PAVEMENT DESIGN

1 INTRODUCTION When designing pavements (both mix design and structural design), there are three fundamental external design parameters to consider: the characteristics of the subgrade upon which the pavement is placed, the applied loads and the environment. First, the subgrade upon which the pavement is placed will have a large impact on structural design. Subgrade stiffness and drainage characteristics help determine pavement layer thickness, the number of layers, seasonal load restrictions and any possible improvements to subgrade stiffness and drainage itself. Second, the expected traffic loading is a primary design input (both in mix design and structural design). Traffic loads are used to determine pavement composition, layer type and thickness, all of which affect pavement life. Third, theenvironment has a large impact on pavement material performance. Environmental factors such as temperature, moisture and ice formation can affect pavement durability, binder rheology, structural support and ultimately pavement life and failure. This section provides an overview of subgrade characteristics, pavement loading concepts and environmental factors. 2 SUBGRADE Although a pavement's wearing course is most prominent, the success or failure of a pavement is more often than not dependent upon the underlying subgrade (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2) - the material upon which the pavement structure is built. Subgrades be composed of a wide range of materials although some are much better than others. This subsection discusses a few of the aspects of subgrade materials that make them either desirable or undesirable and the typical tests used to characterize subgrades. Major Topics on this Page 2.1 Subgrade Performance 2.2 Stiffness/Strength Tests 2.3 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 2.4 Summary

Figure 4.1: Subgrade Preparation

Figure 4.2: Subgrade Failure Crack

2.1 Subgrade Performance A subgrades performance generally depends on three of its basic characteristics (all of which are interrelated): 1. Load bearing capacity. The subgrade must be able to support loads transmitted from the pavement structure. This load bearing capacity is often affected by degree of compaction, moisture content, and soil type. A subgrade that can support a high amount of loading without excessive deformation is considered good. 2. Moisture content. Moisture tends to affect a number of subgrade properties including load bearing capacity, shrinkage and swelling. Moisture content can be influenced by a number of things such as drainage, groundwater table elevation, infiltration, or pavement porosity (which can be assisted by cracks in the pavement). Generally, excessively wet subgrades will deform excessively under load. 3. Shrinkage and/or swelling. Some soils shrink or swell depending upon their moisture content. Additionally, soils with excessive fines content may be susceptible to frost heave in northern climates. Shrinkage, swelling and frost heave will tend to deform and crack any pavement type constructed over them. Poor subgrade should be avoided if possible, but when it is necessary to build over weak soils there are several methods available to improve subgrade performance:

Removal and replacement (over-excavation). Poor subgrade soil can simply be removed and replaced with high quality fill. Although this is simple in concept, it can be expensive. Table 4.1

shows typical over-excavation depths recommended by the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association (CAPA). Table 4.1: Over-Excavation Recommendations (from CAPA, 2000) Subgrade Plasticity Index 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 More than 50 Depth of Over-Excavation Below Normal Subgrade Elevation 0.7 meters (2 ft.) 1.0 meter (3 ft.) 1.3 meters (4 ft.) 1.7 meters (5 ft.) 2.0 meters (6 ft.)

Stabilization with a cementitious or asphaltic binder. The addition of an appropriate binder (such as lime, portland cement or emulsified asphalt) can increase subgrade stiffness and/or reduce swelling tendencies. Table 4.2 summarizes the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association recommendations. Table 4.2: Some Stabilization Recommendations (from CAPA, 2000) Stabilization Material Conditions Under which it is Recommended Subgrades where expansion potential combined with a lack of stability is a problem. Subgrades which exhibit a plasticity index of 10 or less. Subgrades are sandy and do not have an excessive amount of material finer than the 0.075 mm (#200) sieve.

Lime

Portland Cement

Asphalt Emulsion

Additional base layers. Marginally poor subgrade soils may be compensated for by using additional base layers. These layers (usually of crushed stone either stabilized or unstabilized) serve to spread pavement loads over a larger subgrade area. This option is rather perilous; when designing pavements for poor subgrades the temptation may be to just design a thicker section with more base material because the thicker section will satisfy most design equations. However, these equations are at least in

part empirical and were usually not intended to be used in extreme cases. In short, a thick pavement structure over a poor subgrade will not necessarily make a good pavement. In sum, subgrade characteristics and performance are influential in pavement structural design. Characteristics such as load bearing capacity, moisture content and expansiveness will influence not only structural design but also long-term performance and cost.

2.2 Stiffness/Strength Tests Subgrade materials are typically characterized by their resistance to deformation under load, which can be either a measure of their strength (the stress needed to break or rupture a material) or stiffness (the relationship between stress and strain in the elastic range or how well a material is able to return to its original shape and size after being stressed). In general, the more resistant to deformation a subgrade is, the more load it can support before reaching a critical deformation value. Three basic subgrade stiffness/strength characterizations are commonly used in the U.S.:California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Resistance Value (R-value) and elastic (resilient) modulus. Although there are other factors involved when evaluating subgrade materials (such as swell in the case of certain clays), stiffness is the most common characterization and thus CBR, R-value and resilient modulus are discussed here. WSDOT Strength/Stiffness Tests WSDOT uses a modified version of AASHTO T 292 (Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and Untreated Base/Subbase Materials) to characterize subgrade soil and untreated base/subbase material stiffness. Therefore, WSDOT uses the resilient modulus rather than CBR or R-value for design purposes. WSDOT uses R-value to characterize aggregate pit sources for material approval.

2.2.1 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is a simple strength test that compares the bearing capacity of a material with that of a well-graded crushed stone (thus, a high quality crushed stone material should have a CBR @ 100%). It is primarily intended for, but not limited to, evaluating the strength of cohesive materials having maximum particle sizes less than 19 mm (0.75 in.) (AASHTO, 2000). It was developed by the California Division of Highways around 1930 and was subsequently adopted by numerous states, counties, U.S. federal agencies and internationally. As a result, most agency and commercial geotechnical laboratories in the U.S. are equipped to perform CBR tests.

The basic CBR test involves applying load to a small penetration piston at a rate of 1.3 mm (0.05") per minute and recording the total load at penetrations ranging from 0.64 mm (0.025 in.) up to 7.62 mm (0.300 in.). Figure 4.3 is a sketch of a typical CBR sample.

