671 Pavement Project Report

CIVE 671 – PAVEMENT DESIGN
REDESIGNING DBAYYEH INTERCHANGE AND

INFERRING THE IMPORTANCE OF ASPHALT MIX
DESIGN IN PAVEMENT
PERFORMANCE
SUBMITTED TO: DR. GHASSAN CHEHAB
PREPARED BY:
BATOUL SHOUKINI
NADINE FOUANI
RAED SAAB
RALPH EL HAJJ
CIVE 671-PAVEMENT ENGINEERING MAY 18, 2017
Abstract
This project consists of providing a feasible redesign for Dbayeh service interchange to improve
operation and relieve congestion. This interchange serves as a main connector for movement from
Beirut, Naccash, The North and the seaside. This report includes the detailed manual procedure
for the pavement design based on the data that was collected from a traffic count and Rafik Hariri
Beirut International Airport. Mechanistic Empirical equations that account for temperature and
speed yielded thicknesses of 2 inches and 5 inches of the asphalt concrete and aggregate base
layers, respectively, to assure a minimum design life of 20 years. Moreover, the report introduces
the role of several pavement design parameters such as percentage of air voids, asphalt binder, and
penetration grade that are not accounted for in the Mechanistic Empirical manual calculations.
After many iterations conducted on MEPDG, results show that these parameters drastically dictate
the performance of a pavement by controlling the major distresses: fatigue cracking, total rutting,
and IRI.
1
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1 Methodology............................................................................................................................ 9
2 Manual Mechanistic Empirical Method: Redesign of Dbayyeh Interchange ........................ 10
2.1 Seasonal Variation.......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Accumulated Difference ......................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Asphalt Concrete Sinusoidal Temperature ............................................................. 11
2.1.3 Asphalt Concrete Temperature Sensitivity ............................................................. 12
2.2 Equivalent Single Axel Load Calculation ...................................................................... 13
2.3 Pavement Design ............................................................................................................ 15
2.3.1 Critical Response Calculations ............................................................................... 15
2.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 19
2.4.1 Season 1 .................................................................................................................. 19
2.4.2 Season 2 .................................................................................................................. 20
2.4.3 Season 3 .................................................................................................................. 20
2.5 Cost Estimation .............................................................................................................. 22
2.5.1 Material: .................................................................................................................. 22
2.5.2 Equipment: .............................................................................................................. 22
2.5.3 Production rate: ....................................................................................................... 22
2.5.4 Calculation: ............................................................................................................. 22
3 Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide (MEPDG) Analysis ................................................... 23
3.1 Run 1 .............................................................................................................................. 28
3.2 Run 2 .............................................................................................................................. 30
3.3 Run 3 .............................................................................................................................. 33
3.4 Run 4b ............................................................................................................................ 35
3.5 Run 5 .............................................................................................................................. 38
3.6 Run 6 .............................................................................................................................. 40
3.7 Run 7 .............................................................................................................................. 43
3.8 Run 8 .............................................................................................................................. 45
2
3.9 Run 9 .............................................................................................................................. 48

3.10 Run 10 ............................................................................................................................ 50
4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 53
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ 54
References ..................................................................................................................................... 55
3
List of Figures
Figure 1. Upgraded pavement conditions of airports in the United states………………………...7

Figure 2. Dbayyeh interchange location in Google maps…………………………………………8
Figure 3. Methodology.................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Seasonal Variation ......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Asphalt concrete temperature variation ......................................................................... 11
Figure 6. Dual load effect ............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 8. Equivalent thickness conversion ................................................................................... 17
Figure 10. Surface Down Cracking Longitudinal- Run1 .............................................................. 28
Figure 11. Bottom up Damage for Alligator cracking- Run1 ....................................................... 29
Figure 12. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run1 .................................................................... 29
Figure 13. IRI- Run1 ..................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 14. Surface Down Cracking Longitudinal- Run 2 ............................................................. 31
Figure 15. Bottom up Damage for Alligator cracking- Run 2 ...................................................... 31
Figure 16. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run 2 .................................................................... 32
Figure 17. IRI- Run 2 .................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 21. IRI- Run 3 .................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 22. Surface Down Cracking Longitudinal- Run 4b ........................................................... 36
Figure 23. Bottom up Damage for Alligator cracking- Run 4b .................................................... 36
Figure 24. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run 4b .................................................................. 37
Figure 25. IRI- Run 4b .................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 29. IRI- Run 5 .................................................................................................................... 40
4

