Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314190180
CITATIONS READS
0 113
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Amjad Albayati on 03 March 2017.
Prepared by:
Dr. Amjad Al-Bayati
E-Mail: cebbeng@Yahoo.com
Office Phone: 7782003, Fax. 7782054
Mobile: 07901423189
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 1
CONTENTS Page
Abstract 2
Requirements of the Road 3
Minimum Pavement Section 5
Flexible Pavement Design Criteria 5
Existing Subgrade Soil Properties 6
Evaluation of Existing Soil as a Subgrade Material 8
ABSTRACT
The redesign of the flexible pavement for the 2-Lane MSR Aspen Road ( Class
D / Rolling Terrain , Design Index 5) is required to be prepared in accordance with the
results obtained by the Geotechnical Investigation of the project which showed a natural
subgrade CBR less than that used in preparing the Minimum Pavement Section included
in the Technical Requirement of the project .
The Geotechnical Report of MSR Aspen Road showed an existing subgrade soil
of class (SC) Group (Clayey Sand with Gravel) with a soaked CBR of (8) at 95% max.
Lab .density (85th percentile value).
The desired properties of Aggregate Base Course in accordance with the Technical
Requirements of the project are shown after evaluating the soaked CBR values at 100%
max. Lab. density on materials from (Abu Ghar) quarry to justify the possibility of
obtaining a minimum CBR of 80.
The PCASE program (Pavement transportation Computer Assisted Structural
Engineering) has been employed in pavement design of MSR Aspen Road using the two
methods included in the program; the “CBR-Design Index Method” and the “Elastic
Layered Method”.
The results of both Design Methods are verified employing the “AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures”.
It has been concluded that the PCASE “CBR-Design Index Method” has the
shortcoming of adopting a fixed minimum Asphalt Concrete thickness above each Base
CBR for each Design Index regardless of variations in traffic influence ( Equivalent
Standard Single Axle Load Applications; ESAL).
The PCASE “Elastic Layered Method”, dealing with the fundamental properties of
pavement materials, and limiting the vertical and horizontal strains induced by traffic
loadings, has shown more reliable design results as verified by the “AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures”.
For an ( ESAL) Applications of 5.75X106 ,the following Design Cross Section
has been obtained:
19 cm Compacted Subgrade (CBR≥8)
31 cm Aggregate Base Course (CBR≥80)
9 cm Asphalt Concrete Leveling Course ( Marshall stability ≥500 kg)
7 cm Asphalt Concrete Wearing Course ( Marshall stability ≥600 kg)
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 3
Fig. No. (2) Cumulative Distribution of CBR Values of Encountered Soils at 95% Dry Density
(From the Geotechnical Report of MSR Aspen Road)
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 8
The minimum soaked CBR value at 100% max. lab. density shall be
not less than 80.
The suitable compaction equipments may include rubber-tired roller,
steel wheeled roller, and crawler-type tractor.
For the mid requirements of the three gradations specified for the
project, aggregate samples have been prepared for the evaluation of
CBR values. The selected gradations are plotted in Fig. (5) and
shown below:
The CBR tests are conducted on the crushed aggregate (brought from
Abu Ghar quarry) to justify the possibility of obtaining the minimum
CBR value employed in the structural design of pavement, (in
general). Aggregates from any other nearby quarries, satisfying the
Technical Requirements of the project, can be used.
The results of testing are as shown:
% passing by weight
Sieve size Type II Type III
(Leveling) (Wearing)
1" (25.0 mm) 100
3/4" (19.0 mm) 82-100 100
1/2" (12.5 mm) 60-84 66-95
3/8" (9.5 mm) 49-74 54-88
No.4 (4.75 mm) 32-58 37-70
No.8 (2.36 mm) 23-45 26-52
No.16 (1.18 mm) 16-34 18-40
No.30 (0.60 mm) 12-25 13-30
No.50 (0.30 mm) 8-20 8-23
No.100 (0.15 mm) 5-13 6-16
No.200 (0.075 mm) 4-7 4-10
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 16
Mixture Type
Mixture Type II
Property III
(Leveling)
(Wearing)
- % Asphalt (60-70)▀ by weight
4.0-6.5 4.5-6.5
of total Agg.
- Marshall stability, 75 Blows,
500 600
kg
- Marshall flow, mm 2-4 2-4
- Air voids, %▀ ▀ 3-8 4-6
- V.M.A., %▀ ▀ ▀ 14 15
- Index of retained strength 70 70
- Degree of compaction 97% 97%
- Deviation of surface evenness ≤ 4mm/4m ≤ 4mm/4m
RECOMMENDED REMARKS:
(Related to the Desired Properties of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures)
▀ It is desirable to replace the (60-70) asphalt binder by one of the
following grades:
- Performance Graded PG 64-10 (AASHTO Designatin:MP1)
- Viscosity-Graded AC-40 (ASTM D3381, Table 2)
- (40-50) Penetration Graded (ASTM D946)
▀ ▀ It is desirable to make the range of % Air Voids from (3-5) for
both Mixtures.