Figure 4.3: CBR Sample Values obtained are inserted into the following equation to obtain a CBR value:

where:

material resistance or the unit load on the piston (pressure) for 2.54 mm (0.1") or 5.08 mm (0.2") of penetration standard unit load (pressure) for well graded crushed stone for 2.54 mm (0.1") penetration = 6.9 MPa (1000 psi) for 5.08 mm (0.2") penetration = 10.3 MPa (1500 psi)

= = =

Table 4.3 shows some typical CBR ranges. Table 4.3: Typical CBR Ranges General Soil Type Coarse-grained soils GP 30 - 60 USC Soil Type GW CBR Range 40 - 80

GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL LL < 50% OL Fine-grained soils MH CH LL > 50% OH Standard CBR test methods are:

20 - 60 20 - 40 20 - 40 10 - 40 10 - 40 5 - 20 15 or less 15 or less 5 or less 10 or less 15 or less 5 or less

2.2.2 Resistance Value (R-value) The Resistance Value (R-value) test is a material stiffness test. The test procedure expresses a material's resistance to deformation as a function of the ratio of transmitted lateral pressure to applied vertical pressure. It is essentially a modified triaxial compression test. Materials tested are assigned an R-value. The R-value test was developed by F.N. Hveem and R.M. Carmany of the California Division of Highways and first reported in the late 1940's. During this time rutting (or shoving) in the wheel tracks was a primary concern and the R-value test was developed as an improvement on the CBR test. Presently, the R-value is used mostly by State Highway Agencies (SHAs) on the west coast of the U.S. The test procedure to determine R-value requires that the laboratory prepared samples are fabricated to a moisture and density condition representative of the worst possible in situ condition of a compacted subgrade. The R-value is calculated from the ratio of the applied vertical pressure to the developed lateral pressure and is essentially a measure of the material's resistance to plastic flow. The

testing apparatus used in the R-value test is called a stabilometer (identical to the one used in Hveem HMA mix design) and is represented schematically in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: R-Value Stabilometer Values obtained from the stabilometer are inserted into the following equation to obtain an R-value:

where:

R Pv Ph D

= = = =

resistance value applied vertical pressure (160 psi) transmitted horizontal pressure at Pv = 160 psi displacement of stabilometer fluid necessary to increase horizontal pressure from 5 to 100 psi.

Some typical R-values are:

Well-graded (dense gradation) crushed stone base course: 80+ MH silts: 15-30

Standard R-Value test methods are:

AASHTO T 190 and ASTM D 2844: Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils

WSDOT R-Value Test WSDOT uses R-value to characterize aggregate pit sources for material approval. WSDOT Test Method 611 is very similar to AASHTO T 190. However, WSDOT uses a 300 psi exudation pressure while AASHTO T 190 uses a 400 psi exudation pressure. WSDOT and AASHTO T 190 R-values may differ due to this exudation pressure difference.

2.2.3 Resilient Modulus The Resilient Modulus (MR) is a subgrade material stiffness test. A material's resilient modulus is actually an estimate of its modulus of elasticity (E). While the modulus of elasticity is stress divided by strain (e.g., the slope of the Figure 4.5 plot within the linear elastic range) for a slowly applied load, resilient modulus is stress divided by strain for rapidly applied loads like those experienced by pavements. This subsection discusses:

Elastic modulus and its relationship with resilient modulus Nomenclature and symbols Stress sensitivity of moduli Typical values The triaxial resilient modulus test Elastic modulus correlations

. Although they measure the same stress-strain relationship, the load application rates are different, thus resilient modulus is considered an estimate of elastic modulus.

2.2.3.1 Elastic Modulus Elastic modulus is sometimes called Young's modulus after Thomas Young who published the concept back in 1807. An elastic modulus (E) can be determined for any solid material and represents a constant ratio of stress and strain (a stiffness):

A material is elastic if it is able to return to its original shape or size immediately after being stretched or squeezed. Almost all materials are elastic to some degree as long as the applied load does not cause it

to deform permanently. Thus, the "flexibility" of any object or structure depends on its elastic modulus and geometric shape. The modulus of elasticity for a material is basically the slope of its stress-strain plot within the elastic range (as shown in Figure 4.5). Figure 4.6 shows a stress versus strain curve for steel. The initial straight-line portion of the curve is the elastic range for the steel. If the material is loaded to any value of stress in this part of the curve, it will return to its original shape. Thus, the modulus of elasticity is the slope of this part of the curve and is equal to about 207,000 MPa (30,000,000 psi) for steel. It is important to remember that a measure of a material's modulus of elasticity is not a measure of strength. Strength is the stress needed to break or rupture a material (as illustrated in Figure 4.5), whereas elasticity is a measure of how well a material returns to its original shape and size.

Figure 4.5: Stress-Strain Plot Showing the Elastic Range

Figure 4.6: Example Stress-Strain Plot for Steel

2.2.3.2 Nomenclature and Symbols The nomenclature and symbols from the 1993 AASHTO Guide is generally used in referring to pavement moduli. For example: EAC = asphalt concrete elastic modulus EBS = base course resilient modulus ESB = subbase course resilient modulus MR (or ESG) = roadbed soil (subgrade) resilient modulus (used interchangeably)

2.2.3.3 Stress Sensitivity of Moduli Changes in stress can have a large impact on resilient modulus. "Typical" relationships are shown in Figures 4.7 and 4.8.

Figure 4.7: Resilient Modulus vs. Bulk Stress for Unstabilized Coarse Grained Materials

Figure 4.8: Resilient Modulus vs. Deviator Stress for Unstabilized Fine Grained Materials

2.2.3.4 Typical Values Tables 4.4 shows typical values of modulus of elasticity for various materials. Table 4.4: Typical Modulus of Elasticity Values for Various Materials Elastic Modulus Material MPa Diamond Steel Aluminum Wood Crushed Stone Silty Soils Clay Soils Rubber 1,200,000 200,000 70,000 7,000-14,000 150-300 35-150 35-100 7 psi 170,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000-2,000,000 20,000-40,000 5,000-20,000 5,000-15,000 1,000

Washington State Resilient Modulus Information WSDOT uses resilient modulus to characterize base and subbase materials as well as the subgrade (CBR was used up until 1951 after which R-Values were used). A series of resilient modulus triaxial tests were conducted at the WSDOT Materials Laboratory in July 1988, April 1989 and May 1989 on disturbed (i.e., not in situ) samples from 14 sites: SR 410 SR 411 SR 5 MP 9.6 MP 18.0 MP 35.8 SR 20 SR 20 SR 20 MP 77.5 MP 108.2 MP 140.8

SR 500 SR 14 SR 11 SR 20 Test results showed: Base Material average MR

MP 3.2 MP 18.2 MP 20.8 MP 53.4

SR 195 SR 195 SR 195 SR 90

MP 7.2 MP 20.0 MP 63.8 MP 208.8

= 194 MPa (28,100 psi)

standard deviation = 29.0 MPa (4,200 psi) 137.2 MPa (19,900 psi) up to 240.6 MPa (34,900 psi)

range

Subgrade 133 MPa (19,300 psi) Includes some borrow = material 66 MPa (9,600 psi) Excludes all borrow material

average MR

59.0 MPa (8,600 psi) Includes some borrow standard deviation = material 28.0 MPa (4,000 psi) Excludes all borrow material range = 47.6 MPa (6,900 psi) up to 260.6 MPa (37,800 psi)

Keep in mind that this was not a comprehensive study of all Washington State granular materials but it does give an idea of the range and typical values of base and subgrade stiffness in Washington State.

2.2.3.5 Triaxial Resilient Modulus Test There are two fundamental approaches to estimating elastic moduli laboratory tests and field deflection data/backcalculation. This section discusses laboratory tests. Of the laboratory tests, two are noted:

Diametral resilient modulus. This test is typically used on HMA and is covered in Module 5, Section 6, HMA Performance Tests. Triaxial resilient modulus. This test is typically used on unbound materials such as soil and aggregate and is covered here.

