FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

C H A P T E R
1

Pavement types,
wheel loads,
and design factors

The field of pavement design is dynamic in that concepts are continually

changing as new data become available. There are many methods of design
available, since opinions regarding suitability of designs vary from locale to locale.
In particular, materials that are available for construction of pavements have a
major influence on design. There are, however, principles of design that are
common to all problems irrespective of other extenuating circumstances.
The design of airport and highway pavements involves a study of soils and
paving materials, their behavior under load, and the design of a pavement to
carry that load under all climatic conditions. All pavements derive their ultimate
support from the underlying subgrade; therefore, a knowledge of basic soil
mechanics is essential.
In the early stages of development, design consisted of rule-of-thumb proce-
dures based on past experiences. During the period 1920 to 1940, engineers made
a concerted effort to evaluate the structural properties of soil, principally for
foundations for buildings and bridges. During this time a vast amount of basic
data was accumulated, which enabled the engineer to design foundations on a
rational basis. At that time, soil mechanics as applied to pavements dealt primarily
with classification of soils, which in itself was a big step, however inadequate.
Highway engineers were aware that performance of pavements was dependent
to a large extent upon the types of soils over which the highway was constructed.
As a result, correlations of pavement performance with subgrade types were
established. In general, the studies showed that highways constructed over plastic
soils showed higher degrees of distress than those constructed over granular de-
posits. Frost action and adverse drainage conditions were recognized early as two
of the primary causes of pavement failure.

3
4 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

Nevertheless, many highway departments utilized standard cross sections for

most highways. This meant that a road, even though it crossed several soil types,
was constructed using a constant thickness. The practice was often justified on
the basis of economics.
Beginning in the 1950s, gear loads imposed by heavy aircraft necessitated a
more rational approach. Also, at about the same time, truck traffic increased
immeasurably with the result that severe breakup was common on some highways.
It is the purpose of this book to summarize the basic fundamentals involved
in the design of pavements and to set forth the techniques that will enable an
engineer to design a pavement to fit a variety of situations.

TEST ROADS IN THE UNITED STATES

The Bureau of Public Roads in the United States* and the AASHO have been
responsible for several test roads constructed in the United States. In addition,
several state highway departments have constructed test pavements for the
purpose of evaluating the effect of load and materials on pavement design.
The first major test road was known as the Bates Experimental Road and was
constructed in Illinois in 1920. This test road was constructed using various
materials, including brick, asphaltic concrete, and Portland cement concrete.
The results of this test road gave basic data that were used by design engineers
for many years.
The next major test road was designated the Maryland Test Road, and the
tests were made on a 1.1-mile section of concrete pavement constructed in 1941.
Major conclusions were drawn from the research project relative to the effect of
loads on pumping of rigid pavements.
The WASH0 road test was constructed in Idaho for the purpose of evaluating
the design of flexible pavements. This test road was constructed under controlled
conditions; four different axle loadings were used during the testing program.
This project brought out forcibly the fact that major distress was confined largely
to the spring seasons of the year, and illustrated the effect of the thickness of
wearing course on pavement performance.
In 1951, a major road test was planned for Ottawa, Illinois. This road test has
been designated the AASHO Road Test, and included both concrete and asphal-
tic pavements. Major findings dealt with concepts of serviceability, as well as the
effect of relative pavement thickness on performance.
In addition to the major road tests, the Federal Highway Administration has
sponsored research programs throughout the country wherein pavements have
been evaluated under varying soil, climatic, and loading conditions. T h e Corps
of Engineers has for the past 20 years conducted extensive research programs
on prototype pavements as well as pavement test sections.
There is little doubt that the results of these field test programs have had
major influence on present-day design concepts. In addition, performance of
prototype pavements in service has had significant influence on design. This is
not surprising, if one considers that i t is difficult if not impossible to evaluate

T h e Bureau of Public Roads now carries the name Federal Highway Administration,
shortened FHWA.
DEFINITION OF PAVEMENT TYPES 5

fully design concepts in the laboratory. Furthermore, it has been known for some
time that user opinion in the final analysis dictates the adequacy of the design.
Subsequent chapters of this text will rely heavily on the results of the test
pavements mentioned above, as well as performance data published in the
literature. Detailed findings of the various field projects will be discussed through-
out the text.

DEFINITION OF PAVEMENT TYPES

Historically, pavements have been divided into two broad categories (see Figure
1.1). T h e classical definitions of pavements, in some cases, represent an over-
simplification, as will be discussed in later paragraphs. Pavement classification is
subject to the limitations inherent to all classification techniques.
The flexible pavement may consist of a relatively thin wearing surface built
over a base course and subbase course, and they rest upon the compacted sub-
grade. In contrast. rigid pavements are made u p of Portland cement concrete and
may or may not have a base course between the pavement and subgrade.
The essential difference between the two types of pavements, flexible and rigid,
is the manner in which they distribute the load over the subgrade. The rigid pave-
ment, because of its rigidity and high modulus of elasticity, tends to distribute
the load over a relatively wide area of soil; thus, a major portion of the structure
capacity is supplied by the slab itself. The major factor considered in the design
of rigid pavements is the structural strength of the concrete. For this reason,
minor variations in subgrade strength have little influence upon the structural
capacity of the pavement.
It should be noted at this point that the classical definition of flexible pave-
ments includes primarily those pavements that have an asphalt concrete surface.