Figure 33. IRI- Run 6 .................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 37. IRI- Run 7 .................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 41. IRI- Run 8 .................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 45. IRI- Run 9 .................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 46. Surface Down Cracking Longitudinal- Run 10 ........................................................... 51
Figure 47. Bottom up Damage for Alligator cracking- Run 10 .................................................... 51
Figure 48. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run 10 .................................................................. 52
Figure 49. IRI- Run 10 .................................................................................................................. 52
List of Tables
Table 1:Weeks per Season ............................................................................................................ 11
Table 2:Asphalt concrete moduli .................................................................................................. 12
Table 3:Pavement layers’ moduli ................................................................................................. 12
Table 4. Number of passenger cars on different ramps and lanes during the AM peak time at the
Dbayyeh interchange .................................................................................................................... 13
Table 5:Design ESAL ................................................................................................................... 14
Table 6:Number of vehicles per season ........................................................................................ 14
Table 7. Stresses and strains in season 1....................................................................................... 19
Table 8. Pavement damage in season 1 ........................................................................................ 19
Table 9. Stresses and strains of season 2 ...................................................................................... 20
Table 10. Pavement damage in season 2 ...................................................................................... 20
5
Table 11. Stresses and strains of season 3 .................................................................................... 20

Table 12. Pavement damage in season 3 ...................................................................................... 20
Table 13. Summary of final pavement design .............................................................................. 21
Table 14: Summary of run inputs (variables) ............................................................................... 23
Table 15: Summary distresses for each run .................................................................................. 24
Table 16: Run 1 reliability summary ............................................................................................ 28
Table 19: Run 4b reliability summary .......................................................................................... 35
Table 25: Run 10 reliability summary .......................................................................................... 50
6
Introduction
Asphalt mixtures are used to pave roads, streets, highways, parking lots, airports, biking and
walking trails, and other paved surfaces in the Nation’s transportation networks. Roughly 3,500
asphalt mix production sites operate across the United States, producing about 350 million tons of
asphalt pavement material per year. There is approximately 18 billion tons of asphalt pavement in
American roads, all of which could be mined for reuse in new asphalt pavements. Effective
pavement design is one of the more important aspects of project design (Magorka 2017).
Upgrading airport pavements in the US was a main concern, where the pavement conditions have
increased by 3% from 77% to 80% in 2014, as shown in figure 1. The pavement is the portion of
the highway which is most obvious to the motorist. The condition and adequacy of the highway is
often judged by the smoothness or roughness of the pavement. Deficient pavement conditions can
result in increased user costs and travel delays, braking and fuel consumption, vehicle maintenance
repairs and probability of increased crashes (Anon 2017). The pavement life is substantially
affected by the number of heavy load repetitions applied, such as single, tandem, tridem and quad
axle trucks, buses, tractor trailers and equipment. A properly designed pavement structure will
consider the applied loading.
Figure 1. Upgraded pavement conditions of airports in the United States
This project consists of preparing the required studies for the pavement design for the interchange
located in Dbayeh in the northern side of Beirut shown in figure 2. It carries the traffic from Beirut
to Naccash and vice versa. A redesign the pavement of the present 7interchange is done to improve
its level of service over a design period of 20 years. The current interchange structure is presently
7
resulting in high congestion rates due to its inappropriate design where it is causing a significant
amount of delay. For pavement design, the Mechanistic Empirical Method will be adopted since
it includes the climate and traffic influences on the layers of the pavement. The Odemark–
Boussinesq equations facilitate the computation of stresses and strains in various layers which will
lead in the calculation of each layer’s remaining life due to the loading cycles and fatigue.
Figure 2. Dbayyeh interchange location in Google Maps
On the other hand, the scope of this paper covers important pavement design parameters that are
not considered in the manual Mechanistic Empirical Method. Many studies were invested in to
show the power of MEPDG when compared to 1993 AASHTO design guide, yet few are those
that tackle MEPDG versus Mechanistic Empirical equations. MEPDG encompasses many factors
and input parameters. As for this study, it will mainly focus on the: percentages of air voids and
asphalt binder in AC mix, penetration grade (PG), and AC thickness. Many iterations are
conducted using the software MEPDG to test the impact of each of these parameters separately,
then come up with a combination that upgrades the performance of the pavement by minimizing
total rutting, bottom up damage by alligator cracking, and other forms of distresses.
The report proceeds as follows: Section 1 includes the methodology followed to cover the scope
of the project, section 2 consists of the collected data and procedure followed to design the
Dbayyeh interchange using a Mechanistic Empirical method, section 3 shows the iterations done
using MEPDG that show the role of other factors in controlling distresses, and section 4 concludes
the report.
8
1 Methodology
To fully cover the scope of work of the project, the following tasks are done: collecting the
necessary Mechanistic Empirical equations, counting traffic on Dbayyeh Interchange, gathering
annual temperature variations from Rafic Hariri International Airport, Redesigning the pavement,
using the BR2 default file as a traffic source in MEPDG, using VA file as a climate reference in
MEPDG, running different scenarios, and inferring the role of different parameters in generating
pavement distresses. Figure 3 summarizes the methodology of this project.
• Determining Mechanistic Empirical equations