In a triaxial resilient modulus test a repeated axial cyclic stress of fixed magnitude, load duration and cyclic duration is applied to a cylindrical test specimen. While the specimen is subjected to this dynamic cyclic stress, it is also subjected to a static confining stress provided by a triaxial pressure chamber. The total resilient (recoverable) axial deformation response of the specimen is measured (see Figure 4.9) and used to calculate the resilient modulus using the following equation: Figure 4.9: Triaxial Resilient Modulus Test Illustration Note: this example is simplified and shows only 6 load repetitions, normally there are 1000 specimen conditioning repetitions followed by several hundred load repetitions during the test at different deviator stresses and confining pressures.

where:

MR (or ER) d r L DL

resilient modulus (or elastic modulus since resilient modulus is just an estimate of elastic modulus) stress (applied load / sample cross sectional area) recoverable axial strain = D L/L gauge length over which the sample deformation is measured change in sample length due to applied load

= = = =

The standard triaxial resilient modulus test is:

AASHTO T 292: Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and Untreated Base/Subbase Materials

2.2.4 Strength/Stiffness Correlations

A widely used empirical relationship developed by Heukelom and Klomp (1962) and used in the 1993 AASHTO Guide is: ESG (or MR) = (1500) (CBR) This equation is restricted to fine grained materials with soaked CBR values of 10 or less. Like all such correlations, it should be used with caution. The proposed new AASHTO Design Guide will likely use the following relationship: MR = 2555 x CBR0.64 The 1993 AASHTO Guide offers the following correlation equation between R-value and elastic modulus for fine-grained soils with R-values less than or equal to 20. ESG (or MR) = 1,000 + (555)(R-value) Washington State Resilient Modulus vs. R-Value Correlation A WSDOT developed relationship between the R-value and resilient modulus is shown below. This graph was developed using WSDOT samples which ranged from silty materials (A-7) to coarse aggregate (A-1). The samples were tested according to Washington Test Method 611 (Determination of the Resistance (RValue) of Untreated Bases, Subbases, and Basement Soils by the Stabilometer) and AASHTO T 274. Note that WSDOT Test Method 611 design R-Values are determined at an exudation pressure of 400 psi. AASHTO T 190 allows the use of a 300 psi exudation pressure. Thus, R-Values may differ due to the exudation pressure.

2.3 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is used as a primary input for rigid pavement design. It estimates the support of the layers below a rigid pavement surface course (the PCC slab). The k-value can be determined by field tests or by correlation with other tests. There is no direct laboratory procedure for determining k-value. The modulus of subgrade reaction came about because work done by Westergaard during the 1920s developed the k-value as a spring constant to model the support beneath the slab (see Figure 4.10).

Figure 4.10: Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k)

The reactive pressure to resist a load is thus proportional to the spring deflection (which is a representation of slab deflection) and k (see Figure 4.11):

where:

P k D

= = =

reactive pressure to support deflected slab spring constant = modulus of subgrade reaction slab deflection

Figure 4.11: Relation of Load, Deflection and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k)

The value of k is in terms of MPa/m (pounds per square inch per inch of deflection, or pounds per cubic inch - pci) and ranges from about 13.5 MPa/m (50 pci) for weak support, to over 270 MPa/m (1000 pci) for strong support. Typically, the modulus of subgrade reaction is estimated from other strength/stiffness tests, however, in situ values can be measured using the plate bearing test.

2.3.1 Plate Load Test The plate load test (see Figure 4.12 and 4.13) presses a steel bearing plate into the surface to be measured with a hydraulic jack. The resulting surface deflection is read from dial micrometers near the plate edge and the modulus of subgrade reaction is determined by the following equation:

where:

k P

= =

spring constant = modulus of subgrade reaction applied pressure (load divided by the area of the 762 mm (30 inch)

diameter plate) = measured deflection of the 762 mm (30 inch) diamter plate

Figure 4.12: Plate Load Test Schematic

Figure 4.13: Plate Load Test

The 1993 AASHTO Guide offers the following relationship between k-values from a plate bearing test and resilient modulus (MR):

The standard plate bearing test is:

AASHTO T 222 and ASTM D 1196: Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load for Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements

2.4 Summary Subgrade properties are essential pavement design parameters. Materials typically encountered in subgrades are characterized by their strength and their resistance to deformation under load (stiffness). In the U.S. the CBR, R-value and resilient modulus are commonly used to characterize subgrade materials. Although each method is useful, the resilient modulus is most consistent with other

disciplines and is gaining widespread use in pavement design. The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is the subgrade characterization used in rigid pavement design. It can be estimated from CBR, R-value or elastic modulus, or calculated from field tests like the plate bearing test. 3 LOADS One of the primary functions of a pavement is load distribution. Therefore, in order to adequately design a pavement something must be known about the expected loads it will encounter. Loads, the vehicle forces exerted on the pavement (e.g., by trucks, heavy machinery, airplanes), can be characterized by the following parameters:

Major Topics on this Page 3.1 Tire Loads 3.2 Axle and Tire Configurations 3.3 Repetitions of Wheel Loads 3.4 Traffic Distribution 3.5 Vehicle Speed 3.6 The ESAL Equations 3.7 Load Spectra

Tire loads Axle and tire configurations Repetition of loads Distribution of traffic across the pavement Vehicle speed

Loads, along with the environment, damage pavement over 3.8 Summary time. The simplest pavement structural model asserts that each individual load inflicts a certain amount of unrecoverable damage. This damage is cumulative over the life of the pavement and when it reaches some maximum value the pavement is considered to have reached the end of its useful service life. Therefore, pavement structural design requires a quantification of all expected loads a pavement will encounter over its design life. This quantification is usually done in one of two ways: 1. Equivalent single axle loads (ESALs). This approach converts wheel loads of various magnitudes and repetitions ("mixed traffic") to an equivalent number of "standard" or "equivalent" loads. 2. Load spectra. This approach characterizes loads directly by number of axles, configuration and weight. It does not involve conversion to equivalent values. Structural design calculations using load spectra are generally more complex than those using ESALs. Both approaches use the same type and quality of data but the load spectra approach has the potential to be more accurate in its load characterization.

3.1 Tire Loads Tire loads are the fundamental loads at the actual tire-pavement contact points. For most pavement analyses, it is assumed that the tire load is uniformly applied over a circular area. Also, it is generally assumed that tire inflation and contact pressures are the same (this is not exactly true, but adequate for approximations). The following equation relates the radius of tire contact to tire inflation pressure and the total tire load:

Where: a P p

= = =

radius of tire contact total load on the tire tire inflation pressure

States generally limit the allowable load per inch width of tire. Based on a slightly dated survey (Sharma, Hallin and Mahoney, 1983), this tire load limitation varies from a high of 140 N/mm (800 lbs/inch) to a low of 79 N/mm (450 lbs/inch).

Figure 4.14: FHWA Class 9 Five-Axle Tractor Semi trailer (18 Tires Total)A typical tire load is 18.9 kN (4,250 lbs) with an inflation pressure of 689 kPa (100 psi.)

3.2 Axle and Tire Configurations

While the tire contact pressure and area is of vital concern in pavement performance, the number of contact points per vehicle and their spacing is also critical. As tire loads get closer together their influence areas on the pavement begin to overlap, at which point the design characteristic of concern is no longer the single isolated tire load but rather the combined effect of all the interacting tire loads. Therefore, axle and tire arrangements are quite important.

