Heavy Duty Pavement Design Guide 1

Heavy Duty Industrial
Pavement Design Guide

Revision 1.035
19 March 2007
Contents
Foreword
Introduction and Background
Scope of the Guide.........................................................................................................................5

Background: Design Methods ........................................................................................................7
Pavement Design Principles - General
Overview of Pavement Design System..........................................................................................9

Input Variables .....................................................................................................................9
Structural Analysis ...............................................................................................................9
Key Performance Indicators - Level of Service (LOS) ...............................................................13
Pavement Materials
15
Asphalt .........................................................................................................................................16
Function wearing surface................................................................................................16
Function structural ..........................................................................................................16
Volumetric analysis ............................................................................................................17
Other Issues.......................................................................................................................20
Composite/ Resin Modified Asphalt .............................................................................................21
Granular Material..........................................................................................................................22
Stabilised Material ........................................................................................................................23
Subgrade......................................................................................................................................25
Traffic
27
Vehicle Types...............................................................................................................................28
Unequal Axle Loads...........................................................................................................29
Equal Axle Loads ...............................................................................................................29
Coordinate System for Vehicles...................................................................................................30
Vehicle Wander ............................................................................................................................32
Payload Distribution .....................................................................................................................33
Traffic Growth...............................................................................................................................35
Dynamic and Static Structural Loading ........................................................................................36
Modelling of Multiple Wheels and Axle Groups ...........................................................................38
Nature of Damage Pulses..................................................................................................39
Design Traffic Loading .................................................................................................................40
New Pavement Design
41
Design Period...............................................................................................................................42
Material Properties and Performance Models..............................................................................43
Subgrade Properties and Performance Models.................................................................43
Unbound Granular Material Properties ..............................................................................45
Asphalt Properties and Performance Models ....................................................................46
ii
Contents
Cement Stabilised Material Performance Models..............................................................50
Environment
52
Drainage (surface and subsurface)..............................................................................................53

Subgrade Volume Change...........................................................................................................54
Weathering / ageing .....................................................................................................................55
Construction Implications
57
General.........................................................................................................................................58
Compaction, Workability and Layer Bonding ...............................................................................59
Curing...........................................................................................................................................61
Opening to Traffic.........................................................................................................................62
Pavement Maintenance
63
Routine Maintenance ...................................................................................................................64

Major Maintenance.......................................................................................................................65
In-Service Monitoring ...................................................................................................................66
Pavement Rehabilitation
67
Site Investigation ..........................................................................................................................68

Functional and Structural Condition Assessment ........................................................................69
Treatment Types ..........................................................................................................................70
Functional Rehabilitation....................................................................................................70
Structural Rehabilitation.....................................................................................................71
Caveats
73
Life Cycle Costing
75
Analysis Period Service Life......................................................................................................76

Present Worth Analysis................................................................................................................77
Case Studies
79
Case Study 1................................................................................................................................80

Loading ..............................................................................................................................80
Pavement Model ................................................................................................................80
Results ...............................................................................................................................81
Appendices
85
Material failure mode and implication...........................................................................................86

Improved asphalt material characterisation .................................................................................87
References
91
Foreword
Foreword
The purpose of this Guide is to assist pavement designers and managers with the
planning, design, construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of heavy duty flexible
pavements. Although the principles can be applied to various types of heavy duty
pavements, this guide is primarily directed at port and container terminal pavements.
The Guide covers the assessment of input parameters needed for design. Material
properties, traffic factors, environmental considerations, pavement design methods,
maintenance and rehabilitation treatments and life cycle costing are also discussed.
At the end of the guide a few case studies are presented.
The Guide is a collaborative effort currently involving:
Dr. Leigh Wardle of Mincad Systems (Melbourne, Australia);
Ian Rickards (Pioneer Road Services Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia)
John Lancaster (formerly Pioneer Road Services)
Dr. Susan Tighe (Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Canada)
The Guide presents the authors attempt to reflect best practice in the design,
construction and rehabilitation of heavy duty flexible pavements. The Guide will steer
the designer through all necessary design considerations and suggests external
sources for research updates. It is intended to be supplementary to other published
design guides with a focus on industrial pavements. The primary tool used in this
guide to carry out the pavement design analysis is a program called HIPAVE that has
been specifically developed for heavy duty flexible pavements.
The Guide is a living document that will be regularly updated to reflect advances in
pavement technology and made freely available via the Internet at no charge. It is
the authors goal to preserve the relevance and currency of the Guide by in-house
research and development and continuous liaison with international experts in
pavement technology.
Scope of the Guide

This Guide addresses design of heavy duty flexible pavements for ports and
container terminal pavements. The Guide focuses on the structural design of
pavements rather than structural detailing or design detailing. The primary tool used
in this design guide to reinforce the concepts is a program called HIPAVE, developed
by Mincad Systems, which has been specifically developed for port and container
terminal pavements. However, this is a stand alone document which can serve as a
useful tool for highlighting key elements to the design, construction, maintenance and
rehabilitation of heavy duty flexible pavements.
The Guide covers the assessment of input parameters needed for design, design
methods for flexible pavements and gives guidance on life cycle costing,
construction, maintenance and rehabilitation issues. The guide is grouped into
sections as briefly described herein.
A brief overview of pavement design including the input variables and structural
analysis is presented, followed by a brief discussion on key performance indicators,
including the concept of level of service. Overall a pavement design system is
presented in this section to assist with heavy duty flexible pavement design. The
core of the design system is mechanistic structural analysis software such as layered
elastic analysis.
The next few sections of the Guide contain a detailed discussion of subgrade
evaluation, pavement materials evaluation, analysis of traffic loading and structural
design in addition to other factors relevant to pavement design.
Various issues associated with construction of heavy duty flexible pavements are
presented including compaction, workability and layer bonding, curing requirements,
and the ability to open to traffic. Pavement maintenance in terms of typical routine
maintenance and major maintenance are presented. Pavement rehabilitation
including site investigation, condition assessment in terms of functional and structural
considerations and the various typical treatment types are presented. The next
section presents the concept of life cycle costing. The analysis period, service life
and the present worth analysis are described in this section. The last section
includes case studies.
The procedures in this Guide are intended for the design of pavements for which the
primary distress mode is load associated. If other modes of stress, for example
environmental distress, have a significant effect on pavement performance, their
effect should be separately assessed.
It is emphasized that this document should be used as a guide only; it should not be
referred to as a design specification. The designer must exercise judgment in choice
of values for the parameters that are incorporated into particular designs.
Pavement design is just one aspect associated with the achievement of sound
pavement performance. Pavement performance also depends on other factors such
as sound material quality control, adequate drainage, construction tolerances and
pavement maintenance.
Although, this guide is written with emphasis on Australian practices, it does have
relevance to the design and construction of port and terminal container pavements
around the world.
Background: Design Methods

Many aspects of the design methods for highway/road pavements such as those
presented in the new Austroads Pavement Design Guide (2004) are not appropriate
for designing heavy duty flexible pavements for applications such as ports and
container terminals.
Traditionally, port pavements have been designed using chart-based, empirical
processes such as the British Ports Association method (British Ports Association,
1996). In more recent times, designers have combined the full range of vehicles and
shipping containers into a single number of repetitions of an equivalent standard
axle. This equivalent axle would be applied in layered elastic design using tools
such as CIRCLY (Wardle, 2004) and APSDS (Airport Pavement Structural Design
System, Wardle, 1999).
Alternatively, many designers prefer to use the actual wheel layouts of the vehicles
and these can be used directly in CIRCLY and APSDS.
While CIRCLY and APSDS have been used very successfully for the design of heavy
duty industrial pavements, unwieldy data input makes it very difficult to model more
than one or two payloads per vehicle.
HIPAVE (Heavy Industrial PAVEment design), an outgrowth of CIRCLY and APSDS,
was released in late 2005. HIPAVE has been designed to conveniently handle
comprehensive details of the freight handling vehicles and the characteristics of the
payload distribution for each vehicle.
In recent years the ASCE have been developing a Port and Intermodal Yard
Pavement Design Guide. Smallridge and Jacob (2001) give an outline of the Guide.
At the time of writing, the Guide is close to becoming available in draft form (Jacob,
2006).

The goal of pavement design is to select the pavement design which is cost effective
and provides a high level of service for the given traffic and environmental conditions.
The designer must have sufficient knowledge of the available materials, the expected
traffic loading, the local environment and their interactions. Ultimately all of these
factors must be examined in order to predict the performance of a candidate
pavement design. Furthermore the designer must have an understanding of the level
of performance and pavement condition considered satisfactory for the operational
conditions of the project.
A systematic approach to pavement design is required as there are many variables
and interactions which influence the outcome. HIPAVE facilitates the rapid
evaluation of the variables and the user should, systematically, use this capability to
examine what if scenarios to try and identify the level of risk associated with the
various pavement options as illustrated for instance in case study 2.
Overview of Pavement Design

System
Input Variables
Design Traffic
The wheel layout, load distribution, loading rate (speed) and tyre pressures can all
have a significant influence on pavement performance. In addition to the current
traffic, attention need to be given to future traffic, including the change in volume,
mass and composition during the design period. Detailed consideration of traffic is
presented in the next section.
The static load under stacked containers while considerable is not generally a
structural pavement design issue as the magnitude of the load is generally less than
under heavy vehicles and the loads are relatively widespread. The extreme stress at
the surface under the container corner castings is however critical to the selection of
the surfacing material.
Subgrade and Pavement Materials

Details of the materials in the pavement structure should include:
strength/stiffness measurements which can be used to quantify their load
carrying properties;
estimates of typical variations in material properties associated with changes
in moisture, temperature, aging, shrinkage during the curing stage
details on how pavement materials deteriorate due to fatigue under repeated
loading and
performance criteria including limiting value(s) of stresses or strains at which
a given degree of distress will occur.
Structural Analysis
The aim of structural analysis is to predict the critical strains and/or stresses which
are induced by the traffic loading in the trial pavement design. Several trial pavement
configurations or designs are analyzed and the most appropriate design is selected
at the end of the analysis based on the technical and economic constraints.
The traffic loading can be more generic (
Im unsure what this means ) or it can
include the details of each combination of vehicle model and payload.
Distress Prediction
10
The structural analysis is used to estimate the allowable loading and associated
distress of the trial pavement design. The performance criteria, in this case
pavement distress prediction, assigned to pavement materials, and to the subgrade,
are typically relationships between the strain induced by the single application of a
load and the number of such applications which will result in the condition of the
material, or the pavement, reaching an allowable limit. The allowable limit is related
to a maximum distress or level of service.
Generally most performance models may be represented graphically by a plot of
tolerable strain versus load repetitions (generally by a straight line of 'best fit' on a
log-log plot). Equation 1 below, shows the typical model format
k
N=

[1]
where N
is the predicted life (repetitions)
is a material constant
is the damage exponent of the material
is the induced strain (dimensionless strain)
Log-log relationships can be readily converted to the above form. For some material
types the appropriate performance relationship may be in a different functional form
but, the concept and intent is the same.
A pavement structure consists of a variety of materials which have different distress
modes. For example, a granular pavement surfaced with asphalt will have an
allowable loading determined by the weakest link. The weakest link is the layer that
has the highest Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF), that is the one for which the
allowable loading is the first to be exceeded by the design traffic loading.
If all loads applied to the pavement are of identical type and magnitude, then the
number of repetitions to failure can be obtained directly from the limiting strain
versus repetitions criteria. The service life is then determined as the amount of time
(usually in years) during which the number of repetitions is just sufficient to cause
failure.
Cumulative Damage Factor