• Counting traffic on Dbayyeh Intechange
• Collecting annual temperature variations from
Data Collection Rafic Hariri International Airport
• Plotting seasonal variations

• Calculating ESALS
Dbayyeh • Calculating stresses and strains
Interchange • Designing the pavement
redesign
• Running different iterations in MEPDG

Impact of asphalt
mix design and • Inferring the importance of different apshalt mix parameters on the
thickness on pavement performance
pavement
performance in
MEPDG
Figure 3. Methodology
9
2 Manual Mechanistic Empirical Method: Redesign of Dbayyeh

Interchange
2.1 Seasonal Variation
2.1.1 Accumulated Difference
The climate data base was collected from Beirut Airport which included the minimum, maximum,
and mean temperatures along with the precipitation throughout the year of 2015. The Accumulated
Difference method was then used to divide the year into different seasons through the following
procedure:
1. Get the average temperature for every day over the year
2. Calculate the average yearly temperature
3. Calculate the difference between the mean daily temperature and the average yearly
temperature
4. Compute the accumulated difference
Every change in slope on the accumulated difference graph indicates the start of a new season.
According to the graphs, the year was divided into 3 different seasons. The first season covers 18
weeks of the year and is described by low temperatures and high precipitation just as the third
season which covers 8 weeks. The middle season spreads over 26 weeks and has relatively high
temperatures with minimal precipitation.
Figure 4. Seasonal Variation
10
Table 1:Weeks per Season

Season Number of Weeks
1 18
2 26
3 8
2.1.2 Asphalt Concrete Sinusoidal Temperature

The Sinusoidal Temperature variation equation was used to plot the asphalt-concrete temperature
variation with respect to the 3 seasons. Figure 5 shows the variation of AC temperature with
time.
Where:
T = Temperature in week number W
T1 = Maximum temperature during the year
T2 = Minimum temperature during the year
W = Week number counted from January 1st
W0 = Week number corresponding to maximum temperature
Figure 5. Asphalt concrete temperature variation
11
The minimum temperature of asphalt is equal to the minimum air temperature obtained in the
temperature graph. On the other hand, and due to the AC color, its maximum temperature was
20% higher since AC tends to absorb heat due to its black color. The AC temperature at mid-
season was calculated and will be used to back calculate its modulus of elasticity.
2.1.3 Asphalt Concrete Temperature Sensitivity
The asphalt concrete moduli are highly influenced by temperature; thus, to calculate the modulus
at a specific temperature, we need to compare it to a reference temperature. Due to lack of testing
and information availability of asphalt concrete in this project, the following exponential equation
was used in order to regulate the modulus to a reference temperature of 77°F:
Where:
TRef= Reference temperature
T = AC temperature at time of testing
E = Back calculated AC modulus at tested temperature
ERef= Adjusted AC modulus to reference temperature
Table 2:Asphalt concrete moduli
Seasons Representative Week Temperature (Fahrenheit) E (ksi)

