/ ~ AASHTO, Guide for. Design of Pavement Structures " “1993 .. Published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249 ington, D.C. 20001~ HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON DESIGN ° Chairman: Byton C. Blaschke, Texas Vice Chairman: Kenneth C. Afferton, New Jersey — Jabama, Don Arkle, Ray D. Bass, LF. Caraway aska, Rodney R. Platzke, Timothy Mitchell, Boyd Brownfield ‘Fzona, Rober P. Mickelson, Dalit B. Saxioa, John L. Louis -rkansas, Bob Walters, Paul DeBusk ‘alifornia, Walter P. Smith ‘olorado, James E. Siebels connecticut, Earle R. Munroe, Bradley J. Smith, James F. Bymes, Jr. __ tlaware, Michael A. Angelo, Chao H. Ha .C., Charles F. Williams, Sanford H. Vinick lorida, Bill Deyo, Ray Reissener eorgia, Walker Scott, Hoyt J. Lively, Roland Hinners ‘awali, Kenneth W.G. Wong, Albert Yamaguchi 4aho, Richard Sorensea, Jeff R. Miles Jinois, Ken Lazar, Dennis Pescitelli adiana, Gregory L. Henneke awa, George F. Sisson, Donald L. East, Dave Little ‘ansas, Bert Stratmana, James Brewer, Richard G. Adams ‘entucky, Charles S. Raymer, Joha! Sacksteder, Steve Williams ‘ouisiana, Charies M: Higgins, William Hickey, Kalivads {aine, Charles Smith, Walter Henrickson faryland, Steve Drumm, Robert D. Douglass {assachusetts, Sherman Eidelman, Frederick J. Nohelty, J. ‘ichigan, Charies J. Amold finnesota, Roger M. Hill fissisippi, Irving Harris, Wendel T. Rutf, Glenn Calloway fissouri, Frank Carroll, Bob Sfreddo ontana, David S. Johnson, Ronald E. Wiliams, Carl's, Pel ‘ebraska, Gerald Grauer, Marvin J. Volf, Eldon D. Poppe Q ‘evada, Michael W. McFall, Steve R. Oxoby ‘ew Hampshire, Gilbert S. Rogers ‘ew Jersey, Kenneth Afferton, Walter W. Caddell, Charles A. Goessel t Mexico, Jouph Pacheco, Charles V-P. Tryjill ‘ew York, J. Robert Lambert, Philip J. Clark, Robert A. Dennison ‘orth Carolina, D.R. (Don) Morton, G.T. (Tom) Reatin, J.T. Peacock, Je. orth Dakota, David K.O. Leer, Ken Birst hio, Donald K. Huhman, George L. Butzer Secretary: Thomas Willett, FHWA Oldshoms, Bruce E. Taylor, Richard B. Hanking . Wayne Philiber Oregon, Tom Lalay, Wayne F. Cobine 5 Pennsylvania, Fred W. Bowser, John J. Faicla, J., Dean Schreiber Puerto Rico, Jose E. Hernandez, Maria M. Casse, Eugenio Davila Rhode Island, J. Michael Bennett ~ South Carolina, Robert L. White, William M. DuBose South Dakota, Lawreace L, Weiss, Larry Engbrecht, Monte Schneider ‘Tennessee, Paul Morrison, Ciellon Loveall, Jerry D. Hughes ‘esas, Frank D. Holzmann, William A. Lancaster, Mark Marek LS. DOT, Robert Bates (FAA), Thomas O, Willet (FHWA) Utah, Dyke LeFevre, PK. Mohanty, Heber Viam ‘Vermont, Robert M. Murphy, Donald H. Lathrop, Joha L. Aristrong Virginia, E.C. Cochran, J., R.E. Atherton, K.F. Phillips Washington, E.R. (Skip) Burch West Virginia, Norman Roush, Randolph Epperly Wisconsin, Joseph W. Dresser, Robert Pfeifer Wyoming, Donald A. Carison AFFILIATE MEMBERS Alberta, PLF. (Peter) Tajenar Hong Kong, S.K. Kwei Manitoba, A. Boychuk Mariana Islands, Nick C. Sablan New Brunswick, C. Herbert Page Newfoundland, Terry McCarthy Northwest Territories, Peter Vician Nova Scotta, Donald W. Maclatosh Ontario, Gerry McMillan Saskatchewan, Ray Gerbrandt ASSOCIATE MEMBERS—STATE Mass. Metro. Dist. Comm., E. Leo Lydon NJ. Turnpike Authority, Arthur A. Linfance, Jt Port Auth. of NY & NJ, Harry Schmert ASSOCIATE MEMBERS—FEDERAL Bureau of Indian Affairs—Division of ‘Transportation, Kimo Natewa US. Department of Agriculture—Forest Service, ‘Tom Pettigrew‘ SPECIAL NOTICE ‘The Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, when it was published in 1986, was pub- lished as two volumes. Volume 1 was writen as a basic design guide and provided all of the information required to understand and apply the “Guide” to pavement design. Volume 2 was a series of appendices prepared to provide documentation or further explanations for informa- tion contained in Volume 1. Volume 2 is not required for design. This 1993 edition of the “Guide” contains only one Volume. This Volume replaces tte 1986 “Guide” Volume 1 and serves the same purpose. The major changes included in the 1993 “Guide” are changes to the overlay design procedure and the accompanying appendices L, M, and N. There are other minor changes and some of an editorial nanure throughout the new Volume 1. ‘Volume 2 of the 1986 “Guide” is still applicable io most sections of Volume 1 of the 1993 “Guide” and is available through AASHTO, 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249,-Wash- ington, D.C. 20001; 202-624-5800. Request book code “GDPS3-V2." A copy of the Table of ‘Contents from Volume 2 of the 1986 “*Guide” follows. ‘VOLUME 2 APPENDICES ‘AA. Guidelines for the Design of Highway Internal Drainage Systems BB. _Position Paper on Pavement Management CC. Remaining Life Considerations in Overlay Design DD. —_Development of Coefficieats for Treatment of Drainage EE. Development of Reliability FF, _ Relationship Between Resilient Modulus and Soil Support GG. Relationships Between Resilient Modulus and Layer Coefficients HH, Development of Effective Roadbed Soil Moduli DL Survey of Current Levels of Reliability a Development of Design Nomographs KK. Determination of J-Factor for Undowelled Pavements LL. Development of Models for Effects of Subbase and Loss of Support MM. Extension of Equivalency Factor Tables NN. Recommendations for the Selection of an AASHTO Overlay Method Using NDT Within the AASHTO Performance Model Framework 00, ” ~ Pavement Recycling Fundamentals PP. _Development of NDT Structural Capacity RelationshipsWhen construction, maintenance, and rehabilita- tion costs are considered, the single most costly ele- ment of our nation's highway system is the pavement Structure. In an effort to reduce this cost, the state highway and transportation departments and the Fed- eral Government have sponsored continuous pro- gram of research on pavements. One output of that ‘esearch effort was the Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures published in-1972 and revised ia 1981. It was based largely upon the findings at the ‘AASHO Road Test. Because this is such an important topic, the Joint ‘Task Force on sposed of members from the Subcommittee on Design, one member each, from the, Materials, Construction, and Maintenance Subcommittees, and one from the Planning Commit- tee of AASHTO—was assigned the task of rewriting the Interim Guide incorporating new developments and specifically addressing pavement rehabilitation. Because many states were found to be using at least portions of the Interim Guide and because no other ‘generally accepted procedures could be identified, it ‘was decided that this Guide would retain the basic algorithms developed from the AASHO Road Test as ‘used in the Interim Guide. Because the Road Test was Very limited in scope, i.e. a few materials, one sub- grade, non-mized traffic, one environment, etc., the original Imerim Guide contained many additional ‘models to expand the framework so designers could ‘consider other conditions. The new Guide has been further expanded with the following 14 major new considerations: (1) Reliability @) Resilient Modulus for Soil Support @) Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Layer Coefficients . (8) Drainage (3) Improved Environment Considerations (©) Tied Concrete Shoulders or Widened Lanes 7) Subbase Erosion for Rigid Pavements () Life Cycle Cost Considerations () Rehabilitation (10) Pavement Management s PREFACE ‘esearch effort being undertaken in the Strategic Highs (11) Extension of Load Equivalency Values (12) Improved Traffic Data : (13) Design of Pavements for Low’ (14) ‘Stat of the Knowledge on Mechanistic: Enmpirical Design Concepts 3 (Conducta sensitivity study wo determine which inputs have a significant effect on pavemeat design answers for its range of conditions. £s @) For those inputs that are insignificant or iaap- ‘Propriate, no additional effort is required. | 28 @) For those that are significant and the state bas, sufficient data or methods to estimate design’ values with adequate accuracy, no addidonal effort is required. a (4) Finally for those sensitive inputs for which the’: state has no data of meth EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. PART I — PAVEMENT DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES oe “Caapter 1 Introduction and Background ...... Ma 12 = 13 vy 1s 16 18 18.2 Design of Pavement Subsurface Drainage 1.8.3 Incorporation of Drainage Into Guide..... 1.9 Shoulder Design ........ Chapter 2 Design Related Project Level Pavement Management. 21 Relationship of Design to Pavement Management... 22 The Guide as Structural Subsystem for a State : oa Project-Level PMS . ..... 23° Pavement Type Selection. 24 Network Level Pavement Management, (Chapter 3 Economic Evaluation of Alternative Pavement Design - ‘Strategies ..... 31 34 3.4.1 Transport Improvement Costs ~ 34.2 User Benefits ... 35 Factors Involved in Pavement Cost and Benefits . 3.6 Initial Capital Cont (Investment Costs) ... 3.6.1. Maintenance Cost . 26 3.6.2 Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Cost 3.6.3 Salvage or Residual Value...364 User Cost... pee 3.6.5 Traffic Delay Cost to User.. 3.6.6 Identification of Pavement 3.6.7 Analysis Period 3.7 Methods of Economic Evaluation 3.8 Discussion of Interest Rates, Inflation Factors and Discount Rates 3.8.1 Discounting. 38.2 Inflation ...... 3.9 Equations for Economic Analysis....... 3.9.1 Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Method 3.9.2 Present Worth Method .. 39.3 Summary ...... Chapter 4 Reliability .. 4.1 Definitions 4.1.1 General Definition of Reliability 4.1.2 Definition of Design Pavement Section. 4.1.3 Definition of Pavement Condition, Accumulated ‘Axle Loads, and Pavement Performance Variables 42 Variance Components and Reliability Design Factor ...... 4.2.1 Components of Pavement Design-Performance Variability 4.2.2 Probability Distribution of Basic Deviations 4.2.3 Formal Definition of Reliability Level and Reliability Design Factor... 43° Criteria for Selection of Overall St + 44 Criteria for Selection of Reliability Level 45 Reliability and Stage Construction Alternatives. Ghapter 5 Summary. References for Part I...... PARTI ~ PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ‘OR RECONSTRUCTION 2S (Chapter 2 Design Requirements. 21 Design Variables 2.1.1 Time Constraints... 212 Traffic. 2.1.3 Reliability....... 2.14 Environmental Effects ....... 22 Performance Criteria «..+.+++ [oor ‘a89] lost foot ; fooe rr loz lore oer wad} ‘oosast9 lov <-) oszevez lor ‘ooszere [ov : ov | uisoo| seu | suunsoy | sseupNL | “SuUIsOD | sseupML | sy UIs0D | —SeouDIEL aaisa99ns OLHSVV, TaHS Out uB|sep juawened jo suojdo snoen Joy Wy Jed ys05‘Wig = predicted number of 18-kip equivalent single axle load applications,*_ ZR We ‘normal deviate, * S, = combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction, APSI = difference between the initial design serviceability index, p,y and the design terminal serviceability index, p,, and M, = resilient modulus (psi), SN is equal to the structural number indicative of the total pavement thickness required: mF i layer drainage coefficient. Rigid Pavements ogig(W 1g) = Zp XS, * 7.35 x log, (D + 1) + 422-032xp) Sx, 0% x 10g, Cr ) 2s6323 p= a] 1K where ‘Wy, = predicted number of 18-bip equivalent - ‘single axle load applications, standard normal deviate, = combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction, thickness (inches) of pavement slab, > g " ifference between the initial design serviceability index, p,, and the design terminal serviceability index, p,, S', "= modulus of rupture (psi) for portand cement concrete used on a specific Project, load transfer coefficient used to adjust for load transfer characteristics of a specific design, drainage coefficient, E, «= modulus of elasticity (psi) for portland ‘cement concrete, and =": > ‘modulus of subgrade reaction (p). The design nomographs presented in Part If solve these equations for the structural number (SN) for flexible pavements and thickness ofthe pavementslab for rigid pavements, The structural number is an abstract number ex- Dressing the structural strength of a pavement required for given combinations of soil support (M,), total traffic expressed in equivalent 18-kip single axfeloads, terminal serviceability, and environment. The required ‘SN must be converted to actual thickness of surfacing, bbase and subbase, by means of appropriate layerInivoduction aid Background “construction materials. Average values of layer coef- ficients for materials used in thé AASHO Road Test ate as follows: . ‘Asphaltic concrete surface course — 44 ~ Crushed stone base course old ‘Sandy gravel subbase — ‘The layer coefficients given in Part Il are based on extensive analyses summarized in NCHRP Report 128, “Evaluation of AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures,” (1972). In effect, the layer cosificeats are based on the elastic moduli M, and hhave_been determined based on stress and strain caleglatiansi Using these concepts, the layer coefficient may be adjusted, increased, or decreased, in order to maintain a constant Part I details how each of the design considerations are to be treated in selecting the SN value and how to decompose SN into layers according to material properties and function, ic., surface, base, subbase, and soforth. The pavement slab thickness, in inches, is Provided directly from the design nomographs. It is important to recognize that equations (1.2.1) ‘and (1.2.2) were derived from empirical information ‘obtained at the AASHO Road Test. As such, these equations represent a best fit to observations at the Road Test. The solution represents the mean value of traffic which can be carried given specific inputs. In other words, there would be 2 $0 percent chance that the actual traffi¢ to terminal serviceability could be ‘more or less than predicted. In order to decrease the risk of premature deterioration below acceptable levels of serviceability, a reliability factoris included in the design process. An explanation of the reliability factor is given in Chapter 4 of Part I. In order to Properly apply the reliability factor, the inputs to the design equation should be the mean value without adjustment. This will be discussed further in Chapter 4 of Part I and in sections of Part Il. The designer must remember to use mean values for such factors ax soil support, traffic, layer coefficients, drainage coefficients, ‘ete. Increased reliability will be obtained by adjust- ‘ments which are based on uncertainty in each of the design variables as well a traffic. Each of the terms used in the design equations is discussed as necessary in Parts Land IT of this Guide. It is pertinent to note thata few changes have been made {in the design equations when compared with the 197 Interim Guide (2). The soil support value has bee replaced with My (exible) and a drainage coefficer, bas been added to the rigid equation, For the flexib| equation, the structural number (SN) has been modifi. by the addition of drainage coefficients and th regional factor (R) has been deleted. Lastly, both th rigid and flexible equations have been modified consider both total serviceability loss (p, - p), anc ‘There are two important factors to consider con ‘cerning these equations: (1) the equations are predictor ‘of the amount of traffic that can be sustained befor deteriorating to some selected terminal level of service ability and (2) the basic prediction equations wer: developed empirically from field observations at th AASHO Road Test with modifications considerec ‘necessary to improve the Guide based on researc! ‘completed during the past 20 years.” ‘There are a number of alternate procediires whict ‘ean be used for the design of pavement structares. Ir fact, all $0 states have adopted their own desigr Procedures, many of which are based on past AASHTC Guide methods. A list of other suitable pavemen: design procedures is presented in Appendix C. 1.3 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE ‘Current concepts of pavement performance include ‘some consideration of functional performance, struc ‘tural performance, and safety. This Guide is primarily concerned with functional and structural per- formance. Information pertinent to safety em be found in appropriate publications of NCHRP, FHWA. and