Seal coat
Tackcoat Rime
,
t i I
T
T

Base ;course
Subbaselcourse
1

Components of (a) flexible and ( b) rigid pavements. Base courses under rigid
Figure 1 . 1 .
pavements are often called subbase courses. For these illustrations the base and subbase courses
are shown in a "trench" section. See Figure 1.2 for designs wherein the base is either drained or
extended through the shoulder for drainage.
6 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

i n contrast, the classical rigid pavement is made up of Portland cement concrete.

It should be obvious that the definitions flexible and rigid are arbitrary and
were established in an attempt to distinguish between asphalt and Portland
cement concrete pavements.
Asphalt pavements may possess stiffness much as Portland cement concrete
pavements. This is true when stabilized materials are used in any of the pave-
ment components or if, for example, relatively thick asphaltic concrete layers are
used. At the other extreme, if very thin surfaces are used (for example, surface
treatments), the pavement can be considered to be flexible. Hence, the reader
must bear in mind that the definitions are arbitrary and may or may not be
strictly true.
Base courses are used under rigid pavements for various reasons, including
(1) control of pumping, (2) control of frost action, (3) drainage, (4) control of
shrink and swell of the subgrade, and ( 5 ) expedition of construction. The base
course (often called a subbase course) lends some structural capacity to the pave-
ment. However, its contribution to the load-carrying capacity may be rela-
tively minor.
The load-carrying capacity of a truly flexible pavement is brought about by the
load-distributing characteristics of the layered system. Flexible pavements consist
of a series of layers with the highest-quality materials at or near the surface.
Hence, the strength of a flexible pavement is the result of building up thick
layers and, thereby, distributing the load over the subgrade, rather than by the
bending action of the slab. The thickness design of the pavement is influenced
by the strength of the subgrade. If an asphalt pavement has high stiffness, it
may behave essentially as a rigid pavement and fatigue of the surface or of any
pavement component may become critical. In these cases, concepts underlying
design approach those historically adopted for concrete pavement design. For
example, full-depth asphalt pavements are used in certain situations. This type
of pavement undoubtedly approaches the rigid condition and the classical
methods for designing flexible pavements no longer apply. The same is true if a
cementing agent is used as a stabilizing additive in the base or subbase.
Base courses are constructed some distance beyond the edge of the wearing
surface. This is done to make certain that loads applied at the edge of the pave-
ment will be supported by the underlying layers. If the layers are built with an
abrupt face, loads applied at the surface are likely to cause failure due to the
lack of support at the pavement edge. Base courses generally are extended about
1 foot beyond the edge of the pavement, although in special situations they may
be extended for greater distances.
Roadway and Airport Cross Section. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 show typical cross
sections of a highway and of a runway and taxiway. The standard width of high-
ways that carry large volumes of traffic (i.e., high-type highways) is generally 24
feet, although for highways that carry lesser amounts of traffic the width may be
somewhat less. The shoulders adjacent to the traffic lane again are of variable
width, generally about 10 feet.
Base courses and subbase courses under highway pavements may be constructed
using one of several techniques. If the material is pervious, it may extend
through the shoulder to permit drainage at the point it intersects the side slope.
DEFINITION OF PAVEMENT TYPES 7

\ Shoulder Medial Shoulder

-- _- I -

- c -- c- --

In some cases, particularly in cuts, subbase drains will be used. Many highways
are built utilizing trench construction (see Figure 1.1). In this type of construc-
tion drainage is not attempted. Performance surveys have shown that many miles
of the pavements have functioned satisfactorily, as long as proper attention is
given to the gradation and the compaction of the base-course and subbase-
course materials. These factors will be discussed in great detail in subsequent
chapters.
In contrast to highways, airfield runways are constructed in widths up to 500
feet. The widths of civilian airfields are variable, ranging between 50 and 200
feet, depending upon the type of airfield. Typical runways are 150 feet wide.
Greater widths are used on some military airfields to accommodate heavy bom-
bers. Runways are nearly always crowned, whereas highway pavements may or
may not be crowned. In some cases it is more economical to build highway pave-
ments tilted downward toward the outside lane with no crown. This type of
construction, however, is not justified on major airfields, because of the long
distance the water must travel to drain from one edge of the pavement to
the other.
Taxiway widths are variable, ranging between 20 and 100 feet, depending
upon the class of airport and are typically 75 feet wide.
Many airfields have been built with subbase drainage similar to that indicated
for highways. However, to be effective, the drains must be spaced at closer in-
tervals.
Thickened Pavement Sections. Pavements with thickened edges are used
in some situations to accommodate high stresses that exist at the pavement edge.
The pavement sections are designated, for example, as 9-8-9 inch, 9-7-9 inch, or
9-6-9 inch (Figure 1.4). Thickened-edge pavements are more costly than uniform
pavements, because of the grading operations that are required at the thickened
8 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

24
-iI I
I
8

Runway
end

10% (light aircraft)