In reality the pavement is subjected to a range of loadings, and each magnitude of
load produces its own level of strain and stress in the pavement.
Determining the service life in these circumstances is more involved. There are two
conventional ways of handling this issue.
The first is to convert the numbers of loads of different magnitude to an equivalent
number of loads of a standard magnitude equivalent in the sense that they will
cause the same amount of pavement damage. This involves estimating the
approximate passes of different vehicle loads to passes of an equivalent standard
load or "design vehicle". This methodology is no longer necessary now that
computer software such as layered elastic analysis is available.
The second method used to deal with loads of different magnitudes (i.e. actual
traffic) is to use the concept of cumulative damage.
The system explicitly accumulates the contribution from each loading in the traffic
spectrum at each analysis point by using Miner's hypothesis. The damage factor for
the i-th loading is defined as the number of repetitions (ni) of a given response
parameter divided by the allowable repetitions (Ni) of the response parameter that
would cause failure. The Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF) for the parameter is
given by summing the damage factors over all the loadings in the traffic spectrum as
shown in equation 2 below:
Cumulative Damage Factor = ni / Ni
[2]
The system is presumed to have reached its design life when the cumulative damage
reaches 1.0. If the cumulative damage is less than 1.0 the system has excess
capacity or remaining life and the cumulative damage represents the proportion of life
consumed. If the cumulative damage is greater than 1.0 the system is predicted to
fail before all of the design traffic has been applied.
The procedure takes account of:
the design repetitions of each vehicle/load condition; and
the material performance properties used in the design model.
This approach allows analyses to be conducted by directly using a mix of vehicle or
axle types. It is not necessary to approximate passes of different vehicles or axles to
passes of an equivalent standard load.
In this method, the proportion of damage caused by loads of a given magnitude is
equal to the ratio of the number of such loads in the design period to the number of
such loads which will cause failure as derived from the performance criteria.
The sum of these ratios for all load magnitudes indicates the total distress which will
occur. If this sum is less than or equal to 1.0, then the pavement configuration being
analyzed is assumed to be adequate. Conversely, if this is not the case, then the
trial pavement configuration is deemed to be unacceptable and must be modified in
the next trial so that the deficiency is overcome. The next trial will focus on the
inadequacy and will adjust accordingly. For example, this might mean an increase in
pavement thickness or a modification to stiffness. The process is repeated until a
satisfactory result in achieved.
The results of the mechanistic analysis are readily assessed by a number of
graphical formats. For example, Figure 1 is a sample cumulative damage plot
produced by the HIPAVE program.
11
12
Figure 1: HIPAVE graph - Subgrade Damage Factor vs. container load.

Note that on this Spectral Damage Graph there is a data point for each combination
of vehicle model and payload in this example the container weight distribution was
specified at an interval of one tonne.
HIPAVE can also generate graphs that show the variation of the damage factor
across the pavement, as shown by:
Figure 2: HIPAVE cumulative damage graph - Damage Factor vs. lateral position
Key Performance Indicators -

Level of Service (LOS)
The deterioration of a given pavement under traffic loading and environmental
distress mechanisms can be characterized in terms of a number of distress modes
such as rutting, cracking and roughness. Furthermore the progressive deterioration
over the life cycle of the pavement can be quantified in terms of various parameters
such as maximum rut depth, cracking and various measures of rideability and
roughness. These indicators are commonly called Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) or Key Performance Measures (KPMs).
From a pavement design viewpoint the choice of acceptable values of the KPIs will
influence the selection of the relevant damage model or transfer function. The
designer should understand the KPIs on which the damage models are based. For
instance the rut depth limit assumed in the Corp of Engineers subgrade strain criteria
is 25 mm. If the designer considers a lesser value e.g. 15 mm is appropriate then the
model must be modified.
The damage model or transfer function, i.e. the relationship between the calculated
stress/strain and life is a critical element in the design process and the designer
should examine the background research used in the development of the models to
ensure confidence in the outcomes.
13
Pavement Materials
Pavement Materials
The following sections detail typical pavement materials that are used in the various
layers of the pavement structure and is directed to the design of heavy duty flexible
pavements for ports and terminal container areas. For additional information, please
refer to Chapter 6 of Austroads 2004, for a treatise of pavement materials or the
appropriate local material pavement design practices.
For more detailed information on the material properties and performance models to
be used in the design process refer to the New Pavement Design section.
15
16
Pavement Materials
Asphalt
The following additional considerations should be taken into account, for heavy duty
pavement design:
Function wearing surface

The wearing course or surface layer is generally subjected to much greater forces in
heavy duty pavement conditions, compared with traditional highway or road design.
Typically the pavement located at a port or container terminal is subjected to highly
channelised (straddle carriers especially) and extreme wheel loads. Vehicles
execute tight turns and there is a tendency toward mechanical abrasion and
indentation damage to the surface. The wearing surface design objective is therefore
to maximise deformation resistance. With these loading conditions, it is necessary to
design the wearing surface so it has the ability to provide both fatigue resistance and
deformation resistance under industrial load conditions.
Notwithstanding the extreme wheel loads, the empirical evidence in Australia
suggests the use of conventional asphalt mixes, designed to meet heavy road traffic
stress has given good performance in the context of heavy duty pavements, the
exception being under highly channelised loading by straddle carriers and container
corner castings. To put this into perspective, the significantly greater magnitude of
loads in industrial pavements is to some extent balanced by significantly lower
passages of load relative to many highway facilities with extensive truck traffic. The
relatively higher stiffness of the heavy duty pavement, provided in order to protect
the subgrade, results in greater support for the wearing surface. It is possible to
enhance the functional performance of the wearing surface using polymer modified
binder (PMB) or Multigrade bitumen (refer Austroads AP-T41/06), stiffer bitumen
such as Class 600 (refer Australian Standard AS 2008, Standards Australia, 1997) or
Gilsonite modified bitumen . Modern methods of asphalt characterisation (see
appendix) provide a rational measure of the benefit of mix modification to facilitate
the selection of optimum mix components.
It is evident however that under the extreme stress of container corner castings,
some punching shear deformation and crushing is inevitable. This will adversely
impact the performance of thin surfacing layers enabling water penetration and
weakening base materials.
Overall, special attention must be given to the design of the asphalt layer. A
minimum asphalt thickness is necessary to ensure there is structural integrity and a
bond with the underlayer. This is especially recommended in areas where heavy
vehicles perform tight turning manoeuvres, where it is advisable to ensure a 50 mm
minimum asphalt thickness for highway vehicles and 100 mm for heavy container
handling equipment, always with a prime coat to ensure a good bond.
Function structural
Pavement Materials
Asphalt base and subbase layers will contribute significantly to the structural
adequacy of the heavy duty pavement design. The design objectives are to provide
high stiffness and load spreading, and control fatigue cracking. Fundamentally both
of these objectives can be met by selecting harder grades of bitumen, and increasing
the bitumen content to improve fatigue performance (taking into account the support
provided by base and foundation layers) The optimisation of the binder content is
discussed in the following section.
Research (Rickards, et al 2006) has shown that the selection of mix gradation,
which is slightly fine of the theoretical maximum density, yields the highest stiffness,
together with a higher filler content (material passing the 75 micron sieve) to stiffen
the mortar. Experience has shown that while the selection of large stone mixes (e.g.
> 20 mm nominal mix size) in theory yields higher stiffness, workability issues and
the tendency to segregate will often jeopardize field performance reducing stiffness
and a resulting in a propensity to moisture damage due to higher relative
permeability. It is suggested that for practical purposes, a 20 mm nominal maximum
aggregate size is used for these types of pavements.
Historically, larger size mix has been used when thick asphalt layers were required.
Conversely, French practice suggests that for a 14 mm nominal mix the layer
thickness should be between 70 mm and 120 mm (5 8 times nominal mix size). A
caution is provided about the potential loss of shape in the compaction of a layer at
the maximum thickness but in multi-layer structures any loss of shape may be
corrected by subsequent layers. For all practical purposes individual layers > 120
mm thick will not be required hence a 14 mm mix is a practical upper size. Certainly
this mix will demand more binder than a larger stone mix but it is this factor that will
benefit field performance both at a theoretical level (better fatigue performance) and
practical level (improved homogeneity workability and impermeability).
Volumetric analysis
It is critical to understand the importance of optimising the bitumen content to achieve
optimum air void content in mix design. It is a fundamental requirement that the
binder content be optimised at the in service mix density i.e. the design binder
content must achieve the target air voids at a level of compaction in the laboratory
that faithfully represents the level of compaction in the field.
The consequence of optimisation at incorrect laboratory density is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Impact of Laboratory Density on Field Performance
Laboratory
density c/f in
service density
Lab >> in
service density
Lab << in
i d
it
Resulting
bitumen
content
Consequence
fatigue
performance
Too low
Significant
reduction
Too high
Minimal
Consequence
deformation
resistance
Other Potential
Issues
Minimal
Less durable;
prone to
moisture
damage
High risk of
d f
ti
Minimal
17
18
Pavement Materials
service density
deformation
The as constructed mix density is strongly affected by construction practice which in

turn is strongly influenced by construction conditions (layer thickness, temperature /
weather conditions) . Subsequently secondary compaction occurs under traffic, to an
extent influenced by loading conditions, initial relative density, layer location and
climatic conditions (e.g. hot versus temperate locations), especially for unmodified
bitumens. The possible consequence of significant secondary compaction is loss of
texture and rutting.
Existing empirical mix design methods, such as the Marshall method, must be
carefully evaluated prior to use in the heavy duty pavement design. Empirical
evidence from Australian port facilities suggest 75 blow Marshall mixes have
performed well in asphalt base layers but are prone to deformation in wearing course
layers under channelised traffic.
As a general guide, the in service air voids should be greater than 3%. Research
has shown that the strength of the aggregate skeleton is lost due to lack of void
space and subsequent development of pore pressure effects at voids <3%.
Furthermore, deformation will occur under conditions of heavy traffic in hot weather.
If the in service air voids are greater than about 7% for a fine mix (slightly less in
coarse graded mix) the mix will be more permeable to air and moisture and that will
adversely impact durability.
The following laboratory tests can be useful for volumetric analysis in the mix design:
British Standard Refusal Density (BS RD)
Marshall Compaction (@ 75 / 75 blows subsequently referred to simply as

Marshall)
It could also be useful to characterize any existing asphalt that has performed
satisfactorily at the site, under known traffic conditions and subsequently evaluate its
suitability for use in similar applications. (e.g. if construction records are unavailable,
then take representative cores and determine bulk density, modulus, maximum
theoretical density , PSD, binder content, binder viscosity.
The BS RD (BS 598 Part 104) provides a benchmark density value i.e. the practical
maximum density of any mix. For practical mix design purposes for an industrial
pavement, subjected to heavy channelised traffic, it can be assumed the in service
mix density will approach the maximum density (especially unmodified bitumen
mixes). Mix optimisation then is achieved by determining the binder content to give
the target air voids (Va) 3% at BS RD.
For wearing course applications other than under channelised traffic (including heavy
front loaders) 75 blow Marshall mixes have a history of good performance. It is
speculated that deformation resistance of the Marshall mixes under these loading
conditions is adequate because even at low field voids, deformation at the surface is
ironed out or rectified by the random traffic path.
The comparison of Marshall and BS RD density is useful and may provide interim
guidance for mix targets. As a suggestion, Table 2 is designed to provide information
on laboratory optimisation conditions, subject to subsequent verification by in service
measures.
Pavement Materials
Table 2: Suggested mix design target air voids (Va) relative to design conditions
Traffic condition
Wearing course
Basecourse
asphalt (> 75 mm
cover)
Subbase asphalt (>