AASHTO. One important aspect of safety isthe frictional resistance provided at the paverment/tire interface. AASHTO has issued a publication, "Guide- lines for Skid Resistant Pavement Design,” which car bbe referred to for information on this subject. ‘The structural performance of a pavement relateste its physical condition; i., occurrence of cracking, faulting, raveling, or other conditions which woulé adversely affect the load-carrying capability of the Pavement structure or would require maintenance. ‘The functional performance of a pavement concerns how well the pavement serves the user. In this context, riding comfort or ride quality is the dominant charac- teristic" In ‘order’ to” quantify riding comfort, the “serviceability-performance” concept was developed by the AASHO Road Test staffin 1957 (1.4). Since the serviceability-performance concept is used as themeasure of performance for the design equations in »this Guide, an explanation of the concept herein seems worthwhil ‘The serviceability-performance concept is based on five fundamental assumptions, summarized as follows or. (1) Highways are for the comfort and conven- ience of the travelling public (User), @) Comfort, or riding quality, is a matter of subjective response or the opinion of the User. ) _Serviceabitity can be expressed by the mean of the ratings given by all highway Users and is termed the serviceability rating. (&) There are physical characteristics of a Pavement which can be measured objectively and which can be related to subjective evaluations. This procedure produces an objective serviceability index. (3) Performance can be represented by the serviceability history of a pavement. ‘The serviceability of a pavement is expressed in terms of the present serviceability index (PSI). The PSI is obtained from measurements of roughness and distress, €.g., cracking, patching and rut depth (exible), at a particular time during the service life of the pavement. Roughness is the dominant factor in estimating the PSI of a pavement. Thus, a reliable method for measuring roughness is important in ‘monitoring the performance history of pavements, ‘The specific equations developed at the Road Test to calculate the present serviceability index have been modified by most users of the AASHTO Guide. These changes reflect local experience and are assumed to Tepresent results from the Road Test; i, the PSI Values continue to represent ride quality as evaluated at the Road Test. Because of the relatively small contribution to PSI made by physical distress, and the difficulty in obtaining the information, many agencies rely only-on roughness to estimate ride quality. It is acknowledged that physical distress is likely to in- uence a decision to initiate maintenance or rehabili- tation. For purposes of this Guide, itis assumed that the amount of distress associated with the terminal PSI is acceptable, “lower classification. For relatively minor highwa Because roughness is such an important conside tion for the design of pavements, the change roughness will control the life cycle of pavements, this regard, the quality of construction will infue: performance and the life cycle of the desigr Pavement. The initial pavement smoothness is important design consideration, For example, the} cycle of a pavement initially constructed with smoothness or PSI of 4.5 will have ® significan longer life cycle than one constructed to a PSI of 4 ‘Thus, quality control in the construction of a paveme can have a beneficial impact on performance (1 cycle). ‘The scale for PSI ranges from 0 through 5, witk value of 5 representing the highest index of servic ability. For design it is necessary to select both : initial and terminal serviceability index. The inital serviceability index () iam extimatet the user of what the PSI will be immediately aft construction, Values of p, established for AASH Road Test conditions were 4.2 for flexible pavemen and 4.5 for rigid pavements. Because of the variatic of construction methods and standards, it is recor mended that more reliable levels be established each agency based on its own conditions, ‘The terminal serviceability index (p) isthe lowe: acceptable level before resurfacing or reconstructic ‘becomes necessary for the particular class of highwa; An index of 25 or 3.0 is often suggested for use int design of major highways, and 2.0 for highways with where economic considerations dictate that initis expenditures be kept low, a p, of 1.5 may be usec Expenditures may also be'minimized by reducing th performace period. Such alow value ofp, shoul only be used in special cases on selected classes 0 highways. The major factors influencing the loss of service ability ofa pavement are traffic, age, and environment, Each of these factors has been considered in formu- lating the design requirements included in this Guide. However, it should be recognized that the separate of the interacting effects of these components are not clearly defined at the present time, especially with Fegard to age. It is known that the properties of ‘materials used for pavement construction change with time. These changes may be advantageous to per- formance; however, in most cases, age (time) isa net ‘egative factor and works to reduce serviceability.Introdvetion and Background. Aneffort has been made inthe Guide toaccount for the effects of environment on pavement performance in situations where swelling clay or frost heave are ‘encountered. Thus, the total changein PSI at any time. can be obtained by summing the damaging effects of traffic, swelling clay, and/or frost heave, as shown in Equation 1.3.1 and illustrated in Figure 1.2. APSI=APSlreaie *APSlsyety Frost Heave * (131) where APSI = total loss af serviceability; APSlrrate = serviceability loss due to a traffic (ESAL¥), and APSlcceurron Have = serviceability loss due to swelling and/or frost heave of roadbed soil. It can be noted in Figure 1.2 that the effect of swelling soils or frost heave is to reduce the predicted service life of the pavement. The Guide does not Fecommend increasing pavement structural thickness ‘to offset the serviceability loss due to swelling soils; but it is feasible, however, to control frost heave by increasing the thickness of non-frost-susceptible material In many swelling situations, it may be possible to reduce to acceptable limits the effect of swelling soil by stabilization of the expansive soil or by replacement of these soils with nonexpansive material. When ex:- perience indicates this is a viable procedure, itis not Recessary to estimate the effect of swelling soil on the life cycle. " The predicted effect of frost heave is based on a limited amount of information available in the literature. If ageney design procedures include provi- sions to mitigate the detrimental effects of frost, the serviceability loss due to frost heave should beignored, i.., assumed to be zero. The most accepted procedure to minimize the effect of frost heave is to replace the frost-susceptible material with non-frost-susceptible ‘material to a depth of one-half or more of the frost depth, A further discussion ofthe influence of environment. will be found in Section 1.7 of this chapter. 1A TRAFFIC Traffic information required by the design equations used in this Guide includes axle loads, axle config- uration, and number of applications. ‘The results of the AASHO Road Test have shown that the damaging effect of the passage of an axle of any mass (commonly called load) can be represented bby a number of 18-kip equivalent single axle loads or ESAL's. For example, one application of a 12-ip Single axle was found to cause damage equal to approximately 0.23 applications of an 18-kip single axleload, and four applications of a 12-kip singleaxle were required to cause the same damage (or reduction in serviceability) as one application ofan 18-kip single axle. This concept has been applied to the design equations and nomographs in Part Il. The determina tion of design ESAL'sisa very important consideration forthe design of pavement structures using this Guide, as it is in previous versions of the Guide. 1.4.1 Evalustion of Traffic ‘The procedure used in this Guide to convert amixed traffic stream of different axle loads and axle con- figurations into a design traffic number is to convert each expected axle load into an equivalent number of 18-kip single axle loads and to sum these over the design period. The procedure for converting mixed traffic to ESAL's is discussed in Appendix D. “There are four key considerations which influence the accuracy of traffic estimates and which can significantly influence the lifecycle of a pavement: (I) 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 twaffic volume and weight information used to represent the actual loading projections, (3) the prediction of ESAL'sover the design period, and (6) the interaction of age and traffic as it affects changes in PSI. ‘The available load equivalency factors are considered the best available at the present time, representing information derived from the AASHO Road Test. ‘The empirical observations on the Road Test covered a range of axle Joads from 2 to 30 kips on single axles and 26 to 48 kips on tandem axles. No tridem axles were included in the Road Test experiment; load equivalency values for tridem axles are included ‘Appendix D, but they are the result of research carriedDesign of Pavement Stractus Pst Psi‘Inireduetion ond Background és ‘out since completion of the Road Test. Load equiva- lency values for single and tandem axles which exceed the loads given above are also extrapolations of the basic data from the Road Test. 7 Itshould be noted that load equivalency factors are, inor degree, functions of pavement type (rigid or flexible) thickness, and terminal serviceability (p,) used for design. For designing composite pavements (Gigid base with flexible wearing surface), the use of load equivalency values for rigid pavements is recom- mended. State DOT's accumulate traffic information in the format of the Federal Highway Administration W-4 truck weight tables, which are tabulations of the number of axles observed within a series of load - sgroups, with each load group coveringa 2-kip interval. Traffic information relative to truck type, ie., axle configuration, is provided in W-2 tabulations (dis- tribution of vehicles counted and weighed). As illus- ‘trated in Appendix D, these tabulations can be used to estimate the number of equivalent single axle loads associated with mixed traffic atthe particular reporting loadometer station, From this information itis possible to obtain average load equivalency factors for all trucks orfor trucks by configuration, ie. the averages for singles, tandems, or tridems. ‘Most states have taken the information from the W-4 tables and converted it into relatively simple ‘multipliers (truck equivalency factors) which represent each truck type inthe traffic stream, These multipliers can be used to convert mixed streams of traffic to ESAL's. It must be realized that such conversions represent estimates when applied to highways other than those from which the data were obtained. Weigh station information represents only a sample of the ‘otal traffic stream with weighings ata limited number of locations and for limited periods of time. Such _ information must be carefully interpreted when applied © to specific projects. Results from different weigh stations in one state have been reported to produce ‘ruck factors which vary by a factor of 6. Thus, one source of error in ESAL predictions is the use of estimated truck equivalency factors for various classes of highways based on a relatively small sample. Increased sampling of this type of information is necessary in order to reduce the error of the estimate due to insufficient information on a specific project. Users of this Guide are urged to gather the best possible traffic data for each design project. ‘Since pavements, new or rehabilitated, are usually ed ine nasinde ranginn Foren WN wears tn 30 veare ‘or more, it i'necessary to predict the ESAL's for thi period of time, iic., the performance period. Th performance period, often referred to as the desig: period, is defined as the period of time that an initia (or rehabilitated structure) will last before reaching it terminal serviceability. Any performance period ma. ‘be used with the Guide since design is based on th total number of equivalent single axle loads; however experience may indicate a practical upper limit base: on considerations other than traffic. The ESAL's fo the performance period represent the cumulativ number from the time the roadway is opened to trafii. -to the time when the serviceability is reduced’ to ; terminal value (c.g., p, qual 2.5 or 2.0). Ifthetraffic underestimated, the actual time to p, will probably bs less than the predicted performance period, there: resulting in increased maintenance and rehabilitatio: costs. ‘The maximum performance period to be used it designing fora particular pavement type, i, flexible rigid, or composite, should reflect agency experience ‘The performance period and corresponding desigr traffic should reflect reablife experience. The per formance period should not be confused with pavemen life. The pavement life may be extended by periodic rehabilitation of the surface or pavement structure. ‘The equivalent loads derived from meny traffic prediction procedures represent the totals fr all lane: for both directions of travel. This traffic must b + distributed by direction and by lanes for desigr purposes. Directional distribution is usually made by assigning 50 percent of the traffic to each direction ‘unless available measured traffic data warrant som: ‘other distribution. In regard to lane distribution, i0¢ percent of the traffic in one direction is often assignec to each of the lanes in that direction for purposes 0 structural design if measured distributions are no available, Some states have developed lane distribu: tion factors for facilities with more than one lane in given direction. These factors vary from 60 to 10 percent ofthe one-directional traffic depending om the total number of lanes in the facility. Part II anc Appendix D provide more details pertinent tothis lan: distribution factor. Traffic information s often provided to the designer bya Planning or Traffic group. The designers shoule work elosely with traffic personnel 10 be sure the proper information is provided and that the conse- quences of poor estimates of present and future traffic are understood be all nerennnetinuntvedPredictions of future traffic'ae often based on past traffic history. Several factors ‘an influence such predictions. : For purposes of pavement structure design, it is necessary to estimate the cumulative number of 18-kip equivalent singlé axle loads (ESAL's) for the design (performance) period. The number of ESAL¥ may or ‘may not be proportional to the average daily trafic. Truck traffic is the essential information required to calculate ESAL's it is therefore very important to correctly estimate future truck traffic for the facility during the design period. =” ‘Traffic may remain constant, or increase according to a straight line or at an accelerating (exponential) rate, In most cases, highways classified as principal arterial or interstate will have exponential growth (comparable to compound interest on investments). Traffic on some minor arterial or collector-type high- ways may increase along a straight line, while traffic on some residential streets may not change because the use remains constant. Thus, the designer must make provision for growth in traffic from the time of the last traffic count or weighing through the performance period selected for the project under consideration. ‘Appendix D provides appropriate information for ‘estimating future traffic growth based on an assumed exponential compounded growth rate. If zero or negative growth in traffic is anticipated, a zero or negative growth factor can be used. In most cases, appropriate growth factors can be selected from the tablein Appendix D. For major arterials and interstate highways, the growth rate should be applied by truck class rather than to the total traffic since growth in truck traffic may differ from the total traffic stream. “The percent trucks