3.2.1 Descriptions Tire-axle combinations are typically described as (see Figure 4.15):

Single axle single tire (truck steering axles, etc.) Single axle dual tires Tandem axle single tires (see Figure 4.16) Tandem axle dual tires

Single Axle with Single Tires

Single Axle with Dual Tires

Tandem Axles with Single Tires

Tandem Axles with Dual Tires

Figure 4.15: Tire-Axle Combinations (from Mahoney, 1984)

Figure 4.16: Tandem Drive Axle on a Tractor Frame During Manufacturing

3.2.2 Typical Axle Load Limits Federal and State laws establish maximum axle and gross vehicle weights to limit pavement damage. The range of weight limits in the U.S. vary a bit based on various Federal and State laws. Figure 4.17 shows the range of maximum limits for single axle, tandem axle and gross vehicle weight (GVW) established by the states and the FHWA. Washington State Tire and Axle Load Limits Item Tire Load Limit 105 N/mm (600 lb/inch) of tire width 89 kN (20,000 lbs) 151 kN (34,000 lbs) 469 kN (105,500 lbs)

Single Axle

Tandem Axle

Gross Vehicle Weight

Figure 4.17: Range of Allowable Axle and Truck Weights in the U.S. (based on data from USDOT, 2000) Although each state and the FHWA have established maximum axle-tire load combinations, there are other restrictions as well. One of the most common is the FHWA bridge formula (sometimes called the Federal Bridge Formula B).

3.3 Repetitions of Wheel Loads Although it is not too difficult to determine the wheel and axle loads for an individual vehicle, it becomes quite complicated to determine the number and types of wheel/axle loads that a particular pavement will be subject to over its entire design life. Furthermore, it is not the wheel load but rather the damage to the pavement caused by the wheel load that is of primary concern. There are currently two basic methods for characterizing wheel load repetitions: 1. Equivalent single axle load (ESAL). Based on AASHO Road Test results, the most common approach is to convert wheel loads of various magnitudes and repetitions ("mixed traffic") to an equivalent number of "standard" or "equivalent" loads. The most commonly used equivalent load in the U.S. is the 80 kN (18,000 lbs) equivalent single axle load(normally designated ESAL).

2. Load spectra. The 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures (NCHRP 1-37A) essentially does away with the ESAL and determines loading directly from axle configurations and weights. This is a more precise characterization of traffic but relies on the same input data used to calculate ESALs.A typical load spectrum input would be in the form of a table that shows the relative axle weight frequencies for each common axle combination (e.g. single axle, tandem axle, tridem axle, quad axle) over a given time period (see Figure 4.18). Often, load spectra data can be obtained from weight-in-motion stations.

Figure 4.18: Example Load Spectra Input Screen from NCHRP 1-37A Typically, designers must not only calculate ESALs or load spectra for various vehicles but also must forecast the expected number of ESALs or load spectra a pavement will encounter over its entire design life. This information then helps determine the structural design. Highway design in most states is based on the ESAL traffic input anticipated over a future 10 to 50 year period.

3.4

Traffic Distribution

Along with load type and repetitions, the load distributions across a particular pavement must be estimated. For instance, on a 6-lane interstate highway (3 lanes in each direction) the total number of loads is probably not distributed exactly equally in both directions. Often one direction carries more loads than the other. Furthermore, within that one direction, not all lanes carry the same loading. Typically, the outer most lane carries the most trucks and therefore is subjected to the heaviest loading. Therefore, pavement structural design should account for these types of unequal load distribution. Typically, this is accounted for by selecting a "design lane" for a particular pavement. The loads expected in the design lane are either (1) directly counted or (2) calculated from the cumulative two-direction loads by applying factors for directional distribution and lane distribution. The 1993 AASHTO Guide offers the following basic equation:

Where: w18 DD

= =

traffic (or loads) in the design lane a directional distribution factor, expressed as a ratio, that accounts for the distribution of loads by direction (e.g., east-west, north-south). For instance, one direction may carry a majority of the heavy truck loads and thus it would either be designed differently or, at a minimum, it would control the structural design. Generally taken as 0.5 (50%) for most roadways unless more detailed information is known. a lane distribution factor, expressed as a ratio, that accounts for the distribution of loads when two or more lanes are available in one direction. For instance, on most interstate routes, the outside lane carries a majority of the heavy truck traffic. Number of Lanes in Each Direction Percent of Loads in Design Lane

DL

1 2 3 4 ^ w18

100 80 100 60 80 50 75

the cumulative two-directional loads predicted for a specific section of highway during the design period.

3.5 Vehicle Speed Although current design practices do not necessarily account for vehicle speed, it does influence pavement loading. In general, slower speeds and stop conditions allow a particular load to be applied to a given pavement area for a longer period of time resulting in greater damage. For HMA pavements this behavior is sometimes evident at bus stops (where heavy buses stop and sit while loading/unloading passengers) and intersection approaches (where traffic stops and waits to pass through the intersection) when mix design or structural design have been inadequate. In flexible pavement design, Superpave accounts for vehicle speed indirectly by applying a design pavement temperature adjustment for slow-moving or stopped vehicles.

3.6

The ESAL Equations

ESALs indicate the relative damage to a pavement structure due to various axle loads (e.g., the normal mixed traffic condition). Recall that wheel loads of various magnitudes and repetitions ("mixed traffic") can be converted to an equivalent number of "standard" loads. The most common standard load is the 80 kN (18,000 lbs) ESAL. The two standard U.S. ESAL equations (one each for flexible and rigid pavements) are derived from the AASHO Road Test results. Both these equations involve the same basic format, however the exponents are slightly different.

The equation outputs are load equivalency factors (LEFs) or ESAL factors. This factor relates various axle load combinations to the standard 80 kN (18,000 lbs) single axle load. It should be noted that ESALs as calculated by the ESAL equations are dependent upon the pavement type (flexible or rigid) and the pavement structure (structural number for flexible and slab depth for rigid). As a rule-of-thumb, the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide, Part III, Chapter 5, Paragraph 5.2.3 recommends the use of a multiplier of 1.5 to convert flexible ESALs to rigid ESALs (or a multiplier of 0.67 to convert rigid ESALs to flexible ESALs). Using load spectra (as proposed in the 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures) will eliminate the need for flexible-rigid ESAL conversions. Table 4.5 shows some typical LEFs for various axle-load combinations. Table 4.5: Some Typical Load Equivalency Factors Axle Load Load Equivalency Factor (from AASHTO, 1993) (lbs) 2,000 10,000 Flexible 0.0003 0.118 Rigid 0.0002 0.082

Axle Type (lbs)

(kN) Single axle 8.9 44.5

62.3 80.0 89.0 133.4 8.9 44.5 62.3 80.0 89.0 133.4 151.2 177.9 222.4

14,000 18,000 20,000 30,000 2,000 10,000 14,000 18,000 20,000 30,000 34,000 40,000 50,000

0.399 1.000 1.4 7.9 0.0001 0.011 0.042 0.109 0.162 0.703 1.11 2.06 5.03

0.341 1.000 1.57 8.28 0.0001 0.013 0.048 0.133 0.206 1.14 1.92 3.74 9.07

Tandem axle

Assumptions:

pt = 2.5 Pavement structural number (SN) = 3.0 for flexible pavements Slab depth (D) = 9.0 inches for rigid pavements

3.6.1 Generalized Fourth Power Law The AASHTO load equivalency equation is quite cumbersome and certainly not easy to remember. Therefore, as a rule-of-thumb, the damage caused by a particular load is roughly related to the load by a power of four (for reasonably strong pavement surfaces). For example, given a flexible pavement with SN = 3.0 and pt = 2.5: 1. A 18,000 lb (80 kN) single axle, LEF =1.0 2. A 30,000 lb (133 kN) single axle, LEF = 7.9 3. Comparing the two, the ratio is: 7.9/1.0 = 7.9 4. Using the fourth power rule-of-thumb:

Thus, the two estimates are approximately equal.