150 mm cover)
Heavy channelised
traffic
Va = 3% @ BS RD
Va = 2% @ BS RD
Va = 1% @ BS RD
or Va = 4% @ 75
Blow Marshall
Heavy random
traffic
Va = 1% @ BS RD
or Va = 5% @ 75
Blow Marshall
Va 4% *@ 75 Blow
Marshall
Va 3% *@ 75 Blow
Marshall
The BS RD has its origins in compaction compliance testing for subbase asphalt with
a minimum requirement of 96% BS RD for acceptance (on layers > 75 mm thick
approximately). In the preceding table this would ensure 5% voids at construction
a desirable target. Further the evidence of good performance of 75 blow Marshall
mixes suggests subsequent traffic compaction does not reduce voids to critical
levels.
It has been observed that well-compacted mixes containing thermoplastic rubber
polymer binders do not compact significantly under traffic. Therefore target air voids
could be reduced by approximately 1% when these materials are used in the asphalt.
Note, these values are provided as a general guide and have had limited empirical
verification. The user is advised to verify the design assumptions against field
experience wherever possible. Complete laboratory testing on asphalt mixes
should always be carried out and combined with field data whenever possible.
19
20
Pavement Materials
Other Issues
Asphalt manufactured with conventional bitumen or SBS based PMB can be prone to
degradation on exposure to hydraulic fluid and fuel leaks. In short, these materials
can soften the binder resulting in a significantly reduced resistance to deformation
and mechanical damage.
Other polymers may resist the softening effect and suppliers should be consulted.
The Shell FuelSafe binder has exhibited substantially improved resistance to
damage by hydrocarbon spills. The PRS Rigiphalte product referred to in the
following provides significant resistance to both chemical and mechanical damage.
Pavement Materials
Composite/ Resin Modified

Asphalt
A number of composite products known generically as Resin Modified Asphalt
(RMA) offer enhanced toughness which can make it a desirable wearing course for
heavy duty pavements. These RMA materials consist of an asphalt carrier mix with
high air voids. An extremely low viscosity highly modified cementitious grout is then
pumped into the voids and vibrated to remove air pockets. This composite material
has improved resistance to mechanical and chemical damage while the bituminous
carrier mix has the ability to absorb shrinkage strains and inhibit cracking. Its high
crushing strength makes it ideal for use in container stack areas to resist deformation
under the highly channelised straddle traffic and to resist crushing under container
corner castings.
The RMA materials have higher stiffness relative to asphalt and may fatigue under
repeated flexure. Their performance parameters (modulus and fatigue) can be
entered into HIPAVE and evaluated as part of the design analyses. In the longer
term it may also be prudent to conduct pavement deflection testing (see below) to
establish tolerable limits to confirm the adequacy of the pavement foundation support
to avoid premature fatigue failure of the RMA.
A comparison of the dynamic modulus of the PRS Rigiphalte and a typical asphalt
surfacing at a slow loading frequency (1Hz) is given in Figure 8 on page 47. It is
observed that the Rigiphalte product has significantly higher modulus and elastic
performance parameters over the temperature spectrum.
21
22
Pavement Materials
Granular Material
The depth and quality of unbound granular material is a critical parameter in the
heavy duty pavement design process. This layer assists in providing adequate
support for the surfacing materials and also provides resistance to rutting in the
subgrade due to shear failure. The properties required in granular layers are a
function of the applied traffic stress level and load frequency over the design period.
The required depth of selected layers will vary with subgrade strength.
The strength of granular materials varies with applied load stress which sets up
mechanical interlock within the granular matrix and higher stress results in higher
stiffness in the aggregate matrix. The stiffness of an unbound granular layer is also
dependent on the stiffness of support layers and this diminishes with depth in the
pavement. Hence, it is important to utilize unbound granular materials of quality
appropriate to the position in the structure. Well compacted high strength aggregates
are required for high stress locations close to the surface. At lower levels in the
pavement, lesser quality aggregates may be used, provided they are of sufficient
quality to mobilise the assigned layer stiffness. Examination of the stress distribution
throughout the granular layer (e.g. by inspecting HIPAVE outputs), enables
determination of material property needs (strength) throughout the pavement
structure.
A good starting point is to examine applicability of local State Road Agency
specifications for highway pavements, for use in heavy duty off-road pavements. The
specifications relate to material quality and compaction requirements. Attention must
be paid to layer thickness, in relation to maximum particle size and density
requirements. Close attention must also be given to ensure high construction
standards as discussed in some detail in sectionand experience has taught that
premature failure is most often related to poor construction practice and less to
material selection.
Pavement Materials
Stabilised Material
Unbound pavement materials can be stabilized by either chemical and/or mechanical
processes. Chemical stabilization involves mixing additives such as bitumen or
cement in quantities and to layer depths as determined by the pavement design
requirements. Granular materials treated with bitumen or hydraulic binders (such as
cement) are generally referred to as stabilised if they are to act as a bound layer or
modified if they are to act as an unbound layer with improved properties such as
reduced plasticity. Engineering judgment needs to be exercised in modeling the
resulting material. .A suggested delimiter between stabilised and modified
conditions, is a UCS (7 day cured) of 0.8 MPa. Definition or determination of the
degree of stabilisation is important, since a stiff, stabilised material will be prone to
flexural fatigue and hence needs to be considered in the design.
The material can be produced in a mixing plant or in-situ, using special equipment.
The plant produced product, in general, should be of better quality due to enhanced
product control in terms of uniformity of raw material and mixing. Conversely, the
quality / variation of in-situ stabilised material may not be fully known, as it is a
function of the random sampling regime. Refer to Austroads (2006b) for further
reading on additives.
Stabilised materials are usually described as modified if only a relatively low level of
binder is added (such as up to about 2% by mass). The addition of low quantities of
lime or cement may serve to reduce the plasticity and improve marginal granular
material such that it doesnt act as a bound layer. If high quantities of cement are
used (e.g. > 2% by mass) shrinkage cracking may ensue, which may reflect through
to the surface. Experience in highway applications suggests that shrinkage cracks
from cement treated subbase layers is substantially retarded when there is at least
175 mm cover. However the caution is noted that the rate of reflection may be related
to the magnitude of vehicle loading.
The type and quantity of stabilant affects the assigned modulus for the layer which
should be determined by laboratory testing. The curing conditions and compaction in
the field can have a significant affect on the modulus and fatigue performance of
bound layers.
Prudence also needs to be exercised in the adoption of the fatigue performance
parameters especially for variable materials. Ideally, some laboratory fatigue
characterization should be done, to gauge the material performance and check the
validity of any assumed fatigue performance relationship. In the conduct of the
flexure test an appropriate density must be replicated recognizing the effect of
compaction density gradient and potential reduction at the bottom of the bound layer.
Generally the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) is used as a specification
parameter. A number of empirical UCS modulus relationships exist (e.g. modulus
equals 1000 UCS (MPa)) and the pavement designer should be aware of the
substantial range in the scale of factors.
23
24
Pavement Materials
The fatigue performance of stabilised material is a problematic design issue because

of the change in material performance with time (curing),the effects of fluctuation in
density and moisture content and the effect of shrinkage cracking. Great care needs
to be taken in the pavement design especially where the stabilised material is a
significant determinant of overall pavement design life. Refer to section 6 below, for
further discussion.
Materials can also be mechanically stabilised, by blending components without
necessarily the need for binding agents (chemical additives). In such cases, the
components are blended in proportions to achieve a target PSD and Atterberg Limits
and ideally the product strength should then be assessed, using CBR &/or Repeated
Load Triaxial (RLT) testing, which may also be valid for modified materials.
Pavement Materials
Subgrade
The determination of an appropriate modulus of the subgrade layer for heavy duty
pavements is similar to highway and road pavement structures. Designers are
advised to refer to Chapters 4 and 5 of Austroads (2004), or the usual local
standard, for advice on characterizing subgrade materials.
However industrial pavements are often located in areas of extremely complex and
very weak geological conditions with for instance extremely thick layers of saturated
estuarine silts. The designer is cautioned that particularly in the case of extremely
weak or saturated subgrade conditions the need for detailed and competent
geotechnical exploration is essential to ensure a complete understanding of the
conditions and the associated risks (refer Rollings and Rollings, 2005 and ASCE,
2001). While pavement thickness design may ensure the subgrade is adequately
protected to limit deformation by shear failure, geotechnical advice is essential to
prevent the potential for substantially greater loss of shape due to differential
consolidation.
It is noted that the subgrade stress distribution in heavy duty pavements is
significantly different than that occurring normally in road pavements, due to the
higher magnitude of loading and load duration. It is important, therefore to recognize
that subgrade performance models used routinely for highway pavement design are
generally not applicable for pavements subjected to loading by much heavier
vehicles that impart far higher stresses in the pavement and with greater areas
(depths) of influence on material behaviour. Refer to Section: Subgrade Properties
and Performance Models on page 43 below for further details.
25
Traffic
Traffic
The following sections detail typical heavy duty traffic considerations for the design of
heavy duty flexible pavements for ports and terminal container areas.
27
28
Traffic
Vehicle Types
In order to design a heavy duty pavement, it is important to have detailed information
on the types of vehicles that will operate on the site. It is possible that both off-road
and heavy road-use commercial vehicles, such as semi-trailers, may traffic the site.
Initial contact should therefore be made with the facility operator, to obtain details of
the type of vehicles using the site, including their load configurations and paths
through the site.
A wide range of vehicle types are used at intermodal/container terminals such as
straddle carriers, forklifts, gantry cranes, and semi-trailers.
For mechanistic pavement design, it is important to know what the typical wheel
loads are for any given payload on the vehicle. Theoretically these loads can be
calculated from the geometry and mass of the vehicle. A more practical approach is
to use axle load values given in specifications provided by equipment manufacturers.
This approach is used in HIPAVE.
Container handling equipment can be broadly sub-divided into two categories
according to the load transfer characteristics:
unequal loads on each axle; and
equal loads on each axle.
Traffic
Unequal Axle Loads

At ports and container terminals, there are many vehicles that have unequal axle
loads. Examples of these vehicles are Fork Lifts and Reach Stackers.
In this case, the vehicle loading characteristics are specified in terms of two load
cases that express the axle loads as a function of Container Weight. For example
this could be the Unladen case together with one specific Container Weight.
Figure 3 below illustrates the concept of unequal axle loads. Axle loads for other
container weights are obtained automatically by linear interpolation.
Figure 3: Load Distribution and Position of an Unequal Axle Load Using HIPAVE
Equal Axle Loads

Vehicles such as straddle carriers are assumed to have equal loads on each axle. In
this case the vehicle loading characteristics are specified in terms of the unladen and
laden weights of the vehicle, the number of axle rows (i.e. the number of axles seen
from one side of the vehicle), the total number of wheels on the vehicle and the tyre
pressure. The traffic analysis should therefore consider the number of trips in the
design area by both laden and unladen vehicles.
29
30
Traffic
Coordinate System for Vehicles

In the evaluation of vehicles, the X axis is taken as the direction transverse to the
lane as shown in Figure 4. To ensure consistency between results for different
vehicle types it is recommended that X = 0 correspond to the lane centreline. Usually
all vehicles are assumed to have their centrelines at X=0.
Figure 4: Example of Coordinate Positioning