▀ ▀ ▀ It is desirable to specify V.M.A. as 13% for type II Mixture
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Road Class :D
Terrain : Rolling
Design Hourly Volume, DHV : 150-449
Annual Average Daily Traffic, AADT : 1000-2993
Traffic Category : IV A (% Trucks > 25 %)
Pavement Design Index :5
Equivalent Standard Single Axle Load Applications, ESAL= (1.30-5.75) x
106
Worksheet for Estimating the 18-Kip Equivalent Single-Axle Load
Application (ESAL) as a Typical (Assumed)Case:
Road : 2-lane road
Traffic Analysis Period = 15 years
Assumed current AADT = 2500 (during the first year)
Directional distribution factor = 50 %
% Trucks = 80
Annual growth rate = 4 %
Number of
Vehicle Growth ESAL
Vehicle type % vehicles/lane
factor factor applications
per year
p-vehicles 20 91250 0.0008 20.02 1461
Single-unit
trucks:
2-axle, 4-tire 5 22812 0.003 20.02 1370
2-axle, 6-tire 15 68437 0.21 20.02 287723
3-axle or more 20 91250 0.61 20.02 1114363
Tractor semi-
trailers and
combinations:
4-axle or less 5 22812 0.62 20.02 283164
5-axle 15 68438 1.09 20.02 1493440
6-axle or more 20 91250 1.23 20.02 2246995
Total= 100 456250 5428516
The Estimated Design ESAL Applications = 5.43 x 106
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 19
ESAL Applications
Thickness of
2.5x106 5.75x106
Asphalt Concrete 4.95″(13cm) 6.32″(16cm)
Aggregate Base course 13.73″(35cm) 13.07″(31cm)
Compacted Subgrade Soil 6.24″(16cm) 7.34″(19cm)
Total Thickness (Above Natural
64cm 66 cm
Soil)
Design Thicknesses of Asphalt Concrete (A.C.) and Base Course at ESAL Applications of:
Base 1.5x106 2.5x106 3.5x106 4.5x106 5.5x106 5.75x106
CBR A.C Base A.C Base A.C Base A.C Base A.C Base A.C Base
value
4.63, 5.38, 5.92, 6.33, 6.67, 6.74, 11.37,
14.12, 13.26, 12.62, 12.05, 11.51,
50 12 14 15 16 17 18 29cm
36 cm 34 cm 32 cm 31 cm 30 cm
cm cm cm cm cm cm
4.16, 4.95, 5.49, 5.92, 6.25, 6.32, 12.07,
14.57, 13.73, 13.08, 12.59, 12.07,
80 11 13 14 15 16 16 31 cm
37 cm 35 cm 34 cm 32 cm 31 cm
cm cm cm cm cm cm
6.06, 12.41,
3.86, 4.66, 5.2, 5.63, 5.98,
14.8, 14.05, 13.40, 12.92, 12.49, 16 32 cm
100 10 12 14 15 16
43 cm 36 cm 34 cm 33 cm 32 cm cm
cm cm cm cm cm
Typical extracted results from the output of PCASE Program are enclosed
herewith and in the Appendix.
24
40
35 Agg. Base Course
Thickness(cm)
30
CBR=50%
25
CBR=80%
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road
20
Asphalt Concrete
15 CBR=100%
10
5
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
ESAL x 106
Fig. No. (6) Design Thicknesses of Asphalt Concrete and Aggregate Base Course for Different
Base CBR Values and ESAL Applications
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 25
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 26
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 27
Use D3 = 34 cm
The difference in design results between the (Elastic Layered Method) of
PCASE Program and AASHTO Guide is considered Negligible.Remarkable
differences have been noticed between the design results of the (CBR-DI Method)
of PCASE Program and other two design methods ( The Elastic Layered Method
and the AASHTO Guide Method )
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 29
Design Thicknesses
For an ESAL Applications of 2.5 x 106
PCASE Program AASHTO
Elastic Guide
Pavement Layer CBR –DI
Layered Method
Method
Method
Asphalt Concrete 7cm 13cm 13cm
Aggregate Base course 26cm 35cm 33cm
Structural Pavement Design/MSR Aspen Road 31
In accordance with the results obtained from the different methods used
in the structural pavement design of MSR Aspen Road , the following are
concluded :