General Observations Based On Load Equivalency Factors 1. The relationship between axle weight and inflicted pavement damage is not linear but exponential. For instance, a 44.4 kN (10,000 lbs) single axle needs to be applied to a pavement structure more than 12 times to inflict the same damage caused by one repetition of an 80 kN (18,000 lbs) single axle. Similarly, a 97.8 kN (22,000 lbs) single axle needs to be repeated less than half the number of times of an 80 kN (18,000 lbs) single axle to have an equivalent effect.
o

An 80 kN (18,000 lbs) single axle does over 3,000 times more damage to a pavement than an 8.9 kN (2,000 lbs) single axle (1.000/0.0003 3,333). A 133.3 kN (30,000 lbs) single axle does about 67 times more damage than a 44.4 kN (10,000 lbs) single axle (7.9/0.118 67). A 133.3 kN (30,000 lb) single axle does about 11 times more damage than a 133.3 kN (30,000 lb) tandem axle (7.9/0.703 11). Heavy trucks and buses are responsible for a majority of pavement damage. Considering that a typical automobile weighs between 2,000 and 7,000 lbs (curb weight), even a fully loaded large passenger van will only generate about 0.003 ESALs while a fully loaded tractor-semi trailer can generate up to about 3 ESALs (depending upon pavement type, structure and terminal serviceability).

2. Determining the LEF for each axle load combination on a particular roadway is possible through the use of weigh-in-motion equipment. However, typically this type of detailed information is not available for design. Therefore, many agencies average their LEFs over the whole state or over different regions within the state. They then use a standard "truck factor" for design which is simply the average number of ESALs per truck. Thus, an ESAL determination would involved counting the number of trucks and multiplying by the truck factor.
o

This method allows for ESAL estimations without detailed traffic measurements, which is often appropriate for low volume roads and frequently must be used for lack of a better alternative for high volume roads. When using this method, there is no guarantee that the assumed truck factor is an accurate representation of the trucks encountered on the particular roadway in question.

3.6.2 Estimating ESALs A basic element in pavement design is estimating the ESALs a specific pavement will encounter over its design life. This helps determine the pavement structural design (as well as the HMA mix design in the case of Superpave). This is done by forecasting the traffic the pavement will be subjected to over its design life then converting the traffic to a specific number of ESALs based on its makeup. A typical ESAL estimate consists of: 1. Traffic count. A traffic count is used as a starting point for ESAL estimation. Most urban areas have some amount of historical traffic count records. If not, simple traffic tube counts are relatively inexpensive and quick. In some cases, designers may have to use extremely approximate estimates if no count data can be obtained. 2. A count or estimate of the number of heavy vehicles. This usually requires some sort of vehicle classification within the traffic count. The simplest classifications divide vehicles into two categories: (1) heavy trucks and (2) others. Other, more elaborate schemes can also be used such as the FHWA's vehicle classification. WSDOT Vehicle Counting and ESAL Assumptions WSDOT uses several different estimates for typical ESAL values. First, the WSDOT Pavement Management System (PMS) uses a simplified version of the FHWA vehicle classification system. Like many other states WSDOT uses three categories and assumes the following ESAL values: WSDOT Category Single Units Double Units Trains FHWA Classes 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13 WSDOT Assumed ESALs per Truck 0.40 1.00 1.75

The WSDOT PMS equation for annual ESALs on any given roadway is: Annual ESALs = 365[0.40(single units) + 1.00(double units) + 1.75(trains)] This equation implies that passenger automobile contributions to total ESAL counts are negligible.

Second, data collected between 1960 and 1983 provides a rough estimate of ESALs divided up into single units, combination units, buses and an overall truck factor.

Typical Flexible Pavement ESAL Factors Based on Measurement ESAL Factors Highway System Single Units 0.30 0.50 0.25 Combination Buses Units 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.60 1.60 1.60 Individual Overall Trucks Axle (Excludes Buses) 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.10 1.40 1.00

Interstate Non-Interstate Rural Non-Interstate Urban

All panel trucks and pickups were excluded from the calculations if they had two axles with four tires (i.e., two axle, six tire trucks or larger were used). The ESAL calculations are for flexible pavements (LEFs from Appendix D, 1993 AASHTO Guide, SN = 5, pt = 2.5) only. Results are based on weight data from a limited number of weigh stations (typically 5 to 15) which operated for a maximum period of 24 hours for no more than five days per year. Thus, the samples and hence the summary may be biased (either high or low). The above ESAL factors may appear to be "low"; however, about one-half of the trucks weighed at weigh stations were empty. Thus, an ESAL/axle factor = 0.25 corresponds to a single axle load of about 12,700 lb (56.5 kN) (assumes SN = 5, pt = 2.5).

Third, initial WSDOT weigh-in-motion (WIM) analysis reveals the following ESALs per vehicle: WSDOT Category WIM ESALs/vehicle Single Units Double Units Trains 0.37 1.02 1.22

Note that these assumptions agree rather well with WSDOT PMS assumptions for all vehicles except "trains". For the 10 initial WSDOT WIM sites analyzed, the ESAL per vehicle for trains ranged from a low of 0.43 to a high of 1.79.

3. An estimated traffic (and heavy vehicle) growth rate over the design life of the pavement. A growth rate estimate is required to convert a single year traffic count into the total traffic experienced over the pavement design life. Typically, multiplying the original traffic count by the pavement design life (in years) will grossly underestimate total ESALs. For example, Interstate 5 at mile post 176.35 (near Shoreline, Washington) has experienced a growth from about 200,000 ESALs per year in 1965 (original construction) to about 1,000,000 ESALs per year in 1994. Thus, over a 30 year period, the ESALs per year have increased by a factor of five or an annual growth rate of about six percent. WSDOT Traffic Growth Rate Assumptions The WSDOT Pavement Management System (PMS) calculates ESAL growth rate using the following equation:

Where:

traffic growth rate. If the truck growth rate is greater than zero then G is assumed to be equal to the truck growth rate. Otherwise, G is assumed to be equal to the ADT growth rate. A minimum G of 2 percent is assumed. an additional growth rate assumed to account for the increase in pertire load. The ESAL accounts for the loading on each axle, while this additional factor is an attempt to account for how that load is actually transmitted to the pavement through the tires. For instance, an 18,000 lb. axle load supported by four tires at 80 psi each is less damaging than the same 18,000 lb. load supported by two tires at 125 psi each.

0.016

Whereas traffic growth rate is important for capacity issues, ESAL growth rate is the critical growth factor in pavement structural design. The Total number of ESALs over a number of years is calculated by using the Annual ESAL estimate (at the time of the traffic count) and compounding it annually over the total number of years using the "total ESAL growth rate" determined from the equation above.