Figure 5 illustrates the convention used to define the wheel locations. This example
is for a Hyster Fork Lift -Model H40.00-16CH. HIPAVE will normally model the two
axle loadings as separate components, with the front axle (assumed to be on Y=0) as
component 1 and the rear axle as component 2. Modelling the two axles as separate
components means that the two axles are modelled as two separate load cases, i.e.
there is (assumed to be ?) no interaction between axle loads. In practice, it is usually
only necessary to model the wheels on one side (X 0) of the vehicle, however, it
may be prudent to model the whole axle, to verify whether there is interaction
between the wheels . It may also be prudent to model all axle groups in one load
case, where the distance between axles is similar to the width of the vehicle.
Traffic
Figure 5: Wheel Load Location for a Hyster Fork Lift Model H40.00-16CH
31
32
Traffic
Vehicle Wander
Vehicle Wander is the design parameter representing the directional tracking width of
the vehicle, which usually can be represented by a normal distribution, or wander
width, around a notional centre-line along the vehicle path. It is important for the
pavement designer to recognize that vehicles at ports and container terminals may
not always travel along the confined wheel-paths due to the scale of the site and
nature of the operations. Thus, the facility owner should be consulted about details of
typical vehicle movements, including apparent wander width, which the designer can
then use in the design model. One of the unique features of HIPAVE is that it is able
to model vehicle wander, enabling economical pavement design
It should be noted that vehicle wander is not normally considered in routine road
pavement design, due to the narrow lane width, hindering any significant wander.
However, in the design of heavy duty pavements, it should be considered as it can
have a significant impact on long term performance of the pavement structure and
hence, pavement construction cost. For example at ports, gantry crane areas may
result in manouevres that are heavily channelised while in other areas where
vehicles are not as restricted, there might be extensive wander.
Traffic
Payload Distribution
Estimating the payload distribution is a critical component of the pavement design
process. The relative proportions of each container weight in the overall spectrum
are important for economical pavement design. A relatively small number of heavy
loads may be more damaging than a higher number of smaller loads. It is also
important to account for the fact that each vehicle will handle a range of container
weights or payloads.
Ideally, the designer should be able to to specify the detailed container weight
distributions. For example, the British Ports Association Guide (1996) includes
information on container weight frequency spectrum, based on data provided by
United Kingdom (UK) ports. Figure 6 shows the container weight distribution for 40
foot containers. HIPAVE, in contrast to other existing techniques, does not force the
designer to use a single design container weight, or to convert all vehicle
characteristics to repetitions of an equivalent design vehicle or load. HIPAVE
allows the designer to input detailed container weight distributions which ultimately
provides a more realistic impact of payload distribution on the pavement structure.
33
34
Traffic
Figure 6: Container weight distribution for 40 foot containers at UK ports (British

Ports Association 1996).
Care should be taken to ensure that the container load spectrum is reasonably up to
date. For example, the summary data provided by the British Ports Association
Guide (3rd edn, 1996), is the same as used in the second edition (1986) so is at
least 20 years old. Data provided by some major Australian port terminals suggest
that the peak loads may be 4-5 tonnes higher than the BPA data.
Traffic
35
Traffic Growth
The compound growth of traffic volume is commonly specified as a percentage
increase in annual traffic volumes. If compound growth is constant throughout the
design period, the cumulative growth factor over the design period can be calculated
as shown in Equation 3.
=
Cumulative Growth Factor (CGF)

=
(1 + 0.01R)P 1
0.01R
for R > 0
for R = 0
[3]
where R = Annual Growth Rate (%), and

P = Design Period (years).
Table 3 below provides values of CGF for a representative range of design periods
and annual growth rates, P and R respectively.
Table 3: Cumulative Growth Factor (CGF)
Design
Period (P)
Annual Growth Rate (R)

(%)
(years)
10
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.6
5.9
6.1
10
10
10.5
10.9
11.5
12.0
13.2
14.5
15.9
15
15
16.1
17.3
18.6
20.0
23.3
27.2
31.8
20
20
22.0
24.3
26.9
29.8
36.8
45.8
57.3
25
25
28.2
32.0
36.5
41.6
54.9
73.1
98.3
30
30
34.8
40.6
47.6
56.1
79.1
113.3
164.5
35
35
41.7
50.0
60.5
73.7
111.4
172.3
271.0
40
40
48.9
60.4
75.4
95.0
154.8
259.1
442.6
36
Traffic
Dynamic and Static Structural

Loading
The pavement designer also needs to have an accurate representation of the
structural loading on the pavement. This data can often be obtained by the facility
owner or from the vehicle equipment suppliers. Information on the typical range of
possible loadings on the vehicles should also be incorporated into the design.
Special attention should be given to high stress areas such as situations where
vehicles conduct tight turns/ cornering manoeuvres, braking/acceleration, or in areas
where the dynamic effects associated with rough surfacings can be of critical
importance. In short, these areas result in higher stress and it is appropriate in those
situations to apply a load multiplication factor. Table 4 provides some guidance on
how to address this situation and is based on British Port Association (1986, 1996).
Traffic
Table 4: Suggested Load Factors to Address High Stress Areas

Load Factor*
Vehicle
Braking Cornering Acceleration Uneven
Surface
Front Lift
Truck
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.2
Straddle
Carrier
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.2
Side Lift
Truck
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.2
Tractor &
Trailer
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
*Note: where conditions apply simultaneously, the factors should be multiplied

together.
The values provided in Table 4 are provided as guidance. However, engineering
judgement / experience should be exercised in adopting load factors.
For example:
1) In an area where a front lift truck is exposed to an uneven surface, a load
factor of 1.2 could be applied.
2) In an area where the side lift truck is accelerating and also exposed to a
corner, the load factor could be 1.1 *1.3 = 1.43
The pavement loading is usually represented in the design model, as circular loading,
at constant tyre stress, as applied by the tyre footprints. It is likely, in reality, that the
tyre footprint is more of an elliptical contact area, with non-uniform contact stress, but
a circular contact area is adopted to simplify calculations. Furthermore, the design
of thin asphalt surfaced pavements, under heavy point loads, may be considered
problematic due to the size of the load footprint and magnitude of the load, in relation
to the layer thickness (refer to further discussion on Asphalt Fatigue page #).
At this point in time, a simple approach to modeling the various effects is a
reasonable assumption. However, it is important to note there are some
shortcomings with current knowledge about the interaction of closely spaced axle
groups and subsequent recommendations (Wardle et al, 1999), particularly in relation
to assessing stresses & strains in the subgrade area.
37
38
Traffic
Modelling of Multiple Wheels

and Axle Groups
HIPAVE lets you model the pavement with the actual wheel layouts of the vehicles
that operate on the pavement. Care needs to be taken to select which wheels to
include in the model. Extensive research gives us guidance on choosing the "right"
combination of wheels to include in the model. Using more wheels can lead to
inaccurate model predictions (Wardle et al, 1999). Further details are given in the
HIPAVE User Manual (Wardle, 2005).
The recommended model for base/sub-base materials and subgrade performance
relationship recommended for heavy duty loads is described below (Material
Properties and Performance Models on page 43). This methodology was derived
from full-scale aircraft pavement tests conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers
at their Waterways Experiment Station (WES). These 'WES' tests were essentially
conducted using single gear assemblies. No tests were carried out to investigate the
increased damage that might result due to interaction effects of adjacent gear
assemblies. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to prediction of damage for
aircrafts that have main gears in close proximity. APSDS has been used to study
multiple gear interaction effects for a Boeing 747 and 777 aircraft using a range of
alternative damage models (Rodway 1995a, Wardle and Rodway 1998, Rodway,
Wardle and Wickham 1999). Results from these studies show that the successful
calibration of simplified design models against the full-scale test data does not create
a capability to confidently extrapolate beyond the limits of the test data. The studies
showed that simple damage models give unrealistic predictions for the damage
caused by all sixteen main wheels of the aircraft when compared to that computed
for a single isolated 4-wheel gear. Three different performance models, each of
which gave a similar 'goodness of fit' to the full-scale test data, gave greatly different
predictions of the damage caused by the interactions of the sixteen main wheels.
The differences between the alternative predictions increased with increasing depth
to subgrade.
Given the above comments, as a general rule only groups of wheels that are within
two metres of each other should be modeled as a single load case. For example, the
most appropriate way of modeling a Fork Lift is described in the section Coordinate
System for Vehicles.
Traffic
Nature of Damage Pulses

The WES tests were performed on relatively thin pavements. In most of the test
sections the elastic models predict a distinct strain pulse at subgrade level for each
axle of a two-axle gear. For deep pavements (say 1.5 m or more) the models predict
a single combined pulse resulting from the entire gear. In other words, a two-axle
gear produces two strain pulses per pass for shallow subgrades and one strain
pulse, of significantly different shape, for deep subgrades. HIPAVE uses strain
repetitions as the basis for damage predictions, not passes or coverages. Pulse
counts and pulse shapes both change with pavement thickness. There is significant
uncertainty in the design of thick pavements because data must be extrapolated from
thinner test pavements which have narrower pulses than those expected for the
deeper subgrades. There is still no experimental data to show to what extent
pavement damage depends on the transverse and longitudinal widths of the load
pulse.
The designer is referred to the US research at the National Airport Pavement Test
Facility (NAPTF). This facility has conducted full scale pavement test loading under
simulated B747 and B777 load gear hence loading and pavement configurations are
of a similar dimension to heavy industrial pavements. Numerous researchers are
analysing the performance of the test pavements and this will lead to improvements
in the design models.
39
40
Traffic
Design Traffic Loading

Pavement damage is a function of the cumulative damage induced in the pavement
and subgrade materials, by the traffic, over the design period. The duration of the
design period affects the pavement composition and hence, construction (materials)
cost. The predictive capacity of the design, is related to the accuracy of the design
data, therefore, the facility operator should be consulted to advise on the planned
traffic usage of the site, in terms of the number and types of vehicles, throughout the
design period.
New Pavement Design
New Pavement Design
41
42
New Pavement Design
Design Period
The purpose of the pavement design, is to ensure with a high degree of confidence,
that the pavement is structurally adequate to ensure it remains in serviceable
condition, without significant maintenance expense, throughout the designated
design period.
Some suggested design periods are as follows :
rehabilitation of existing in-service pavement : 10 15 years
new pavement construction or major pavement rehabilitation : 15 25

years
The design period refers to the serviceable life of the pavement structure. It can also
be considered as the time when pavement distress, sufficient to render the facility
practically dysfunctional, occurs over a significant proportion of the area.
A distinction exists between the structural and functional performance parameters
This differentiation is important and the designer must ensure the owner understands
that that the surfacing may require cyclical rehabilitation to remedy deterioration of
the functional performance parameters, i.e. roughness and rutting, within the design
period.
The mechanistic pavement design method is outlined in Austroads 2004. HIPAVE
takes into account the effects of vehicle wander that is a much more prominent
design consideration than with roads. Depending on the operational logistics the
industrial pavement may have highly channelised traffic in tight lane configurations or
more random and wider traffic paths in roadways. Industrial pavements could be
significantly over or under designed if vehicle wander is ignored. Additionally HIPAVE
enables the estimation of damage over the design container weight spectrum, to
again avoid costly over or under design.
New Pavement Design
Material Properties and

Performance Models
A discussion of the factors that contribute to the performance of flexible pavement
structures is given in the Appendix: Material failure mode and implication on page 86.
The mode and consequence of failure of the different pavement materials will impact
the selection of pavement components. By this process the intention of this
discussion is to focus designers attention on the factors that may impact on the
realisation of the properties used in the design.
Experience has shown that poor pavement design methodology may reduce the
performance of the pavement, but poor construction quality will devastate the
performance.
Each passage of a vehicle over a unit of pavement area (and indeed within an
effective vicinity) causes damage to pavement material layers. The damage
accumulates with each vehicle pass, resulting eventually in ultimate pavement
failure. The mechanistic pavement design method attempts to determine the design
life of the pavement, in terms of number of load passes until a defined failure of the
pavement has occurred.
In the mechanistic empirical design method two separate modes of failure are
assumed; deformation due to subgrade shear failure, or fatigue cracking of layer(s) of
bound pavement materials (which will ultimately result in subgrade shear failure due
to consequent loss of load spreading). In reality both modes are a simplification of a
complex environment. Deformation may occur as a consequence of consolidation
and shear failure in pavement layers; cracking and loss of strength may occur in
some pavement materials not as a consequence of fatigue.
Care needs to be taken to ensure that realistic data is input and that material
performance models used in design are valid for the load case under consideration.
There currently is no widely accepted purely mechanistic pavement design
undertaken and a semi-empirical / mechanistic approach is usually adopted.
Subgrade performance models are currently empirically based on field trials,
correlating axle group passes to deformation (usually 20 mm deep rut) in various
subgrade soil conditions (strengths). The asphalt component is designed to resist
premature deformation and premature flexural fatigue induced cracking, with the
former catered for in the mix design process and the latter in the pavement thickness
design process.
Subgrade Properties and Performance Models