for the design period is often assumed to be constant; yet on some sections of the {interstate system, the truck traffic in rural areas has been reported to increase from an estimated 6 percent 10 25 10 30 percent over a 10- to 20-year period. ‘The load equivalency factor increases approximately asa function ofthe ratio of any given axle load to the standard 18-kip single axle load raised to the fourth power. For example, the load equivalency of a 12-kip single axle is given as 0.19 (Appendix D), while the load equivalency for 20-kip single axle is 1.51. Thus, the 20-kip load is 8 times as damaging as the 12-kip load, i.c., (20/12)*. This relationship will vary de- pendingon the structural number and terminal srvice- ability; however, it is generally indicative of load effects. Thus, it is especially important to obtain refiable truck weight information for each truck class Design of Povement Sircture. and especially for the multi-axle trucks since these ‘vehicies will constitute a high percentage of the total ESAL's on most projects. Calculation of future ESAL's is often based on truck factors by truck class. For example, based on truck weight information for five-axle tractor and trailer units, it is possible to develop an average multiplier for each five-axle truck. Thus, ifthe designer ‘can estimate the number of five-axle trucks over the design period, itis possible to calculate the cumulative ESAL's due to this particular truck class. A similar procedure is described in Appendix D for most of the truck classes on the highways at the present time, In regard to the use of truck factors, it wil be important to use track weight information represea- tative of the truck traffic on the designed faciity. Some truck weight data indicate that truck weights can vary by a factor of six or more between weigh stations. ‘Thus, it is very important to obtain information as nearly site specificas possible when estimating ESAL's per truck for each truck classification, Procedures described in Appendix D maybe applied to stage-construction design, i.e, where the inital design (performance) period is varied in order to ‘consider alternative designs for economic comparisons. Ik should be clear from this discussion that the estimate or prediction of future traffic (ESAL'S)is no: a trivial problem. Poor estimates of trafficcan product pavement performance significantly different thar that expected and cause a major increase in the costo: the specific project. This increased cost, when appliec to all sections being designed by an agency, wil adversely affect the overall programming of highway projects and reduce the work which can be done. Future deregulation or relaxation of truck load: could also resultin changes in the load distributions b; truck class, possibly fesulting in an increased per centage of five-axle (or more) vehicles being used ‘Also, inflation pressures used in truck tires are in creasingas tire manufacturers improve ther technolog. and the truck industry evaluates the potentiat a¢ vantage of using higher inflation tres. Itis not know exactly what the net effect of higher tire inflation i: however, pavement engineers and designers need t keep apprised of possible changes which ean influence pavement performance. In summary, reliable information conceruin cumulative ESAL'sis important for thedeterminatio of pavement structure requirements for both neInareduetion and Background construction and for rehabilitation. Continuous monitoring of traffic on select routes to compare predicted and actual traffic loadings is an important and vital set of information: needed to produce reliable designs. ‘The reliability factor included in the Guide (Part 1, Chapter 4 and Volume 2, Appendix EE) has been developed to provide consideration of uncertainties in both traffic predictions and performance predictions. Investigations by several states and industry have ~ Provided some information concerning the uncertain- ties in traffic predictions, Le., comparison of predicted ESAL‘sand actual ESAL's, The standard deviation of the ‘relationship between predicted and actual traffic hhas been reported (27) to be on the order of 0.2. In effect, the actual traffic may be 1.6 (one standard deviation) to 4.0 times (three standard deviations) as, ‘much as predicted. It should be clear that improvements in traffic loading information and predictions will contribute significantly to the precision which can be achieved in thickness design. Detailed information and procedures for calculating ESAL's are given in Appendix D. Designs in Part II take-into consideration the uncertainty in traffic estimates. The designer must use the best estimate for traffic without any adjustments based on his or her interpretation of the accuracy of such informati Provision has been made i the treatment of reliability in Part Il to accommodate the overall effect of Variances in the cumulative axle load predictions and ‘other design and performance related factors. 1.42 Limitations It is pertinent to note that the load equivalency factors used in this Guide are based on observations at the AASHO Road Test in Ottawa, Illinois, In this regard some limitations should be recognized, such as (1) limited pavement types, (2) loads and load ap- Plications, (3) age, and (4) environment. ‘The pavement types at the AASHO Road Test, from which load equivalency values were derived. included conventional flexible construction, ue., surface, base and subbase, and rigid pavements with and without reinforcement but always with load transfer devices (dowels). The same load equivalency factors are being applied in this Guide to (1) flexible Pavements with stabilized base and subbase, (2) rigid pavements without dowels in the transversejoints, and @) continuously reinforced concrete pavements, Modifications to the load equivalency values can only E. come through controlled experiments. The values ‘used in this Guide are considered the best available at the present time, ‘The experimental design at the AASHO Road Test. included a wide range, of loads, as previously discussed (Section 1.4.1); however, the applied loads were limited to a maximum of 1,114,000 axle applications for those sections which survived the full trafficking period. Thus, the maximum number of 18-kip equivas Tent single axle loads (ESAL') applied to any test section was approximately one millon. However, by applying the concept of equivalent loads to test sections subjected to only 30-kip single axle loads, for example, itis possible to extend the findings to8x 10° ESAL's. Use of any design ESAL's above &x105 requires extrapolation beyond the equations developed from the Road Test results, Such extrapolations have, however, provided reasonable results, based on ap- lication of the Guide since 1972. ‘The AASHO Road Test, from.which the basic design equations were derived, was completed after 2 years of traffic testing. The prediction models repre- sented by equations (1.2.1) and (1.2.2) donot include a term. for age, is., an interactive term for age and ‘traffic. For the present state of knowledge thereisvery litle information available to quantify the effect of aging on performance as expressed in terms of PSI or axle load applications. There is a need for more information regarding the combined effect of trafic and aging on performance. If & user agency has such information it may be possible to modify the perfor- - mance model accordingly. However, this Guide makes no direct evaluation of aging effects. Evaluation of aging factors along with traffic (ESAL's) should be a high priority for long-term monitoring of pavement performance. Only one set of materials and one roadbed soil were included in the AASHO Road Test for each pavement type. A small experiment also included performance observations of stabilized base materials under as- Phaltie surfaces. Use of alternate construction materials Tepresents an extrapolation ofthe basic data, However, 4s previously indicated, such extrapolations are based ‘on investigations using analytical techniques and are considered reasonable pending results from field in- vestigations. : ‘The weather at the Road Test in Ottawa, Iino, is representative of 4 large portion of the United States, subject to freezing temperatures during the winter and ‘medium to high rainfall throughout the year. Aneffort hhas been made in Part I! of this Guide to orovide abe Procedure for estimating the effects of. seasonal conditions and modifying these for ste spécific loca- tons. More information on environment is provided ina later section of Part I as well as in Part Il of the Guide. . ‘A number of new concepts have been included in these Guides, eg, reliability, drainage coefficients, use of resilient modulus to estimate layer coefficients, ‘remaining life estimates for overlays, and NDT methods to estimate in situ resilient modulus. These concepts have limited documentation based on actual field ‘observations; however, they are based of an extensive ‘evaluation of the present state of the knowledge. To the extent possible, explanations are provided in the Guide in either this volume or Volume 2. It is hoped that these concepts will find sufficient usagein order to evaluate and eventually modify and improve the design procedures and effectiveness of using the Guide. 1.4.3 Special Cases ‘This Guide is based on performance equations from the AASHO Road Test which may not apply directly to some urban streets, county roads, parkways, or Parking lots. For city streets, the major traffic loads will be generated by service vehicles, buses, and delivery trucks. Load equivalency values for such vehicles are not generally well-estimated by truck load equivalency factors from truck weighing stations. If the Guide is used for design of urban streets, an effort should be made to obtain information on actual axle loads and frequencies typical of vehicles operating on ‘thosestreets. Ifthisis done, the Guide can be used at a selected level of reliability. For parkways, i., highways which limit the use of heavy trucks, it may be necessary to adjust the design based on a combination of traffic factors, environ- ‘mental factors, and experience. Use of load equivalency factors as given in Appendix D may result in an ‘underdesigned pavement and premature deterioration, 1.5 ROADBED SOIL The definitive material property used tocharacterize roadbed soil for pavement design in this Guide is the resilient modulus (My). The procedure for deter mination of My is given in AASHTO Test Method The resilient modulus is a measure of the elastic Property of soil recognizing certain nonlinear char- Design of Pavement Structu acteristics. The resilient modulus can be used direct] for the design of flexible pavements but must & converted toa modulus of subgrade reaction (k-valu: for the design of rigid or composite pavements, Direc ‘measurement of subgrade reaction can be madeif suc Procedures are considered preferable to the desig. agency. The resilient modulus was selected to replace the so; Support value used in previous editions ofthe Desig: Guide for the following reasons: (1) Windicates a basic material property whict ‘can be used in mechanistic analysis of multi layered systems for predicting roughness cracking, rutting, faulting, ete. @) Methods for the determination of My are described in AASHTO Test Method 7974 (3) _Ithas been recognized internationally as a method for characterizing materials for use in pavement design and evaluation. (Techniques are available for estimating the Mg properties of various materials in-place from nondestructive tests. In is recognized that many agencies do not have equipment for performing the resilient modulus test. Therefore, suitable factors are reported which can be used to estimate My from standard CBR, R-value, and soil index test results or values. The development ‘of these factors is based on state of the knowledge Correlations. It is strongly recommended that user agencies acquire the necessary equipment to measure Mg. In any case, a well-planned experiment design is essential in order to obtain reliable correlations. A, range of soil types, saturation, and densities should be included in the testing program to identify the main effects. Guidelines for converting CBR and R-valueto Ma are discussed in this chapter. These correlations ‘are used in Part Il ofthis Guide pending the establish ‘ment of agency values. : Heukelom and Klomp (6) have reported correlations between the Corps of Engineers CBR value, using dynami¢ compaction, and the in situ modulus of soil, The correlation is given by the following relationship: Mg (Psi) = 1500 x CBR The data from which this correlation was developed ranged from 750 to 3000 times CB! hhas been used extensively by aIntrodction ond Background. : researchers and considered reasooable for Sne- grained soil with a soaked CBR of 10 or less, Methods for testing are given in Appendix F. The CBR should correspond to the expected field density. ‘Similar relationships have also been developed by ‘the Asphalt Institute (7) which relate R-value to Mg a8 follows: Mg(psi) = A+B x(Rvalue) (15.2) where A=T?2to 15Sand B= 369 10555. For the purposes of this Guide, the following = permeability constant (ft/day), and bar . tana = slope of the base layer. Fitter Material, A detailed description of filt: * layeis is contained in Appendix AA, Volume sa. <5) Ridgeway (1) provides the following general comment “This material can be made with a 50/0 blend of No. caked 57 and No. 9 stone of a crushed stone. The target. _______ The drainage layer and the collector syste permeability suggested by NIDOTis 1000-3000ft. per... must be prevented from clogging if t! day. Laboratory testing for permeability is recom: system is to remain functioning for 2 lor mended prior to approval ofthe porous layer material. period of time. This is accomplished t ‘A “cookbook” approach to the internal drainage ‘means of a filter between the drain and t! problem is given by G.S. Kozloo in Transportation : adjacent material. The fiter material, whi Record 993. 2 is made from sclect aggregates of fabric rust mect three general requirements: (1) ‘The measurement of subsurface drainages generally must prevent finer material, usually U based on the time required for 50 percent of the subgrade, from piping or migrating into t! ‘unbound water to be removed from the layer to be. -—--- — drainage layer and clogging it; (2)it must! drained. The Casagrande flow equation for estimating permeable enough to carry water witho the 50 percent drainage time is expressed as: any resistance; and (3) it must be stro:* enough to carry the loads applied and, for aggregate, to distribute live losds.to the subgrade, 7 Surface Course. The surface course of a flexible structure consists of x mixture of mineral aggregates, and bituminous materials placed as the upper course ‘and usually constructed on a base course. In addition to its major function as a structural portion of the Pavement, it must also be designed to resist the abrasive forces of traffic, to reduce the amount of surface water penetrating the pavement, to provide a skid-resistance surface, and to provide a smooth and ‘uniform riding surface. The success of a surface course depends to a degree on obtaining a mixture with the optimum gradation of aggregate and percent of bituminous binder to be durable and to resist fracture and raveling without becoming unstable under éxpected trafficand climatic conditions. The use of a laboratory design procedure is essential to ensure that a mixture will be satisfactory. Although dense-graded aggregates with a maximum size of about 1 inch are most commonly specified for surface courses for highways, a wide variety of other gradations, fro. sands to coarse, open-graded mix- tures, have been used and have provided satisfactory performance for specific conditions. Surface courses are usually prepared by hot plant mixing with an asphalt cement, but satisfactory performance has also been obtained by cold plant mixing, or even mixing, in-place, with liquid asphalts or asphalt emulsions. Hot plant mixes, e.g, asphalt concrete, are recom- mended for use on all moderate to heavily trafficked highways. Construction specifications usually require that a bituminous material be applied on untreated aggregate base courses as a prime coat, and on treated base courses and between layers of the surface course to serve as a tack coat. No specific quality requirements for surface courses are presented in this Guide. It is recognized that each agency will prepare specifications that are based on performance, local construction practices, and the ‘most economical use of local materials. ASTM Specification D515 provides some guidelines for designing asphalt concrete paving mixes. Itis particularly important that surface courses be Design of Pavement Structares variety of types of distress that tend to reduce the life and overall level of performance of the pavement, ‘Types of distress that are often related to insufficient ‘compaction during construction include ratting resulting from further densification under traffic, structural failure resulting from excess infiltration of surface water through the surface course, and cracking for raveling of the surface course resulting from ‘embrittlement of the bituminous binder by to air and water in the mixture. Specific criteria for compaction must be established by each highway ‘agency based on local experience. Theoretical maximum densities of 92 percent or more are some- times specified for dense-graded mixes. 