Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16
Pavement Design Guest Lecturer Dr. Sirous Alavi, P.E. SIERRA TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 1005 Terminal Way,
Pavement Design
Guest Lecturer
Dr. Sirous Alavi, P.E.
SIERRA TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC.
1005 Terminal Way, Suite 125
Reno, Nevada 89502
Topics Introduction – Design Factors – Pavement Types Fundamentals of Pavement Design – AASHTO –
Topics
Introduction
– Design Factors
– Pavement Types
Fundamentals of Pavement Design
– AASHTO
– Asphalt Institute
Types of Design State-of-Practice State-of-the-Art Mechanistic- Empirical Mechanistic Empirical F U N D E M
Types of Design
State-of-Practice State-of-the-Art
Mechanistic-
Empirical
Mechanistic
Empirical
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) Design Primary advantage is the consideration of the state of stress HMA Base
Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
Primary advantage is the consideration of
the state of stress
HMA
Base
Subbase
Subgrade Soil
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) Design Establishes connection between distress and distress mechanism F U N D E
Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
Establishes connection between distress
and distress mechanism
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) Design Accounts for new materials, traffic loads, and construction procedures All design
Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
Accounts for new materials, traffic loads,
and construction procedures
All design features affecting pavement
performance considered
Relies more on fundamental engineering
mechanics
Primary focus on pavement performance
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) Design 1993 AASHTO Guide Design Variables – Time – Traffic – Reliability –
Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
1993 AASHTO Guide
Design Variables
– Time
– Traffic
– Reliability
– Environment
– Serviceability
– Structural Number
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) Design F U N D E M E N T A L S
Mechanistic-Empirical
(M-E) Design
F U N D E M E N T A L S
AASHTO Design Time Constraints – Performance Period Refers to the time that an initial pavement
AASHTO Design
Time Constraints
– Performance Period
Refers to the time that an initial pavement
structure will last before rehab
– Analysis Period
Refers to the period of time that any
design strategy must cover
F U N D E M E N T A L S
AASHTO Design Traffic – Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) Converts wheel loads of various magnitudes
AASHTO Design
Traffic
– Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)
Converts wheel loads of various
magnitudes and repetitions to an
equivalent number of "standard" or
"equivalent" loads based on the amount
of damage they do to the pavement
F U N D E M E N T A L S
AASHTO Design Equivalent Axle Load Factor (EALF) – Damage per pass to a pavement by
AASHTO Design
Equivalent Axle Load Factor (EALF)
– Damage per pass to a pavement by the axle
in question relative to the damage per pass
of a standard axle load
– Depends of type of pavements, thickness or
structural capacity and terminal conditions
F U N D E M E N T A L S
EALF Table for Flexible Pavement, Single Axle & p t of 2.5 Pavement Structural Number
EALF Table for Flexible Pavement,
Single Axle & p t of 2.5
Pavement Structural Number (SN)
Axle
Load
123456
(kips)
2
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
4
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
6
0.011
0.017
0.017
0.013
0.010
0.009
8
0.032
0.047
0.051
0.041
0.034
0.031
10
0.078
0.102
0.118
0.102
0.088
0.080
12
0.168
0.198
0.229
0.213
0.189
0.176
14
0.328
0.358
0.399
0.388
0.360
0.342
16
0.591
0.613
0.646
0.645
0.623
0.606
F U N D E M E N T A L S
AASHTO Design m = number of axle load groups F i = the EALF for
AASHTO Design
m = number of axle
load groups
F i = the EALF for the
m
ESAL
=
F n
i
i
i = 1
i th axle load group
n i = number of
passes of the i th axle
load group
F U N D E M E N T A L S
200X AASHTO Design Guide No more ESALs Traffic input – Vehicle type (number of axles)
200X AASHTO Design Guide
No more ESALs
Traffic input
– Vehicle type (number of axles)
– Axle weight
Quantity and quality of raw traffic data
similar to that used to compute ESALS
Consistent with FHWA Traffic Monitoring
Guide
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Traffic Hierarchical Input Levels Input Knowledge of Input Values Level Parameters 1 Site specific WIM
Traffic Hierarchical Input Levels
Input
Knowledge of
Input Values
Level
Parameters
1 Site specific WIM & AVC
Good
2 Regional Default WIM &
AVC, Vehicle Counts
Modest
3 National Default WIM &
AVC, Vehicle Counts
Poor
F U N D E M E N T A L S
200X AASHTO Design Guide Load Spectra – Axle weight frequencies for each common axle combination
200X AASHTO Design Guide
Load Spectra
Axle weight frequencies for each
common axle combination (e.g.
single axle, tandem axle, tridem
axle, quad axle).
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
Axle Load (lbs)
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Number of Axles
AASHTO Design Reliability - Incorporating some degree of certainty into the design process to ensure
AASHTO Design
Reliability - Incorporating some degree of certainty
into the design process to ensure that various design
alternatives will last the Analysis Period
Recommended Level of Reliability
Functional
Urban
Rural
Classificaiton
Interstate
85 - 99.9
80 - 99.9
Arterials
80
- 99
75
- 95
Collectors
80
- 95
75
- 95
Local
50
- 80
50
- 80
F U N D E M E N T A L S
AASHTO Design Environmental – Temperature Stresses induced by thermal action Changes in creep properties Effect
AASHTO Design
Environmental
– Temperature
Stresses induced by thermal action
Changes in creep properties
Effect of freezing and thawing of subgrade
– Rainfall
Penetration of surface water into underlying
materials
F U N D E M E N T A L S
AASHTO Design Serviceability – Initial serviceability index is function of pavement type and construction quality
AASHTO Design
Serviceability
– Initial serviceability index is function of
pavement type and construction quality
– Terminal serviceability index is lowest
index that will be tolerated before
rehab, resurfacing, or reconstruction
F U N D E M E N T A L S
SURFACE (AC) AASHTO Design BASE SUBBASE (OPTIONAL) SUBGRADE Structural Number – m i = drainage
SURFACE (AC)
AASHTO Design
BASE
SUBBASE (OPTIONAL)
SUBGRADE
Structural Number
– m i = drainage coefficient for layer i
– a 1 , a 2 , a 3 = layer coefficient representative of
surface, base, and subbase course, respectively
– D 1 , D 2 , D 3 = thickness representative of surface,
base, and subbase course, respectively
SN = a D + a D m + a D m
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
F U N D E M E N T A L S
AASHTO Design Example Ridgeview Dr. Rehabilitation – 20-year flexible pavement analysis period – Low volume
AASHTO Design Example
Ridgeview Dr. Rehabilitation
– 20-year flexible pavement analysis
period
– Low volume road with limited growth
potential
F U N D E M E N T A L S
COPPER COPPER POINT COPPER POINT GREEN RANCH PLUMAS MOUNTAIN VISTA RIDGEVIEW RIDGEVIEW PLUMAS UNNAMED AMED
COPPER
COPPER POINT
COPPER POINT
GREEN RANCH
PLUMAS
MOUNTAIN VISTA
RIDGEVIEW
RIDGEVIEW
PLUMAS
UNNAMED
AMED
WINDY M
S CRE
RIDGEVIEW
F U N D E M E N T A L S
COPPER POINT
GREEN RANCH
RIDGEVIEW
DOW HEIGHTS
AASHTO Design Example Traffic – 72-hour vehicle counts were conducted directionally at three locations within
AASHTO Design Example
Traffic
– 72-hour vehicle counts were conducted
directionally at three locations within the
project boundaries using machine traffic
counters
– Manual classification counts were conducted
at the machine count locations to “calibrate”
the machine count data and categorize into
the FHWA 13 vehicle classification scheme
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Vehicle Classification
Vehicle Classification