Season 1 9 9 40 1,900
Season 2 13 31 127 100
Season 3 4 48 66 750
Table 3:Pavement layers’ moduli
Layer S1 Modulus (ksi) S2 Modulus (ksi) S3 Modulus (ksi)

AC 1900 100 750
AB 40 40 40
SG 6 8 6
12
Note: The aggregate base layer is ordered to have a modulus of 40 ksi which is not influenced by
weather nor precipitation conditions. However, the subgrade layer modulus value that was used is
based on typical modulus values of clay in wet conditions (S1 & S3) and in dry conditions (S2).
2.2 Equivalent Single Axel Load Calculation

ESAL is a concept developed from data collected at the American Association of State Highway
Officials (AASHO) Road Test to establish a damage relationship for comparing the effects of axles
carrying different loads. The reference axle load is an 18,000-lb single axle with dual tires. Below
is a table showing the number of passenger cars on different ramps and lanes during the AM peak
time at the Dbayyeh interchange.
Note: Traffic count is performed by a colleague of the group. He used this data for his FYP in the
transportation field.
Table 4. Number of passenger cars on different ramps and lanes during the AM peak time at the Dbayyeh
interchange
AM Peak Time
Ramp Lane Number Vehicles
1 100
A
2 870
1 120
B
2 210
1 108
C
2 394
1 78
D
2 205
At the AM peak time, lane number 1 in ramp A showed the highest traffic of 870 vehicles per
hour. The adopted growth factor is equal to 2.5% while the design period is over 20 years. In
pavement design, we care about the accumulation of loads over the design period which opposes
what the transportation engineers focus on which is projecting the traffic till the end of the design
period.
13
We projected the counted traffic 3 years forward to get the vehicle estimation per hour at the
beginning of the construction period. The design average hourly traffic was calculated to be 900
vehicles per hour.
AASHTO specifies that the peak hour traffic contributes 10% of the average daily traffic, therefore
the following calculation was done in order to get the average daily traffic at the start of the design
period ADT0:
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 900
𝐴𝐷𝑇0 = = = 9,000 𝑣𝑒ℎ/𝑑𝑎𝑦
0.1 0.1
For calculating ESAL, the following equation was used:
𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿 = 𝐴𝐷𝑇0 × 365 × 𝑇 × 𝑇𝑓 × 𝐺𝑌 × 𝐷 × 𝐿
= 9,000 × 365 × 0.02 × 0.23 × 25.54
= 386,000 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 20 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
(1 + 𝑟)𝑁 − 1
𝐺𝑌 = = 25.54
𝑟
D=1 (count per lane)
L=1 (2 lanes per direction), obtained from table 6.16 in AASHTO
Table 5:Design ESAL
Design ESAL 390,000
Annual average ESAL 19,500
Assuming equal traffic distribution throughout the year, and knowing the number of weeks in
each season, the number of load repetitions was calculated in the table below.
Table 6:Number of vehicles per season
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3
6,750 9,750 3,000
14
2.3 Pavement Design

The pavement in this design will be composed of a three-layer system of Asphalt concrete (top
layer) and good quality Aggregate Base on top of the subgrade. The present subgrade is clayey
and weak with a relatively low modulus which is highly influenced by the precipitation conditions.
In order to design the layers’ thickness, the critical responses were computed from the Odemark-
Boussinesq mechanistic empirical method where the strain is calculated on the bottom surface of
the AC layer, while the stress is calculated on the top of the subgrade and aggregate base layer.
The actual number of load repetitions of the design traffic loading comes from a single axle dual
wheel load of 9,000 lbs. with 13” dual wheel spacing and tire contact pressure of 110 psi. The
ESAL calculations are shown in the previous section of this report where the actual total number
of load repetitions per season is produced.
Figure 6. Dual load effect
2.3.1 Critical Response Calculations

