close supervision of its construction is important
for future pavement performance. Important parameters other than the
stiffness of the subgrade material include depth to bedrock or hard layers
and seasonal fluctuation of the ground water table.
Pavement subbases generally consist of free draining granular mate-
rials. Water seeping through cracks and joints on the pavement surface
will penetrate to the subbase through the base course. Granular material
in the subbase layer is expected to remove this infiltrated water rapidly
to underdrains or roadside ditches. Removal of water from the base and
subbase is essential for the durability of pavements. The pavement struc-
tures will be weakened by any water retained within base and subbase and
lead to premature failure. Furthermore, in areas with cold weather, water
retained within the base and subbase can freeze during winter months and
heave the pavement structure. During the ensuing spring time, due to the
melting of ice within the base or subbase, voids open up under the pave-
ment structure. In addition, the subbase works as a protecting layer for
frost-susceptible subgrade material in cold weather areas.

21
20
19 18 19
3 5 8 13
17
12 7 9 11
16 12
6 10
1 14
4
2 15

Flexible pavement section Rigid pavement section

1 - Fill slope 12 - Shoulder base

2 - Original ground 13 - Crown slope
3 - Dike 14 - Subgrade
4 - Selected material or prepared roadbed 15 - Roadbed soil
5 - Shoulder surfacing 16 - Pavement structure
6 - Subbase 17 - Shoulder slope
7 - Base course 18 - Travel lanes
8 - Surface course 19 - Shoulder
9 - Pavement slab
10 - Ditch slope 20 - Roadway
11 - Cut slope 21 - Roadbed

Figure 1.1.  Components of a pavement system (NCHRP 2004).

 Introduction to Pavement Engineering  •  3

Pavement bases generally consist of freely drainable crushed aggre-

gates, crushed rocks, gravel, slag, crushed concrete, and so on. Typically,
better materials are used for the base layer than the subbase. Also, material
specification for the base layer is more stringent than for the materials for
subbase layer. For flexible pavements, the base layer provides the majority
of the structural support, while for rigid pavements, it provides the stiff-
ness needed by the foundation. The base layer also facilitates water drain-
age from the pavement structure and also protects the frost-­susceptible
subgrade during winter months in colder climate areas.
The pavement surface course is designed to withstand the impact of
traffic loads during the design life of the pavement and provide a smooth
ride for the traveling public while assuring adequate skid resistance for
safe travel at all times. Pavement surface courses can be made out of one
or more layers of asphaltic materials for flexible pavements and Portland
cement concrete for rigid pavements. Most of the major highways built
with flexible pavements are constructed with hot-mix asphalt (HMA)
materials. HMA generally consists of asphalt binder, coarse aggregate, fine
aggregate, and other additives mixed at a higher temperature in an asphalt
plant. These materials are transported to the project site and laid at higher
temperatures. Some low-volume roads are constructed with asphalt emul-
sion mixed with aggregates at the ambient temperature. Rigid pavements
are constructed with Portland cement concrete (PCC) with or without steel
reinforcements. If no steel reinforcements are used, they generally consist
of joints at regular intervals and are called jointed plain concrete pave-
ments (JPCP). Reinforced concrete pavements can be categorized into two
types, jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP) and continuously
reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP). As the names suggest, JRCP has
joints at regular intervals, and CRCP only contains construction joints.
Some very low-volume roads can be constructed with compacted aggre-
gate, gravel, or soil, and they are known as unpaved roads.
Geotechnical components of pavement systems consist of natural
subgrade, compacted or stabilized layer of subgrade, subbase, base and
aggregate or gravel, or compacted soil in surface layers. Characterization
of these materials, their engineering properties, and specific design and
construction details for these components are given in the ensuing chapters
of this book.

1.2 TYPICAL PAVEMENT TYPES

Pavements are generally categorized by the surface type. There are four
different types, accordingly, as listed next:
4  •  GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING

Asphalt concrete Asphalt surface

Asphalt concrete
Unbound base
Asphalt binder

Unbound base Asphalt base

Unbound subbase

Compacted subgrade Compacted subgrade Compacted subgrade

Natural subgrade Natural subgrade Natural subgrade

(a) Conventional flexible (b) Deep strength (c) Full depth

Asphalt concrete Asphalt concrete Asphalt concrete

Asphalt treated base Cement treated base Unbound base

Unbound subbase Unbound subbase Asphalt treated or

cement treated layer

Compacted subgrade Compacted subgrade Compacted subgrade

Natural subgrade Natural subgrade Natural subgrade

(d) Semirigid with ATB (e) Semirigid with CTB (f) Inverted section

Figure 1.2.  Typical flexible pavements types (NCHRP 2004).