In general practice in Australia the stiffness or modulus of the subgrade ESG (MPa) is
related to the CRB in the general relationship
ESG (MPa) = 10.0 CBR
43
44
New Pavement Design
It must be understood that this is but one of numerous modulus/CBR relationships

that have been derived by various researchers. However the value of assigned
subgrade modulus is probably less critical to the outcome than the accuracy of the
damage models used in the design. In the derivation of the following subgrade
deformation model the above relationship was used. It must be understood that if a
different relationship were used, a different damage model would be derived.
Caution should be exercised before adopting road-based models for design in offroad situations, such as airports and ports, because of the much greater magnitude
of loading with the latter cases and non-linearity of subgrade behavior. In general,
the subgrade strain relationship, can be expressed as follows:
N
Where
= (k / )b
[4]
predicted design life (at strain level )
material (subgrade) constant
material damage exponent
load induced strain in the material
Wardle et al (2001) report on the US Army Corps of Engineers CBR method (Method
S77-1), for design of flexible aircraft pavements, which has yielded generally
satisfactory pavement performance, when used for design of pavements over a
range of subgrade strengths and vehicle loadings. Wardle et al (2001) report the
results of back-analysis pavements on subgrades from CBR 3 15%, for aircraft
masses ranging from 40 397 tonnes, using APSDS to derive the performance
constants k and b (see above), below. Accordingly, the following subgrade
performance model is suggested for aircraft between 40 400 tonnes (tyre pressures
listed in Wardle et al (2001)), for subgrade design CBR ranging from 3 15 %, for
10,000 to 100,000 vehicle passes during the design period:
k
(1.64 x 10-9 x E3) (4.31 x 10-7 xE2) + (2.18 x 10-5 x E) + 0.00289
(-2.12 x 10-7 x E3) + (8.38 x 10-4 x E2) (0.0274 x E) + 9.57
subgrade modulus (MPa; usually expressed as 10 x CBR )
The above performance relationships may be used with prudence, for design of
pavements supporting heavy off-road vehicles, such as at ports / container terminals.
More recently analyses of the performance data from the full scale trials at the
National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) has been carried out (Lancaster
2006) in an attempt to improve the empirical verification of our design models. The
findings from those analyses were inconclusive because of the various failure
mechanisms observed however the analyses did not indicate a need to change the
current modeling practices.
New Pavement Design
Unbound Granular Material Properties

The performance of the unbound granular layers is governed by the material
specifications rather than thickness design. In other words it is assumed that the
specification ensures that the materials used will resist crushing and shear failure
under the applied stress. The adequacy of this approach is demonstrated empirically
in the generally good performance of these materials in heavy duty industrial and
airport pavements internationally. Historically failures in well specified granular base
layers have been due to the effects of poor construction practice, excess moisture
and other factors rather than inherent material inadequacy.
The derivation of the subgrade performance model (previous section) resulted from
analyses using the Barker-Brabston method derived at the US Corp of Engineers has
been calculated and is shown in Figure 7 below.
1000
US CORP OF ENGINEERS (ARMY TM 5-825-2-1)

SUBLAYERING FOR UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS
MODULUS OF UPPER LAYER (MPa)
E2 500 MPa
E2 320 MPa
E1 150 MPa
t = 200 mm Base
t = 150 mm Base
100
t = 100 mm Base
t = 200 mm Subbase
t = 150 mm Subbase
t = 100 mm Subbase
10
10
100
MODULUS OF SUPPORT LAYER (MPa)
1000
Figure 7: Sublayering of Unbound Granular Layers (after Barker and Brabston, 1975)
The stiffness of unbound granular layers varies with;

1
the quality of the aggregate (base or subbase material) soundness, durability,

particle size distribution, angularity, etc.
the thickness of the layer, and
the stiffness of the supporting layer
moisture content (or saturation ratio) and PI
stress-state
relative density
45
46
New Pavement Design
The Barker-Brabston model and the derived subgrade damage model assumes the
granular layers to be isotropic. Preliminary analyses of the NAPTF trial data is being
evaluated to test this model and results to date do not indicate a need for change.
It is assumed that the specification limits of strength and durability will ensure the
preservation of the layer stiffness. Empirical evidence suggests this is the case and
there is no evidence of failures attributed to aggregate breakdown in compliant
materials.
To ensure the mobilisation of the Barker-Brabston base layer moduli the contract
documents must specify compaction to be 100% modified compaction and dry back
to <70% Degree of Saturation (DOS).
To ensure compaction achievement and to minimise the effects of interface
conditions construction layer thickness for granular layers should be between 100
mm and 150 mm. Thin layers are potentially at greater risk than thick layers and
delamination at the top of the base layer (caused by rework and over-watering) must
be avoided catastrophic failure of the wearing surface may be the consequence.
Some natural gravels can also provide satisfactory performance, whilst possibly not
conforming totally with standard specifications for quarry produced crushed rock
however, engineering judgement should be exercised when analyzing properties of
the natural gravel (e.g. PSD, PI) and ideally additional testing such as soaked CBR
and Repeated Load Triaxial Testing should be done to evaluate the material
performance, for ranking against standard materials.
On major projects the examination of the source rock by geotechnical engineers is
prudent to ensure the granular materials will exhibit adequate durability in the project
climatic and hydrological environment.
Asphalt Properties and Performance Models

The measurement of asphalt materials modulus is now routinely carried out in
Australia and elsewhere using the Indirect Tensile Test (ITT) method. Likewise
asphalt fatigue testing is routinely carried out in Australia using the beam flexure test
method (Austroads, 2006a) to derive flexural modulus and fatigue performance
parameters.
The stiffness of asphalt and corresponding response to load is significantly affected
by the pavement temperature in service. Figure 8 and the predictive models illustrate
the moduli for dense graded asphalt over the range of operating conditions and is
compared against the composite resin modified asphalt product Rigiphalte. It is
observed as would be expected the latter is both stiffer and less affected by
temperature increase.
New Pavement Design
Table 5: Typical Modulus (MPa) of Asphalt

Traffic speed (km/h)
Temperature (C)
0-5 km/hr
10-20 km/hr
50 km/hr
10
12,500
15,000
16,300
15
9,600
12,600
14,000
20
6,900
9,900
11,200
25
4,600
7,300
8,600
30
2,800
5,500
6,200
35
1,700
3,4005
4,300
The designer should be aware of the range in operating conditions and then select
representative values for design considering as well the typical environmental
variations. Refer to Dickinson (1981) for further details of observed temperature
fluctuations by season and depth in asphalt in Australia.
The weighted Mean Annual Pavement Temperature (wMAPT) approach has proven
to be reasonable and the following relationship to Mean Annual Air Temperature
(MAAT) is derived from the Austroads pavement design guide. Essentially the
wMAPT is the notional pavement temperature at which the design traffic causes the
same damage as the segmented traffic over the temperature spectrum.
wMAPT = 1.3 MAAT + 5 (oC)
DYNAMIC MODULUS E* V TEMPERATURE FREQUENCY 10 Hz
DYNAMIC MODULUS E* (MPa)
100000
10000
Rigiphalte
AC 14 MTD
1000
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
PAVEMENT TEMPERATURE (oC)
45
50
Figure 8: Comparison of the unconfined dynamic modulus of asphalt and Rigiphalte

over the typical operational temperature range. ......
47
48
New Pavement Design
With the improved dynamic modulus characterisation available from the SPT a more
rigorous analysis is possible. On conclusion of the HIPAVE spectral damage
analysis the user may reduce the traffic to a selected number of passages of a single
extreme load case and determine damage. The dynamic modulus of the asphalt
and traffic spectrum can then be manually input to represent the full temperature and
traffic spectrum. The damage at each temperature and traffic spectrum is estimated
and the cumulative damage summed and compared with the damage calculated at
wMAPT. In future development of HIPAVE the spectral damage related to
temperature may be automated.
While the fatigue data is not used as a specification parameter its application over
many years has established confidence in conservative nature of the asphalt fatigue
models used in design practice (refer to the Shell method following). The flexure test
is of most value in the evaluation of alternative binders, with the limitation being that
the relationship between field and laboratory performance is uncertain and has not
had substantial empirical validation in the Australian environment.
It is known that the fatigue performance of asphalt in the field is considerably greater
than in the laboratory (at given tensile strain). This is thought to be primarily due to
the effects of the healing of micro-cracks in the bitumen binder in warm conditions
during rest periods between loads. The Strategic Highways Research Program
(SHRP) from their comparison of laboratory (NLAB) and field (NFIELD) asphalt fatigue
suggests Shift Factor (SF) of 10 to 14 for 85% and 50% design reliability i.e.
(NFIELD) = SF. (NLAB)
One of the limitations of the laboratory asphalt fatigue test is that it is a continuous
cyclical test at a low temperature in order to complete testing within a reasonable
timeframe. These test conditions do not allow healing of the micro-cracks.
Consequently caution is advised in the interpretation of fatigue in mixes with Polymer
Modified Binder (PMB) because research suggests the healing of binder may be
inhibited by the polymer components.
Considering the magnitude of many industrial pavement projects the cost of specific
materials characterisation is warranted although it must be understood that the
relationship between the laboratory and field performance data is not yet well
calibrated. Notwithstanding, it is valuable to use the laboratory test data as a point of
verification of the input parameters used in the design process. In time, these data
bases will be established and will provide valuable insight into performance.
At the initial pavement design stage the use of predictive models for stiffness and
fatigue performance are considered adequate. A number of approaches of greater or
lesser complexity are available and their use is preferable to simply adopting typical
values. The application of the predictive methods gives the designer a better feel for
the critical mix parameters. One such method based on the Shell Pavement Design
Guide is available in an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that may be downloaded from
www.mincad.com.au/hdipdg .
New Pavement Design
Internationally the trend is to use the triaxial test methods such as the US Simple
Performance Test (SPT) to determine the dynamic modulus of asphalt over the range
of temperature and load frequency (refer to appendix X) expected in the field. For
each material a master curve is developed to enable the designer to input asphalt
properties that enable the estimation of damage across the full climatic spectrum.
This facilitates the move away from the simplifying weighted Mean Annual Pavement
Temperature (wMAPT) approach often used for road pavement design. While this
approach has served us well over decades and seems to be appropriate for
conventional binders it does not adequately treat modified binders because of the
consequent changes in temperature sensitivity.
Interestingly for airport applications (where similar load magnitude to ports are
applied) the US Department of Army & Air Force Technical Manuals (Nov. 1989) TM
5-825-8-1 and AFM 88-6, respectively, state that 75 125 mm asphalt thickness
generally suffices, over a thick granular pavement, provided that: it must be
assumed that if the minimum thickness of asphalt is used as specified in TM 5-825-2
/ AFM 88-6 Chapter 2, then fatigue cracking will not be considered. Thus, for a
conventional pavement, the design problem is one of determining the thickness of
pavement required to protect the subgrade, with adequate controls in place for the
granular components (i.e. material, quality, density, susbsurface moisture control
etc).
This compares with the empirical performance observation of Australian ports where
150 mm asphalt on unbound granular base materials has given good performance
over decades and fatigue cracking in the wheelpaths has generally not been
observed The empirical evidence suggests the pavement thickness required to
protect the subgrade provides sufficiently strong support to protect the asphalt from
fatigue, with adequate controls in place for the granular components (i.e. material,
quality, density, subsurface moisture control etc).
The designer is cautioned about the reliability of the analysis of thin layers
particularly wearing surfaces. In the design models it is assumed the layers are
homogeneous, the tyre contact stress is uniform and normal to the surface. In
practice it is difficult to compact thin asphalt layers so their properties will be different
to similar materials placed at greater depth; tyre stress is far from uniform and often
has a considerable shear force component due to the tyre properties and
acceleration.
It is suggested that the analysis of layers of thickness < 50% of the model tyre
contact radius be treated with caution. In highway conditions this relates to layer
thickness < 40 mm; in heavy duty applications 80 mm is probably more appropriate.
49
50
New Pavement Design
Cement Stabilised Material Performance Models

