Pavement design in the UK and future developments

Andy Collop Professor of Civil Engineering Director of NTEC

Outline
Standard UK pavement design
Foundation Upper pavement

Long Term Pavement Performance Model

(LTPPM)

Summary

UK pavement design
HA method for Trunk Roads & Motorways Includes long-life designs (> 80 msa) 40 year design life (can be 20 years) Semi-empirical (analytical alternatives
allowed)

Divided into foundation design and upper

pavement design

Foundation design
Where does the foundation start?
Surfacing Upper Base Lower Base Subbase

Upper pavement Pavement foundation

HD26

HD25

Capping Subgrade

Philosophy
Based around the concept of a Surface
Modulus (half-space)

Foundation classes
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 50MPa 100MPa 200MPa 400MPa Capping Only (< 20 msa) Granular Subbase (< 80 msa) Weak Cemented Subbase (including hydraulically bound) Strong Cemented Subbase (including hydraulically bound)

HD25
Standard Designs for Classes 2 and 3 (+
Class 1 for non HA roads); restricted choice of materials; CONSERVATIVE

Performance Designs for Classes 1 to 4;

very wide choice of materials; much more testing specified; MORE REALISTIC

Standard Class 2
(100MPa)
2 3 700 600 Thickness (mm) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 Subgrade Stiffness Modulus (MPa) 150 5 CBR (%) 8 10 12 15 20 25
Capping, MCHW1Series 600 Tot al Foundat ion t hickness, Subbase Types1, 2, 3 and R Tot al Foundat ion t hickness, Subbase Types CBGMA or CBGMB, C3/ 4 or C5/ 6

Class 2

Performance designs
Basis of Designs: Three criteria
Circular cont act area, radius 151mm Subbase Capping Subgrade strain 40kN

Surface deflection (relates to Surface Modulus) Subgrade Strain (relates to rutting) Practical minimum thicknesses

Surface deflection

Subgrade 10000MPa layer assumed 1.5m below surface of subgrade

Performance Class 2
(100MPa)
2 3 500
E(subbase) =150MPa

CBR (%) 8 10 12 15

20

25

Subbase Thickness (mm)

400 300 200 100

E(subbase) =200MPa E(subbase) =250MPa

Class 2
0 0 50 100 Subgrade Stiffness Modulus (MPa) 150

Performance Class 3
(200MPa)
2 3 500
E(subbase) =500MPa

CBR (%) 8 10 12 15

20

25

Subbase Thickness (mm)

E(subbase) =750MPa

400 300 200 100

E(subbase) =1000MPa E(subbase) =2000MPa

Class 3
0 0 50 100 Subgrade Stiffness Modulus (MPa) 150

Stiffness measurement
CBR DCP FWD

Plate Loading Springbox

Table 3.1 Equilibrium Subgrade CBR Estimation High Water Table Soil PI
(%) Poor Construction Conditions Thin Thick 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2.5 2.5 1.5 1 2 2 2 2.5 3.5 4 3.5 1 Average Construction Conditions Thin Thick 2 2 2 2.5 3 4 3 1 2 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 1 Good Construction Conditions Thin Thick 2 2 2 2.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 3 5 7 7 2

Low Water Table

Poor Construction Conditions Thin Thick 1.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3 2.5 1 2 2 2 2.5 3.5 4 4 1 Average Construction Conditions Thin Thick 2 2 2 3 4 5 4.5 2 2 2 2.5 3 4 6 7 2 Good Construction Conditions Thin Thick 2 2 2 3 4 6 6 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 6 8 >8 2

Triaxial

Heavy Clay

Silty Clay Sandy Clay

Silt* Sand (poorly ------------------------------------------------------------20-----------------------------------------------------------graded) Sand (well ------------------------------------------------------------40-----------------------------------------------------------graded) Sandy Gravel ------------------------------------------------------------60-----------------------------------------------------------(well graded) * estimated assuming some probability of material saturating

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -

Chart

Upper pavement design

(Flexible & composite)

Other layer combinations

Any combination of layers possible The designer has to carry out a MultiLayer Linear Elastic analysis to ensure that the criteria are all satisfied
Surface deflection Subgrade strain Practical minimum thickness

Outline
Standard UK pavement design
Foundation Upper pavement

Long Term Pavement Performance Model

(LTPPM)

Background
LTPPM developed with University of
Cambridge (Cebon)

Similar concept to MMOPP (Ullidtz) Flexible (asphalt) pavements Deterministic iterative procedure (profile &
damage tracking)

Aggregate damage type of approach

Road model

LTPPM
Dynamic
vehicle/axle group models
Fatigue damage fed back into primary response model Influence function

Vehicle simulation

Tyre forces Surface rutting fed back into vehicle model Force static

Strain

Primary
response calculation

Environment

Distance

Time

Road response calculation

Road strain at each point Strain

Damage
calculation

Log N

Feedback
mechanisms

Material properties

Time

Road damage model Log Damage

Theoretical road damage

Distance along road

Example
Effect of road friendly suspensions 2 classes of pavement simulated
Major road (350mm asphalt) Minor road (125mm asphalt)

Typical 3 layer flexible pavement structure 4oC to 18oC variation in MMAT

Surface profile evolution

(Major road)
0.03 Surface Profile Elevation / m 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 36 million load passes (10 years) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 72 million load passes (20 years) 70 80 90 100 Initial profile

Distance / m

Rutting evolution
(Major road)
16 'Critical' rut depth 14 Average Rut Depth / mm 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 Steel fleet Road friendly fleet 50 60 70 80 20 years

Load Passes (Million)

Fatigue evolution
(Major road)
3.5 95th Percentile Fatigue Damage 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 Steel fleet Road friendly fleet 50 60 70 80 20 years x10-3

Load Passes (Million)

Rutting evolution
(Minor road)
20

Average Rut Depth / mm

15 'Critical' rut depth

10

5 Steel fleet Road friendly fleet 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 20 years

Load Passes (Million)

Fatigue evolution
(Minor road)
1 95th Percentile Fatigue Damage Steel fleet Road friendly fleet 0.8

0.6 'Critical' fatigue damage 0.4

0.2

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Load Passes (Million)

1.2 20 years

Predictions
% increase in life changing from steel to
road friendly (air) suspensions
Major EC LTPPM (3.5) LTPPM (1) 24% 3% 0% Minor 42% 39% 90%

Outline
Standard UK pavement design
Foundation Upper pavement

Long Term Pavement Performance Model

(LTPPM)

Summary

Summary UK design
Foundation design + upper pavement
design

4 performance levels (surface modulus)

for foundations

More flexible designs (wider range of

materials)

Performance designs allowed

Summary LTPPM (1)

Deterministic LTPPM described based on
aggregate damage approach

LTPPM comprises:
i. ii. iii. iv. Dynamic vehicle simulation Pavement primary response simulation Material damage simulation Deterioration feedback

Summary LTPPM (2)

Different modes of deterioration predicted
for different classes of pavement

Changing from steel to air increases life of

major road by <3% (<10 million) & minor road by between 40% and 90% (100 million - 240 million)

Pavement design in the UK and future developments

Andy Collop Professor of Civil Engineering Director of NTEC