1OOO (heavy aircraft)

fd
Figure 1.4. Thickened pavements for high load concentration. (a) Transverse section of 9-8-9
inch highway pavement; (b) longitudinal section of runway end (normal traffic, no channelization);
(c) keel section for high load concentration on runway.

edge. In addition, the use of the thickened-edge highway pavement was popular
at the time when pavement widths were in the neighborhood of 18 to 20 feet
and traffic traveled very close to the pavement edge. On wider pavements, how-
ever, traffic concentration is between 3 and 4 feet from the pavement edge,
alleviating the necessity for using a thickened edge.
Taxiways and runway ends should always be constructed using a heavier section
than the central portion of the runway because of high concentration of traffic
(Figure 1.5). Touchdown at the end of the runway may not be critical because
the airplane is partially airborne. The distance from the end of the runway for
which-a thickened section is used ranges between 10 percent of the total runway
length and 1000 feet. A keel section is a thickened center used on airport
pavements (Figure 1.44.

HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT PAVEMENTS COMPARED

The performance of highway pavements and the performance of airport pave-
ments are for the most part different. Rigid highway pavements that carry high
HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT PAVEMENTS COMPARED 9

Building
area

Figure I .5.Triangular runway system showing localion of strengthened pavements. Runway

ends, taxiways, and aprons are designed for greater thickness than interior of runways. Exit
taxiways may be classified as noncritical.

volumes of heavy traffic nearly always result in pumping distress if built directly on
clay subgrades. On the other hand, many airfield pavements built directly over
plastic soils have shown little or no pumping. Flexible highway pavements show
serious distress at pavement edges, whereas airfield pavements do not. The chief
factors that must be considered in the design of highway and airfield pavements
are the same: however, differences exist regarding the quantitative values assigned
to each factor. The total weight of an airplane is usually greater than that of a
truck, but the number of repetition of loads is much greater on highways than
on airports. The design load for a major highway is ordinarily in the vicinity of
9000 pounds on dual tires, and the expected repetition may be as much as 1000
to 2000 trucks per day. In contrast, a heavy airplane may have wheel loads in
excess of 100,000 pounds, but only 20,000 to 40,000 coverages' may be considered
for t h z life of the pavement.
Tire pressures on jet aircraft may be as high as 400 psi (pounds per square
inch), whereas for conventional truck tires, pressures are in the vicinity of 60 to
90 psi. Lateral placement of trafiic on highways is such that nearly all truck
traffic travels within 3 to 4 feet of the pavement edge. In contrast, traffic on an
airfield is such that the distribution of traffic is concentrated primarily in the
center. As a general rule, the traffic on a runway is distributed over about 60
feet of the pavement.
Modern aircraft have steerable nose wheels which have resulted in channelized
conditions on airfield taxiways. Results of recent studies have shown that
75 percent of this type of traffic will occur on about 7.5 feet of pavement.
One coverage results when each point on the traffic area of the pavement has been traversed
one time by a wheel.
10 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

The geometry of the pavement is extremely important. The most severe distress
to an airfield pavement occurs where traffic follows a designated line along the
aprons and taxiways and at runway ends. Little distress is generally found on
the aprons or in the center portion of the runways.
From the above discussion, it is seen that the major differences between high-
way and airfield pavements are repetition of load, distribution of traffic, and
geometry of the pavement. In turn, each of these is affected by pavement width
and type of aircraft.
For a given wheel load and a given tire pressure, highway pavements are
thicker than airfield pavements, because repetition of load on a highway is much
higher and also because the loads are applied closer to the pavement edge. This
does not mean to imply, however, that airfield pavements are generally thinner
than highway pavements; gross loads on airfields are much higher with the result
that in actual practice these pavements are thicker.

mm
m-
Trailer
=- Tractor
6 S i n g l e axle
-m with single tires
Ti. 7
\Tandem axle b i n g l e axle
with dual tires with dual tires
(a)

Main single-
tire gear
c Nose wheels

Twin-tandem
gear
F-
L a m
--
-0
(b)

0
0- Nose wheels

Double
twin-tandem
gears
--
<--
00
0-
=- Nose wheels

(4
Figure 1.6. Plan view of several basic types of wheel configuration. (a) Single trailer-truck
unit, ( b ) tricycle landing gear with single tires, (c) twin-tandem landing gear, (d) double twin-
tandem gear. (Note: Not to scale.)
WHEEL LOADS 11

Figure 1.7. Boeing 707 gear (0) Nose wheel. (6) twin-tandem main gear. (Courtesy Boeing
Aircraft Co.)

WHEEL LOADS

Types of airplane- and truck-wheel arrangements can be divided into several

basic categories, including (1) single and dual wheels, (2) single and tandem
axles, and (3) nose wheel, tricycle, and bicycle landing gears. Truck and airplane
wheels may be arranged in several combinations of these listed above.
For highways the legal axle load in most states ranges betwen 18,000 and
20,000 pounds, which implies that a load on one set of dual tires will be one-
half the axle load. Thus, if greater loads are required, it is common to add a
tandem axle.+
Large modern-day aircraft utilize either bicycle or tricycle landing gears. In
the case of tricycle landing gears, the main gear load can be of single, dual, or
twin-tandem type (Figure 1.6). Figure 1.7 illustrates the twin-tandem gear used
on many large aircraft.
In the design of airport pavements, the design wheel load may be that of the
largest plane which will use the field. Table 1.1 shows typical data for several air-
craft. However, design procedure that will be presented in subsequent chapters of
this book account for mixed traffic of varying loads and types of gears. The con-
dition of takeoff governs thickness design of airport pavements since under this
condition the load is greatest due to fuel weight.