Only limited research has been conducted into the performance of cement stabilised
pavement materials in Australia and a number of research needs have been
identified by ARRB (Jameson, 1995). The range of exponents used by various
agencies for the fatigue performance relationships (e.g. 8 to 18), is considered
testament to the significant variation in performance expectation of these materials.
The uncertainty is exacerbated by the varying gravel properties and cement content,
the effects of curing prior to traffic exposure (including construction traffic) and
potential loss of performance because of debonding of cement treated layers.
Shrinkage cracking during curing and cracking at construction joint appear to be
inevitable. It is also apparent that density profiles can be expected in deeper lift
construction and may further complicate material performance prediction.
In Australia there is no routine testing to measure the modulus or fatigue
performance parameters used in design analyses. Typically the material is specified
by a minimum Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) requirement. In the
AustRoads PDG an empirical relationship is give to derive modulus from the UCS
parameter but research has shown this relationship to have a substantial variation.
Thus the designer is faced with the adoption of rather arbitrary modulus values in the
analysis to determine critical stress/strain magnitude. The relevance of the design
process is then further constrained by the paucity of current research into the
damage model i.e. what is the critical tensor (stress or strain) and what are the
material constants and damage exponent?
The designer is directed to South African (SA) research on cement stabilised
pavements. The extensive SA research on the topic and full scale trials using the
Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) would imply that this approach is state of the art. In
short, in SA, it involves a three phase damage model for CTB; crack initiation, crack
propagation and finally crushing reverting to the properties of the unbound granular
component Caution is given regarding the relative magnitude of loading in the
research and the stress sensitivity of cement bound materials
The cement treated layers are not usually placed in the upper pavement layers, to
avoid reflection cracking in the surface layer.
There is empirical evidence of good performance of cement stabilised subbase
layers when placed on hydraulically placed sand. The use of an unbound granular
base (typically about 250 mm thick) in this case appeared to inhibit reflection
cracking in the asphalt wearing surface. In other facilities, when placed on fine
grained estuarine silty clay, the cement treated materials appeared to suffer
significant erosion at the cracks resulting in poor functional performance. The use of
geofabric materials or other filter media should be explored.
52
Environment
Environment
New Pavement Design
Drainage (surface and

subsurface)
The designer must consider the moisture regime within the total pavement structure
and conduct the design accordingly. Consideration therefore must be given to both
surface and subsurface drainage requirements and particularly the location of the
Water Table in relation to the Finished Surface Level of the pavement. It is also
important to consider the relative permeability of the pavement layers, to avoid the
potential for development of excessive pore water pressures within the pavement,
especially for unbound granular materials.
53
54
Environment
Subgrade Volume Change

The degree of pavement surface smoothness is an important performance parameter
which can affect the safety and ride quality of transport vehicles in heavy duty
pavements. Pavement smoothness may be affected by pavement failure (e.g.
deformation) and/or volume changes in expansive clay subgrades, which may have
an influence extending beyond one metre above the reactive material. Another
cause of subgrade volume change can be related to the consolidation settlement
particularly in saturated silty subgrades.
The designer is again cautioned about need for expert geotechnical advice
particularly in locations with weak and/or saturated subgrade conditions.
New Pavement Design
Weathering / ageing
Bituminous surfacing materials are exposed to the extremes of the weather as well
as loading. The bitumen in the mix will suffer oxidative hardening in the event high
air voids exist due to poor mix design or construction practices. The ageing of the
wearing surface is slow if the insitu air voids are reduced to 5% by construction and
traffic compaction. The soundness of the aggregate component must be defined in
the specification.
55
57
58
General
As stated previously deficiencies in established design methods and practices may
have a minor impact on pavement performance whereas poor construction quality
can devastate performance.
The specifier must ensure the contractor has quality assurance procedures in place
during the construction process, and conduct audits to monitor compliance with
design standards. This may include materials performance testing to verify the
assumed values of the pavement design components have been realised.
The use of deflection testing during construction is recommended. The recording of
deflection data at key steps in the construction sequence, e.g. at the completion of
the construction platform be it a capping layer or compacted subgrade; and at the
completion of the granular basecourse, may be compared with the deflection
calculated using the analytical model and thereby confirm (or otherwise) the input
parameters.
This is considered benchmark data and subsequent pavement performance
monitoring over the long term will enable the fine tuning of critical benchmark
deflection limits to substantially reduce the risk of failure in heavy duty pavement
facilities.
In recent times lightweight hand held falling weight deflection devices have become
available and comparative testing with the larger FWDs has shown reasonable
results with some of the alternatives.
Compaction, Workability and

Layer Bonding
The proper compaction of all component layers in the pavement structure is vital for
good performance. An industrial pavement is subjected to substantial wheel loads
and the compaction equipment used must generate similar compactive effort.
Compaction testing is a routine and essential construction process and is generally
used as a surrogate measure for the more fundamental layer stiffness parameter.
Critical features of the design should be highlighted for assurance testing. Standard
road pavement specifications may not fully suffice, but can form a good basis (to
modify to suit).
Over weak subgrade materials (CBR <5) a capping layer or construction platform
comprising select material is an essential ingredient to provide access to construction
traffic without significant shear deformation and to provide an anvil to enable the
compaction of subsequent layers. The consistency of the select capping material
and its strength under the anticipated conditions of moisture and stress must be
assured. The determination of OMC and density should be based on standard
compaction energy recognizing the possibility of low support stiffness.
For granular subbase materials the determination of OMC and density should be
based on modified compaction energy and the target density should exceed 97% of
modified compaction density
For granular base materials the determination of OMC and density should be based
on modified compaction energy and the target density should exceed 100% of
modified compaction density.
On completion of granular base layers they must be allowed to dry back to about
70% Degree Of Saturation (DOS) in order to mobilise maximum stiffness. In recent
times a number of catastrophic failures in heavy duty pavement applications have
been primarily ascribed to the neglect of this fundamental construction requirement.
The base must be primed to toughen the interface and facilitate the bond with the
asphalt surfacing. The base must be thoroughly swept with a stiff broom to remove
fines and dust and present a solid granular matrix.
59
60
If a cement treated base is utilized, uniform compaction is essential and a density

gradient must be avoided. Density at the bottom of the layer is vital to stiffness and
fatigue performance. A strong construction anvil and careful quality control is
essential for this to be achieved. In heavy duty applications the required thickness of
cement treated layer (to control fatigue) may require multi layer applications,
depending upon its location within the overall pavement. Where multiple layers of
CTB are specified specific treatments to ensure a bond at the interface are vital to
ongoing performance. Layered elastic analysis and field test results from the
Accelerated Load Facility (ALF) testing showing dramatic reductions in performance
where poor bond was achieved It is strongly recommended that placing and
compaction trials be conducted in order to verify compliance The finished CTB
surface must be primed or a curing membrane applied to assist curing and assist
bonding if asphalt is to be placed.
The workability of asphalt has a significant influence on compaction achievement.
Research (Rickards et al 2006) has shown that the gradation of the aggregate
component has a significant influence and a gradation fine of maximum density
provides best workability and the highest modulus. A maximum 20 mm nominal mix
size is recommended and 14 mm is preferred. A minimum asphalt layer thickness
five times nominal mix size is recommended to assist compaction achievement, and
up to seven times is preferred to creating another layer interface. The selection of
the recommended gradation and mix size will facilitate the establishment of a
complete bond at interfaces. Ideally asphalt should be placed on a primed surface,
or a primer sealed surface (7 mm) if construction traffic is to use the pavement. A
uniform tack coat (that resists tracking) should be applied to the primer seal and to
the prime if dusty.
Curing
Cement treated base materials will require curing prior to trafficking to ensure the
achievement of the design strength over a period of time that may vary depending on
design aims.
Resin Modified Asphalt (RMA) must be cured according to the manufacturers
directions.
61
62
Opening to Traffic
Subject only the preceding requirements for curing and surfacing, other pavement
components should normally be able to be opened to traffic on completion.
It is noted that newly placed asphalt may be relatively tender in periods of hot
weather and the surface will be scuffed by turning and sliding tyres (for instance
tridem axle groups). This is generally superficial and aesthetic damage if the asphalt
is placed at the recommended layer thickness and density.
Pavement maintenance is usually related to the pavement type, design period and
pavement failure mode(s). Routine maintenance costs may be expected to increase
towards the end of the design period, unless proactive rehabilitation treatments (i.e.
major maintenance) are conducted, to extend the pavement life.
Ideally, it would be decided in the planning phase, as to what would be tolerable
delays to the facility operation, which subsequently may influence the pavement
design.
63
64
Routine Maintenance
These activities are minor in nature and are influenced by the pavement design. The
defects are normally due to environmental factors. Typical examples of routine
maintenance would include:
Crack sealing and pothole repair
Surface Drainage Repairs such as providing minimum surface slope / crossfall; provision of pits, kerb and channel, etc. as per usual stormwater drainage
design; refer to port design standards
Subsurface Drainage Repairs such as regular inspection of outlets and pipes

flushed at least annually
Major Maintenance
Major maintenance should not normally be required, until the pavement reaches the
end of the design period, unless there are unanticipated conditions such as:
Change in facility operating conditions (traffic)
Shortcomings with the construction
Unexpected changes in environmental conditions
Shortcomings in design
Container corner castings and trailer legs impart high contact stresses, which may
cause localised pavement distress, potentially resulting in an unserviceable
pavement condition unless maintained.
Ideally, a Pavement Management System (PMS) would be implemented, involving
monitoring of key pavement performance parameters, which would enable timely
pavement treatments, with respect to both service level and budgetary
considerations.
65
66
In-Service Monitoring
Ideally, the pavement inspection protocol would be described in the Pavement
Management System document. The frequency of inspections may need to increase
in the latter part of the design period, to enable timely intervention to address signs of
any unanticipated pavement defects. Records of maintenance activities would be an
integral part of the PMS. The surveys may be done by trained inspectors using
manual methods based on visual condition rating and/or with the assistance of
automated data collection devices such as Laser Profilometers (with video imaging if
needed). For further guidance on implementation / operation of PMS refer to Haas et
al (1994).
67
68
Site Investigation
A thorough geotechnical and pavement investigation is an essential component to
the design of rehabilitation treatments. The existing pavement condition and
composition including layer types and thicknesses, subgrade type and existing
drainage conditions should be examined prior to rehabilitation. The designer must be
confident that the cause of the observed pavement defects is understood before
proceeding with rehabilitation design. It is usual that subgrade conditions would be
investigated to a much greater depth than typically done for road pavement design.
As mentioned above, pavement deflection testing may be a useful (vital) component,
to identify pavement uniformity and strengthening needs.
Functional and Structural