1. Flexible pavements: The surface layer consists of asphaltic mate-

rials with no underlying concrete slabs. Typical types of flexible
pavements are shown in Figure 1.2.
2. Rigid pavements: The surface layers consist of PCC slabs, which
act as the main load-bearing layer. Typical section of a rigid pave-
ment is shown in Figure 1.3.
3. Composite pavements: This category mainly consists of an asphalt
surface overlay on a PCC slab. However, more recently, PCC over-
lays on asphalt pavements have become commonplace. Generally,
these types of pavements—overlaying asphalt on old concrete slabs
or constructing concrete pavement over old asphalt pavements—
are constructed as parts of pavement rehabilitation projects. Typical
types of composite pavements are shown in Figure 1.4.
4. Unpaved roads: As the name suggests, these roads are not generally
paved and used only for very low-traffic situations. It should be
 Introduction to Pavement Engineering  •  5

Concrete slab
(JPCP, CRCP)
Base course
(Unbound, Asphalt, Cement)
Subbase course
(Unbound, Stabilized)
Compacted subgrade

Natural subgrade

Bedrock

Figure 1.3.  Typical rigid pavement section (NCHRP 2004).

AC overlay AC overlay AC overlay AC overlay

Existing ATB Unbound base ATB

rigid
pavement
Unbound base ATB CTB

Existing Existing Existing

pavement pavement pavement
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1.4.  Typical composite pavement types (NCHRP 2004).

noted that approximately half of the roads in the United States are
unpaved. Sometimes, seal coats are used in unpaved roads for dust
control or protection of the base or subbase from erosion.

1.3 HISTORY OF PAVEMENT DESIGN

The history of engineered road building dates back to Mesopotamian

Civilization (current day Iraq) where they built many miles of stone paved
roads around 4000 BC. The first known design method for pavements
was known as the Macadam method after its inventor, Mr. McAdam.
This method uses broken stones of many sizes placed in symmetrical pat-
terns along the road. This design further expanded to building roads with
­bitumen (tar) used as a binding agent in the top layer. These designs were
known as tarmacadam designs, and one of the first tarred roads was con-
structed in Paris. The famous Champs-Elysees in Paris was covered in
asphalt in 1824, becoming the first modern road in Europe. Asphalt roads
came to America in late 1800s, and one of the first roads built with asphalt
was Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.
6  •  GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING

The following section provides brief descriptions of modern-day

pavement design methods.

1.3.1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) PAVEMENT

DESIGN METHOD

The first known empirical pavement design method is based on the

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) developed by the California Department
of Highways during 1928 through 1929. CBR test is a penetration test
where a standard piston with a cross-sectional area of 3 sq. in. is pene-
trated into a soil sample at a rate of 0.05 in. per minute. The load readings
at penetrations of 0.025 in., 0.05 in., 0.075 in., 0.100 in., 0.200 in., 0.300
in., 0.400 in., and 0.05 in. are recorded. CBR is defined as the ratio of
stress values corresponding to 0.100 and 0.200 in., and the respective stan-
dard stresses of 1,000 psi and 1,500 psi, respectively. The reported CBR
is the aforementioned ratio obtained for 0.100-inch penetration. This test
can be conducted on laboratory-compacted samples in a specific mold or
in field compacted materials. In the laboratory, the sample is soaked for
four days before testing. Each of the materials to be used in the pavement
structure is tested, and the thickness of the material immediately above the
tested material is obtained from charts or an equation. More details on the
CBR testing method are given in Chapter 3.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has adopted
the CBR method for design of airfield pavements. The Airfield Flexible
Pavement Construction document (USACE Publication EM 1110-3-
141) and the Airfield Rigid Pavement Construction document (USACE
Publication EM 1110-3-142) provide multiple charts for determin-
ing pavement thickness based on the subgrade CBR value, the highest
expected aircraft load, and the number of load applications.