+ Although the most common multiple-axle trucks have two axles in groups, present-day
practices often include as many as three or four axles in a group.
12 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

TABLE 1.1. Data for Several Typical Aircraft'

Max Max Load

Gross Main Gear Each Main Tire
Weight Dimension Assembly Pressure
Type of Plane (Ib X lo3) Type of Gear (in.) (Ib X lo3) (psi)

Boeing 707-320C 336.0 Twin-tandem 56 X 34.5 157.0 180

Boeing 707- 120B 258.0 Twin-tandem 56 X 34 120.0 170
Boeing 737 111.0 Twin 30.5 25.8 148
Boeing 727-100 170.0 Twin 34.0 76.9 166
Boeing 747 713.0 Double twin-
tandem 58 X 44 166.5 204
Convair Cv 880 185.0 Twin- t andem 45 X 21.5 87.0 150
Lockheed LlOl1-1 411.0 Twin-tandem 70 X 52 195.0 175
McDonnel-
Douglas D C 10-10 413.0 Twin-tandem 54 X 64 194.0 175
McDonnel-
Douglas DC 8-43 318.0 Twin-tandem 55 X 30 148.0 177
McDonnel-
Douglas D C 9- 15 91.5 Twin 24 42.4 127
Concorde 388.0 Twin-tandem 66 X 26.4 184.3 184
BAC 1-1 1-500 100.0 Twin 21 47.5 174

From FAA (Reference 5) and the Asphalt Institute (Reference 3). See Reference 3 for a
complete summary of aircraft data.

On the other hand, the length of runways may or may not be determined on
the basis of takeoff conditions depending on a number of factors. Runway lengths
are determined on the basis of aircraft characteristics as well as temperature,
altitude, and so on, at the site. Table 1.2 shows typical lengths for several air-
craft. These values are for illustrative purposes only, since each site must be
analyzed on an individual basis.
Allowable axle loads for hi hways vary from state to state as indicated in
Table 1.3. The majority of th! t states permit single-axle loads of 18,000 pounds
and maximum tandem-axle loads of 32,000 pounds. Tandem spacings range be-
tween 40 and 48 inches. Tire pressures are controlled generally by allowable load
per inch of width of tire. Gross weights are quite variable from state to state
and may be calculated utilizing a formula as indicated in the extreme right-hand
column of Table 1.3.

TIRE PRESSURES, C O N T A C T PRESSURES, AND TIRE I M P R I N T

If the effect of the tire wall i3 ignored, the contact pressure between the tire
and pavement must be equal to the tire pressure. For low-pressure tires, how-
ever, contact pressures under the tire wall may be greater than at the center of
the tire. For high-pressure tires the reverse is true. For most problems, however,
the assumption is made that contact pressures are uniform over the imprint area.
DESIGN FACTORS 13

TABLE 1.2. Typical Runway Lengths for Several Aircraft and CondiBonr"

Normal Max
Temp. of
Hottest Month Elevation Length
Plane Type (OF) (ft) (ft)

Boeing 707-100 100 Sea level 10,500

Boeing 707-100 75 3000 11,500
Boeing 707-100 75 1000 10,500
Boeing 727 75 1000 7,800
Boeing 747 75 1000 10,500
Douglas D C 9 75 1000 8,000
Convair Cv 880 75 1000 10,500
BAC 1-1 I 75 1000 7,500

aData from charts in FAA publication (ref. 4).

The lengths shown in the table are relative and are for illustrative purposes
only since the required lengths are dependent upon many factors, including
effective grade of the runway, setting ofthe wing flaps, and takeoff weight. Each
runway must be analyzed for its own particular conditions and the critical
plane using the runway.

In the majority of the problems, circular tire imprints are assumed. Hence the
radius of contact is as follows:

a =

where a = radius of contact

P = total load on the tire
p = tire pressure (assumed to be equal to con act pr sure)
For some cases tire imprints as illustrated on Figure 1.8 are used. The rela-
tionship between pressure and the geometry of the imprint is as shown on the
figure.