Condition Assessment
Poor drainage is the most common cause of pavement distress and every pavement
condition assessment must include assessment of the condition and effectiveness of
the surface and subsurface drainage system / requirements. If it is found to be
defective it is prudent to remedy the drainage problems first (or address as part of the
design, i.e. wrt inished Surface levels, level control, tied into drainage design etc)
and perhaps defer other assessments until the effect of the change can be measured
(i.e. in the event that drainage deemed to be the problem, hence retro-fit and monitor
for strength improvement, if still a serviceable pavt condition)
Deflection testing will enable the designer to assess the overall pavement strength
and variability. If visual survey and deflection testing indicate relatively isolated
weakness attention to drainage and/or pavement patching may be an appropriate
interim step to achieve a more consistent condition, depending on cause of defects.
If the weakness is shown to be consistent throughout the site, then a design for full
rehabilitation is appropriate.
By the back-calculation of the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) deflection bowl, it
is possible to derive reasonable estimates of the strength of the existing pavement
profile (however, ideally supplemented by knowledge of pavement makeup, material
properties, moisture % and subgrade strength, to refine assumptions.) The back
calculation process may be facilitated by a number of software packages or done
manually by conducting analyses iteratively modifying layer stiffness values (which
may be aided by laboratory & field testing) until a reasonable match is achieved
between the calculated and measured deflection bowl. Once the estimate of the
residual strength of the pavement layers is determined, the design of the appropriate
rehabilitation treatment continues as for a new construction using the derived values
for the remnant pavement.
69
70
Treatment Types
Functional Rehabilitation
An asphalt overlay, in conjunction with selective patching is generally the most
effective and efficient treatment to address functional deficiencies such as
roughness, rutting and cracking (depending on design life, extent of defects).
Often rutting is confined to shear failure within the asphalt layer as a consequence of
poor mix design or selection. This can be proven by cutting a trench and checking
the profile of the base layer - if the base is sound and not deformed it may be
assumed the failure is confined to the asphalt layer and it may simply be milled and
replaced with more appropriate material. Core sampling and testing of the failed
asphalt is suggested to confirm the probable cause of the deformation.
The presence of isolated minor longitudinal cracking may not warrant deflection
testing and routine maintenance and crack sealing would be the first treatment.
If fatigue cracking is evident (with or without rutting) it is an indicator of inadequate
structural capacity and deflection testing should be conducted and a rehabilitation
treatment determined by design analyses. Armed with the deflection data and the
knowledge of the pavement composition it is possible to iteratively modify the
pavement layer stiffness parameters until a reasonable match is achieved between
the measured and calculated deflection bowls. The designer must understand the
back calculation process is an inexact science but may highlight where in the
structure the main deficiencies exist. These are often in the upper layers due to high
stress and moisture ingress in which case the lower foundation layers may be
preserved. It is prudent to supplement the design projections with further field
sampling and material testing.
The repair of asphalt damage at corner castings using asphalt is generally only a
temporary fix. Consideration should be given to the use of RMA provided the
strength of the base can be assured.
Structural Rehabilitation
Subject to the satisfactory evaluation of the existing remnant pavement and the
conduct of design analyses an asphalt overlay is generally the most expedient
means of improving the bearing capacity of the pavement. Obviously there will be an
attendant elevation of the surface levels. If this is not tolerable, some of the existing
pavement must be removed and replaced, with the associated modification of the
foundation design parameters.
Reprocessing the excavated base materials through an asphalt plant has been
shown to be an effective solution. Generically known as a Bitumen Treated Base
(BTB) the material can be designed and treated to achieve performance properties
close to that of virgin asphalt materials. BTB materials evaluation prior to the design
enables the designer to input the relevant properties into the design analyses.
Another option is to in-situ stabilize (from memory, large stabilizers can readily
pulverize 100 mm AC and blend with say 150 mm granular + bitumen and cement).
71
Caveats
Caveats
Pavement design outputs are essentially dependent on the input values. As noted in
this guide, there are a number of factors, including the accuracy of input material
properties and the constraints of the layered elastic model, that will influence the
reliability of design predictions. The design values chosen for material properties are
likely to be gross simplifications of the complex and variable properties of the
pavement and subgrade materials. This should flag to the designer the importance
of empirical benchmarking and the need to revisit projects to monitor performance
against predictions to aid the verification and calibration of the design assumptions.
Although design software can produce apparently accurate solutions to problems, the
predictions cannot be any more reliable than the degree to which the calibrated
performance relations fit the original empirical data such as full scale trafficking tests.
Thus continuous long term evaluation of material, design, construction and
maintenance practices is important.
Care must be taken to ensure that the sophistication of the analysis method is
consistent with the quality of the input data. Otherwise so many assumptions must be
made about the uncertain parameters that the model predictions will be meaningless.
73
Life Cycle Costing
Life Cycle Costing
75
76
Life Cycle Costing
Analysis Period Service Life

In all premium pavements the owner / user incurs substantial costs as a
consequence of facility downtime for rehabilitation / pavement repairs or operational
traffic speed reduction due to roughness plant operator health and safety
Preliminary cost estimates can assist the selection of an optimum design period. The
annualised construction cost trends downward as the design period increases. The
annualised maintenance cost which should include the cost to the owner for facility
disruption can exceed the initial construction cost. Typically the annualized cost for
repair and rehabilitation may exhibit a minimum value. This reflects the fact that the
lighter construction for a short design period is more prone to damage by the
unplanned overload or mechanical damage. As the design period projects too far
into the future the cumulative cost of regular maintenance interventions mounts.
The designer must also specifically address each component of the pavement
structure when considering an appropriate design period. Conventional wearing
surface materials (asphalt, pavers) will suffer damage by container corner castings
and will require regular cyclical repair and replacement. This is primarily mechanical
and is slightly influenced by structural issues. Innovative materials such as the
generic resin modified asphalt (e.g. PRS Rigiphalte) provide longer service life
under high stress conditions but will require good structural support.
Life Cycle Costing
Present Worth Analysis

The economic impact of the pavement design and long term performance can be
calculated by the port or terminal container manager. Initial construction costs (INC)
and rehabilitation construction costs (RHC) are the costs associated to build the
initial heavy duty pavement. The calculation for these two types of costs is based on
material quantities and the unit cost. Material quantities come from the volume of
each layered material in the designed pavement structure, and the unit cost should
relate to current available prices (Tighe 2001).
The future rehabilitation construction cost needs to be discounted to the present time
with a discount rate r, as expressed in the following equation:
PWRHC =
i
where:PWRHC
RHCi
(1 + r)i
present worth of total rehabilitation costs
RHCi
rehabilitation cost at Year i
discount rate, specified by the user
number of years to each rehabilitation
[6]
Maintenance costs (MC) includes the yearly maintenance cost which increases at a
certain rate, and scheduled one-time maintenance costs for any specified year(s).
The present worth of total maintenance cost is the summation of yearly maintenance
cost:
PWMC =
i
where: PWMC
MC i
(1 + r) i
present worth of total maintenance cost;
MCi
maintenance cost at Year i
discount rate
number of years to each maintenance.
[7]
The residual cost in a life cycle analysis refers to the salvage values and the terminal
value. The salvage return percent of each layer material is specified by the designer
as an input. The terminal value is determined based on the remaining serviceability
of the pavement at the end of analysis period.
77
Case Studies
Case Studies
79
80
Case Studies
Case Study 1
Loading
The only vehicle used for the design was a Kalmar ESC340 (front cabin)
straddle carrier with an unladen weight of 62 tonne and a tyre pressure of 0.56
MPa.
The following design vehicle movements were used:
900,000 loaded straddle movements
900,000 unloaded straddle movements
Table 6 gives the container weight distribution that was used.

Table 6: Case Study 1: Container Weight Distribution
Container Weight
Range
Containers at this
Range
(tonne)
(%)
05
15%
5 10
15%
10 15
10%
15 20
15%
20 25
25%
25 30
20%
For each container weight range the heaviest container weight in the range
was assumed for all containers in that range.
Pavement Model
Figure 9 shows the Pavement Structure used for Case Study 1.
Case Studies
Thickness
(mm)
Modulus, E
(MPa)
Poisson's
Ratio
100 mm
200 mm
2800 MPa
?
0.4
0.3
Asphalt
Base Course
700 mm
0.3
Subbase
Course
60 MPa
(CBR=6)
0.4
Subgrade
Figure 9: Pavement Structure for Case Study 1.
????(comment about fatigue properties, vb=11% for asphalt, Wardle et. al 2001 for
subgrade.) Barker-Brabston for Base and subbase.)
Results
Table 7 summarizes the maximum CDF for each layer.
Table 7: Case Study 1: Results Summary
Figure 10 is the Asphalt Damage Factor "profile" across the pavement. Note that X =
0 corresponds to the centreline of each vehicle.
81
82
Case Studies
Figure 10: Asphalt Damage Factor vs. lateral offset.

Figure 11 is the Subgrade Damage Factor profile across the pavement.
Figure 11 Subgrade Damage Factor vs. lateral offset.

Figure 12 is the Spectral Damage Graph showing the Asphalt Damage Factor
contribution from each container load.
Case Studies
Figure 12: Asphalt Damage Factor vs. container load.

Figure 13 is the Spectral Damage Graph showing the Subgrade Damage Factor
contribution from each container load
Figure 13: Subgrade Damage Factor vs. container load.

It is interesting to compare the Spectral Damage Graphs for the asphalt and
subgrade layers (Figure 12 and Figure 13).
For the subgrade (Figure 13), the greatest damage contribution is due to the heaviest
container weight (30 tonne). For the asphalt layer (Figure 12), the greatest damage
contribution is due to the unladen machines.
83
Appendices
Appendices
85
86
Appendices
Material failure mode and

implication
In selecting the composition of the pavement the mode of failure of the candidate
materials needs to be carefully considered. For instance well designed and
constructed unbound granular layers deform slowly as a result of the applied stress
but generally still retain the original layer stiffness. Indeed evidence shows that
provided the granular materials are not overstressed the layer stiffness will increase
with time i.e. the structural strength of the foundation is retained or enhanced. Over
a similar period the condition of the wearing surface is likely to deteriorate and
deform and it is likely that resurfacing will be required. In the likely event that the
structural strength of the foundation is retained the resurfacing activity will reset both
the functional and structural requirements.
If the strength of the pavement foundation relies on the structural contribution of
bound materials repeated applications of load stress result in the deterioration of both
the structural and functional requirements, and resurfacing alone will not reset the
structural requirement. In this case an assessment of the integrity of the key
structural layer is required with careful evaluation and design analysis.
Appendices
Improved asphalt material