1.6.2 Rigid Pavements ‘As shown in Figure 1.1, rigid pavements generally consist of a prepared roadbed underlying a layer of subbase and a pavement slab. The subbase may be stabilized or unstabilized. ‘A@drainage layer can be included in rigid pavements in much the same manner described for flexible pavements and shown in Figure 1.3. Alternate drainage - ion of equal benefit for various alternatives ay be satisfactory,Me, 3.8 DISCUSSION OF INTEREST RATES, | INFLATION FACTORS AND DISCOUNT RATE... , Many authors have considered the effects of inflation and interést rates on economic analyses, including ‘Winfrey (32), Grant and Ireson (40), Wohl and Martin (20, and Sandler ( (Of particular value isthe lucid discussion presented by the last listed author (22)in his 1984 Transportation Research Board paper, which is presented here for its applicable insight. 3.8.1 Discounting and the Opportunity Cost of Capital The concept of tife-cyele costing (LCC) should be understood to represent an economic assessment of ‘competing design alternatives, considering all signifi- ‘cant costs over the life ofeach alternative, expressed in ‘equivalent dollars (38) A significant key to LCCis the ‘economic assessment using equivalent dollars. For ‘example, assume one person has $1,000 on hand, another has $1,000 promised 10 years from now, anda third is collecting $100 a year for 10 years. Each has assets of $1,000. However, are the assets equivalent? The answer is not so simple because the assets are spread across different periods of time. To determine whose assets are worth more, a baseline time reference must first be established. All dollar values are then brought back to the baseline, using proper economic procedures to develop an equivalent dollar value. Money invested in any form earns, or has the capacity to earn, interest; so that a dollar today is worth more than the prospect ofa dollar at some future time. The same principle applies when comparing the cost of various pavement design alternatives over time. Each alternative may have a different stream of costs which must be transformed into a single equivalent dollar value before a meaningful comparison can be made. The rate at which these alternative cost streams are converted into a single equivalent dollar value is referred to as the discount rate. The discount rate is used to adjust future expected costs or benefits to present day value. It provides the means to compare alternative uses of funds, but it should not be confused with interest rate, which is associated with the costs of actually borrowing money. The time value of money concept applies far beyond the financial aspects of interest paid on borrowed money. First of all, money is only a medium of Design of Pavement Structures exchange which represents ownership of real resources land, labor, faw materials, plant, and equipment. Second, tlie most important concept in the use of a discount rates the opportunity cost of capital (123). ‘Any funds expended for a pavement project would not otherwise stand idle. They are funds collected from the private sector, either by taxation or by borrowing, or from the government itself by diverting funds from other purposes. Ifleft inthe private sector, they can be pt to use there and earn a return that measures the value society places on the use of the funds. Ifthe funds are diverted to government use, the true cost of the diversion is the return that would otherwise have been ‘earned. That costis the opportunity cost of capital and is the correct discount rate to use in calculating the LCC of various pavement design alternatives. Inflation The issue of how to deal with inflation in LOC studies is important because the procedure adopted for the treatment of inflation can havea decided effect ‘on the results of an analysis. First, one must carefully identify the difference between two types of price changes: general inflation and differential price ‘changes. The former may be defined as an increase in the general level of prices and income throughout the economy. Differential price change means the dif- ference between the price trend of the goods and services being analyzed and the general price trend. During the period of analysis, some prices may decline whereas others remain fairly constant, keep pace with, or exceed the general trend in prices. Distortionsin the analysis causéd by general inflation can be avoided by appropriate decisions regarding the discount rate and the treatment of future costs. The discount rate for performing present value calculations fon public projects should represent the opportunity ‘cost of capital to the taxpayer a5 reflected by the average market rate of return. However, the market or nominal rate of interest includes an allowance for expected inflation as well as a return that represents the real cost of capital. For example, acurrent market rate of interest of 12 percent may well represent a7 percent opportunity cost component and a 5 percent inflation component. The practice of expressing future ‘costs in constant dollars and then discounting these costs using the market, or nominal, rate of interests error and will understate the LCC of an alternative. Similarly, the practice of expressing future costs in inflated, or current dollars and then discounting the costs using the real cost of capital would overstate the LCC of an alternative.Economie Evaluation of Alternative Pavement Design Strategies ‘The distortion caused by general inflation may be neutralized in tio ways. One isto use the nominal rate of interest (including its inflation premium) for dis- counting, while all costs are projected in inflated or current dollars. The others to adjust the nominal rate of interest for inflation, discounting with the real rate component only, while measuring the cost stream in terms of constant dollars. Because ofthe uncertainty associated with predicting future rates of inflation and in view of the similar results achieved by following either method, Sandler, etal, elected to use a discount rate which represents the real cost of capital while calculating LCC in terms of constant dollars, Because it avoids the need for speculation about inflation in arriving at the economic merit of a project,’ this is the generally accepted procedure used in the engineering profession and is, recommended by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The final choice of discount: rate, interest, or inflation and the method of interpretation is left to each analyst-or decision-maker. Consultation with agency authorities and familiarity with policy will help provide appropriate values to use. Itshould beempha- sized that the final determination of the discount rate will have a significant impact on the results of the analysis. Although the distortions caused by general price inflation can be easily neutralized, the issue of incor- porating differential, or real, price changes into an economic analysis is an extremely complex matter. ‘Authorities, such as Winfrey (32), and Lee and Grant (3, 4), have recommended the use of differential prices only when there is overwhelming or substantial evidence that certain inputs, such as land costs, are expected to experience significant changes relative to the general price level. Such circumstances seldom relate to pavement costs and thus differential cost analysis should not be used with the Guide. 3.9 EQUATIONS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS For this report only the ansiual cost and present worth methods of analysis are presented because of their wide applicability and acceptance. The material has been adapted from Haasand Hudson (s), who also setencs Aataite nf rhe comninton mathnde af nennnenia 3.9.1 Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Method ‘The equivalent uniform annual cost method com- bines all initial capital costs and all recurring future ‘expenses into equal annual payments over the analysis period. Inequation form, this method may be expressed as): ACaa FCCC), *(AAMO),, (AUC), + eh g Say G9.) where AC, , = equivalent uniform annual costforalter- "1 native x,, for a service life or analysis period of a years, capital recovery factor for interest ratei (ICO), = initial capital costs of construction 1 Gncluding actual construction costs, materials costs, engineering costs etc), (AAMO), = average annual maintenance plus opera- tion costs for alternative x,, (AAUC), = average annual user costs for alternative ' xy(ineluding vehicle operation, travel accidents and discomfort if (SV), = salvage Value, if any, for alternative x, 1 atthe end of m years. Equation (3.9.1) considers annual maintenance and operating costs, and user costs, on an average basis. This can be satisfactory for many purposes. Where such costs do not increase uniformly, however, an ‘exponential growth factor can easily be applied. 3.9.2 Present Worth Method ‘The present worth of costs method is directly t uniform annual cost method for comparable conditions, e.g.,costs, discount rates, and analysis periods. The present worth method130 : pw, = 1+ 692) where : wf, -* present worth factor fora pariicular{ and, i = discount rate, and 2 = numberof years towhen the sum will be expended, or saved. Published tables for pwf, or the cxf of equation 3.9.1), are readily available in a wide variety of references, including Winfrey (32) ‘The present worth method for costs alone can be expressed in terms of the following equation (3): tet TWPC,, 45 (ICO, + "Zp, Be (CO, ,+ (0) LE SMP "in 33) where 7 TWPC,, = tota present worth of costs for altema- tivex,,forananalysis period ofn years, (ICC), = “initial capital costs of construction, ete, for alternative x,, = capital costs of construction, ete., for alternative x,, in year t, where tis less than a, = present worth factor for discount rate i, for tyears, = Udy, ‘maintenance plus operation costs for alternative x, in year t, wo, Mays ‘user costs (including vehicle operation, travel time, accidents, and discomfort if designated) for alternative x,, in year t, and Although the present worth of costs method is irectly comparable to the equivalent uniform annual cost method, itis only intecent years thatithas begun * to be applied to the pavement field. ‘The present worth of costs is used inthe equivalent uniform annual cost method when additional capital ‘expenditures occur before the end of the analysis period, i.c., when the service life is less than the analysis period; and future rebabilitation, such as ‘overlays or seal coats, is needed. The equation (3) for this situation, as modified from that suggested by Baldock (35) to include user cost, is: ACen = CALICO, + Rypwiy, + Rap, +t Rpm, AAMO), +(AAUO), (SM, 2] G94 where AC, q equivalent uniform annual cost for _ alternative x,, for an analysis period of years, Ry, RywaRe costs of first, second, ... j* resurfacings, respectively, and. yy Ayendy = ages at which the first, second, ..., j# resurfacings occur, respectively. All other factors are as previously defined. ‘The present worth of benefits can be calculaied in ‘the same manner as the present worth of costs using : the following equation (3: Tew, ,= E, pry [(DUD), , + GUB), ,+ us) o95 whee‘) TPWB, 47 total present worth of benefits for alternative x, for an analysis period ofn years,Economie Evaluation of Alternative Pavement Design Strategies (UB), , = indirect user benefits accruing from ¥ alternative x, in year t, and . (NUB), = non-user benefits accruing from project. Th xy in yeart, ; It is questionable, for pavements, whether or not non-user benefits.and indirect user benefits can be ‘measured adequately. Consequently, it is, perhaps reasonable to consider only direct user benefits until such time asthe state of the artis sufficiently advanced to allow the other factors to be measured. ‘The net present value method follows from the foregoing methods, because it is simply the difference between the present worth of benefits and the present worth of costs. Obviously, benefits must exceed costs ifa project isto be justified on econom equation (s) for net present value is: PV, = TPWC, , -TPWC, 3.9. NPY, = TPWC, a G96) where NPV, = net present value of alternative x, (and . TPWB, ,and TPWC, . are as pre- viously 'defined). However, for a pavement project alternative, x, equation (9.6 ix aot applicable det to, iselt but rather tothe difference between itand some other suitable alternative, say x,. Considering only direct user benefits, these are then, calculated as the user savings (resulting from lower vehicle operating costs, ower travel time costs, lower accident costs, and lower discomfort costs) realized by x, over x,. ‘Thus, the net present value method can be applied to pavements only on the basis of project comparison, where the project alternatives are mutually exclusive. ‘When a project alternative is evaluated, it needs to be compared not only with some standard or base alternative but also with all the other project alter- natives. In the case of pavements, the base alternative may be that of no capital expenditures for improve- ments (where increased maintenance and operation costs are required to keep it in service). The equation form of the net present value method for pavements (3) ‘may then be expressed as: crm rpiie ren BSI where NPV, = net present value of alternative x; “9 = total present worth of costs, foralterna- ‘o” tive x, (where x, can be the standard or base alternative, or any other feasible mutually exclusive alternativex, £2) for an analysis period of n years, and TPWC, tas previously defined. ‘The net present value méthod is preferred for the transportation field by some writers, suchas Wohland Martin (24). Others, such as Winfrey (2), consider that it has no particular advantage in econoinic studies of highways, Although there are certain limitations to the method, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. ‘Thus, it is the preferred approach for evaluating alternative pavement strategies when public invest- ‘ments are involved. Moreover, with increasing use of this approach in the overall transport planning field, its application to pavements will undoubtedly find much greater acceptance in the next decade. Inmany cases, and for most agencies, however, only equation (3.9.3) is used, without the user costs term, either because the data are unavailable to relate user costs to pavement factors or because the policy is to ‘consider only agency costs, The comparison between alternatives is conducted in such cases.on the basis of Jeast total present worth of costs. There are a number of advantages inherent in the net present Value method that make it perhaps the most feasible for the highway field in comparison to the “traditional” annual cost and benefit-cost methods. ‘These advantages include the following: (1) The benefits and costs of a project are related and expressed as a single value. (2) Projects of different service lives, and with stage development, are directly and easily comparable. (3) Allmonetary costsand benefitsareexpressed in present-day terms. (4) Nonmonetary benefits (or costs) can be evaluated subjectively and handled with a1s2 * (9) Theansweris given as 3 total payoff for the Project. (©) The method is computationally simple and straightforward. ‘There are several disadvantages to the net present value method, including the following: (1) The method cannot be applied to single alternatives where the benefits of those single alternatives cannot be estimated. In such eases, each alternative must be con- sidered in comparison to the other alterna~ tives, including the standard or base alternative, 2) Theresults, in terms ofa lump sum, may not be easily understandable to some people asa rate of return or annual-cost. In fact, the summation of costs inthis form can tend to . Design of Pavement Structures Act as a deterrent to investment in some cases. Wobl and Martin (34) have extensively considered these advantages and disadvantages not only for the net present value method, but also for other methods of economic analysis, They conclude that the net present value method is the only one that will always give the correct answer. The other methods may, under certain situations, give incorrect or ambiguous answers. 