F U N D E M E N T A L S

Adjusted Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Classification Year 2005 Through 2010

Road Segment:

Ridgeview Drive @ Plumas Street

               

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Class 5

Class 6

Class 9

Total

EB

%

 

43.64

54.11

0.35

1.60

0.15

0.15

100

Volume

 

1132.30

1404.00

9.10

41.60

3.90

3.90

2594.8

WB

%

 

43.29

54.11

0.70

1.60

0.15

0.15

100

Volume

 

1123.20

1404.00

18.20

41.60

3.90

3.90

2594.8

 

5189.6

Total ADT

Road Segment:

Ridgeview Drive @ Mountain Vista Way

 
 

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Class 5

Class 6

Class 9

Total

 

EB

%

 

43.44

54.11

0.45

1.60

0.20

0.20

100

Volume

 

823.65

1026.00

8.55

30.40

3.80

3.80

1896.2

WB

%

 

42.94

54.11

0.95

1.60

0.20

0.20

100

Volume

 

814.15

1026.00

18.05

30.40

3.80

3.80

1896.2

 

3792.4

Total ADT

Adjusted Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Classification Year 2011 Through 2025

 

Road Segment:

Ridgeview Drive @ Plumas Street

               

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Class 5

Class 6

Class 9

Total

EB

%

 

43.94

54.11

0.35

1.60

0.00

0.00

100

Volume

 

1140.10

1404.00

9.10

41.60

   

2594.8

WB

%

 

43.59

54.11

0.70

1.60

0.00

0.00

100

Volume

 

1131.00

1404.00

18.20

41.60

   

2594.8

 

5189.6

Total ADT

Road Segment:

Ridgeview Drive @ Mountain Vista Way

 
 

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Class 5

Class 6

Class 9

Total

 

EB

%

 