1.3.2 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS (AASHTO) EMPIRICAL
PAVEMENT DESIGN METHOD

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) empirical pavement design method is the most widely used
pavement design method in the world. This design procedure is based
on a series of road tests conducted during late 1950s to early 1960s.
 Introduction to Pavement Engineering  •  7

These road tests were performed by the American Association of State

Highway Officials (AASHO, now AASHTO) in Ottawa, Illinois. Use of
the ­pavement serviceability concept for pavement design was first intro-
duced in the AASHTO guide. The serviceability concept uses road user’s
­perception of the road condition and its acceptability. During the develop-
ment of the serviceability concept, a panel of road users was asked to drive
and rate a set of sample pavement sections on a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being
perfect and 0 being failed). The average rating of the panel was termed
present serviceability rating (PSR). As the use of a panel of road raters is
not always practical, the following correlations of PSR with road rough-
ness measures, such as profilometer readings and distress evaluations,
were also developed during the AASHO road test. Then, the objective
PSR back-calculated from the actual roughness measurements is defined
as the present serviceability index (PSI).
For flexible pavements:

PSI = 5.03 − 1.9 log(1 + SV ) − 1.38 RD 2 − 0.01× C + P (1.1)

For rigid pavements:

PSI = 5.41 − 1.80 log(1 + SV ) − 0.09 × C + P (1.2)

Where,
SV = slope variance (slope measured over 1 ft)
RD = rut depth in inches (both wheel tracks) measured with a 4-ft
straight edge
C = linear feet of major cracking per 1,000 sq. ft area
P = patching area in square feet per 100 sq. ft area

The first version of the aforementioned pavement design guide was

released in 1961 and later revised in 1972, 1981, 1986, and 1993. It should
be noted the performance equations developed during the AASHO road
test are still being used in the current AASHTO pavement design guide,
with some modifications to make it more applicable to other parts of the
country. The climate of the original road test site comprises an average
annual precipitation of 28 in. and an average depth of frost penetration of
28 in. The subgrade soil consists of poorly drained A-6 and A-7-6 (Refer
to Chapter 3 for these classifications) with a CBR values of 2 to 4. The cur-
rent version of the performance equation for flexible pavements is shown
in Equation (1.3).
8  •  GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING

log Wt18 = Z R S0 + 9.36 log( SN + 1) − 0.20 +

 ∆PSI 
log  
 4.2 − 1.5  + 2.32 log M − 8.07
r (1.3)
1094
0.4 +
( SN + 1)
5.19

Where
ZR = the standard normal deviate for a given reliability R
S0 = the standard deviation of the log of Wt18
Wt18 = number of 18-kip single-axle load applications to time t
SN = structural number of pavement
ΔPSI = change in serviceability during time t
pt = terminal serviceability index
MR = effective roadbed soil resilient modulus

The aforementioned PSI-based pavement design equation or the cor-

responding nomographs for flexible pavements estimate the structural
number (SN) required for a given pavement section in a certain climatic
region with a given soil resilient modulus (MR) to support a certain num-
ber of traffic applications within the period of the PSI change. More details
on the MR test are given in Chapter 3. The SN is then simplified to obtain
thicknesses of different pavement layers using the following equation:

SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2 + a3 D3 +  (1.4)

Where,
ai = layer coefficient for layer i
Di = thickness of layer i

Similarly, the current version of performance equation for rigid pave-

ments is as follows:

 ∆PSI 
log 
 4.5 − 1.5 
log Wt18 = Z R S0 + 7.35 log ( D + 1) − 0.06 +
1.624 × 107
1+
( D + 1)8.46 (1.5)
 
(  (
Sc Cd D 0.75 − 1.132 ) 
4. 22 − 0. 32 pt) log  0.25 
 215.63J D − 18.42 / ( Ec / k )
  
0.75
  
 Introduction to Pavement Engineering  •  9

Where
D = slab thickness in inches
Sc = modulus of rupture of concrete
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
Cd = drainage coefficient
k = modulus of subgrade reaction

The aforementioned PSI-based pavement design equation or the cor-

responding nomograph for rigid pavements directly estimates the thick-
ness of the concrete slab for a given climatic region with a given modulus
of subgrade reaction (k). More details on the modulus of subgrade reaction
are given in Chapter 3.