3.9.3 Summary Either the net present worth value or the equivalent ‘uniform annual cost may be used to determine life- cycle costs for comparisons of altemate pavement design or rehabilitation strategies. In either case, i is essential that comparisons only be made for analysis periods of equal length.etay f ‘FSR ~ Chapter 4 Pe ae ‘RELIABILITY 4.1 DEFINITIONS . This séction provides general definitions for the concept of pavement design reliability and specific definitions that are required for the evaluation of reliability. 4.1.1 General Definition of Reliability ‘The following are general definitions that have been, selected from the highway research literature; (1) “Reliability is the probability that service- ability will be maintained at adequate levels from a user's point of view, throughout the design life of the facility” (23). @) “Reliability is the probability that the load applications a pavement can withstand in reaching a specified minimum serviceability level is not exceeded by the number of load applications that are actually applied to the pavement” (24). (3) “Reliability isthe probability that the pave- ment system will perform its intended function over its design life (or time) and under the conditions (or environment) en- countered during operation” (27) Definitions 1, 2, and 3 above are stated in terms of serviceability (PSI). An analogous definition for other measures of pavement condition might be stated as follows: ity is the probability that any par- lar type of distress (or combination of distress manifestations) will remain below or within the permissible level during the design life. Afinalsummary description of the reliability concept is given by the following defini (5) The reliability of a pavement design-perfor- mance process is the probability that a pavement section designed using the process will perform satisfactorily over the traffic and environmental cond veriod.* Evaluation of reliability requires specific definitions for each of the elements of definition 5. The n¢ definitions are given in Sections 4.1.2 4.13. [+Note: Design period in this chapter, as in other locations in this Guide, refers to the performance period or period of time elapsed as initial or rehabili tated pavement structure deteriorates from its intial to its terminal serviceability.] 4.1.2 Definition of Designed Pavement Section Design Equation. For the purpose of this discus- sion, a designed pavement section is defined to be a section that is designed through the use of a specific design equation. The equation is assumed to be an explicit mathematical formula for predicting the ‘number of ESAL that the section can withstand (W,) before it reaches a specified terminal level of service- ability (p). Predictor variables (design factors) ia the equation can be put in one or another of four categories: (1) pavement structure factors (PSF), such as subbase thickness, @) roadbed soil factors (RSF) such as roadbed soil resilient modulus, B) climate-related factors (CRF) such as drainage coefficients, and (4) pavement condition factors (PCF), such as terminal PSI. The design equation may be written in the form: W,={(PSF,RSF,CRF,PCF) (4.1.1) wherein every design factor and the mathematical form of the function “are completely specified. Such design equations for flexible and rigid pavements are siven in Chapter 1, Section 1.2. Initial Substitutions. Use of the design equation to arrive at a structural design involves the following eos(1) ‘insertion of nominal values fér the pavement condition factors, (PCF), @) use of local climatic data to estimate values for the climate-related factors (CRF) and insertion of these values, (@) use of on-site roadbed soil data to estimate values for roadbed soil factors (RSF) and insertion of these values, (4) _ use of relevant traffic and loadometer data, and specified equivalence factors to predict the total number of ESAL's, wz, that the section will receive over the design period of T years, and (5) multipli of the traffic prediction, w, by a reliability design factor, Fp, that 35 greater than or equal to one, and sub- stitution of Fy x Wy for W, in the design equation. 12) : ‘Thus the design equation may be written as follows: FX W, = {(PSF, RSF, CRF, PCF) (6.1.3) REMY where all italicized factors and variables now have specific numerical velues. Further discussion and details for the reliability factor, Fp, are given in Section 4.2. Selection of Pavement Structure Design. Equation (4.1.3) or its nomograph may now be used to identify ‘one or more combinations of materials and thicknesses (PSF) that will satisfy the reduced design equation. Selection of a final design from the identified alter- nativesis based on engineering and economic analysis. Final Specifications for the Designed Pavement Section. It is assumed that fixed values have been specified for all relevant factors, such as shoulder and traffic lane features, that are not accounted for directly by the design equation. Itis also assumed that materials and construction specifications have been prepared forall design factors in the equation and for all supporting factors such as material quality. Use of quality control measures will shan senduen a deorse of comnliance between the as- Design of Pavement Structures 4.1.3 Definition of Pavement Condition, Accumulated ‘Axle Loads, and Pavement Performance ‘Variables . ‘This section defines three types of variables that are essential to the definition of reliability. The variables represent (1) pavement condition, (2) axle load ac- ‘cumulations, and (3) pavement performance. The discussion includes variables that were necessarily introduced in Section 4.1.2 so that the designed pavement section could be completely defined. Definition of Pavement Condition andA ccumuleted ‘Asle Load Variables. The only measure of pavement ‘condition that will be considered here is a present serviceability index, denoted by PSI or p, whose value ata particular time depends upon the extent of surface roughness and manifestations of distress such as cracking, rutting, and faulting over the length of the design section. Formulas for flexible and rigid pave- iment indexes are given in References 3 and 4. ‘The measure of axle load applications that will be sed is the number of 18-kip equivalent single axle toads (ESAL) that have accumulated from the startto ‘some point during the design period. This accumulation is denoted by N. “The serviceability history of a pavement section is represented by the plot of p versus N as shown fo Figure 4.1 fortwo sections, A and B. A design period of T years is also indicated. For design purposes and reliability calculations, ‘only three points on the (p,N) serviceability curve are of concern: (1) Atthe star ofthe design period: =p; (generally somewhat greater than 4.0) Neo . (2) When the section's serviceability reaches a terminal or minimum allowable level and must be overlaid or reconstructed: = pp generally assumed to be 2.0 or 2.5 for design, NEN, {As shown in Figure 4.1, Section A reachesBSS esoIAsog SIGeMOLIy wnWiW ad *(N) suopeoqdde peo} suejeninbe (9) 3N Boj 2g e2MeWsoyseg -——_ (84824 1) potseg ubisea (4 +N . (lenaze) Iysa perejpuinssy (v)°N 60) =¥ souemsoyog : ()?N (WN (1ena9e) Tc4(3) Atthe-end of the design period for sections ‘whose serviceability index still exceeds p,: P=P) NEN, In this case, p, - p, is the extent of service- ability loss over the design period, T, rather than P,’- p,- ‘As was explained in Section 4.1.2, the pavement ssign process requires a prediction, w,, of design stiod ESAL, Ny. Thus, . wy(predicted) = g x N,(actual) "ere grepresents prediction uncertainty which, based 1 past experience, may range from less than % to orethan (24); theactual traffic may range from to 2times the predicted traffic as measured in terms ESAL.. Definition of Pavement Performance. There art ‘0 elements to the definition of pavement perfor- ance: (1) Actual Performance Relative to Specified ‘Terminal Serviceability — When PSI (p) is used as a measure of pavement condition, there ‘are atleast two indicators that might beused to represent total performatice of the pavement section. One would be based on the total area between the serviceability curve and the line p= p,- The ottterindicator would be based only upon the actual number, N,,of applications “withstood” by the section, before its serviceability reached p,. All ensuing discussion of reliability wil be based on the latter indicator. Specifically, perfor- ‘mance relative toa specified terminal service- ability level: rs Actual Performance (to PSI = logi9N, S 1) (4.1.4) ‘The logarithm is used to induce normality in the probability distributions for the analysis to be discussed in Section 4.2.2. (2) Predicted Performance — The pavement design: égitation (4.1.1) gives a predicted Value, W,. for N, when specific values are substituted for all other design factors in the equation. Thus, performance as predicted by the design equation is: Design of Pavement Structures Predicted Performance (to PSI= p.) = log W, = Predicted log N, In the design process discussed in Section 4.1.2, W, is replaced by a multiple (F,) of w,, where w, is 4 predicted value for Nj, the actual number of design period ESAL. This means that the pavement sectionis designed to hiave Predicted Performance = log W, = log (Fy x wz) =logw,+logF, (4.1.5) where Fel and log F,20 ‘Thus log Fp is a positive “spacing factor” between log w; and log W, ie, log Fy =(logW,-logwy)20 (41.9 4.2 VARIANCE COMPONENTS AND RELIABILITY DESIGN FACTOR 4.2.1 Components of Pavement Design-Performance Variability e As far as reliability is concerned, the’ pavement design-performance process involves three major steps: (). Prediction, wy, of actual design period ESAL, Np, @) Multiplication of w, bya selected reliability esign factor, Fy 21, and (3) _ Prediction of actual pavement performance, N,, by W, = wy x Fp through a design equation that expresses W, as function of pavement design factors, The three steps involve four basic points and intervals on ESAL and log ESAL seales as shown in Figure 4.2. The first point is for actual design period traffic (Nz and log N,); the second is for predicted traffic (w, and log w,). The third and fourth points are for pavement performance, predicted (log W,) and actual (log Nj. The actual performance of a single Pavement section is shown at the top of the figure.N; wr We N BAS. Bec eee a (egESAQ) _Loi Section — Section Traffic Tathe Performance. Performance. BASIC DEVIATIONS: (Level 1) BASIC DEVIATION? +5, «+: £5 (WAN, (Level 0) lee 250 cea 5 (Wee) Ne ESAL rh log ESAL Il deviation of Actual Section Perfor = mance. from Actual Oesign Reried Traftice Se ~ Clog Ne - 183 Nz) £5So_ mpeans section survival of Oesign Figure 4.2. Basic points and deviations for design-performance reliability. 1sThe three (log ESAL) intervals formed by the four sic points are: ‘shown as basic (level. I) deviations and as follows: . (1) Prediction error in design period traffic: (og wy -1og Ny) =$5 0p wy) Reliability design factor og): (log W, -log w,)=+ log Fy G) Prediction error in pavement ‘performance; (og N, -log W)=+60W,N) hhe fourth basic deviation is the sum of the-first both geomettically and algebraically: 4) Overall deviation of actual section perfor- ‘mance from actual design period traffic: og N, -logNz)=+5, the design stage, the designer has control over log vt cannot know either the size or the direction ) ofthe other deviations. For ease of presentation, Positive deviations are shown in Figure 4.2, but ofthe remaining (+ or Jcombinations ae equally ~ For example, it might turn out that all of N. ad W, are to the left of N. The only guarantee is ¥, will equal or exceed ws since Fy isequal tor a than one by definition. Thus, log Fy is a olled variation, the remaining deviations fre all ; overall deviation, & will be postive whenever {ual performance (log N,) of pavement section 4s the corresponding actual design period traffic ait. forall sections that “survive” the design traffic by having p greater than p, atthe end of ‘s. As will be explained, the reliability design is used to provide probabilistic assurance that will exceed log Nz, ie, that the overall ‘on will be positive. robability Distributions of Basic Deviations 1ssumed that the set ofall possible outcomes for the chance deviations would produce a normal 'y distribution as shown in Figure 4.3. The ition for &(Nyw,) is shown at upper left and nts all traffic prediction errors that can be od by repeated need’ oa - Design of Pavement Stractures for a wide range of Ny values. If the prediction Procedure is unbiased, then the ‘set of all possible deviations, § (N,w,) will have mean value zero and variance S.? (say). Thus S, is an average (root mean, Sauate) or to be expected value of 6(N,Ww,) and is called the standard error of design period traffic Prediction. ‘The probability distribution for 6(W,N,) is shown at upper right and represents all performance prediction errors that can be generated by construction of many Pavement sections fora given log W, Possible deviations, 6(W,N.) ‘have mean value 2ero and (root mean square) average value Sy (say). Thus, Sy is the standard Prediction, and S,? is the variance of the distribution (og W, from corresponding actual performances (log N)) of pavement sections, The probability distribution for 8, shown at the bottom of Figure 4.3, represents the set ofall possible overall deviations that arise from corresponding pairs of 8(Nywy) and 6 (W,N). Since 6, = F,, + 8(W.N)) for every such par, fixed deviation (log F,) and two chance deviations that are each normally distributed. For ths situation, the laws of probability are that , also follows « normal probability distribution whose’ mein is the Sum of the three deviate means and whose variance is ‘the sum of the three deviate variances. Thus, BN ,w) + log Fy + bw) + 10g Fa +0 BFR and S258 240482 since log Fy is fixed by design and has no chance variation. Of pancularinterestisthepoint mer pee 0. Since 6, = (log N, - log Nz), this point i wire Actual performance (log N,) equals ncual design Period traffic (log Ny). ll points having 6, >°0 Sorrespond to pavement section tha survive (fp) the design period trafic. 42.3 Formal Definition of Reliability Level and Reliability Design Factor ‘The probability distribution for the overall desien.Distribution of 8 (Neue) seat pect ent 0” pervicembilty level 7° be suoh, BASIC. log Ne fog wr log We fog Ne, ae POINTS: Actual Predicted Predicted Actual (leg ESAL) Traffic © Traffice © Performance. Performance BASIC. Level log Fr + 6 QW, Ne) DEVIATIONS: Predictin| Reliability Design| Performance (log ESAL) 2 Factor (log) _|Fediction Error | : Level of = Se * B(NyuG) Fey Fe # (WAND) Overall Design-Performénce Chance Oesistion Se > (log Ny —log Nir) BASIC’ DISTRIBUTIONS: ois BASIC. VARIANCES? 5 (WANE), abo right // Sty, above right / bo a / Ng's = Sir t Be =~ section suvival of design perod FPa tfc Se So=O By = log Fa 5 ! S (Nu) oboe left te 5.54 Stu, obove left 1 1 t I 1 fog Ne + leg Nr Figure 4.3. Basic probability distributions for design-performance reliability. 