The Mechanistic-Empirical (ME) principles were the bases for the critical response calculations
in this design. A schematic representation of the ME process is shown in figure 7.
15
Figure 7. ME process summary
Oedemark -Boussinesq equations are used to calculate stresses and strains at the bottom of AC
and AB layers while taking into account the effect of dual wheels (superposition of point load),
in order to predict the allowable number of load repetitions at failure (N).
The total vertical stress at point A (centerline) is the summation of the vertical stress due to both
loads 1 and 2.
𝐹 𝐹
𝑃= =
𝐴 𝜋 × 𝑎2
Where:
a is the radius of the loaded area
P is the applied pressure of (110 psi)
F is the applied load on one single tire of 4,500 lbs
𝐹 4500
𝑎=√ =√ = 3.61 𝑖𝑛
𝑃×𝜋 110 × 𝜋
The OB model specifies that the interface for stress and strain calculation should have the same
modulus of elasticity and poison’s ratio (above and below). The equivalent thickness of the layer
above the computation interface is calculated as:
16
3 𝐸1
ℎ𝑒1 = 𝑓 × ℎ1 × √
𝐸2
Where:
f= the adjustment factor (=0.1 for first interface,0.8 for all other)
h1= thickness of the layer before correction
E1= modulus of elasticity of the top layer
E2= modulus of elasticity of the lower layer
Figure 8. Equivalent thickness conversion

Due to Load 1 (using the uniform load equation):
 Vertical compressive stress on top of aggregate base and Subgrade
 Horizontal tensile strain at bottom of asphalt concrete
17
Due to Load 2 (using the point equation):
 For Asphalt Fatigue cracking, the Asphalt Institute model (AI) is the best approach to find N:
𝐸 −0.295
𝜀 = 261 × 𝑁 −0.304 × ( )
𝐸0
Where:
ε = Tensile strain at bottom of AC layer (microns)
N = Allowable number of load repetitions in millions
E = AC modulus (ksi)
E0= 435 ksi
 For unbounded material, Kirk permanent deformation model is applicable:
−0.307
𝐸 𝐶
𝜎 = A×𝑁 ×( )
𝐸0
18
Where:
δ = Vertical stress on top of unbound layer (ksi)
A = 0.0174
N = Allowable number of load repetitions in millions
E = Modulus of material (ksi)
E0= 23.2 ksi
C = 1.16 for E < E0and C = 1 for E ≥ E0
 The Remaining Life

The total damage of each layer over the year = Σ of the total damage for each layer in each
season
1
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟
2.4 Results
2.4.1 Season 1
Table 7. Stresses and strains in season 1
Value Unit
Strain at bottom of AC 271.95 Microns
Stress on AB 31.12 Psi
Stress on SG 6.03 Psi
Table 8. Pavement damage in season 1
Layer N (millions) n Damage per season

AC 0.2487 6750 0.02713
AB 0.8873 6750 0.00761
SG 0.1902 6759 0.03549
19
2.4.2 Season 2
Table 9. Stresses and strains of season 2
Value Unit
AC 5.2433 9750 0.00186
AB 1.6060 9750 0.00607
SG 7.1171 9750 0.00137
2.4.3 Season 3
Table 11. Stresses and strains of season 3
Value Unit
AC 38.8290 3000 7.72618E-05
AB 75.7745 3000 3.95911E-05
SG 36.3200 3000 8.2599E-05
20
Tabulated below is the summary for the final pavement design:
Table 13. Summary of final pavement design
S1 S2 S3
Thickness Damage per Remaining
Layer Modulus Modulus Modulus
(in) year Life
(psi) (psi) (psi)
AC 2 1,900,000 100,000 750,000 0.026089223 38.33
AB 5 40,000 40,000 40,000 0.012310087 81.23
SG - 6,000 8,000 6,000 0.033155335 30.16
The thicknesses are altered until the remaining life of all three layers is greater than 20 years.
Figure 9. Final pavement layers
21
2.5 Cost Estimation

