Tools › Civil and Geotechnical › Surveying and Earthwork › Pavement Design


Pavement Design

Thickness design of highway pavements by the AASHTO 1993 empirical equations, evaluated as mathematics in their native units: design ESALs from a vehicle mix with load-equivalency factors, reliability, the roadbed resilient modulus from CBR, R-value or seasonal values, the required structural number and layer thicknesses of a flexible pavement by the layered procedure, the slab thickness of a rigid pavement, the traffic life and remaining life of an entered section, sensitivity charts, and the Corps of Engineers CBR equation as a cross-check.

  • Traffic: 18-kip ESALs from a vehicle mix (share of ADT, axle-group loads) with the AASHO Road Test load-equivalency equations, iterated to the design structural number or slab thickness with the steps tabulated, and the fourth-power approximation beside, growth factor, directional and lane distribution

  • Flexible pavement: the 1993 equation solved for the structural number, layer thicknesses by the layered procedure (SN above each layer from that layer's modulus), entered layer and drainage coefficients, rounding and minimum thicknesses

  • Rigid pavement: the 1993 equation solved for the slab thickness from the modulus of rupture, drainage and load-transfer coefficients, concrete modulus and modulus of subgrade reaction; composite k on a granular subbase beside

  • Roadbed soil: resilient modulus entered, from CBR, from R-value, or the effective value of seasonal moduli by relative damage

  • Reliability from the normal quantile; traffic life, years and remaining life of an entered section; charts of thickness against ESALs and against the subgrade support

  • Corps of Engineers CBR equation for a single wheel load as an independent cross-check of the total flexible thickness

Pavement Design


Unit System: /

Pavement Type


Traffic (ESALs are 18-kip equivalent single axle loads in the design lane)













Vehicle Mix (axle-group loads; a blank truck factor is computed from the axles)

1
2
3
4
5

Reliability and Serviceability







Roadbed Soil






Flexible Layers (layer coefficients per inch of thickness)














Flexible Section to Analyse (optional; blank = design only)




Rigid Pavement










CBR Cross-Check of the Flexible Thickness (Corps of Engineers equation, single wheel)





×

Pavement Design

Pavement Design

This page describes what the tool computes: the design traffic in equivalent single axle loads, the AASHTO 1993 empirical design of a flexible pavement (structural number and layer thicknesses) and of a rigid pavement (slab thickness), the traffic life of an entered section, and a cross-check by the Corps of Engineers CBR equation. The design equations are regressions of the AASHO Road Test of 1958 to 1960, published in the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993). The Guide is cited only: the tool uses its equations as mathematics, in the form printed in the Federal Highway Administration reference manual FHWA-NHI-05-037 (Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements, 2006), and every coefficient the Guide tabulates (layer, drainage and load-transfer coefficients, reliability levels, loss of support) is an entered input. No table or chart of the Guide is reproduced.

Units

The equations are empirical and hold only in their native units: thickness in inches, moduli and strengths in psi, the modulus of subgrade reaction in pci (lbf/in³), axle loads in kips, traffic in 18-kip equivalent single axle loads. The tool converts the inputs to these units through the site's unit dictionary, evaluates the equations there, and converts the thicknesses back. Layer coefficients are per inch of thickness in both unit systems (a coefficient of 0.44 per inch is 0.0173 per millimetre). Traffic, reliability, serviceability, CBR and R-value are plain numbers; seasonal moduli are typed in psi (MPa in SI).

Design traffic

The design traffic W18 is the number of 18-kip (80 kN) equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) in the design lane over the design period. From a vehicle mix, each class contributes its share of the average daily traffic times its truck factor, the ESALs per vehicle:

W18 = ADT · Σ(sharei · Tf,i) · 365 · DD · DL · G, with G = ((1 + g)n − 1) / g

DD and DL are the directional and lane distribution, G is the sum of n years of traffic growing at the rate g (G = n without growth). The truck factor of a row is entered (from weigh-station data) or computed as the sum of the load-equivalency factors of its axle groups.

The load-equivalency factor of an axle group of load Lx kips with L2 axles (1 single, 2 tandem, 3 tridem) is the ratio W18 / Wx of the Road Test equations. For flexible pavements:

log(Wx / W18) = 4.79 log(18 + 1) − 4.79 log(Lx + L2) + 4.33 log L2 + Gt / βx − Gt / β18, with Gt = log[(4.2 − pt) / (4.2 − 1.5)] and βx = 0.40 + 0.081 (Lx + L2)3.23 / [(SN + 1)5.19 L23.23]

and for rigid pavements:

log(Wx / W18) = 4.62 log(18 + 1) − 4.62 log(Lx + L2) + 3.28 log L2 + Gt / βx − Gt / β18, with Gt = log[(4.5 − pt) / (4.5 − 1.5)] and βx = 1.00 + 3.63 (Lx + L2)5.20 / [(D + 1)8.46 L23.52]