4. Select appropriate LEFs to convert truck traffic to ESALs. Different regions may experience different types of loads. For instance, a particular area may experience a high number of trucks but they may be mostly empty thus lowering their LEF. For instance, the statewide LEF for Washington State is about 1.028 ESALs/truck. However, this may be drastically different from local LEFs.

5. An ESAL estimate. An ESAL estimate can be made based on the preceding steps. Depending upon circumstances these estimates may vary widely. Figure 4.19 shows an example of a pavement that was built for an estimated ESAL loading but is experiencing a much higher loading due to a marked increase in bus traffic. WSDOT ESAL Calculator The ESAL calculator presented below uses standard 2002 Washington State Pavement Management System (WSPMS) assumptions about load equivalencies and growth rates. These standards may not apply in all situations.

Figure 4.19: Resulting Damage from a Marked Increase in ESALs

3.7 Load Spectra The 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures (NCHRP 1-37A) has gone away from the ESAL approach and adopted a load spectra approach. In essence, the load spectra approach uses the same traffic data that the ESAL approach uses only it does not convert the loads into ESALs it maintains the data by axle configuration and weight. This information can then be used with a series of mechanistic-empirical equations to develop a pavement structural design. Some key advantages of the load spectra approach are: 1. It is compatible with the FHWA's Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG) and thus many agencies are already collecting the appropriate data. 2. It offers a hierarchical approach to traffic data input depending upon the users needs and resources. There are three levels of potential input:

 Level 1 Inputs Use of volume/classification and axle load spectra data directly related to the project. Level 2 Inputs Use of regional axle load spectra data and project-related volume/classification data. Level 3 Inputs Use of regional or default classification and axle load spectra data.

3. It already includes information on traffic distribution including directional, lane and temporal distribution (if needed) as well as traffic growth rates.

3.8 Summary Loading is a fundamental pavement design parameter. In order to fully characterize a load, the following parameters should be known:

Tire loads Axle and tire configurations Repetition of loads Distribution of traffic across the pavement Vehicle speed

Pavement damage caused by a particular load is roughly related to the load by about a power of four (for reasonably strong surfaces). This means that, generally speaking, a vehicle weighing twice as much as another (and having the same axle/tire arrangement) will cause16 times as much damage to the pavement. Given the number and types of vehicles in the world today, there are many different types of loads and load configurations. The most common load characterization approach is to convert all loads into an equivalent number of 80 kN (18,000 lbs) axle loads (ESALs). ESALs can then be used in pavement structural design. The 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures dispenses with ESAL calculations and deals directly with traffic load spectra, however the general load vs. damage concepts are the same. Loads work in conjunction with materials,subgrade and the environment to determine pavement design inputs.

4 ENVIRONMENT Major Topics on this Page

A pavement must be able to function within the 4.1 Temperature Variations environment in which it is built. The environment can vary greatly across the globe at any one time and it can also vary 4.2 Frost Action greatly across time at any one place. Environmental variations can have a significant impact on pavement 4.3 Moisture materials and the underlying subgrade, which in turn can drastically affect pavement performance. Certainly every 4.4 Summary environmental constituent (e.g., solar flux, heat, wind, humidity, etc.) can have an incremental effect on pavement. However, there are several constituents that exert an overriding influence. These variables (considered in this section) are:

Temperature Variations Frost action Moisture

4.1 Temperature Variations Extreme temperature variations can causes severe pavement damage due to expansion, contraction and (in the case of rigid pavements) slab curling. Additionally, asphalt binder rheology varies with temperature. Therefore, estimated temperature extremes and their effects are a primary consideration. For flexible pavements, older asphalt binder grading systems did not directly account for temperature effects and thus various empirical systems and thumb-rules were developed. The Superpave PG binder grading system corrects this deficiency by grading asphalt binder based on its performance in relation to temperature.

4.1.1 Expansion and Contraction Pavements, like all other materials, will expand as they rise in temperature and contract as they fall in temperature. Small amounts of expansion and contraction are typically accommodated without excessive damage, however extreme temperature variations can lead to catastrophic failures. Flexible and rigid pavements can suffer large transverse cracks as a result of excessive contraction in cold weather. Rigid pavements are also prone to slab buckling as a result of excessive expansion in hot weather (see Figures 4.20 and 4.21).

Figure 4.20: Rigid Pavement Blowup

Figure 4.21: Flexible Pavement Thermal Crack

4.1.2 Slab Curling (Rigid Pavements) Differences in temperature between the top and bottom surfaces of a PCC slab will cause the slab to curl. The weight of the slab and its contact with the subbase restrict its movement thus, stresses are created. In 1935, measurements reported by Teller and Southerland of the Bureau of Public Roads showed that the maximum temperature differential (hence, maximum warping) is much larger during the day than during the night. Further, during the day, the upper surface of the slab is at a higher temperature than the bottom resulting in tensile stresses at the bottom of the slab.

4.2 Frost Action Frost action can be quite detrimental to pavements and refers to two separate but related processes: 1. Frost heave. An upward movement of the subgrade resulting from the expansion of accumulated soil moisture as it freezes. 2. Thaw weakening. A weakened subgrade condition resulting from soil saturation as ice within the soil melts.

Washington State Frost Action Information A series of questions were posed to Washington State, City, County, and WSDOT Regions concerning pavement frost design issues. These results were compiled by the Washington State Policy Plan Subcommittee on Weight Restrictions and Road Closures. One of the questions asked was: "What do you feel are the most important factors in causing road deterioration in your jurisdiction?" Of a wide range of possible responses, three of the top-ranked factors (frost heaving, road use during freeze/thaw, excess subgrade moisture (which may not be frost related)) constituted the following percentages of all responses:

Counties: 46% Cities: 48% State: 30%

Thus, frost-related factors are considered to be very important in contributing to road deterioration in Washington State. Of those agencies which noted spring thaw conditions, typically 30 percent of their route system experiences seasonal structural weakening. Another frost-related question relates to how frost effects are considered in the design of new pavements. Of the six counties which responded (Chelan, Columbia, Lincoln, Skamania, Walla Walla, and Whatcom), all stated that extra base course thickness was used. Of the cities which state that frost design is a consideration, they generally use an extra thickness of base course as well. Source: WSDOT. (April 15, 1994). "Questionnaire Results with Comments," Washington State Policy Plan Subcommittee on Weight Restrictions and Road Closures. Washington State Department of Transportation. Olympia, WA.

4.2.1 Frost Heave

Frost heaving of soil is caused by crystallization of ice within the larger soil voids and usually a subsequent extension to form continuous ice lenses, layers, veins, or other ice masses. An ice lens grows through capillary rise and thickens in the direction of heat transfer until the water supply is depleted or until freezing conditions at the freezing interface no longer support further crystallization. As the ice lens grows, the overlying soil and pavement will heave up potentially resulting in a cracked, rough pavement Figure 4.22: Frost Heave on a City Street in (see Figure 4.22). This problem occurs primarily Central Sweden in soils containing fine particles (often termed frost susceptible soils), while clean sands and gravels (small amounts of fine particles) are non-frost susceptible (NFS). Thus, the degree of frost susceptibility is mainly a function of the percentage of fine particles within the soil. Many agencies classify materials as being frost susceptible if 10 percent or more passed a 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve or 3 percent or more passed a 0.02 mm (No. 635) sieve. Figure 4.23illustrates the formation of ice lenses in a frost susceptible soil.