1.3.3 ASPHALT INSTITUTE (AI) METHOD

Asphalt Institute (AI) has published eight editions of Manual Series (MS-
1) for thickness design of flexible pavements. These were published during
1954 to 1969 and were based on empirical equations developed using data
from AASHO road test, data from a number of British road tests and in
comparisons with USACE methods. In 1981, the ninth edition of MS-1
was published based on MEPD principles that use multilayer pavement
analysis methods and empirical equations to predict pavement failure.
MEPD principles for flexible pavement use two failure criteria for
the design of pavements, namely, horizontal tensile strain at the bottom
of the asphalt layer and vertical compressive strain on the surface of
the ­subgrade. Horizontal strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer causes
fatigue cracking of the asphalt layer, while vertical strain at the surface of
the subgrade initiates rutting. These two failure criteria are illustrated in
the following mathematical expressions.
The fatigue cracking criterion is expressed by Equation (1.6):

N f = 0.00432(C )(∈t ) −3.291 E *

−0.854
(1.6)

Where,
Nf = allowable number of load repetitions to control fatigue cracking
(the extent of failure defined as the state with 20 percent of the total
pavement area affected by fatigue cracking)
∈t = horizontal strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer
E* = dynamic modulus of the asphalt mixture
C is the correction factor expressed as
10  •  GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING

C = 10 M (1.7)

 vb 
M = 4.84  − 0.69 (1.8)
 va + vb 

Where,
vb = percentage of asphalt volume in the mix
va = percentage of air volume in the mix

For a standard mix with an asphalt volume of 18 percent and air void
volume of 5 percent, the fatigue failure equation simplifies to Equation
(1.9) after multiplying by a factor of 18.4 to account for observed differ-
ences in laboratory and field conditions,

N f = 0.00796 (∈t ) E*
−3.291 −0.854
(1.9)

On the other hand, the failure criterion for permanent deformation

(rutting) can be expressed by Equation (1.10):

N d = 1.365 × 10−9 (∈c )

−4.477
(1.10)

Where,
Nd = allowable number of load repetitions to control permanent defor-
mation (rutting) (the extent of failure defined as the state with 0.5 in.
rut)
εc = vertical strain on the surface of the subgrade

For the mechanistic analysis, soil subgrade modulus is needed in terms

of modulus of subgrade reaction or CBR. Other input parameters include
traffic, resilient modulus of granular materials used for the pavement base
and subbase, resilient modulus of asphalt materials, and environmental
impact factors to account for possible subgrade swelling and frost heave.

1.3.4 PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION (PCA) METHOD

Portland Cement Association (PCA) has first published a design proce-

dure for concrete pavements in 1966 and later revised it in 1984. These
thickness design procedures are based on mechanistic principles. In
the1966 version, only fatigue analysis was included, and subsequently, in
 Introduction to Pavement Engineering  •  11

the 1984 version, erosion analysis procedure was included to account for
pavement failures caused by pumping, erosion of foundation, and joint
faulting. Use of dowel joints and concrete shoulders greatly influences
the design of concrete pavements. Once the two factors that can accom-
modate the effects of dowel joints and concrete shoulders are decided
upon, the remaining design process is based on the concrete modulus of
rupture, subgrade and subbase support, design period, and traffic.
Fatigue analysis is based on edge stress midway between transverse
joints caused by either an 18-kip single axle or 36-kip tandem axle. Two
design tables are available to estimate the equivalent edge stress for slabs,
without concrete shoulders and slabs with concrete shoulders. After the
equivalent stress is computed, the stress ratio factor is determined by
dividing the equivalent stress by the design modulus of rupture (28-day
modulus of rupture for concrete). By knowing the expected axle load, the
stress ratio factor, the allowable number of axle load repetitions can be
determined by using the PCA design chart. As erosion damage is caused
at pavement corners, two separate types of design tables are available for
dowelled and aggregate interlock joint types. The erosion damage analysis
requires two separate design charts for slabs with and without concrete
shoulders.

