 Introduction

 Background
 Problem Statement
 Objectives
 Scope of project
 Methodology
 Pavement Design Approach
 Pavement Response Modeling
 Pavement Alternatives
 AASHTO 1993 Design
 AASHTO 2002 Evaluation
 Economic Evaluation
 Pavement Type Selection
 Pavement Structure
 Conclusion
 Recommendations
Purpose of Access Road:
1. Facilitate the movement of farmers to and from
the backlands
2. Access route to arable farm lands for cultivation
3. Low volume roadway
Geometric Configuration:
Length = 3 miles ( km)
Width = 22 ft ( m)
The Access Road in Vergenoegen
Look at this
road…I ain’t
going deh!
Location (6052’24.9’’N and 58021’51.30’’W)

Access Road

Access Road

Main Road
Condition (Wet Seasons)
Condition (Dry Seasons)
The statement of problem is to design a new
pavement structure for the access road in
Vergenoegen that could fulfill all the traffic and
environmental conditions while at the same
time being an economically viable structure.
 Quantify and characterize the loadings of the various
vehicles that uses the current facility
 Investigate and evaluate the potential of suitable pavement
alternatives for a cost effective alternative to
accommodate the present and future traffic loads on the
road
 Evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of
pavement alternatives
 Carry out life cycle cost analysis on the various pavement
alternatives to determine the most promising alternative
 Design proposal of a suitable access road based on the
most promising pavement alternative
Selection is limited to the most feasible
alternatives considered
Use of the AASHTO 1993 & AASHTO 2002
Guides for the Design of Pavement structures
Pavement distress is based on cracking and
rutting predictions as computed from the
pavement responses using the WinJULEA
software
 2 Design 3 4 Pavement 5 Design
1 Inputs
Alternatives Evaluation selection Proposal

Layer Most Site

Materials thickness Technical feasible specific
design alternative conditions

Traffic Economical
loadings

Environmen
tal data
 AASHTO 2002 Guide for the
AASHTO 1993 Guide for the Design Mechanistic-Empirical Design of
of Pavement Structures Pavement Structures
Alternative 1 Flexible Pavement
Alternative 2 Semi Rigid Pavement
Alternative 3 Cement Treated Pavement
Design Traffic (Overall 18kips ESALs)
Cumulative 18kips ESAL
160000

140000
136, 584
120000

100000

18kips ESAL 80000

60000

40000

20000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time(years)

Graph Showing the Cumulative 18kips ESALs Over the 20 year Design Life
Design Traffic for 20 Years
W18 = DDxDLxW18

DD = 50% (0.5) DL = 100% (1)

W18 = 136,584.6342 [18kips ESALs]

Therefore,
W18 = 0.5 x 1 x 136, 584.6342 18kips ESALs
W18 = 68, 293 [18kips ESAL]
Pavement Material Properties
Material Function CBR (%) Modulus (psi) Structural Layer
Coefficient
(Correlated from
AASHTO 93 )

Hot Mix Asphalt Surface Course 400,000 @ 68F 0.43

Crusher Run Base Course 60 0.12

Cement Base Course 830,000 @ 7days 0.22
Stabilized
Material
White Sand Subbase Course 6 0.06

In-Situ Soil Subgrade 2 3000

Design Parameters
Reliability, R = 75%
Standard Deviation, So = 0.45
Initial Serviceability, pi = 4.5
Terminal Serviceability, pt =2
Required Structural Number

Design Chart for Flexible Pavements used for Estimating the Structural
Number Required
Alternative 1 (Flexible Pavement)
Initial Structural Number 2.3

Layer Thickness Determination

Asphalt Concrete 2in
Layer 1 Thickness, D1 (inch) 2

Layer 2 Thickness, D2 (inch) 6 6in

Layer 3 Thickness, D3 (inch) 12 Ordinary White Sand 12in

Final Structural Number 2.3
Alternative 2 (Semi Rigid Pavement)
Initial Structural Number 2.3

Layer Thickness Determination

Asphalt Concrete 2in
Layer 1 Thickness, D1 (inch) 2
Cement Treated
Layer 2 Thickness, D2 (inch) 4 Base 4in