Figure 4.23: Formation of Ice Lenses in a Pavement Structure

The three elements necessary for ice lenses and thus frost heave are: 1. Frost susceptible soil (significant amount of fines).

2. Subfreezing temperatures (freezing temperatures must penetrate the soil and, in general, the thickness of an ice lens will be thicker with slower rates of freezing). 3. Water (must be available from the groundwater table, infiltration, an aquifer, or held within the voids of fine-grained soil). Remove any of the three conditions above and frost effects will be eliminated or at least minimized. If the three conditions occur uniformly, heaving will be uniform; otherwise, differential heaving will occur resulting in pavement cracking and roughness. Differential heave is more likely to occur at locations such as:

Where subgrades change from clean not frost susceptible (NFS) sands to silty frost susceptible materials. Abrupt transitions from cut to fill with groundwater close to the surface. Where excavation exposes water-bearing strata. Drains, culverts, etc., frequently result in abrupt differential heaving due to different backfill material or compaction and the fact that open buried pipes change the thermal conditions (i.e., remove heat resulting in more frozen soil).

Additional factors which will affect the degree of frost susceptibility (or ability of a soil to heave):

Rate of heat removal. Temperature gradient Mobility of water (e.g., permeability of soil) Depth of water table Soil type and condition (e.g., density, texture, structure, etc.)

The Casagrande Criterion In 1932, Dr. Arthur Casagrande proposed the following widely known rule-of-thumb criterion for identifying potentially frost susceptible soils: "Under natural freezing conditions and with sufficient water supply one should expect considerable ice segregation in non-uniform soils containing more than 3% of grains smaller than 0.02 mm, and in very uniform soils containing more than 10 percent smaller than 0.02 mm. No ice segregation was observed in soils containing less than 1 percent of grains smaller than 0.02 mm, even if the groundwater level is as high as the frost line." Application of the Casagrande criterion requires a hydrometer test of a soil suspension (in water) to determine the distribution of particles passing the 0.075 mm sieve and to compute the percentage of particles finer than 0.02 mm. WSDOT Frost Resistant Crushed Aggregate WSDOT uses crushed surfacing base course (CSBC) as a frost resistant crushed aggregate because it has a maximum of only 7.5% passing the 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve.

4.2.2 Thaw Weakening

Thawing is essentially the melting of ice contained within the subgrade. As the ice melts and turns to liquid it cannot drain out of the soil fast enough and thus the subgrade becomes substantially weaker (less stiff) and tends to lose bearing capacity. Therefore, loading that would not normally damage a given pavement may be quite detrimental during thaw periods (e.g., spring thaw).Figure 4.24 is an example of typical pavement deflection changes throughout the year caused by winter freezing and spring thawing. Figure 4.25 shows pavement damage as a result of thaw weakening.

Figure 4.24: Typical Pavement Deflections Illustrating Seasonal Pavement Strength Changes (on a portion of State Route 172 in Washington State)

Figure 4.25: Freeze-Thaw Damage Thawing can proceed from the top downward, or from the bottom upward, or both. How this occurs depends mainly on the pavement surface temperature. During a sudden spring thaw, melting will proceed almost entirely from the surface downward. This type of thawing leads to extremely poor drainage conditions. The frozen soil beneath the thawed layer can trap the water released by the melting ice lenses so that lateral and surface drainage are the only paths the water can take. Tabor (1930) also noted an added effect: "The effects of refreezing after a thaw are also accentuated by the fact that the first freeze leaves the soil in a more or less loosened or expanded condition." This observation shows that (1) the reduced density of base or subgrade materials helps to explain the long recovery period for material stiffness or strength following thawing, and (2) refreezing following an initial thaw can create the potential for greater weakening when the "final" thaw does occur.

4.2.3 Sources of Water The two basic forms of frost action (frost heave and thawing) both require water. Water sources can be separated into two broad categories: 1. Surface water. Enters the pavement primarily by infiltration through surface cracks and joints, and through adjacent unpaved surfaces, during periods of rain and melting snow and ice.Many crackfree pavements are not entirely impermeable to moisture.

2.

Subsurface water. Can come from three primary sources: Groundwater table (or perched water table). Moisture held in soil voids or drawn upward from a water table by capillary forces.

Moisture that moves laterally beneath a pavement from an external source (e.g., pervious water bearing strata, etc.).

4.2.4 Estimation of Freezing or Thawing Depths in Pavements This section discusses freeze depth estimation techniques. Such an estimate is helpful in designing for frost conditions, but oversimplifies the complex conditions that accompany various pavement materials, depths of freeze, and water sources. Basic terminology is contained on a separate page. All units will be in U.S. customary due to the source material. Two formulas are presented on linked pages:

The Stefan formula The modified Berggren formula. Washington State Freezing Index and Depth Maps Freezing Index Maps Frost Depth Maps 1949/1950 Frost Depth Map

4.2.5 Mitigating Frost Action Mitigating of frost action and its detrimental effects generally involves structural design considerations as well as other techniques applied to the base and subgrade to limit the effects of frost action. The basic methods used can be broadly categorized into the following techniques:

Limit the depth of frost into the subgrade soils. This is typically accomplished by specifying the depth of pavement to be some minimum percentage of the frost depth. By extending the pavement section well into the frost depth, the depth of frost-susceptible subgrade under the pavement (between the bottom of the pavement structure and frost depth) is reduced. The assumption is that a reduced depth of soil under frost action will cause correspondingly less damage. Removing and replacing frost-susceptible subgrade. Ideally the subgrade will be removed at least down to the typical frost depth. Removing frost-susceptible soils removes frost action.

Design the pavement structure based on reduced subgrade support. This method simply increases the pavement thickness to account for the damage and loss of support caused by frost action. Providing a capillary break. By breaking the capillary flow path, frost action will be less severe because as Tabor (1930) noted, frost heaving requires substantially more water than is naturally available in the soil pores.

4.2.6 Freezing and Thawing Implications for Maintenance Operations The calculated freezing index (FI) and thawing index (TI) can be used to estimate the depth of freeze at a specific site and the resulting thaw. Maintenance personnel can use the TI to assess the need for seasonal load limits (see Figure 4.26). The following general guidelines relative to spring highway load restrictions were developed and evaluated by a study in Washington State (Rutherford et al., 1985; Mahoney et al., 1986):

Where to apply load restrictions. If pavement surface deflections are available to an agency, spring thaw deflections greater than 45 to 50 percent of summer deflections suggest a need for load restriction. Further, considerations such as depth of freezing (generally areas with air Freezing Indices of 400 F-days or more), pavement surface thickness, moisture condition, type of subgrade, and local experience should be considered. Subgrades with Unified Soil Classifications of ML, MH, CL, and CH will result in the largest pavement weakening. Amount of load reduction. The minimum load reduction level should be 20 percent. Load reductions greater than 60 percent generally are not warranted based on potential pavement damage. A load reduction range of 40 to 50 percent should accommodate a wide range of pavement conditions.