1.3.5 AASHTO MEPD

During the development of 1986 and 1993 versions of AASHTO Empirical

Pavement Design Guide, a need for a mechanistic design approach was
recognized. As the empirical guide was based on a road test completed
in the early 1960s, there was a need to incorporate the following factors:

• today’s high and heavy traffic volumes,

• changes in pavement materials,
• changes in construction methods and drainage considerations,
• changes in subgrade characterization methods, and
• changes in climatic conditions.

Therefore, the primary objective of the MEPD methods is to address

the aforementioned needs. Figure 1.5 shows the conceptual approach of
the MEPD method.
As shown in the conceptual diagram in Figure 1.5, the pavement design
process involves three stages: evaluation, analysis, and strategy selection.
During the evaluation stage, all necessary input parameters for pavement
12  •  GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING

Drainage Environment
Volume changes Temperature
Frost heave Moisture

Foundation analysis Pavement materials

Properties as functions of loading
Rehabilation rate, temperature, & moisture
Evaluate existing
pavement Traffic
Axle loads
Classification
New pavements
Forecasting
Subgrade analysis

Reliability
STAGE 1 - EVALUATION

Select trial
Modify strategy
pavement strategies

No
Pavement response
models
Does
performance
Pavement performance
meet
models
criteria?

Yes STAGE 2 - ANALYSIS

Engineering Viable Life cycle

analysis alternatives cost analysis

Other
considerations

Select
Strategy

STAGE 3 - STRATEGY SELECTION

Figure 1.5.  Conceptual approach for MEPD (NCHRP 2004).

design are properly evaluated. These input parameters include environ-

mental conditions, drainage conditions, pavement materials, subgrade
conditions, existing pavement information (for rehabilitation design), and
traffic conditions. It is expected that the aforementioned input parameters
are accurate and detailed. For example, in the AASHTO 1993 pavement
design guide, pavement materials were characterized by a single-layer
coefficient (a) for each material. However, in the ME design approach,
each material is characterized by the loading rate, moisture conditions,
and temperature. During the analysis stage, trial pavement sections with
different materials are analyzed by using pavement performance models.
Then, the output of the performance models (predicted pavement condi-
tions) is compared with the expected pavement performance criteria. If the
 Introduction to Pavement Engineering  •  13

pavement performance does not meet the criteria, a new trial section is
selected, and the process is repeated until the performance criteria are sat-
isfied with a trial pavement section. During the strategy selection stage,
the selected trial sections are evaluated through an engineering analysis
process and a lifecycle cost analysis process to select the best pavement
section.
One of the other differences in the AASHTO ME design method is
the inclusion of the hierarchical approach for design inputs. This approach
provides a pavement designer the flexibility in selecting design inputs
based on the criticality of the project. For example, one would use more
accurate pavement input parameters for an interstate pavement design
project and less accurate inputs for a local street design. The hierarchical
approach includes three levels: Level 1—inputs provide the highest level
of accuracy, producing the lowest level of uncertainty, Level 2—inputs
provide an intermediate level of accuracy, and Level 3—inputs provide
the lowest level of accuracy.
The AASHTO MEPD approach uses two types of pavement perfor-
mance parameters: functional performance parameters and the structural
performance parameters. Functional performance is characterized by the
smoothness of the pavement. Pavement smoothness relates to user com-
fort, and it is measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI). The
design process uses an initial IRI value and then predicts the future IRI
in terms of predicted distresses, site conditions, and maintenance activ-
ities. Similarly, pavement structural performance is characterized by
predicted distresses. For flexible pavements, the major distress types are
fatigue cracking and rutting, while for rigid pavements, these include joint
faulting and slab cracking.
 Index