DESIGN FACTORS

Pavement design consists of two broad categories: (1) design of the paving
mixtures, and (2) structural design of the pavement components. These two
design steps must go hand in hand.
The structural design of pavements is basically different from the structural
design of bridges and buildings in that the pavement structure lies exposed
upon the ground surface and, hence!, is greatly influenced by environmental fac-
tors. Likewise, a highway, for example, will cross many different soil deposits
and it becomes necessary for the design engineer to select in a rational manner
a design value representative of the area under question. The strength of soil is
affected by many factors, including density, moisture content, soil texture, soil
structure, rate of load application, and degree of confinement. In addition, soils
 TABLE 1.3. Truck Axle Spacing and Weight Limilr"

.
-
Gross Wei ht Limits
(In thousan& of pounds)
(Pneumatic Tires Only
-

State

Alabama 40 NS 18 36 36 54 54 72 73.2 73.2

E E E E E
Alaska 42 500 20 34 20 34 40 54 68 100

Arizona 40 NS 18 32 36 50 54 68 76.8 76.8

Arkansas 40 NS 18 32 30 44 48 62 73.2 73.2

California NS NS 18 32 36 50 54 68 76.8 76.8

800
Colorado 40 NS 18 36 30 46 54 66 73.6 73.6 (LI + 40)
Connecticut NS 600 22.4 36 36 58.4 53.8 67.4 73 73

Delaware 48 700 20 36 30 65 48 66 73.2 73.2

Districtof Columbia 40 NQ 22 38 44 60 66 70 70 70

Florida 40 NS 20 40 40 60 60 66.6 66.6 66.6

Georgia 40 NR 20.3 40.6 40.6 61 61 73.2 73.2 73.2

800
Hawaii 42 - 24 32 48 54 5 4 6 5 73.2 73.2 (Li + 40)
20 34 40 54 60 80 85.5 105.5
Idaho NS 800 18L 32L 36L 50L 54L 68L 76.8L 76.8

Illinois 40 NS 18 32 36 50 50 64 73.2 73.2

Indiana 40 800 18 32 36 50 54 68 73.2 73.2

Iowa 40 NR 18 32 36 50 54 68 72.6 72.6

KansDs 40 NR 18 32 36 50 54 68 73.2 73.2

N N N N N N N
Kentucky 42 800 18 32 30 50 54 68 73.2 73.2
E E E E E E
Louisiana 40 450 18 32 18 32 36 50 64 68
32L
Maine 48 800 22 36 32 51.8 51.8 66.3 73.2 73.2

Maryland NS NS 22.4 40 44.8 55 65 65 73.2 73.2

Massachusetts NS 800 22.4 36 44.8 58.4 60 73 73 73

N N N N
Michigan 42 - 18 32 36 50 54 68 73.2 M
Minnrsota 40 NR 18 32 36 54 54 64 73.2 73.2
N N N N N N N
Missinsippi 40 Table 18 32 36 50 46 60 73.2 73.2

Mimouri 40 NR 18 32 3d 50 54 68 73.2 73.2

Montana 40 NS 18 32 36 50 54 68 76.8 76.8 -

20T 40 Ro 60 7R.5 80.5 95
Nebraska 40 NR 18L 32 36L 50L 54L 68L 71.1L 71.1L

Nevada 42 NS 18 32 36 60 54 68 76.8 76.8

47.5L
New Hampahire NS 800 22.4 36 33.4 55 52.8 66.4 73.2 73.2
E E E
New Jersey 40 800 22.4 32 22.4 32 44.8 73.2 73.2 73.2

New Mexico 40 600 21.6 34.3 43.2-55.9 64.8 77.5 86.4 86.4
lo00
New York 46 800 22.4 36 44.8 58.4 67.2 71 71- 71 ( L l + L
(Cori/iiru~rl)

14
TYPES OF DISTRESS, STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL 15

TABLE 1.3. (continued)

Grogl Wei h t Limits

(In thowandls of pounds)

State

North Carolina 48 600 18 36 30 47.6 47.6 64 70 73.2

750
North Dakota 40 MO 18 32 36 50 64 64 64 64 (Li + 40)'
800
Ohio NS 650 19 32 38 61 67 70 76.8 78 (Li +422%)
20 34 2OE 34E 4OE 64E 85.6 90
Oklahoma 40 650 18L 32L l8EL 32EL 36EL 50EL 73.2L 73.2L
20 34 E E N N
Oregon 40 660 18L 32L 36 60 36 50 76 76
Pennsylvania 36 800 22.4 36 33 47 SO 60 73.2 73.2
Rhode Island 40 NS 22.4 NS 36 44 63.8 67.4 73.2 73.2
32L
South Carolina 40 NR 20 36 36 46 50 66 73.2 73.2
South Dakota 40 800 18 32 36 60 64 68 73.2 73.2
Tennwee 40 NS 18 32 36 50 48 62 73.2 73.2
Texm 40 650 18 32 36 50 64 68 72 72
Utah 40 NS 18 33 36 61 64 69 79.9 70.9
30L 40L SOL 6OL 6OL 60L
Vermont 48 600 22.4 36 44.8 66 67.2 73.2 73.2 73.2
Virginia 40 660 18 32 36 50 64 68 70 70
Washington 42 560 18 32 28 36 46 60 68 72
N N N
West Virginia 40 NR 18 32 36 50 64 70 70 70
S s s
Wiseomin 12 NS 19.5 32 39 61 64 68 73 73
2OV 36V 6OV 8OV 92V lOlV
Wyoming 40 NS 18L 32L 36 50 64 68 73.9L 73.9L
legend:
NS Not specified
NR Notrealricted
E Plw weight on front axle
L Limit on Interstate only
N On designated highways
S Including tolerance and on designated highways
T Limited to state highways
V On primary and secondary highways
9 Distance in feet between first and last axles of group
Vehicles with axles over I8 feet apart, factor is 650 for lower axle spacings.
4 From National Highway Users Conference.

vary from point to point along a roadway; this fact coupled with the random
nature of the traffic input makes the pavement design process a complex one.