Figure 4.26: Emergency Load Restrictions Sign

When to apply load restrictions. Load restrictions "should" be applied after accumulating a Thawing Index (TI) of about 25 F-days (based on an air temperature datum of 29 F) and "must" be applied at a TI of about 50 F-days (again based on an air temperature datum of 29 F). Corresponding TI levels are less for thin

pavements (e.g., two inches of HMA and six inches of aggregate base or less) in that the "should apply" TI level is 10 F-days and the "must" TI level is 40 F-days.

When to remove load restrictions. Two approaches are recommended, both of which are based on air temperatures. The duration of the load restriction period can be directly estimated by the following relationship, which is a function of Freezing Index (FI):

Duration (days) = 25 + 0.01 (FI) The duration can also be estimated by use of TI and the following rough relationship: TI = 0.3 (FI)

4.2.7 Frost Action Summary Frost action is a critical pavement structural design concern in those parts of the country that regularly experience ground freezing. Without proper precautions, severe frost action can destroy a new pavement in a matter of one or two years. In taking the proper precautions, there are two basic types of frost action with which to contend: 1. Frost heave. Results from accumulation of moisture in the soil during the freezing period. These accumulations (ice lenses) expand perpendicular to the direction of heat flow and push the pavement up, often causing severe cracking. 2. Thaw weakening. Once a subgrade is frozen it can be severely weakened when it thaws (usually in the spring time). Therefore, loading that would not normally damage a given pavement may be quite detrimental during thaw periods. Frost action can be further characterized by the typical depth to which the subgrade freezes in a particular area. This depth can be estimated by several equations including the Stefan formula and the modified Berggren formula. Once this depth is known, it can be used as a pavement structural design input to mitigate the detrimental effects of frost action. Mitigation techniques can be classified into four broad categories: 1. Limit the depth of frost-susceptible material under the pavement structure. 2. Remove and replace the frost-susceptible subgrade. 3. Design the pavement structure based on reduced subgrade support. 4. Force a break in the groundwaters capillary path. If frost action cannot be adequately mitigated, severe pavement damage (in the case of frost heave) or a loss of bearing capacity (in the case of thaw weakening) can result. Maintenance options to correct

these problems are limited to pavement repair or replacement (in the case of frost heave) or limiting pavement loading during spring thawing (in the case of thaw weakening). 4.3 Moisture Moisture (in the form of accumulated water or rainfall) affects pavements in a number of ways. This section just briefly lists some of these ways:

Design. Certain types of soils can be highly expansive when wet. Structural design must account for this expansiveness. Construction.
o

Subgrade should be compacted at an optimal moisture content. Excessive rainfall can raise subgrade moisture content well beyond this value and make it virtually impossible to compact. HMA and PCC should not be placed in wet conditions.

Driving Conditions. Rainfall reduces skid resistance and can cause hydroplaning in severely rutted areas.

Discussions in these areas are taken up in the corresponding sections.

4.4 Summary The environment has a large influence on pavement performance and thus, pavement design. Temperature extremes cause pavements to expand and contract, frost action may cause them to crack and fail and moisture is a prime consideration in drainage, construction and driving safety. 5 DRAINAGE Proper drainage is important to ensure a high quality long Major Topics on this Page lived pavement; moisture accumulation in any pavement structural layer can cause problems. Moisture in 5.1 Surface Drainage the subgrade and aggregate base layer can weaken these materials by increasing pore pressure and reducing the 5.2 Subsurface Drainage materials' resistance to shear. Additionally, some soils expand when moist, causing differential heaving. Moisture in the HMA layers can cause stripping because it, instead of the asphalt binder, will adhere to aggregate particles. Moisture sources are typically rainwater, runoff and high groundwater. These sources are prevented from entering the pavement structure or accumulating in the subgrade through surface drainage and

subsurface drainage. Usually, it is more cost effective and less risky to prevent moisture entry and accumulation using surface drainage than to effect moisture removal using subsurface drainage.

5.1 Surface Drainage Surface drainage is concerned with removing all water that is present on the pavement surface, shoulder surface or any other surface from which it may flow onto the pavement. If not systematically removed, this water can accumulate underneath and weaken the pavement structure. There are three primary means used to prevent water infiltration and accumulation:

Impermeable pavement surface. An impermeable surface will protect the underlying subgrade from water sources above. Permeability concerns are different for flexible and rigid pavements.
o

Flexible pavements. When HMA air voids are greater than about 8 - 9 percent they are likely to be interconnected with one another, making the HMA water permeable (Kandhal and Koehler, 1984). Proper compaction practices should be followed to ensure an impermeable pavement. Also, minor cracks in the HMA should be promptly sealed. Rigid pavements. PCC is generally considered impermeable in this context, however joints and panel cracks must be tightly sealed to prevent water infiltration.

Slope. The pavement section should be sloped to allow rainwater to sheet flow (see Figure 4.27) quickly to the edge where it is typically collected in a curb and gutter system or a roadside ditch. A generally accepted standard is a 2 percent cross slope. Grade. The curb and gutter or roadside ditch must be properly graded to allow flow to central collection points such as catch basins or detention ponds. A generally accepted standard is a grade of 0.5 percent or more although lesser grades have been used effectively.

Figure 4.27: Sheet Flow 5.2 Subsurface Drainage Subsurface drainage is concerned with removing water that percolates through or is contained in the underlying subgrade. This water, typically the result of a high water table or exceptionally wet weather, can accumulate under the pavement structure by two chief means:

Gravity flow. Water from surrounding areas can be absorbed by the soil then flow by gravity to areas underneath the pavement structure. In pavement with high air voids (above 8 - 9 percent), water can percolate down through the pavement structure itself. Capillary rise. Capillary rise is the rise in a liquid above the level of zero pressure due to a net upward force produced by the attraction of the water molecules to a solid surface (e.g., soil). Capillary rise can be substantial, up to 6 m (20 ft.) or more. In general, the smaller the soil grain size, the greater the potential for capillary rise. Often, capillary rise is a problem in areas of high groundwater tables.

Most pavements have performed adequately without considering these effects. However, HMA pavements can fail because of subgrade support deterioration as a result of excessive moisture or other water-related problems. While the best solution is usually to prevent water infiltration with surface drainage measures, subsurface drainage can be useful, however it needs to be done judiciously, because it may be somewhat akin to treating the symptom rather than the problem. Subsurface drainage consists of three basic elements (see Figures 4.28, 4.29 and 4.30): 1. A permeable base to provide for rapid removal of water which enters the pavement structure. Based on recent research from California, asphalt treated permeable base layers may strip and become clogged with fines thus weakening the overall pavement structure.

1. A method of conveying the removed water away from the pavement structure. At the least, this may consist of a base sloped towards a drainage ditch. At the most, this may consist of a pipe collector system. 2. A filter layer (such as a geotextile, graded aggregate layer or HMA) to prevent the migration of fines into the permeable base from the subgrade, subbase or shoulder base material. Excess fines in the permeable base will clog its drainage routes and render it ineffective. Depending upon the subgrade and pavement structure a filter layer may not be used.

Figure 4.28: Flexible Pavement Subsurface Drainage

Figure 4.29: Rigid Pavement Subsurface Drainage with PCC Tied Shoulder

Figure 4.30: Rigid Pavement Subsurface Drainage with HMA Shoulder