Both equations are ratios of the Road Test performance equations as the Highway Research Board printed them (Special Report 61E, 1962): log W = log ρ + Gt / β, with β = 0.4 + 0.081 (L1 + L2)3.23 / [(SN + 1)5.19 L23.23] and ρ = 105.93 (SN + 1)9.36 L24.33 / (L1 + L2)4.79 for flexible pavements (its equations 13, 17 and 18) and β = 1 + 3.63 (L1 + L2)5.20 / [(D + 1)8.46 L23.52], ρ = 105.85 (D + 1)7.35 L23.28 / (L1 + L2)4.62 for rigid pavements (equations 62, 65 and 66); dividing the 18-kip single axle by the axle group cancels the pavement term of ρ. The Road Test had single and tandem axles only: the tridem (L2 = 3) is the Guide's extension of the same form. The equations also reproduce 169 factors of the Guide's tables as reprinted in an FHWA document (flexible SN 5 and rigid D 9 in, pt 2.5, tridems included) to the printed digits.

Factors at the design. The factors depend on the pavement they act on (SN or D), and the pavement depends on the ESALs they give. By default the tool iterates: the factors are evaluated at an assumed SN (or D), the design equation is solved for the required structural number above the roadbed (or the required slab thickness) at the resulting ESALs, before rounding, and that value is assumed in the next step, until the required and assumed values agree within 0.001 (0.001 in). The entered SN or slab for factors (5 and 9 in by default) is the starting value, and the steps are tabulated. The dependence is weak, so three or four steps suffice; the fixed point does not depend on the starting value. The other option evaluates the factors once at the entered SN or slab, which is the usual hand procedure. Rows with an entered truck factor do not change in the iteration. The fourth-power approximation (L / Lref)4 is printed beside, with Lref the load at which the equation gives 1 for that axle group (18 kip for a single axle; about 33 kip for a tandem and 48 kip for a tridem on a flexible pavement of SN 5).

Reliability and serviceability

Reliability enters as the term ZR S0 added to log W18: ZR is the standard normal deviate of the design reliability R (the normal quantile of 1 − R, negative above 50 %) and S0 the overall standard deviation of the traffic and performance predictions. Designing for R = 85 % with S0 = 0.45 is designing for 2.9 times the predicted traffic at 50 %. Mean values, not conservative ones, belong in every other input, because the conservatism is in this term. The tool computes ZR exactly; published tables differ from it in the third decimal, and an entered deviate may replace it.

Performance is measured by the Present Serviceability Index. The design loss for traffic is ΔPSI = p0 − pt less any loss assigned to swelling or frost heave, with p0 the initial and pt the terminal index. FHWA-NHI-05-037 quotes p0 = 4.2 for flexible and 4.4 for rigid pavements and pt of 2.5 or more for major highways.

Roadbed soil

The flexible equation takes the resilient modulus MR of the roadbed soil. It is entered, or estimated from the California Bearing Ratio, MR = 1,500 CBR psi (stated for CBR below 10), or from the stabilometer R-value, MR = 1,000 + 555 R psi. Where the modulus changes through the year, each season's value is given the relative damage uf = 1.18 × 108 MR−2.32; the effective modulus is the one whose damage equals the mean of the seasons. Because the weakest seasons dominate the mean damage, the effective modulus lies well below the average modulus.

Flexible pavement

log W18 = ZR S0 + 9.36 log(SN + 1) − 0.20 + log[ΔPSI / (4.2 − 1.5)] / [0.40 + 1,094 / (SN + 1)5.19] + 2.32 log MR − 8.07

The equation is solved for the structural number SN by bisection. SN is an abstract thickness: SN = a1 D1 + a2 m2 D2 + a3 m3 D3, with D the layer thicknesses in inches, a the structural layer coefficients and m the drainage coefficients of the unbound layers. For untreated granular materials the coefficients follow from the layer modulus, a2 = 0.249 log EBS − 0.977 for a base and a3 = 0.227 log ESB − 0.839 for a subbase (E in psi); the tool uses these when the coefficient is left blank. Coefficients of asphalt and treated layers are entered.

The layered procedure sets the thicknesses so that every layer is protected by enough structure above it. The structural number needed above the base, SN1, is the solution of the design equation with the base modulus in place of MR; the surface is D1 ≥ SN1 / a1, rounded, and supplies SN1* = a1 D1. With the subbase modulus the equation gives SN2, the number needed above the subbase, and D2 ≥ (SN2 − SN1*) / (a2 m2). The lowest layer makes up the rest of the total: D3 ≥ (SN − SN1* − SN2*) / (a3 m3). Thicknesses are rounded to entered increments (half an inch for the surface and one inch for unbound layers are the usual ones) and are not taken below entered minimums. Many other combinations give the same SN; cost, drainage, frost and construction decide between them.