59He detail in J definitions ill survi Pe od traffic with p= Py This probability is defined tobe there itty level, R/100, of the desi formance Where Ris ‘ellabilty given by. _~.————= Sefinition of R (Percent) = 100 x Prob EN, > Nz] = 100 x Prob [6, = o} 421 2=(8,-3)/s, *6, log F,)/S, S88 that has been presented, decomposed, hi Components at levels 2, 3and 4 The af given in Appendix EE, Votu oo - @) LogFp isthe, 4.3) that “counteracts For onvenience, Fe isappled asa maltipidy ofthe traffic prediction (w.), but the value OFF, depends (See equation 4.25) both on the reliability level (R) tha is selected aed the value of Sez, the overall standard deviation. SinceS, '=$, 245 2 ot only for chance vatiatic Prediction(S,?) but also. iat in actual performance; (S54. ‘Moreover, S,? and Sy? by definition account, for allchance $ieattonin the respective predictions. Thus, S,? and log Fy provide for ai chance Yatition in the design-performance proone ‘and ata known level of reliability. Finally, the (level 1) variances S,? and Sy? can be respectively into hierarchies of variance decompositions ime 2, where numericalNormal Curves “| Variance = So. “rob, <0] fib C520] = Prob CN, < Ny] = Prob CN, = Ny] += Prob C.Non- Survival » Prob [Survival of of Design Periad Tre > (100-8 %h)/ 100 52% log Fe, (Clog Ne = loq)Nr) 30 * (log Ne “log Ny) (leg Fx) /Se = <0 < naeeec B= Go-5)/So log Fig = ~Ex Se ' (Ep) ~ 10 Ex = Reliability Design Factor NOTE 4. The value of Zq is determined by the value of R, and is obtained from stondard normal curve area tables by erttering (100-Ry/o) /100 For the- tail sarea from ~03 to Bg. NOTE 2 Tf logFx=0, Bp=0, Fe=l,and Re50%p. This the probability for design period survival is 50/0 if the traffic predichon Sis substituted directly for. Wi in the performance prediction (design) pation. naMs - NOTE 3. For Fixed R (hence fited Zp), Fa increases (or 7... deereases) as Sos (SETS increases (or de © Fraccounts for the total chance, Variation ins > traffic predictions and performance predetiors. | Figure 4.4." Definition of reliability and evaluation of reliability design factor.Table 4.1. Standardnormal deviate (Z,)valubs . corresponding to selected levels reliability. aa ‘Normal Deviate.Zy 50 -0.000 60 0.253 70 0524 18 0.674 80 ~ 0841 85 “1.037 30 “1.282 a1 -1340 92 21.405 93 1.476 94 “1.555 95 “1.645 96 21.751 97 1.881 98 -2.054 99 2327 93.9 -3.090 _ 99:99 “3.750 4.3 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF OVERALL STANDARD DEVIATION As just discussed, Appendix EE of Volume 2 provides the guidance necessary for any user to develop levels of overall variance (S,") or overall standard deviation (S,) suitable to bis own specific conditions. Indoingso, the appendix identifies variance estimates for eash of the individual factors associated ‘with the performance prediction models (including the ‘variance in future traffic projections) and subsequently arrives at overall variance and standard deviation estimates which may be used as interim criteria. (1) The estimated overall standard deviations for the case where the variance of projected future traffic is considered (along with the other variances associated with the revised pavement performance models) are 0.34 for Figid pavements and 0.44 for flexible pavements. (2) The estimated overall standard deviations ~ for the case when the variance of projected future traffic is not considered (and the other variances associated with the revised pavement performance models are) are 0.39 for rigid pavements and 0.49 for. flexible Design of Pevement Susur’ () The range of S, values provided in Part II (Section 2.1.3) are, based on the values identified aboves’ __ Foughly to the estimated variances associated with the AASHO Road Test and the original pavement per- formance models presented in the previous (1972and 1981) Design Guides. Note: It is useful to recognize that inherent inthe S, values identified in (1) and (2) above, isa means forthe user to specify an overall standard deviation (S,) which better represents his ability to project furare 18-kip ESAL traffic. If, because of an extensive traffic count and weigh-in-motion program, one state is capable of projecting future traffic better and therefore thas a lower traffic variance (than that identified in ‘Appendix EE of Volume 2), then that state might se an S, value somewhere between the values identified in(1)and (2). For example, for rigid pavements, where (low) is 0.34 and S, (high) is 0.39, value of 0.37 or 038 could be used. 4.4 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF RELIABILITY LEVEL ‘The selection of an appropriate level of reliability for the design of a particular facility depends primarily ‘upon the projected level of usage and the consequences (Fisk) associated with constructing an initially thinner pavement Structure, Ifa facility is heavily trafficked, it may be undesirable to have to close or even restric its usage at future dates because of the higher levels of distress, maintenance, and rehabilitation associatee with an inadequate initial thickness. On the other hhand, a thin initial pavement (along with the heavier maintenance- and rehabilitation levels) may be acceptable, if the projected level of usage is such that fewer conflicts can be expected. One means of identifying appropriate design reliability levelsis to evaluate the reliability inberent in ‘many of the current pavement design procedures. This approach was used to develop the suggested levels of reliability presented in Part IT (Section2.1). They were derived by surveying the inherent refiability of many current State DOT design procedures considering the functional class ofthe facility and whether its environ- ment was rural or urban (see Volume 2, Appendix ID). ‘Althoueh this approach is sound in that itis based on?Reliability sonsidefable amount of past experience, it does not provide a means for selecting a unique level of reliability for a given project. This requires‘a more detailed consideration of usage and the risk. of premature failure. Figure 4:5 provides a graph illustrating the concept behind this detailed approach to identifying an Present Value or Equivalent Uniform Annual’ Cost - (%) a 10 ro) optimum Jevel of reliability for a particular desigh project. Three curves are shown in the figure. The first, ccurve (A), represents the effects of reliability on the cost (expressed in net present value or equivalent ‘uniform annual cost) af the initial pavement structure; ‘as design reliability increases, so does the required initial pavement thickness and its associated cost. The second, curve (B), represents the effects of reliability “Opies aehabity & 20 100 Reliability, (Peréent) +Fioure 4.5. Illustration of approach to identifying the optimum rel ility> reliabi fon the future distress-related cists (maintenance, rehabilitation, user delay, et). The third, eurve (C), represents the sum total of the first two curvés. Since the objective is to minimize the total overall cost; the optimum reliability fora given project corresponds to the minimum value on curve (C). . Itshould be recognized that this optimum reliability is applicable only to the evel of usageand consequences (Pisk) of failure associated with a particular project. - Although other design projects may have the same level of usage, varying soil and environmental con- ditions may affect the level of risk and, therefore, the optimum reliability. 4.SRELIABILITY AND STAGE CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES ‘When considering reliability in stage construction cor “planned rehabilitation” design alternatives, it is important to consider the effects of compound ity. Unless this is recognized, the overall reliability of say a 2-stagestrategy (cach stage designed for a 90 percent reliability level) would be 0.90 x 0.90 ‘or 81 percent. Such a strategy could not be compared ‘equally with a single-stage strategy designed for 90 percent reliability. Referring to the formal definition in Section 4.2.3, reliability is basically the probability that a given Design of Pavement Structures pavement structure will survive the design (perfor- mance) period traffic with p= p,. This definition is applicable to the fundamental case where the design period for the inital stiucture is equivalent to the ‘analysis period. For cases where the initial design period is les than the desired analysis period, stage construction or planned rehabilitation is required (for the design strategy to last the analysis period) and the definition of reliability must be expanded to include the uncertainty associated with the additional stage(s). ‘Assuming that the probability of one stage lasting its design period is independent ofthat of another stage, the probability or overall reliability that al stages will last their design periods (or that the strategy will last the entire analysis period) is the product of the individual stage reliabilities, ‘Thus, in order to achieve a certain overall design reliability (R jet) in particular design strategy, the following equation should be applied to establish the individual reliability (R,,,,,) required to design each stage: 45.1) where nis equal to the numberof stages including that of the initial pavement structure.5 Chapter 5 7 SUMMARY ‘This chapter concludes Part I of the Guide, the part which explains general concepts related to pavement design and performance. Every attempt has been made to provide the potential users ofthe Guide with useful background information related to (1) design inputs, (2) pavement management, (3) economics, and (4) reliability. Of course, itis not possible to give complete details on any of these subjects in this Guide, and the users of the Guide are encouraged to examine the ‘Appendices and to review important references which are cited herein for explicit detail for their specific needs. This Guide can, and hopefully will, be used by many pavement agencies ranging from the Federal level through the states to counties and cities. For this reason, flexibility has been provided to adapt the Guide to your use. However, many new developments and concepts are also presented in the Guide. Please consider carefully these new aspects before you discard them or modify them in favor of existing methods. Change is not easy, but nationwide experience has shown the need to modify this Guide, and its applica- tion to your agéncy probably also deserves some changes or at least serious consideration of changt Chapter 1 of Part I addresses the detailed design factors and inputs required for using the Guide, The application and determination of final design details will be accomplished by using the methodologies which are presented in Part Il for New Design and in Part III for Rehabilitation Design. Itis important that you carefully review Chapter I and Parts Il and III of the Gulde before you underake any speife design activities. Chapter 2 of the Guide describes the relationships between pavement design and pavement management with particular attention tothe pavement management system (PMS) at the project level. The users of the Guide should continue to study the relationship of design to pavement management and consider using the Guide's nomographs and equations as the ap- propriate models for the design subsystem of PMS in their agencies. Chapter 3 examines the economic aspects of pave- wn and rehabilitation. The design activities ‘oped with the Guide, they should be compared with a true economicanalysis, as outlined in Chapter’. This, of course, includes the comparisons of life-cycle costs and is best done in the context of a good complete project level PMS methodology, suchas SAMP-6(36) and FPS-13 (), to name a few. Chapter 4 covers the very important area of reliability and its application in pavement design. The users of tthe Guide should remember that much ofthe misunder- standing of pavement design, and the resulting pave- ‘ment failures for the past 20 years, have been associated ‘with uncertainty and the resulting lack of reliability in design. Any design method based on average conditions has only a 50 percent chance of fulfilling its required performance life. The associated appendices present a rational and straightforward approach othis problem. ‘We realize this is complex material, but users of the Guide should try to understand and use this section of the Guide. The reliability methodologies discussed here are used in Parts I. and II!. Having completed the reading and studying of Part 1, the user will move on to Part II—New Design, and Part IlI—Rehabilitation in the Guide. Care should also be exercised in the proper review of the related ‘Appendices, which provide additional background ‘material. Good pavement design ‘is not simple. It ‘cannot be done on the back of an envelope. Please realize that a reasonable degree of complexity is involved, but the Guide can be used successfully with study, training, and careful application of engineering expertise. Part IV of the Guide provides more detail concerning the background of pavement theory and the possible application of such mechanistic methods to future pavement design or to special cases of difficult design requiring more detailed study. Reading and study of Part IV can be very useful to the serious pavement designer. A second volume resulting from theeffortsis also being made available. Volume 2 will provide detailed background on how the Guideand the design ‘equations, were developed, including the analytical and empirical basis thereof.10. Design of Pavement Structure 0 REFERENCES FOR PARTI 1, Smith, R., Darter, M., and Herrin, M., “Highway Pavement Distress Identification Manual,” Federal Highway Administration, Report FHWA-79-66, March 1979, 2. “AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures—1972,” published by American Association of State Highway ‘and Transportation Officials. 3. Carey, W., and Weick, P., “The Pavement Serviceability—Performance Concept,” Highway Research Board Special Report SIE, AASHO Road Test, pp. 291-306, 1962. 4. Carey, W., and Irick, P., “The Pavement Serviceability—Performance Concept,” Highway Research Board Record 250, 1960. Haas, R., and Hudson, W.R. “Pavement ‘Management Systems,” Krieger Publishing Company, Malabor, Florida, 1982. 6 Heukelom, W., and Klomp, A.J.G. “Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling Pavements During and After Construction,” Proceedings of the First International Con- ference of Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, 1962. 7. ‘The Asphalt Instinute, *Researchand Develop- ‘ment of the Asphalt Institute's Thickness ‘Design Manual, Ninth Edition,” Research Report No. 82-2, pp. 60-, 1982. 8. Federal Highway Administration, “Technical Guidelines for Expansive Soils in Highway ‘Subgrades,” FHWA-RD-79-51, June 1979. Terrel, R.L., Epps, Jon, Barenberg, Ernest J, Mitchell, James, and Thompson, <~ Marshall, “Soil Stabilization in Pavement Structures—A User's Manual, Volume 1, Pavement Design and Construction Considerations.” Terrel, R.L., Epps, John, Barenberg, Ernest Js Mitchell, James, and Thompson, Marshall, “Soil Stabilization in Pavement ‘StructuresA User's Manual, Volume 2, Mixture, Design Considerations," FHWA Report IP 80-2, October 1979. 13 rs 15, 16. ir 18, 19. a. Ridgeway, H.H,,’ “Pavement Subsurface Drainage Systems,” NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice, Report 96, November 1982, Moulton, LK., “Highway Subdrainage Design,” Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-TS-80-224, August 1980 (reprinted 1982). ‘Thompson, Darter, “Improving Subdrainage and Shoulders of Existing Pavements,” Report No, FHWA/RD/077, State of the Art, 1982. Johnson, T.C., Berg, R.L., Carey, K.L and ‘Kaplan, C.W., “Roadway Designin Seasonal Frost Areas," NCHRP Synthesisin Highway Practice, Report 26, 1974, Yoder, E., and Witezak, M., “Principles of Pavement Design,” Second Edition, John Wiley & Co., pp. 179-180. Linell, K.A., Herinion, F.B., and Lobacy, E-F., “Corps of Engineers’ Pavement Design in Areas of Seasonal Frost,” Highway Re- search Board Record 33, pp.76-136, 1963. ‘The AASHO Road Test — Report 5- Pavement Research,” Highway Research Board, Special Report 61E, p: 107, 1962. Finn, F.N., Saraf, C.L,, Kulkarni, R., Nair, K,, Smith, W.,and Abdullah, A.,“Develop- ment of Pavement Structural Subsystems,” Final Report NCHRP I-10, February 1977. Hudson, W.R., Finn, F.N., Pedigo, RD., and Roberts, F.L., “Relating Pavement Distress to Serviceability and Performance,” Report No. FHWA RD 80/088, July 1980. Finn, F.N, Nair, K., and Hilliard, J.,"Mini- mizing Premature Cracking in Asphaltic Concrete Pavement,” NCHRP Report 195, 1978, ‘Thompson, M.R., and Cation, K.,*Charac- terization of Temperature Effects for Full Depth AC Pavement Design,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of INinnie2. 