43.84

54.11

0.45

1.60

0.00

0.00

100

Volume

 

831.25

1026.00

8.55

30.40

   

1896.2

WB

%

 

43.34

54.11

0.95

1.60

0.00

0.00

100

Volume

 

821.75

1026.00

18.05

30.40

   

1896.2

 

3792.4

Total ADT

AASHTO Design Example Compute ESALs using EALFs from AASHTO Tables in Appendix D Assumptions –
AASHTO Design Example
Compute ESALs using EALFs from
AASHTO Tables in Appendix D
Assumptions
– Typical axle weights for each vehicle class
– SN of 3.0
– p t of 2.5
F U N D E M E N T A L S
 

WB Daily ESALs

WB Yearly ESALs

Cumulative ESALs

Plumas

Mountain Vista

Plumas

Mountain Vista

Plumas

Mountain Vista

0

2005 81

90

 

33,031

29,487

33,031

29,487

1

2006 81

90

 

33,031

29,487

66,062

58,973

2

2007 81

90

 

33,031

29,487

99,093

88,460

3

2008 81

90

 

33,031

29,487

132,124

117,947

4

2009 81

90

 

33,031

29,487

165,155

147,433

5

2010 81

90

 

33,031

29,487

198,187

176,920

6

75

2011 66

 

27,362

23,963

225,548

200,882

7

75

2012 66

 

27,362

23,963

252,910

224,845

8

75

2013 66

 

27,362

23,963

280,271

248,807

9

75

2014 66

 

27,362

23,963

307,633

272,770

10

75

2015 66

 

27,362

23,963

334,994

296,732

11

75

2016 66

 

27,362

23,963

362,356

320,695

12

75

2017 66

 

27,362

23,963

389,717

344,657

13

75

2018 66

 

27,362

23,963

417,079

368,620

14

75

2019 66

 

27,362

23,963

444,441

392,582

15

75

2020 66

 

27,362

23,963

471,802

416,545

16

75

2021 66

 

27,362

23,963

499,164

440,507

17

75

2022 66

 

27,362

23,963

526,525

464,470

18

75

2023 66

 

27,362

23,963

553,887

488,432

19

75

2024 66

 

27,362

23,963

581,248

512,395

20

75

2025 66

 

27,362

23,963

608,610

536,357

AASHTO Design Example Materials – R-value data was collected at five sample locations (8, 7,
AASHTO Design Example
Materials
– R-value data was collected at five sample
locations (8, 7, 10, 20, 8)
– Resilient Modulus (M R ) relationship
R-value ≤ 20
M R = 1000 + 555 x R-value (psi)
F U N D E M E N T A L S

Parameter

Average

Design Life, years

20

Traffic (ESALs), W 18

610,000

Reliability, R (%)

80%

Standard Deviation (New Construction), S o

0.45

Subgrade R-value

10.60

Subgrade Resilient Modulus, M R (ksi)

6.9

Initial Serviceability, P 0

4.2

Terminal Serviceability, P t

2.5

Modulus of Elasticity for New AC (ksi)

350

Layer Coefficient for New Plant Mix Surface (AC), a 1

0.39

Layer Coefficient for Gravel Base, a 2

0.14

Layer Coefficient for Subbase (Borrow), a 3

0.08

Drainage Coefficient for AC layer, m 1

1.0

Drainage Coefficient for Base layer, m 2

1.1

Drainage Coefficient for SB layer, m 3

1.1

SN ≈ 3.1
SN ≈ 3.1
SURFACE (AC) AASHTO Design BASE SUBGRADE Assume D values for surface and base – Asphalt
SURFACE (AC)
AASHTO Design
BASE
SUBGRADE
Assume D values for surface and base
– Asphalt is 4 inches
– Base is 10 inches
Calculate SN - Is it acceptable?
SN
=
a D
+
a D m
1
1
2
2
2
SN =
0.39
×
4.0 in
+
0.14
×
10 in
×
1.1
SN = 3.1
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Topics Introduction – Design Factors – Pavement Types Fundamentals of Pavement Design – AASHTO –
Topics
Introduction
– Design Factors
– Pavement Types
Fundamentals of Pavement Design
– AASHTO
– Asphalt Institute
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Determine minimum thickness of asphalt layer that will adequately withstand the
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design
Determine minimum thickness of asphalt
layer that will adequately withstand the
stresses that develop for two strain
criteria
– Vertical compressive strain at surface of
subgrade
– Horizontal tensile strain at bottom of asphalt
layer
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Wheel load P 0 P 1 P 1 SUBGRADE General form
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design
Wheel
load
P
0
P
1
P
1
SUBGRADE
General form of
stress reduction
Stress distribution
within different
layers of the
pavement structure
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Wheel load SUBGRADE Tension Compression F U N D E M
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design
Wheel
load
SUBGRADE
Tension
Compression
F U N D E M E N T A L S
20% Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Fatigue Design Criteria – Fatigue N f = allowable number
20%
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design
Fatigue
Design Criteria
– Fatigue
N f = allowable number of load repetitions
|E*| = dynamic modulus
∈ t = horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the
asphalt layer
Assumes asphalt volume of 11% and air void
volume of 5%
N f = 0.0796(∈ t ) -3.291 |E*| -0.854
F U N D E M E N T A L S