TYPES O F DISTRESS, STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL

Distinction will be made here between two different types of failure. The first,
structural failure, includes a collapse of the pavement structure or a breakdown
of one or more of the pavement components of such magnitude to make the
payment incapable of sustaining the loads imposed upon its surface. The second,
classified funclional failure, may or may not be accompanied by structural
16 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

."---I L = p0.5227
-

Figure 1.8. Tire imprint assuming rectangle and semicircles.

failure but is such that the pavement will not carry out its intended function
without causing discomfort to passengers or without causing high stresses in the
plane or vehicle that passes over it, due to its roughness.
Obviously the degree of distress for both categories is gradational, and the
severity of distress of any pavement is largely a matter of opinion of the person
observing the distress. However, the difference between the two types of failures
is important, and the engineer must be able to distinguish between them. As an
example, consider a rigid highway pavement that has been resurfaced with an
asphaltic overlay. The surface may develop rough spots as a result of breakup
in the bituminous overlay (functional failure) without structural breakdown of
the overall structure. On the other hand, the same pavement may crack and
break up as a result of overload (structural failure). Maintenance measures for
the first situation may consist of resurfacing to restore smooth-riding qualities to
the pavement. However, the structural type of failure may require complete
rebuilding.
The cause for either of the aforementioned distress conditions may be three-
fold. First, overload including excessive gross loads, high repetition of loads, and
high tire pressures can cause either structural or functional failure. Second,
climatic conditions as well as environmental conditions may cause surface irregu-
larities and structural weaknesses to develop. For example, frost heaving, volume
change of soil due to wetting and drying, breakup resulting from freezing and
thawing, or improper drainage may be the prime cause of pavement distress.
Many of the climatic variables can be estimated, but prediction of climatic con-
ditions may, at best, be poor.
A third cause may be disintegration of the paving: materials, due to freezing
and thawing and/or wetting and drying. Scaling of rigid pavements, for example,
may result from nondurable aggregates and can be caused by or aggravated by
the application of salts for ice removal. Base-course materials may breakdown,
thus generating fines which may cause an unstable mix to develop. Subgrades
also are susceptible to climatic conditions. Construction practices may have
SERVICEABILITY 17

some effect. For example, rutting of the subgrade during construction, which
permits the accumulation of water and subsequent softening of the subgrade
after the construction is completed, may cause pavement distress. Use of dirty
aggregates and inadequate inspection during construction are obvious factors
that may cause pavement deterioration. Design procedures must be accompained
by stringent inspection and field control in order to provide adequate pavement
structures.
Many types of pavement distress are a function of maintenance, or, more
correctly, lack of maintenance. Sealing of cracks and joints at proper intervals
will insure a tight wearing surface, as provision against surface infiltration of
water. Likewise, sealing of flexible-pavement surfaces is extremely beneficial.
Maintenance of shoulders will be discussed in great detail as it affects pavement
performance.
It is to be recognized from the above discussion that inadequate structural
design is but one of many different factors that may cause pavement distress.
Provision can be made during the design phase to take into account many of the
climatic variables, as well as construction and maintenance techniques. However,
the close tie-in of the factors with pavement performance should be fully
recognized by the reader.

SERVICEABILITY
Perhaps the biggest question the paving engineer must answer is What is an
acceptable pavement? The answer to this, of course, is qualitative and depends
upon the opinion of the individual rating the pavement. Further, the answer
is dependent, at least in part, upon the intended use of the pavement. As an
example, less roughness can be tolerated on high-speed expressways than on
secondary roads that carry low volumes of traffic. Also, it is obvious that accept-
able condition has one meaning when applied to highway pavements and an-
other when applied to airport pavements.
Design concepts must account in some way for serviceability of the structure
and these concepts must also distinguish between structural and functicnal
distress.
The Present Serviceability Index. The serviceability index (designated the
PSI) concept was developed during the AASHO Road Test.* The Present Serv-
iceability Index is based upon a rating scale that designates the condition of the
pavement at any instant of time. A rating of 5.0 indicates a perfect pavement,
whereas a rating of 0 indicates an impassible pavement.
The present serviceability index is determined by a panel of individuals who
rate the pavement on a rating scale from 0 to 5.0. The index is correlated with
objective measurements made on the pavement surface. These objective measure-
ments include a measure of roughness index, extent of cracking and patching,
The reader is referred to the material in Chapter 19 for a detailed discussion of the present
serviceability index concept. Special reference is nade 13 the factors that affect the index and
methods of making objective measurements. Data in Chapter 18 illustrate various distress mani-
festations. Reference will be made throughout the remainder of this text to serviceability trends
and the role of user opinions in design.
18 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

and for flexible pavements, the average rut depth in the wheel tracks. The
important point here is that an estimation of serviceability can be made by
making the objective measurements, and then, through correlation equations,
calculation of the index can be made.
The primary factor that determines the PSI is longitudinal roughness of the
pavement. In fact, many engineers drop the other terms (cracking, patching, etc.)
from the correlation equations. Serviceability can, thus, be determined solely
through the use of pavement roughness measurements with a high degree of
accuracy.