3. Ss . 9. 10. u. Smith, R., Darter, M., and Herrin, M., “Highway Pavement Distress Identification Manual,” Federal Highway Administration, ‘Report FHWA-79-66, March 1979, "AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures—1972," published by American Association of State Highway and ‘Transportation Officials. Carey, W., and Irick, P., “The Pavement Serv- iceability—Performance Concept,” Highway Research Board Special Report 61E, AASHO Road Test, pp. 291-306, 1962. Carey, W., and Irick, P., “The Pavement Sery- * iceability—Performance Concept,” Highway Research Board Record 250, 1960. Haas, R., and Hudson, W.R., “Pavement Management Systems,” Krieger Publishing Company, Malabor, Florida, 1982. Heukelom, W., and Klomp, A.J.G., “Dy- namic Testing as a Means of Controlling Pave- ments During and After Construction,” Proceedirigs of the First International Confer- ence on Structural Design of Asphalt Pave- ments, University of Michigan, 1962. ‘The Asphalt Institute, “Research and Develop- ‘ment of the Asphalt Institute's Thickness De- sign Manual, Ninth Edition,” Research Report No. 82-2, pp. 60-, 1982. Federal Highway Administration, “Technical Guidelines for Expansive Soils in Highway ‘Subgrades,” FHWA-RD-79-51, June 1979. Terrel, RL., Epps, J., Barenberg, E.J. Mitchell, J., and Thompson, M., “Soil Stabi ization in Pavement Structures—A User's ‘Manual, Volume 1, Pavement Design and Con- struction Considerations. Terrel, RL, Epps, J., Barenberg, E.J., Manual, Volume 2, Mixture Design Consider ations," FHWA Report IP 80-2, October 1979. Ridgeway, H.H., “Pavement Subsurface Drainage Systems,” NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice, Report 96, November 1982. 12, 15. 16. 7, 18, 19. 21. 22. 23. = Roberts, FL. REFERENCES FOR PART I~ 2 Moulton, L.K., “Highway Subdrainage De- sign,” Federal Highway Administration, Re- port No. FHWA-TS-20-224, August 1980 (eprinted 1982). : ‘Thompson, D., “Improving Subdrainage and Shoulders of Existing Pivements,” Report No. FHWA/RD/077, State of the Art, 1982. Johnson, T.C., Berg, R-L., Carey, K.L., and Kaplan, C.W., “Roadway Design in Seasonal Frost Areas,” NCHRP Synthesis in Highway Practice, Report 26, 1974. Yoder, E., and Witczak, M., “Principles of Pavement Design," Second Edition, Joha Wiley & Co., pp. 179-180. Linell, K.A., Hennion, F.B., and Lobacy, ELF, “Corps of Engineers’ Pavement Design in Areas of Seasonal Frost,” Highway Re- search Board Record 33, pp. 76-136, 1963. ‘The AASHO Road Test—Report 5—Pavement Research,” Highway Research Board, Special Report 61E, p. 107, 1962. Finn, EN., Saraf, C.L., Kulkarni, R., Nait, K., Smith, W., and Abdullah, A., “Develop- ment of Pavement Structural Subsystems,” Final Report NCHRP 1-10, February 1977. Hudson, W.R., Finn, FN., Pedigo, R.D., and “Relating Pavement Distress to Serviceability and Performance,” Report No. FHWA RD 80/098, July 1980. Finn, EN., Nair, K., and Hilliard, J, “Mini- mizing Premature Cracking in Asphaltic Con crete Pavement,” NCHRP Report 195, 1978. ‘Thompson, M.R., and Cation, K., “Charac- terization of Temperature Effects for Full Depth AC Pavement Design,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Ii- nois Cooperative Highway Research Program, IRH-510, October 1984. Cedergren, H.R., et al., “Guidelines for Design of Subsurface Drainage Systems for Highway Structural Sections,” FHWA-RD-72- 30, 1972. Ridgeway, H.H., “Infiluation of Water ‘Through the Pavement Surface,” Transporta- tion Research Board Record 616, 1976.188 24° The Asphalt Institute, “Asphalt Overlays and Pavement Rehabilitation,” Manual Series No, 17, November 1969. ‘ 25, Lemer, A.C., and Noavenzadeh, F., “Reliabil- ity of Highway Pavements,” Highway Research Record No. 362, Highway Research Board, i971. . 26. Kher, RK., and Darter, M.I., “Probabilistic Concepts and Their Applications to AASHO Interim Guide for Design of Rigid Pavements,” Highway Research Record No. 466, Highway Research Board, 1973. . Daner, M.L. and Hudson, W.R., “Probabilis- tic Design Concepts Applied to Flexible Pavement System Design,” Research Report 123-18, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1973. 28. Deacon, J.A., and Lynch, R'L., “Deteriora- tion of Traffic Parameters for the Prediction, Projection, and Computation of EWL's,” Final Report KYHPR-64-21 HPR-I(4), Kentucky Highway Department, 1968, 29. Hudson, W.R., Haas, R., and Pedigo, R.D., “Pavement Management ‘System Develop. ‘ment,” NCHRP Report 215, November 1979. 30. McFarland, W.F., “Benefit Analysis for Pave- ‘ment Design Systems,” Res. Report 123-13, Jointly published by Texas Highway Depart. Ment, xas Transportation Institute of Texas at Austin, April 1972. 31. * Kher, R., Phang, W.A., and Haas, R.CG., + “Economic Analysis Elemeats in Pavement Design,” Highway Research Board Record 27. 32. 3 4. 35. 36. 7. 38. “39, 40. al. Design of Pavement S. Winfrey, R., “Economic Analysis for ways,” International Textbook Co: 1969, Lee, R.R., and Grant, E.L., “Inflaic Highway Economy Studies,” Highwe search Board Record 100, 1965. Wobl,-M., and Martin, B., “Evaluat Mutually Exclusive Design Projects” way Research Board Special Report 92, Baldock, R.H., “The Annual Cost' of ways," Highway Research Board Recor 1963. Lytton, R.L., and McFarland, W.E,, “Sy: Approach to Pavement Design-Implemen: Phase,” Final Report: Prepared for Hig Research Board, NCHRP, National Aca. of Sciences, March 1974, oe AASHTO, “A Manual on ‘User Benefit A: sis of Highway and Bus-Transit imp ments," 1977, Sandler, R.D., “A Comparative Econc Analysis of Asphalt and Concrete Paveme: ‘Transportation Research Board, January 1; Dellisola, A.J., and Kirk, $.J., “Life c Costing for Design Professionals,” McG: Hill Book Co., New York, 1982. Grant E.L., Ireson, W.G., and Leavenwe R. “Principles of Engineering Econor 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co, t York, 1976, p. 293. Karan, M.A., Haas, R., and Kher, “Effects of Paveregt Roughness oa Veh. Speeds," Transportation Research Bo Record 602, 1976, .Part II PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR - NEW CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTIONIntroduction = - Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter first discusses the background relative tothe development of pavement design procedures for new construction and reconstruction, This is followed by a brief discussion of the scope of Part II. Next, the - limitations of the design procedures are discussed followed by the concluding section, which briefly discusses the organization of this Part It is assumed in this text that the reader has studied Part ,“Pavement Design and Management Principles” ~ prior to applying the design procedures described herein. The basic principles are contained in Part I. - 1.1 BACKGROUND One of the major objectives of the AASHO Road Test was to provide information that could be used in developing pavement design criteria and pavement design procedures, Accordingly, following completion of the Road Test, the AASHO Design Committee, through its subcommittee on Pavement Design Practices, developed the “AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Rigid and Flexible Pavements.” The r Guide was based on the results of the AASHO Road Test supplemented by existing design procedures and, in the case of rigid pavements, available theory. After the Guide was used for a few years by the states, the AASHTO Design Committee, in 1972, - issued the “AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures,” that incorporated experience that had accrued since the original issue of the Guide. In 1981, the rigid pavement portion of the Guide (Chapter Ill) was revised. This issue of the Guide contains the following modifications to the 1981 version, which were defined by the subcommittee on Pavement Design Practices: = A. The following modifications are included in the flexible pavement design procedures: (1) The soit support number is replaced by the resilient modulus to provide a rational testing procedure that may be used by an agency to define the material properties. (2) The layer coefficients for the various - ‘materials are defined in terms of resilient modulus as well as standard methods (CBR and R-value). @) The environmental factors of moisture and temperature are objectively included in the Guidé so that environmental considerations could be rationally accounted for in the design procedure. This approach replaced the subjective regional factor term previously used. (@) Reliability is introduced to permit the designer to use the’ concept of risk Analysis for various classes of roadways. (3) Stage construction (ie., planned re- habitation) design procedures are incorporated. B. The following modifications are madein the design procedures for rigid pavements: (I) Reliability concepts identical to those used for the flexible pavements are introduced. (2) The environmental aspects of desi introduced in the same format as for flexible pavements, @) The design procedure is modified to include such factors as tied shoulders. subbase erosion, and lean suboase designs. ‘The material from the 1972 version is reorganize: and presented in new format, as described in Part of this Guide. Basically, the approach is to describe the input, present the design equation (nomographs,ctc.), and, finally, describe the results of the design process. 1.2 SCOPE The procedure contained herein is basically aa extension of the algorithms originally developed from the AASHO Road Test. The extensions provide the designer with the opportunity to use the latest state of the art techniques. If all the inputs of the AASHO Road Test are entered into the design procedures. theresults will be the same as from those equations developed at the AASHO Road Test, ‘The material contained in this Part deals with the design of-a new roadway or reconstruction of an existing one. The concepts of stage construction are also presented to provide the designer with the option ‘ofexamining numerous alternatives for selection of an + optimum pavement design strategy for a facility. Part II also permits the designer to account for ‘pavement serviceability loss resulting from both traffic Toads’ and environment. The environmental aspects are considered in terms of both their direct and indirect effects on the serviceability index. The direct environmental effects arein terms of swelling and frost heave of the roadbed soil, while the indirect effects are in terms of the seasonal variation of material properties and theirimpact on trafficload associated serviceability loss. The designer has the option of not considering cither of these environmental factors, if so desired. 1.3 LIMITATIONS ‘The limitations inherent in the original AASHO Road Test equations are still applicable: (1) specific set of pavement materials and one roadbed soil, (2) single environment, (9) an accelerated procedure for accumulating traffic (a 2-year testing period extrapolated toa 10> or 2-year design), ard (4) accumulating traffic on each test section by operating vehicles with identical axle toads and axle configurations, as opposed to mixed traffic. ‘These basic limitations are reduced to some extent by experiences of various agencies which have been incorporated into this edition of the Guide, as well as into previous editions. 1.4 ORGANIZATION | Basically, the material contained hereinis presented in a modular form. First, the procedures for major highways are presented. These are then followed by the design procedures for low-volume roads. Although this Guide is not intended to be a user's manual for computer application, the material is presented in a format suitable for utilization with the computer. Computer programs re available forsalving the basic equations and generating multiple design strategies so that the designer may select an optimum economical solution. These programs are not, however, documented in this Guide. Thus, the designer must refer to other AASHTO documents for user manuals. ‘The version presented in this Part is basically 2 simplified approach in which nomographs are used to solve the basic equations. If the designer solves an extensive array of problems, he will arrive at the same ‘optimum solution as the computer approach, Inaddition to the design chart procedure, asimpliiee approach is provided for the design of low-volume roads. Basically, it consists of a catalog of designs which requires a minimum of user input. This is intended to be used as a guideline by those agerci with minimal available funds for design. It is no: intended to serve as a replacement for a rigorou: design procedure.This chapter discusses the preparation and/or selection of the inputs required for new (or recon- structed) pavement design. Since this chapter addresses the design requirements for several types of pavement structures on both highways and low-volume roads, only certain sets of inputs are required for a given structural design combination. Table 2.1 identifies all possible design input requirements and indicates the Specific types of structural designs for which they are required. A one (1) means that a particular design input (or set of inputs) must be determined for that Table 2.1. ws Chapter 2 : - DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ‘structural combination. A two (2) indicates that the design input should be’ considered because of its potential impact on the results. Under the Flexible heading, AC refers to asphalt concrete surfaces and ST tosurface treatments. Under Rigid, JCP refersto plain jointed concrete pavement, JRCP to jointed reinforced conerete pavement, CRCP tocontinuously reinforced concrete pavement, and PCP to prestressed concrete pavements. PCP is not shown as a column in Table 2.1, however, since detailed design input requirements are not available at this time. Design requirements for the different initial pavement types that can be considered. Flexible Rigid Agsr. Description AG St JCP/JRCP RCP Surf, 2.1 - DESIGN VARIABLES 2.1.1 Time Conswaints . ‘Performance Period 1 1 1 1 1 Analysis Period 1 1 1 1 1 24.27 ratfie 1 1 1 1 1 2:1.3eReliability 1 1 1 1 2.1.4Environmental impacts . Roadbed Swelling 2 2 2 2 Frost Heave 2 2 2 2 2.2 - PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 2.2.1 -Ser ity 1 1 1 1 1 2.2.2 - Allowable Rutting 1 2.2.3 --Aggre 1 2.3 - MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN 2.3.1 - Effective Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 1 1 1 2.3.2 - Effective Modulus of ‘Subgrade Reaction 1 1 2.3.3 - Pavement Layer Materials. Characterization 2 2 1 1 1 2.3.4 - PCC Modulus of Rupture i 1 2.3.5 - Layer Coetficients 1 1 AC - Asphalt Concrete ST Surface Treatment Jointed Concrete Pavement ACP - Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement ACP - Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavemenspecified set of boundary condi _ BER pavement design. altersative should perform, Table 2.1. Design requirements for the differ = (cont,). estan oy revement sina, ent initial pavement types that canbe considerec : Flexible Rigid Aggr. Description aC ST JCP/JRCP CROP Surf, 2.4» PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL & #7) CHARACTERISTICS 2.4.1 - Drainage Flexible Pavements 1 1 1 1 Continuous Pavements ~ + Tied Shoulders or Widened E Outside Lanes 1 + + 2.4.3 + Loss of Support 2.8 - REINFORCEMENT VARIABLES 2.5.1 - Jointed Pavements Slab Length Working Stress Friction Factor 2.5.2 - Continuous Pavements Concrete Tensile 5 Strength: we Concrete Shrinkage Conerete Thermal Coefficient Bar Diameter ‘Steel Thermal . Coefficient Design Temperature Drop Friction Factor 1.- Design input variable that must be determined, 2 - Design variable that should be considered. For ease of description these inputs are classified under five separate categories: Design Variables: This category refers to the set of