characterisation
The following is extracted from the NCHRP report 465.
The Superpave volumetric mix design procedure developed in the Asphalt Research
Program (19871993) of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) does not
include a simple, mechanical proof test analogous to the Marshall stability and flow
tests or the Hveem stabilometer method. Instead, the original Superpave method
relied on strict conformance to the material specifications and volumetric mix criteria
to ensure satisfactory performance of mix designs intended for low-traffic-volume
situations (defined as no more than 106 equivalent single axle loads [ESALs] applied
over the service life of the pavement). For higher trafficked projects, the original
SHRP Superpave mix analysis procedures required a check for tertiary creep
behaviour with the repeated shear at constant stress ratio test (AASHTO TP7) and a
rigorous evaluation of the mix designs potential for permanent deformation, fatigue
cracking, and low-temperature cracking using several other complex test methods in
AASHTO TP7 and TP9.
User experience with the Superpave mix design and analysis method, combined with
the long-standing problems associated with the original SHRP Superpave
performance models supporting what was then termed Level 2 and 3 analyses,
demonstrated the need for such simple performance tests (SPTs). In 1996, work
sponsored by FHWA began at the University of Maryland at College Park (UMCP) to
identify and validate SPTs for permanent deformation, fatigue cracking, and lowtemperature cracking to complement and support the Superpave volumetric mix
design method. In 1999, this effort was transferred to Task C of NCHRP Project 9-19,
Superpave Support and Performance Models Management, with the major portion
of the task conducted by a research team headed by UMCP subcontractor Arizona
State University (ASU).
The research team was directed to evaluate as potential SPTs only existing test
Methods measuring hot mix asphalt (HMA) response characteristics. The principal
evaluation criteria were (1) accuracy (i.e., good correlation of the HMA-response
characteristic to actual field performance); (2) reliability (i.e., a minimum number of
false negatives and positives); (3) ease of use; and (4) reasonable equipment cost.
The research team conducted a comprehensive laboratory testing program to
statistically correlate the actual performance of HMA materials from the MnRoad,
Wes-Track, and FHWA Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF) experiments with the
measured responses of specimens prepared from original materials for 33 promising
test methodtest parameter combinations.
87
88
Appendices
Based on the results of this testing program, the research team recommends three
test-parameter combinations for further field validation as an SPT for permanent
deformation: (1) the dynamic modulus term, E*/sin, (determined from the triaxial
dynamic modulus test; (2) the flow time, Ft, determined from the triaxial static creep
test; and (3) the flow number, Fn, determined from the triaxial repeated load test. All
combinations exhibit a coefficient of determination, R2, of 0.9 or greater for the
combined correlation of the laboratory test results with performance in the MnRoad,
Wes-Track, and FHWA ALF experiments.
For fatigue cracking, the experimental results are far less conclusive. The research
team recommends the dynamic modulus, E*, measured at low test temperatures; the
modulus offers a fair correlation with field performance data and provides some
consistency with one of the tests recommended for permanent deformation. For low
temperature cracking, the team recommends the creep compliance measured by the
indirect tensile creep test at long loading times and low temperatures; this
recommendation is based solely on work carried out for SHRP and C-SHRP and
recently confirmed in NCHRP Project 1-37A, Development of the 2002 Guide for the
Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.
The NCHRP report 465 includes a detailed description of the experimental program,
a discussion of the research results and the basis for selection of the candidate
SPTs, a description of the future field validation effort, and five supporting
appendixes presenting test methods for the candidate SPTs:
In Australian practice the dynamic modulus E* master curve is developed from
testing at 4 temperatures (5o; 20o;35o & 50oC) and 6 load frequencies (0.1; 0.5; 1; 5;
10 & 25 Hz) using time temperature superposition principles. From this testing the
response to load performance of candidate asphalt materials can be measured over
the extremes of temperature and load duration. This data is then able to be used in
HIPAVE to calculate damage over the full temperature spectrum.
The dynamic modulus master curve clearly distinguishes the benefits of modified
binders by quantifying the improvement in stiffness and elastic response at high
temperature and/or slow loading conditions. This is particularly advantageous
because historical modulus measurements at a single temperature (typically 20o or
25oC) often fail to discriminate between conventional and modified binders.
Further research into the effect of confinement in the field is needed. Intuitively the
significant increase in dynamic modulus and elasticity (reduction in phase angle)
observed in the triaxial cell with confining pressure is likely in the field. Early work by
Marchionna et al supports this intuition by the observation that deflections on thick
asphalt pavement structures did not appear to increase with temperature.
In applications in the industrial pavement environment the deformation relationships
between Dynamic modulus (E*) and elasticity (Sine phase angle) will require
calibration. In the interim the empirical evidence suggest adhering to the
fundamentals will yield good performance i.e. using all crushed aggregate; dense
gradation; hard binder grades in hot environs; binder content optimization at
appropriate laboratory compaction effort. Wheel-track testing may provide a
reasonable ranking of deformation resistance in the laboratory.
Appendices
Fatigue testing is routinely carried out in Australia (4 point flexure) and serves to rank
the performance of different mix gradations and binder types. At this stage of
development we tend to use the laboratory fatigue test more to verify the predictive
fatigue models developed by Shell and implemented by Austroads. As more
performance evidence is gained the apparently conservative predictive models will
be recalibrated.
Of value is the use of the fatigue test to develop appropriate damage models for
innovative materials. Figure 14 below compares the fatigue performance of
conventional asphalt against the resin modified asphalt PRS Rigiphalte.
Figure 14: Fatigue performance of conventional asphalt against the resin modified
asphalt PRS Rigiphalte.
Comparison of fatigue properties Rigiphalte and AC14 C320
o
Constant strain; 20 C; 10 Hz
Tensile strain (microstrain)
1000
100
Typical AC14 C320 k = 3050; b = 5

Rigiphalte lab data k = 390; b = 11.1
Rigiphalte design k = 300; b = 10
10
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
Cycles to failure
The Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) is another laboratory tool to enhance the
selection of the best bitumen and filler combination to enhance mix properties. In
common with the SPT the DSR provides the material characterisation over the full
combination of temperature and loading frequency. The DSR can test bitumen and
the bitumen filler mastic to develop complex shear modulus master curves, and to
measure the elastic and viscous component of the binder. These latter parameters
are considered to be significant in both fatigue and deformation resistance potential.
In application available binders and fillers would first be characterised and then the
binder exhibiting the most potential would be incorporated in asphalt samples to
determine the (more arduous) dynamic modulus master curve evaluation.
89
References
References
ASCE (2001). Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction. Geotechnical Special
Publication No 119. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Austroads (2004). Pavement Design- A Guide to the Structural Design of Road
Pavements. Austroads Publication No. AP-G17/04.
Austroads (2006a). Fatigue Life of Compacted Bituminous Mixes Subject to
Repeated Flexural Bending. Test Method AGPT/T233, Austroads.
Austroads (2006b). Guide to Pavement Technology - Part 4D: Stabilised Materials.
Austroads Publication No. AGPT04D/06.
British Ports Association (1986). The Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for
Ports and other Industries, 2nd ed., British Ports Federation, London.
British Ports Association/Interpave (1996). The Structural Design of Heavy Duty
Pavements for Ports and other Industries, 3rd ed., Interpave, Leicester.
Barker, W. and Brabston, W. (1975). Development of a structural design procedure
for flexible airport pavements. Report No. S-75-17. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Dickinson, E.J. (1981). Pavement Temperature Regimes in Australia: Their Effect on
the Performance of Bituminous Constructions and their Relationship with Average
Climate Indicators, Special Report 23, Australian Road Research Board, Victoria,
Australia.
Shell, 1978, Shell Pavement Design Manual : Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for
Road
Haas, R., Hudson, W. R., and Zaniewski, J. P. (1994). Modern Pavement
Management. Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida.
Jacob, A. (2006). Personal Communication.
Jameson. G. W. (1995). Response of Cementitious Pavement Materials to Repeated
Loading. ARRB Contract Report RI 949.
Lancaster, J. (2006). Unpublished Report.
NCHRP (2002). Simple performance test for Superpave mix design. Report 465
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Rickards, I., Gabrawy, T., Sullivan, B. and Tighe, S. (2006) Application of the Simple
Performance Test and Complimentary Equipment in Australia. Proc 10th ICAP
conference Quebec
Rodway, B. (1995a). Design Of Flexible Pavements For Large Multiwheeled Aircraft.
Int. Conf. on Road & Pavement Technology, Singapore, 27-29 September, 1995.
Rodway, B., Wardle, L.J. and Wickham, G. (1999). Interaction between wheels and
wheel groups of new large aircraft. Airport Technology Transfer Conference,
Atlantic City, U.S.A., April 1999, Federal Aviation Administration.
Rollings, M.P. and Rollings, R.S. (2005). Geology: Engineer Ignore It at Your Peril.
J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., Volume 131, Issue 6, pp. 783-791. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Smallridge, M. and Jacob, A. (2001). The ASCE Port and Intermodal Yard Pavement
Design Guide. Ports 2001 Conference: Americas Ports - Gateway to the Global
Economy. April 29May 2, 2001, Norfolk, Virginia, USA (Collins, T. J. ed.).
Standards Australia (1997). Residual bitumen for pavements. AS 2008-1997,
Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Tighe, S., Zhiwei He and Haas R. (2001). Environmental Deterioration Model For
Flexible Pavement Design: An Ontario Example, National Academy Press,
91
92
References
Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Record No. 1755, pp.81-89.

US Department of Army & Air Force Technical Manual (TM 5-825-2-1 and TAFM 886) (November 1989). Flexible Pavement Design For Airfields.
Wardle, L. J. (1999a). APSDS 4.0 Airport Pavement Structural Design System
Users Manual, Mincad Systems Pty Ltd, Richmond, Vic., Australia.
(www.mincad.com.au)
Wardle, L. J. (1999b). Development of APSDS (Airport Pavement Structural Design
System) for Light Commuter Aircraft. Unpublished Report.
Wardle, L. J. (2004). CIRCLY 5.0 Users Manual, Mincad Systems Pty Ltd,
Richmond, Vic., Australia. (www.mincad.com.au)
Wardle, L. J. (2005). HIPAVE User Manual, Mincad Systems Pty Ltd, Richmond,
Vic., Australia. (www.mincad.com.au)
Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1995). Development and Application of an Improved
Airport Pavement Design Method. ASCE Transportation Congress, San Diego,
22-26 October, 1995. (www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm)
Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1998a). Layered Elastic Pavement DesignRecent Developments. Proceedings Transport 98, 19th ARRB Conference,
Sydney, Australia, 7-11 December. (www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm)
Wardle, L.J. and Rodway, B. (1998b). Recent Developments in Flexible Aircraft
Pavement Design using the Layered Elastic Method. Third Int. Conf. on Road and
Airfield
Pavement
Technology,
Beijing,
April
1998.
(www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm)
Wardle, L.J., Rodway, B. and Rickards, I. (2001). Calibration of Advanced Flexible
Aircraft Pavement Design Method to S77-1 Method. in Advancing Airfield
Pavements, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2001 Airfield Pavement
Specialty Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 5-8 August 2001 (Buttlar, W.G. and
Naughton, J.E, eds.), pp. 192-201. (www.mincad.com.au/HIPAVE_Papers.htm)

Heavy Duty Pavement Design Guide 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Heavy Duty Pavement Design Guide 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Heavy Duty Industrial

Pavement Design Guide

Introduction and Background

Scope of the Guide.........................................................................................................................5

Pavement Design Principles - General

Overview of Pavement Design System..........................................................................................9

New Pavement Design

Cement Stabilised Material Performance Models..............................................................50

Drainage (surface and subsurface)..............................................................................................53

Routine Maintenance ...................................................................................................................64

Site Investigation ..........................................................................................................................68

Life Cycle Costing

Analysis Period Service Life......................................................................................................76

Case Study 1................................................................................................................................80

Material failure mode and implication...........................................................................................86

Introduction and Background

Introduction and Background

Introduction and Background

Scope of the Guide

Introduction and Background

Introduction and Background

Background: Design Methods

Pavement Design Principles - General

Pavement Design Principles - General

Introduction and Background

Overview of Pavement Design

Subgrade and Pavement Materials

Pavement Design Principles - General

is the predicted life (repetitions)

is the damage exponent of the material

is the induced strain (dimensionless strain)

Cumulative Damage Factor

Introduction and Background

Cumulative Damage Factor = ni / Ni

Pavement Design Principles - General

Figure 1: HIPAVE graph - Subgrade Damage Factor vs. container load.

Introduction and Background

Key Performance Indicators -

Function wearing surface

The as constructed mix density is strongly affected by construction practice which in

British Standard Refusal Density (BS RD)

Marshall Compaction (@ 75 / 75 blows subsequently referred to simply as

Subbase asphalt (>

Composite/ Resin Modified

The fatigue performance of stabilised material is a problematic design issue because

unequal loads on each axle; and

equal loads on each axle.

Unequal Axle Loads

Equal Axle Loads

Coordinate System for Vehicles

Figure 4: Example of Coordinate Positioning

Figure 6: Container weight distribution for 40 foot containers at UK ports (British

Cumulative Growth Factor (CGF)

where R = Annual Growth Rate (%), and

Annual Growth Rate (R)

Dynamic and Static Structural

Table 4: Suggested Load Factors to Address High Stress Areas

*Note: where conditions apply simultaneously, the factors should be multiplied

Modelling of Multiple Wheels

Nature of Damage Pulses

Design Traffic Loading

New Pavement Design

New Pavement Design

New Pavement Design