THE DESIGN PROCESS, DESIGN STRATEGIES

As was mentioned in previous paragraphs, i t is necessary in the design process
to distinguish between functional and structural failures. At least in the case of
highways, the primary factor overriding most design decisions is that of func-
tional failure, although it is necessary to build into the pavement structure
resistance against structural failure to insure that the pavement will carry out its
intended function.
Figure 1.9 shows a generalized relationship between serviceability and age.
Starting at year 0, it is to be noted that the pavement will have initial high
serviceability, although this rarely approaches the PSI value of 5.0. As traffic is
applied to the pavement the serviceability will decrease; the rate of decrease
depends upon the amount of routine maintenance placed into the pavement.
At year yl, the road may have major maintenance applied to it, such as resurfac-
ing, and the serviceability then is again at its initial value. As traffic progresses
the serviceability again drops to year yz, and this process is continued throughout
the life of the pavement.
Figure 1.10 illustrates that the design process for pavements is not an exact
one, and is dependent upon many factors. Figure 1.10~shows the generalized
relationship between accumulated 18,000-pound single-axle loads (EAL) and
required thickness. In this case, the accumulated axle loads would be those

Major maintenance
With routine

-
I I
0 Yl y9
Age (vr)
Flgun 1.9. Generalized serviceability versus age.
THE DESIGN PROCESS, DESIGN STRATEGIES 19
1

c
z
--- ___- -- --
0
High CBR

H _----
CER
__---- High .-
_----_---- 2
3 4.
8; ,/'
a a

Accumulated 18,000-pound axle loads (log scald-

(a)
Years of traffic -
2nd resurface,

/Total cost
.-0
5
H.-
-J
--J/ cost
Maintenance
/
2
a

Years of traffic
(4
- Interval of resurfacing
(4
-
Figun 1.10. Principles involved in optimizing the design. (a) Thickness of flexible pavement
versus equivalent load repetition: ( b ) thickness requirements as a function of time: (c) several
alternate designs as a function of years; (d) initial cost, maintenance cost, and total cost velsus
interval of resurfacing. (All curves apply to flexible pavements.)

anticipated over the design period. If the data are converted to years of traffic,
as shown in Figure 1.10b, the lines take the general shape indicated on the graph.
During the design process, the designer has open to him several options
relative to the initial design he might propose as suggested in Figure 1.10~.
Referring to the upper curve of this graph, the dashed lines indicate that the
initial design would carry the pavement through year y1 and that the initial
design thickness would be tl. At this interval in time, a resurface would be
applied that would carry the road to p. at which time a second resurface
would be applied to take the road to interval of time equal to Ya. Another
alternate that the design engineer might select would be to make the initial
thickness equal to t 2 , which would take the road to yz years before major main-
tenance would be required. Likewise, other examples could be given to demon-
strate that there are almost an infinite number of possibilities that the designer
can select for initial design, depending upon the year of life at which he might
plan major maintenance of the facility.
It must be clearly understood at the outset that the design decision relative
to the life that might be expected from the pavement is a trade-off decision,
wherein the engineer balances increased maintenance costs with increased initial
costs, depending upon the staging he might select for his design. The matter of
20 PAVEMENT TYPES A N D DESIGN FACTORS

costing the pavement is demonstrated in diagramatic form in Figure 1.10d. If an

initial design is to be minimal (perhaps thin pavement section) the maintenance
cost increases, since the rdad will wear out at a fairly rapid rate. However, if the
designer chooses to increase the initial cost by building a substantially stronger
pavement, the maintenance costs decrease accordingly. Hence, it is seen that the
decision-making process includes, in part, balancing the total cost as illustrated
in the upper curve of Figure 1.1Od against inconvenience to the pavement user
and many other factors. The total cost of the pavement structure should include
not only the actual maintenance cost applied to the pavement surface itself, but
added road user costs that are caused by the shutdown of the facility during the
time that surface maintenance is supplied.
Design as a Trade-off Process. It should be recognized from the above dis-
cussion that the decision-making process that is at the heart of the design must
rely heavily on trade-off of inconvenience and maintenance cost against the
initial cost. It becomes necessary for the design engineer to make a decision
relative to the serviceability that he wishes his pavement to achieve, and from
this, make an estimate of the life of the pavement that might be expected. This
decision-making process is not a simple one, and is dependent upon many
factors, including the type of facility itself.
T o illustrate the above point, it is feasible to maintain low-volume roads at
frequent intervals, On the other hand, expressways are difficult to maintain and
the road user cost resulting from shutdown of the facility may be so high as to
preclude practically any maintenance at all. The same can be said for airport
pavements, where the structure must be a revenue-earning facility, and this fact
coupled with the need for safety may be the governing factor regarding the
initial &sign that is adopted.
Figure 1.11 shows a flow diagram illwstrating the principles involved in the
design process. On the left-hand side of the figure are shown the input variables,
including loads and environment as well as the various material properties that
must be evaluated either in the laboratory or the field. It is important to note
that these are stochastic in nature and the variability of any given input factor
may be extremely high.
The decision-making process, as shown in the second part of the diagram,
requires that the engineer put together the variable factors listed in the input
column and from thkse select design values that he considers to be applicable
to the particular design problem. From this the pavement section is selected and
in the ideal case, the pavement is evaluated and the evaluation is then checked
against the original assumptions as shown in the lower portion of the diagram.
It is important to note that the design process includes essentially a decision-
making process in which the engineer attempts to predict the eventual perform-
ance of the pavement structure without going through the long-term process of
waiting until traffic has been applied to the road.
An essential part of the design process is the cost analysis, although this is not
necessarily the only nor best factor to consider for any individual case. Neverthe-
less, routinely it is desirable to minimize the total cost of the pavement structure
including initial cost plus maintenance cost.
 Input variables Decision Checking
t process process