Layer 3 Thickness, D3 (inch) 12 Ordinary White 12in

Sand
Final Structural Number 2.5
Alternative 3 (Cement Treated Pavement)
Initial Structural Number 2.3
Layer Thickness Determination 1in
Chip Seal
Layer 1 Thickness, D1 (inch) 1 Cement Treated
Base 7in
Layer 2 Thickness, D2 (inch) 7
Layer 3 Thickness, D3 (inch) 13 Ordinary White
Sand 13in
Final Structural Number 2.3
Material Function Resilient Modulus Poisson’s Ratio
(psi)
Hot Mix Asphalt Surface Course 400,000 0.25
Crusher Run Base Course 25,715 0.15
Cement Stabilized Base Course 830,000 0.35
Material
White Sand Subbase Course 8,182 0.3
In-Situ Soil Subgrade 3000 0.2

Note:
All pavement layers were assumed to be fully bonded together at the
interfaces.
Traffic Loadings
9,000 lbs 9000 lbs
18,000 lbs

Tire Radius = 6inches

Tire Pressure = 75psi

Fully Bonded Conditions

Bottom Up Cracking (HMA)
Bottom Up Cracking Prediction vs Time
9

5
% of lane area cracked
4

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (years)

Chart Showing the % of Lane Area Cracked Over the Design Life for the
Flexible Pavement as a Result of Bottom Up Cracking
Top Down (Longitudinal) Cracking (HMA)
Longitudional Cracking Prediction vs Time
8000

7000

6000

5000

Feet/mile 4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Years)

Chart Showing the Length of Longitudinal Cracking of the Flexible

Pavement Over the Design Life as a Result of Top Down Cracking
Rutting (Entire Pavement)
Rutting vs Time
0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

Rutting (in) 0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2
0 5 10 15 20
Time(years)

Chart Indicating Total Rutting of the Flexible Pavement Over the Design
Life
Bottom Up Cracking (HMA)
Bottom Up Cracking vs Time
0.00025

0.0002

0.00015
% of lane cracked
0.0001

0.00005

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (years)

Chart Indicating Predicated % of Lane Area Cracked for the HMA Layer of
the Semi Rigid Pavement Over the Design Life as a Result of Bottom Up
Cracking
Top Down (Longitudinal) Cracking (HMA)
Longitudinal Cracking Vs Time
0.04

0.035

0.03

0.025

Feet/mile 0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Years)

Chart Indicating Predicted Longitudinal Cracking of the HMA Layer for the
Semi Rigid Pavement over the Design Life as a Result of Top Down
Cracking
Rutting (HMA)
Rutting Vs Time
0.02

0.015

Rutting (in) 0.01

0.005

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (years)

Chart Indicating Total Rutting in HMA Layer of the Semi Rigid Pavement
Over the Design Life
Flexural Cracking (CTB)
Fatigue Cracking vs Time
1200

1000

800

feet/500ft 600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time(Years)

Chart Indicating Length of Cracking at the Bottom of the Cement

Treated Layer for the Semi Rigid Pavement Over the Design Life as a
Result of Fatigue Cracking
Flexural Cracking (CTB)
Fatigue Cracking vs Time
500

450

400
feet/500ft
350

300

250
0 5 10 15 20
Time(years)

Chart Indicating Length of cracks at the Bottom of the Cement Treated

Layer for the Cement Treated Pavement over the Design Life as a Result
of Fatigue Cracking
Pavement Alternatives Construction Cost/100m (G$)

Flexible Pavement 4, 601, 600

Semi Rigid Pavement 3, 153, 600

Cement Treated 1, 661, 400

Pavement

Cost of Construction for Pavement

Alternatives
Evaluation Construction Ease of Life Cycle Failure Load Moisture Total
Criteria Cost Maintenance Cost potential Distribution Sensitivity
Weight 25 5 30 10 20 10 100
Flexible 10 2 16 2 8 4 42
Pavement
Semi Rigid 16 3 20 4 12 5 60
Pavement
CTB 22 3.5 28 5 15 8 81.5
Pavement

Decision Matrix for the Selection of the Most Suitable Pavement Alternative
 Chip Seal
(1in) Cement
Treated
Shoulder Layer (7in)

White
Sand
(13in)

Subgrade
 The pavement alternatives evaluated ranged
from flexible, semi rigid to cement treated
pavements
 Utilization of the AASHTO 2002 Guide for the
Design & Evaluation of Pavement Structures
 The most viable pavement alternative is the
cement treated pavement since it is the most cost
effective pavement structure while optimizing the
level of service to the road users
 Calibration of the empirical models to local
conditions to relate predicted distress to actual
distress occurrence
 The use of the axle load spectra concept instead
of the 18kips ESAL concept
 Modeling of the environmental conditions on the
performance of the pavement structures
(temperature & moisture)
 Modeling of other distress modes such as
reflective cracking