A C
AASHTO. See American California Bearing Ratio (CBR), 6
Association of State Highway CBR. See California Bearing Ratio
and Transportation Officials Cement stabilization, 67–69
AASHTO mechanistic-empirical Chemical stabilization
pavement design cement stabilization, 67–69
description of, 11–13 fly ash stabilization, 69–70
geotechnical inputs, 24–30 lime stabilization, 64–67
level 1 input parameters, 25–26 Composite pavements, 4
level 2 input parameters, 26 Construction specifications, 77–78
level 3 input parameters, 27–28
saturated hydraulic conductivity, D
28–29 Density control, 85
soil water characteristics curve, Density testing, 79–81
29–30 Drainage coefficient, 18, 23
specific gravity of solids, 29 Dry unit weight, 35
AI. See Asphalt Institute Dynamic cone penetrometer
American Association of State (DCP) test, 47–48, 82
Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) E
empirical pavement design Elastic modulus, base materials,
method, 6–9 17, 22
geotechnical inputs, 15–24 Expansive or swelling soils, 54–55
Asphalt Institute (AI), 9–10
Atterberg limit tests, 36 F
Falling weight deflectometer
B (FWD), 49–50
Base materials Field exploration
drainage coefficient of, 18 boring equipments, 33–34
elastic modulus, 17, 22 number, depth and location of
Boring equipments, 33–34 borings, 32–33
94  •  Index

soil borings, 32 L
sources of, 31–32 Light weight deflectometer
Field verification, design inputs, (LWD), 48–49, 82
85–86 Lightweight filling, 71–73
Flexible pavements Lime stabilization, 64–67
definition of, 4 LWD. See Light weight
input parameters for ASSHTO, deflectometer
16–19
Fly ash stabilization, 69–70 M
Frost-susceptible soils, 55–58 Mechanical stabilization with
FWD. See Falling weight geosynthetics, 59–63
deflectometer Mechanistic-empirical pavement
design (MEPD), 11–13
G MEPD. See Mechanistic-empirical
Geosynthetics, mechanical pavement design
stabilization with, 59–63
Geotechnical testing O
Atterberg limit tests, 36 Optimum moisture content, 35
dry unit weight, 35 Ordinary compaction, 85
gradation/mechanical analysis,
36–37 P
optimum moisture content, 35 Pavement design history
shear strength, 38–43 American Association of State
Ground improvement methods, Highway and Transportation
74–75 Officials, 6–9
Asphalt Institute, 9–10
H California Bearing Ratio, 6
Hand augering, 33–34 description of, 5
Highly compressible soft soils, 54 Portland Cement Association,
HMA. See Hot-mix asphalt 10–11
Hot-mix asphalt (HMA), 3 Pavement system
components of, 2–3
I description of, 2–3
IC rollers, 82–84 subbases, 2
In situ (field) California bearing types of, 3–5
ratio, 49 PCA. See Portland Cement
In situ test methods Association
dynamic cone penetrometer test, Poisson’s ratio, 27
47–48 Portland Cement Association
falling weight deflectometer, (PCA), 10–11
49–50 Present serviceability index (PSI),
light weight deflectometer, 7
48–49 Present serviceability rating (PSR),
in situ (field) CBR, 49 7
 Index  •   95

PSI. See Present serviceability Soil encapsulation, 71

index Soil water characteristics curve
PSR. See Present serviceability (SWCC), 29–30
rating Specific gravity of solids, 29
Stiffness control, 85
Q Subbase materials
Quality control and quality drainage coefficient of, 18
assurance (QA/QC) process, elastic modulus of, 19–20, 22
78–79 Subgrade compaction and testing
DCP equipment, 82
R density testing, 79–81
Resilient modulus IC rollers, 82–84
laboratory estimation, 45–46 LWD, 82
laboratory measurement, 43–44 Subgrade conditions
in situ test methods, 47–50 expansive or swelling soils,
subgrade materials, 16–17 54–55
subgrade soils, 25 frost-susceptible soils, 55–58
typical values, 51–52 highly compressible soft soils,
Rigid pavements design 54
with base/subbase, 20 saturated soils, 55
definition of, 4 Subgrade materials, resilient
input parameters for ASSHTO, modulus, 16–17
19–24 Subsurface drainage systems, 59
rigid bedrock at shallow depth, SWCC. See Soil water
20–21 characteristics curve
seasonal average composite k
value, 21–24 U
without base/subbase, 19–20 Unpaved roads, 4–5
Unstable subgrade conditions
S chemical stabilization, 64–70
Saturated hydraulic conductivity, mechanical stabilization with
28–29 geosynthetics, 59–63
Saturated soils, 55 remove and replace option,
Seasonal average composite k 58–59
value, 21–24 stabilization with other methods,
Shear strength, 38–43 70–75
Soil borings, 32 subsurface drainage systems, 59