2.5.1 Material:
AC Layer: 1 m2 of 5 cm thickness = $15 (Total)
AB Layer: 1 m3 = $10
2.5.2 Equipment:
Dozer: $40/hr
Grader: $40/hr
2.5.3 Production rate:
Dozer: $200 m2/hr (spreads 200 m2)
Grader: 3150 m2/day (10 hours)
2.5.4 Calculation:
 For the AC layer, each 1 m2 costs $15 with 5 cm thickness which is the same thickness as the
proposed asphalt layer design. Therefore, to calculate how much 1 km in length of 3.6 m in
lane width:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 1000 𝑚 × 3.6 𝑚 = 3,600 𝑚2
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑚 = 3,600 × 15 $ = $ 54,000 /𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑚
 For aggregate base:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 1000 𝑚 × 3.6 𝑚 = 3,600 𝑚2

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑚 = 3,600 × 0.13 = 468 𝑚3
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑚 = 468 × 15 $ = $ 4689 /𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑚
 Equipment:
Grader:
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 3,150 𝑚2 /10ℎ𝑟𝑠
3,600 𝑚2 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 12 ℎ𝑟𝑠
$40/ℎ𝑟 × 12 ℎ𝑟 = $384/𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑚
Dozer:
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 200𝑚2 /10ℎ𝑟𝑠
3,600 𝑚2 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 18 ℎ𝑟𝑠
$40/ℎ𝑟 × 18 ℎ𝑟 = $540/𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑚
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 = $ 𝟔𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎/𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒌𝒎

22
3 Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide (MEPDG) Analysis

The goal of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) is to identify the
physical causes of stresses in pavement structures and calibrate them with observed pavement
performance. These two elements define this approach to pavement design: the focus on physical
causes is the “mechanistic” part, and using observed performance to determine relationships is the
“empirical” part. After studying the effect of temperature and traffic count on pavement design
and its lifetime using hand methods (to account for fatigue and rutting distresses), this section will
use MEPDG results. Those results will highlight the effect of changing the % of air void, % binder,
PG (penetration grade), and the thickness of Asphalt Concrete layer (H1) on the performance.
Note: Data related to traffic distribution and climate was retrieved from the files provided by the
Professor to ease the process. These files are BR2 default and VA. Input other than those shown
in table 14 can be found in excel files uploaded on Moodle.
The table below summarizes the inputs used in the runs conducted using the software:
Table 14: Summary of run inputs (variables)
Run %Binder %Voids PG H1 (inches)

Run 1 11 5 40/50 2
Run 2 11 6 40/50 2
Run 3 12 5 40/50 2
Run 4 13 5 40/50 2
Run 4b 13 4 40/50 2
Run 5 13 5 60/70 2
Run 6 13 5 60/70 1.5
Run 7 13 5 40/50 1.5
Run 8 15 7 60/70 2
Run 9 11 4 40/50 2
Run 10 11 4 40/50 3
23
In the table above, run one is taken as the first reference. Subsequent runs will differ from the first
one by changing any of these parameters (voids, binder percentage, grade or thickness). The
parameters changed are highlighted (colored) in the table for each run separately. The summary of
distresses for each run is given in the table below (the lifetime considered is 20 years):
Table 15: Summary distresses for each run

Longitudinal Alligator Transverse Subtotal Total Heavy IRI at
IRI
Runs Cracking Cracking Cracking AC Rutting Trucks Reliability
Rutting (in/mi)
(ft/mi) (%) (ft/mi) (in) (in) (cumulative) (in/mi)
Run
1.37 0.0322 23.8 0.091 0.439 109.2 1171580 148.02
1
Run
2.98 0.0788 0 0.094 0.445 109.6 1171580 148.49
2
Run
1.06 0.0235 8.2 0.093 0.443 109.2 1171580 147.95
3
Run
0.84 0.0177 3.5 0.094 0.446 109.2 1171580 148
4
Run
0.38 0.007 2.6 0.092 0.44 108.8 1171580 147.52
4b
Run
0.95 0.0186 1.8 0.099 0.453 109.5 1171580 148.36
5
Run
4.21 0.0065 4.5 0.08 0.49 111.3 1171580 150.64
6
Run
3.58 0.0061 8.5 0.075 0.483 111 1171580 150.27
7
Run
2.76 0.054 2.3 0.11 0.475 110.6 1171580 149.82
8
Run
0.59 0.0119 26.9 0.089 0.434 108.9 1171580 147.54
9
Run
5.47 0.084 12.2 0.078 0.351 105.4 1171580 143.12
10
24
The results above show the major distresses for each run with different input parameters. Green
cells reflect minimum distresses while red ones show the highest distresses. Percentage of air void
was maintained between 3% and 8% for all the runs such that:
 Vair > 3% to preclude bleeding and instability