Rigid pavement

log W18 = ZR S0 + 7.35 log(D + 1) − 0.06 + log[ΔPSI / (4.5 − 1.5)] / [1 + 1.624 × 107 / (D + 1)8.46] + (4.22 − 0.32 pt) log{ Sc′ Cd (D0.75 − 1.132) / [215.63 J (D0.75 − 18.42 / (Ec / k)0.25)] }

D is the slab thickness, Sc′ the mean modulus of rupture and Ec the modulus of elasticity of the concrete, Cd the drainage coefficient, J the joint load-transfer coefficient and k the effective modulus of subgrade reaction. The equation is solved for D by bisection on its rising branch and the result is rounded up to the entered increment. The slab thickness is sensitive to the traffic, the concrete strength, J and Cd, and only slightly to k.

The design k is the Guide's composite value after its corrections. For a granular subbase of thickness DSB and modulus ESB on a deep roadbed the regression behind the Guide's chart is

ln k∞ = −2.807 + 0.1253 (ln DSB)² + 1.062 ln MR + 0.1282 ln DSB ln ESB − 0.4114 ln DSB − 0.0581 ln ESB − 0.1317 ln DSB ln MR

which the tool prints for comparison when the subbase is entered. The corrections for shallow rock, for the seasons and for loss of support are chart readings of the Guide and are not computed: the design k is entered. Loss of support is a large correction (423 pci becomes 38 pci in the FHWA baseline example), so the composite value must not be entered as the design value.

Entered section, traffic life and remaining life

For an entered flexible section or slab the same equation gives the ESALs the section carries to the terminal serviceability at the design reliability. The tool compares that life with the design traffic, converts it to years with the first-year traffic and the growth rate, and, when the ESALs carried to date are entered, prints the fraction of the traffic life that remains, 1 − Np / N. This is a traffic ratio only; the Guide's overlay design also uses the measured condition of the pavement.

CBR cross-check

The Corps of Engineers CBR equation gives the thickness of pavement needed above a soil of a given CBR to protect it from a wheel load:

t = α √( P / (8.1 CBR) − A / π ), with A = P / p

t is in inches, P the single (or equivalent single) wheel load in lb, p the tire contact pressure in psi and α the load-repetition factor read from the Tri-Service chart for the number of coverages (1.0 leaves the basic equation). The tool evaluates it for one entered wheel and compares it with the total thickness of the AASHTO section. The two methods rest on different tests and criteria and need not agree; the comparison is a plausibility check.

Limits

The equations describe the pavements, materials, loads and climate of one road test, extended by judgement, and predict serviceability loss only. They do not check rutting, fatigue cracking, faulting or frost action. Airfield pavements, low-volume and aggregate-surfaced roads, frost-protection thickness, overlays, joint and reinforcement design and mechanistic-empirical design are not part of this tool.

Checks

The iteration of the factors is tested against independent scipy root-finding of the same fixed point for the default mix and sixty seeded mixes. The library is tested against the worked examples of FHWA-NHI-05-037 (flexible SN 4.61, 5.07 and 5.76 with their layer thicknesses; rigid slabs of 10.4, 10.5, 11.5 and 12.3 in; composite k of 423 pci), against all 12,000 required structural numbers tabulated in the Florida DOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual (2008), against load-equivalency factors reprinted by FHWA, and against independent scipy solutions of seeded cases. The FHWA flexible layer examples are reproduced with a base modulus of 45,000 psi; the 40,000 psi stated in that manual gives a surface structural number of 2.46, not the printed 2.35.




References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, DC.

Christopher, B. R., Schwartz, C., and Boudreau, R. (2006). Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements. Reference Manual, Publication FHWA NHI-05-037, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Florida Department of Transportation (2008). Flexible Pavement Design Manual. Document No. 625-010-002-g, Pavement Management Office, Tallahassee, FL.

Highway Research Board (1962). The AASHO Road Test, Report 5: Pavement Research. Special Report 61E, Publication No. 954, National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Titus-Glover, L., Fang, C., Alam, M., O’Toole, K., and Darter, M. I. (2010). Pavement Health Track (PHT), Remaining Service Life (RSL) Forecasting Models, Technical Information. Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Tri-Service Pavement Working Group (2022). Constructing Pavement Design and Evaluation Charts. TSPWG Manual 3-260-03.22-01, 5 August 2022.

U.S. Department of Defense (2016). Pavement Design for Roads and Parking Areas. Unified Facilities Criteria UFC 3-250-01, 14 November 2016.

Worked Examples

Published examples this tool reproduces; each page lists the inputs to enter and the printed answers.

All worked examples


DISCLAIMER: The methods and calculation on aNOWysis.com are provided as means to educate the reader. There is no warranty, expessed or implied, as to the relevance or accuracy of the methods or calculations. All calculations should be checked by a qualified analyst for appropriateness and accuracy. We will not be held liable for any damages, injuries or deaths caused by using methods or calculations from this site.