Fundamental
l-- -7-
stress-strain
analysis
(Chap.2 & 3)

Load and traffic

analysis
(Chap.4 )

Environmental Variability
factors
(Chap. 13)
(Chap.5)

Selection of Selection of Distress and

(Chap. 7 & 8) design values pavement structure performance
(Chap. 5 through 13; (Chap. 14,15. (Chap. 18)
see specifidly 16 & 17)
Soil and base Chap. 8,lO & 13) t
stabilization Evaluation
(chap. 19)
-
Subgrade materials Maintenance and
(Chap. 10) reconstruction
(Chap. 20)
Bases and subbases
(Chap. 11)

Surface materials ---..c--c--

(chap. 12) Check against original
assumptions and criteria
Figurn 1 . 1 1 . Principles involved in the design proces.
 PAVEMENT TYPES AND DESIGN FACTORS

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

The optimization of the decision-making process in light of minimizing the

total cost of the structure is known as the systems analysis approach. All of the
factors listed in Figure 1.11 are interrelated, and it is difficult at best to isolate
the variables on a general basis. The engineer must make a reasonable estimate
of all of these variables, and from these select a design to fit the conditions, and
proceed from there to construct a pavement that will carry out its intended func-
tion. Thus, the problem becomes a statisticgl one in which estimates are made
and reasoned judgments are made on the basis of these estimates.
The chapters in this book that contain detailed discussions of each of the
factors outlined in Figure 1.11 are given in the figure. Throughout the book
continual reference will be made to the matter of variability and how i t may
be handled in design, and methods of design accounting for total cost will be
discussed.

PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AND THEORY

Historically, pavement design has been approached from two broad, differing
points of view. First, the practicing engineer often approaches the problem
solely from the standpoint of pavement performance. In contrast, researchers
and educators approach the problem largely from theoretical concepts.
Neither of the above approaches is satisfactory within itself. Complete reliance
upon pavement performance represents a static condition wherein one must wait
a relatively long period of time before new concepts can be proven out. On the
other hand, theoretical equdtions are generally based upon simplified assumptions
and many times do not apply to condiFions as they exist in the field. Ideally, the
engineer must rely upon both approaches to take best advantage of design in-
formation and to be able to use materials at hand in a wise manner.
It will be the authors intent to discuss both the theoretical and practical
points of view throughout the text, although this may lead to some confusion
for the reader in putting the major factors into perspective. However, it will be
a principal theme of this text that, although theory has much application, the
final design must be influenced largely by performance of existing pavements.
T o be of most use, theory must not conflict with performance. This conflict will
not arise if the engineer treats both theory and performance data in a logical
manner. These points will be discussed in great detail in later chapters of
this text.

PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS

1.1. Draw a complete typical cross section of a flexible ( 0 ) high-type four-lane, 24-foot wide
highway, afid (b) %foot airport taxiway. Include in the sketch one side of roadway or taxiway
in 4-foot cut, the other on 5-foot fill. Indicate bn the sketch all dimensions, slopes, and other
pertinent data. Exclude actual dimensions of thickness of paving components. Side slopes for
the highway are 4: I , and for the airport are 13 percent maximum.
1.2. Discuss the basic design differences between an airport and highway pavement.
SELECTED REFERENCES 23

1.3. For a given wheel load, which will be thicker, a highway or a n airport pavement?
Why?
1.4. List and discuss briefly five factors that will affect the performance of both a rigid and
flexible pavement and that are difficult t o evaluate during the design phase.

SELECTED REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural
Highways, Washington, D.C. 1954.
2. American Association of State Highway Officials, A Policy Concerning Maximum Dimension.
Weights and Speeds of Motor Vehicles to be Operated over the Highways of the United
States, Washington, D.C., 1964.
3. Asphalt Institute, Full-Depth Asphalt Pavements for Air Carrier Airports, The Asphalt
Institute Manual Series No. 1 l(MS-11). 1973.
4. Federal Aviation Administration, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, FAA
Advisory Circular A C 150/5325-4 (including changes 1 through 7), 1965.
5. Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Data, FAA Advisory Circular A C 150/5925-5
and 5A, 1968.
6. Lawton, Warren L., Static Load Contact Preapure Patterns Under Airplane Tires,
Proceedings, Highway Research Board, 1957.
7. National Highway Users Conference, State Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Laws, Washing-
ton, D.C. (published annually).