You might also like

• AASHTO 93 Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  

  100% (19)

  AASHTO 93 Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  624 pages
• Pavement Workshop - AASHTO 2002 Pavement Design Guide PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Pavement Workshop - AASHTO 2002 Pavement Design Guide PDF

  48 pages
• The AASHTO Road Test

  

  100% (1)

  The AASHTO Road Test

  67 pages
• NCHRP - RPT - 279 Intersections

  

  No ratings yet

  NCHRP - RPT - 279 Intersections

  186 pages
• AASHTO 1993 Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  

  100% (1)

  AASHTO 1993 Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  620 pages
• Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements

  

  100% (1)

  Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements

  69 pages
• BS 6088 Beads PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  BS 6088 Beads PDF

  19 pages
• AASHTO T 245-94 Resistance To Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures

  

  No ratings yet

  AASHTO T 245-94 Resistance To Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures

  5 pages
• As1141 14 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  As1141 14 PDF

  5 pages
• AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  

  100% (2)

  AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  624 pages
• AASHTO Guide For Design Pavement Structures 1993

  

  No ratings yet

  AASHTO Guide For Design Pavement Structures 1993

  625 pages
• 2002 Design Guide PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  2002 Design Guide PDF

  50 pages
• Aashto R - 50-10

  

  No ratings yet

  Aashto R - 50-10

  5 pages
• Appendix DD Aashto 1986

  

  100% (1)

  Appendix DD Aashto 1986

  12 pages
• Aashto Roadside Design Guide Errata

  

  No ratings yet

  Aashto Roadside Design Guide Errata

  12 pages
• Aashto Mepgd 2020 PT01 04

  

  No ratings yet

  Aashto Mepgd 2020 PT01 04

  50 pages
• Immediate Download Pavement Design: Materials, Analysis, and Highways 1st Edition M. Rashad Islam Ebooks 2024

  

  100% (6)

  Immediate Download Pavement Design: Materials, Analysis, and Highways 1st Edition M. Rashad Islam Ebooks 2024

  34 pages
• Overlay and Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation Manual

  

  No ratings yet

  Overlay and Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation Manual

  47 pages
• Aashto Catalog PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Aashto Catalog PDF

  23 pages
• Design of Flexible Pavement

  

  100% (1)

  Design of Flexible Pavement

  88 pages
• 11 22 Emperical and Mechanistic Pavement Design 2

  

  No ratings yet

  11 22 Emperical and Mechanistic Pavement Design 2

  55 pages
• Calculation of Road and Pavement

  

  No ratings yet

  Calculation of Road and Pavement

  25 pages
• Highway Capacity Manual

  

  No ratings yet

  Highway Capacity Manual

  9 pages
• Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice

  

  50% (2)

  Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice

  13 pages
• CDOT 2017 01 M-E Pavement Design Manual PDF

  

  100% (2)

  CDOT 2017 01 M-E Pavement Design Manual PDF

  604 pages
• Bituminous Material and Pavement Design

  

  No ratings yet

  Bituminous Material and Pavement Design

  35 pages
• Pavement Rehab Using Hma

  

  No ratings yet

  Pavement Rehab Using Hma

  114 pages
• Manual of Pavement Design Atj 5-85

  

  100% (1)

  Manual of Pavement Design Atj 5-85

  30 pages
• Aashto Flexible Pavement Design Procedure

  

  No ratings yet

  Aashto Flexible Pavement Design Procedure

  43 pages
• +MEPDG-Part2 Chapter2 Materials PDF

  

  100% (1)

  +MEPDG-Part2 Chapter2 Materials PDF

  83 pages
• LS-805 - Rev 34 - May 2020

  

  No ratings yet

  LS-805 - Rev 34 - May 2020

  6 pages
• AASHTO GDPS

  

  No ratings yet

  AASHTO GDPS

  331 pages
• Design of Flexible Pavement Using British Road Note

  

  No ratings yet

  Design of Flexible Pavement Using British Road Note

  17 pages
• Roadside Design Guide - 4th Edition 2011

  

  No ratings yet

  Roadside Design Guide - 4th Edition 2011

  343 pages
• Lecture 3 Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Desing Flex and Rigid

  

  No ratings yet

  Lecture 3 Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Desing Flex and Rigid

  56 pages
• AASHTO CPM-1 Pavement Smoothness

  

  100% (1)

  AASHTO CPM-1 Pavement Smoothness

  78 pages
• Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus For Flexible Pavement Design

  

  No ratings yet

  Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus For Flexible Pavement Design

  53 pages
• Asphalt Stabilization

  

  No ratings yet

  Asphalt Stabilization

  14 pages
• MAcread

  

  100% (1)

  MAcread

  23 pages
• IS 115 - Open Graded Asphalt Friction Courses

  

  No ratings yet

  IS 115 - Open Graded Asphalt Friction Courses

  5 pages
• Bridge & Flyover Drainage

  

  100% (1)

  Bridge & Flyover Drainage

  1 page
• MACREAD ReferenceManual Apendix A

  

  No ratings yet

  MACREAD ReferenceManual Apendix A

  12 pages
• Structural Design of Concrete Block Pavements

  

  No ratings yet

  Structural Design of Concrete Block Pavements

  21 pages
• Manual On Pavement Design PDF

  

  100% (3)

  Manual On Pavement Design PDF

  31 pages
• AASHTO

  

  100% (4)

  AASHTO

  39 pages
• Volume 3 Part II Rigid Pavements Manual PDF

  

  100% (2)

  Volume 3 Part II Rigid Pavements Manual PDF

  24 pages
• Lecture 3 Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Desing

  

  100% (1)

  Lecture 3 Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Desing

  61 pages
• Yangon - Mandalay Expressway Project

  

  100% (1)

  Yangon - Mandalay Expressway Project

  14 pages
• Semester Project Civil 3D

  

  No ratings yet

  Semester Project Civil 3D

  17 pages
• Rigid Pavement Design Software

  

  No ratings yet

  Rigid Pavement Design Software

  8 pages
• Design of Flexible Road Pavements With Tenax Geogrids

  

  No ratings yet

  Design of Flexible Road Pavements With Tenax Geogrids

  32 pages
• Ch3 Crack Sealing

  

  No ratings yet

  Ch3 Crack Sealing

  26 pages
• NCHRP 1-37a

  

  100% (2)

  NCHRP 1-37a

  134 pages
• AASHTO InterstateDesignStandards

  

  No ratings yet

  AASHTO InterstateDesignStandards

  12 pages
• Falling Weight Deflectometer Bowl Parameters As Analysis Tool For Pavement Structural Evaluations

  

  100% (1)

  Falling Weight Deflectometer Bowl Parameters As Analysis Tool For Pavement Structural Evaluations

  18 pages
• Equivalent Single Axle Load

  

  No ratings yet

  Equivalent Single Axle Load

  4 pages
• Pavement Analysis and Design (2nd Edition) Yang H. Huang download pdf

  

  75% (4)

  Pavement Analysis and Design (2nd Edition) Yang H. Huang download pdf

  41 pages
• Chapter 3.1 Geometric Design of Highways

  

  No ratings yet

  Chapter 3.1 Geometric Design of Highways

  85 pages
• AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Stru

  

  No ratings yet

  AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Stru

  624 pages
• AASHTO Guide For Design Pavement1993

  

  No ratings yet

  AASHTO Guide For Design Pavement1993

  624 pages
• AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures-American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993)

  

  100% (1)

  AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures-American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993)

  624 pages
• AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  

  100% (3)

  AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures

  624 pages
• AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures PDF

  

  100% (6)

  AASHTO Guide For Design of Pavement Structures PDF

  624 pages
• Reaffirmed 1996

  

  No ratings yet

  Reaffirmed 1996

  20 pages
• Is287 1993

  

  No ratings yet

  Is287 1993

  7 pages
• .Raingauges, Rainfall and Snowfall: Month

  

  0% (1)

  .Raingauges, Rainfall and Snowfall: Month

  18 pages
• As1141 15 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  As1141 15 PDF

  3 pages
• Is 158 1981 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Is 158 1981 PDF

  17 pages
• BS 873 (Part7) - 1984 Road Traffic Signs and Internally Illuminated Bollards-Posts and Fittings

  

  No ratings yet

  BS 873 (Part7) - 1984 Road Traffic Signs and Internally Illuminated Bollards-Posts and Fittings

  7 pages
• BS 6088 Beads PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  BS 6088 Beads PDF

  19 pages
• 011-Cover in English

  

  No ratings yet

  011-Cover in English

  1 page
• Tie-Ups: Adding New Dimension To Marketing

  

  No ratings yet

  Tie-Ups: Adding New Dimension To Marketing

  14 pages
• BS 873 (Part7) - 1984 Road Traffic Signs and Internally Illuminated Bollards-Posts and Fittings PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  BS 873 (Part7) - 1984 Road Traffic Signs and Internally Illuminated Bollards-Posts and Fittings PDF

  10 pages
• Digest: International Highway Research & Technology

  

  No ratings yet

  Digest: International Highway Research & Technology

  8 pages
• AS1160 Bitumen Emulsions PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  AS1160 Bitumen Emulsions PDF

  27 pages
• As1141 14 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  As1141 14 PDF

  5 pages
• IS 7834 PART-3-1987 PVC Socket Fittings With Solvant Cement Joints For Water Supply (1998) PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  IS 7834 PART-3-1987 PVC Socket Fittings With Solvant Cement Joints For Water Supply (1998) PDF

  3 pages
• ASTM D 1075 - 96 Effect of Water On Compressive Strenght of Compacted Bituminous Mixes

  

  No ratings yet

  ASTM D 1075 - 96 Effect of Water On Compressive Strenght of Compacted Bituminous Mixes

  2 pages