U N D E M E N T A L S F U N D E M E N T A L SF

Asphalt Institute (AI) Design 0.5 inch Design Criteria – Permanent Deformation N d = allowable
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design
0.5
inch
Design Criteria
– Permanent Deformation
N d = allowable number of load repetitions
∈ c = vertical compressive strain on the surface
of the subgrade
N d = 1.365 x 10 -9 (∈ c ) -4.477
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Five main steps 1. Select or determine input data 2. Select
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design
Five main steps
1. Select or determine input data
2. Select surface and base materials
3. Determine minimum thickness required
4. Evaluate feasibility of staged construction
and prepare plan, if necessary
5. Carry out economic analyses
PLUMAS PLUMAS RIDGEVIEW AMED RIDGEVIEW WINDY M COPPER POINT COPPER UNNAMED COPPER POINT GREEN RANCH
PLUMAS
PLUMAS
RIDGEVIEW
AMED
RIDGEVIEW
WINDY M
COPPER POINT
COPPER
UNNAMED
COPPER POINT
GREEN RANCH
MOUNTAIN VISTA
RIDGEVIEW
COPPER POINT
RIDGEVIEW
GREEN RANCH
S CRE
DOW HEIGHTS
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Example Gross Axle Single Tandem Tridem Select or determine input data
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design
Example
Gross
Axle
Single
Tandem
Tridem
Select or
determine input
data
Load
Axles
Axles
Axles
(kips)
1
0.00002
2
0.00018
– Traffic
Characteristics
4
0.00209
0.0003
6
0.01043
0.001
0.00030
8
0.0343
0.003
0.001
– ESALs similar to
AASHTO
10
0.0877
0.007
0.002
12
0.189
0.014
0.003
14
0.360
0.027
0.006
16
0.623
0.047
0.011
F U N D E M E N T A L S
 

WB Daily ESALs

WB Yearly ESALs

Cumulative ESALs

Plumas 2

Plumas 2

Plumas 2

0

118

2005 43,110

 

43,110

1

118

2006 43,110

 

86,221

2

118

2007 43,110

 

129,331

3

2008 43,110

118

 

172,441

4

118

2009 43,110

 

215,552

5

118

2010 43,110

 

258,662

6

2011 26,197

72

 

284,859

7

2012 26,197

72

 

311,057

8

2013 26,197

72

 

337,254

9

2014 26,197

72

 

363,451

10

2015 26,197

72

 

389,649

11

2016 26,197

72

 

415,846

12

2017 26,197

72

 

442,043

13

2018 26,197

72

 

468,241

14

2019 26,197

72

 

494,438

15

2020 26,197

72

 

520,635

16

2021 26,197

72

 

546,833

17

2022 26,197

72

 

573,030

18

2023 26,197

72

 

599,227

19

2024 26,197

72

 

625,425

20

2025 26,197

72

 

651,622

Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Example Select or determine input data – R-value data was collected
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design Example
Select or determine input data
– R-value data was collected at five sample
locations (8, 7, 10, 20, 8)
– Resilient Modulus (M R ) relationship
M R = 1155 + 555 x R-value (psi)
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Example Select surface and base materials – Asphalt concrete surface or
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design Example
Select surface and base materials
– Asphalt concrete surface or emulsified
asphalt surface
– Asphalt concrete base, emulsified
asphalt base, or untreated aggregate
base
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Example Determine minimum thickness required – Obtained by computer program –
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design Example
Determine minimum thickness required
– Obtained by computer program
– Entering the appropriate table or chart
Assume 10 inch untreated aggregate base
Subgrade M R of 7 psi
Design ESAL of 655,000
F U N D E M E N T A L S
6.5 inch
6.5 inch
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Example Evaluate feasibility of staged construction and prepare plan, if necessary
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design Example
Evaluate feasibility of staged
construction and prepare plan, if
necessary
– Used when adequate funds are not
available to construct the pavement to
the “required” depth
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Asphalt Institute (AI) Design Example Carry out economic analyses – Evaluate alternative designs based on
Asphalt Institute (AI)
Design Example
Carry out economic analyses
– Evaluate alternative designs based on
the type of pavement, type of materials
used, whether or not staged
construction is used, etc.
F U N D E M E N T A L S
Questions F U N D E M E N T A L S
Questions
F U N D E M E N T A L S