 Vair < 8% for durability
 Veffective asphalt binder should be enough to: coat, bind, and satisfy absorption by aggregates.
Increasing %air voids, will reduce stiffness.
By maintaining an adequate air void, bitumen in the mix will be a place to be stored rather than
escaping to the surface and causing bleeding. Bleeding in asphalt is a major problem, which
reduces the friction of the pavement and result in stopping difficulties and accidents. At the same
time, extra asphalt (bitumen) or binder put in the mixture can cause bleeding. This will result in
softening the pavement thus rendering it a pavement that is prone to rutting and permanent
deformations. Hence a proper binder percentage should be maintained with the corresponding air
voids.
The thickness H1 of the top asphalt layer can be classified as thin or thick as follow:
 Thin: H1 < 4 inches

 Thick: H1 > 4 inches
In the runs conducted H1 was 1.5 inch in some cases and 2 inch in others. Being less than 4 in the
pavement is considered to be thin. Thin layers bends at the top, which causes tension at the bottom.
The repetition of the tension stresses weakens the pavement until it cracks. Those cracks are bottom
up cracks, which combine with the shear crack coming from the top next to the tire at a 45 degrees
angle. Neglecting those damages, will allow water to penetrate and to weaken the mixture more.
Therefore, breaking the bonds between the aggregates and pealing the asphalt layer Alligator
cracking will be the consequence.
Rutting is right under the tire at about 5 cm deep. Rutting is mostly independent from the pavement
structure (thickness H1). Thus it is a material problem. By increasing the stiffness of the mix (use
higher binder grade), we can prevent rutting.
To provide some analysis for the numbers in table 15, one can notice that going from run 1 to run
2 the %void has increased from 5% to 6%, which reduces the stiffness of the pavement resulting
25
in more rutting (increase from 0.439 in to 0.445 in). Increasing the % binder in run 3 to 12%
(compared to 11% to run 1) affected the stiffness, thus less alligator cracking and more rutting.
Fatigue (alligator) has decreased from 0.0322% to 0.0235% and rutting has increased from 0.439
in to 0.443in. Increasing % binder to 13% and decreasing %air voids to 4% has affected stiffness.
Therefore, rutting has decreased from 0.446 in to 0.44 in, Fatigue has decreased as well from
0.0177 to 0.007. Going from 4b to 5, penetration increased from 60/70, revealing a reduction in
stiffness. Rutting has increased by 0.0013 in, alligator cracking has increased as well from 0.007%
to 0.0186%. Moving from run 6 to run 7, the penetration has decreased, thus stiffness has
increased. Increased stiffness is shown by a reduction in rutting by 0.007 inch (from 0.49 in to
0.483 in).
As for the penetration grade (PG), runs 4 and 5 were dedicated to investigating the role of PG in
dictating pavement distresses. According to table 15, when a PG of 40/50 was used in run 4, a total
rutting of 0.446 inches was obtained which is less than that obtained in run 5 (0.453 inches) when
a PG of 60/70 was used. This result is quite reasonable since the deflection of elastic material is
inversely proportional to the stiffness. When using a penetration grade of 60/70, one can relate it
to the laboratory result that indicates a needle can penetrate the asphalt mix to reach 6 mm where
as it can only reach 4 mm as in run 4.
Concerning IRI, International Roughness Index, distresses such as rutting, faulting and punch-outs
influence the loss of smoothness of a pavement, therefore increasing its roughness and reducing
its performance and convenience. After several iterations, run 10 appeared to be the optimal run.
This case shows the lowest subtotal AC and total rutting as well as a low roughness index. IRI is
relatively the minimum in this case compared with the other runs (143 in /mi). The low roughness
indicates the convenience of the driver, high ride quality and good functional performance of the
paved road.
Finally, taking the major three performance indicative parameters into considerations: alligator
cracking, total rutting, and IRI, run 4b shows nearly most optimized results. Rub 4b consists a
combination of 13% by volume of binder, 4% of air voids, a PG of 40/50, and an AC thickness of
2 inches. Alligator cracking scored a minimum of 0.007%, IRI scored the second lowest value of
108.8 in/mi, and total rutting was acceptable (0.44 in). The credibility of results is reflected in the
high volume of binder that provides ductility for the mix, the penetration grade that provides
26
stiffness and thickness of AC such that both limit the deformation, thus leading to a combination
that minimizes IRI.
In the following pages, details on important outputs of each run will be highlighted. It is important
to note that in some total rutting graphs, the curve appears to exceed the limit which is 0.5 inches.
However, it is still less than that of the allowable deformation 0.75 inches.
27
3.1 Run 1
The reliability summary for run 1 is shown below:

Table 16: Run 1 reliability summary
Distress Reliability Distress Reliability

Performance Criteria Acceptable
Target Target Predicted Predicted
Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 90 109.2 98.1 Pass

AC Surface Down Cracking
2000 90 1.4 99.999 Pass
(Long. Cracking) (ft/mile):
AC Bottom Up Cracking
15 90 0 99.999 Pass
(Alligator Cracking) (%):
AC Thermal Fracture
1000 90 23.8 99.999 Pass
(Transverse Cracking) (ft/mi):
Chemically Stabilized Layer
25 90 N/A
(Fatigue Fracture)
Permanent Deformation (AC
0.15 90 0.09 94.82 Pass
Only) (in):
Permanent Deformation (Total
0.75 90 0.44 98.34 Pass
Pavement) (in):
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal

3000
2700
2400
Longitudinal Cracking (ft/mi)
2100 Surface
1800
1500 Depth = 0.5"
1200
900
600
300
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 10. Surface Down Cracking Longitudinal- Run1
28
Bottom Up Cracking - Alligator

100
90
80
70
Alligator Cracking (%)
Maximum
60
Cracking
50 Bottom Up
Reliability
40
30
20
10
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Figure 11. Bottom up Damage for Alligator cracking- Run1
Permanent Deformation: Rutting

0.60
AC Rutting Design
Value = 0.15
0.50
SubTotalAC
0.40 SubTotalBase
Rutting Depth (in)
SubTotalSG
0.30
Total Rutting
TotalRutReliabilit
0.20 y
0.10
0.00
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Figure 12. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run1
29
IRI
200
180
160
140
120 IRI
IRI (in/mi)
100
IRI at
80 Reliability
60 Design
Limit
40
20
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Figure 13. IRI- Run1
3.2 Run 2


AC Surface Down
Cracking (Long. 2000 90 3 99.99 Pass
Cracking) (ft/mile):
15 90 0.1 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(Transverse Cracking) 1000 90 1 99.999 Pass
(ft/mi):
Chemically Stabilized
25 90 N/A
Layer (Fatigue Fracture)
Permanent Deformation
0.15 90 0.09 93.45 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.45 95.45 Pass
(Total Pavement) (in):
30
Figure 14. Surface Down Cracking Longitudinal- Run 2
Figure 15. Bottom up Damage for Alligator cracking- Run 2
31
Figure 16. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run 2
Figure 17. IRI- Run 2
32
3.3 Run 3


AC Surface Down
Cracking (Long. 2000 90 1.1 99.999 Pass
15 90 0 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(Transverse Cracking) 1000 90 8.2 99.999 Pass
(ft/mi):
25 90 N/A
0.15 90 0.09 94.04 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.44 96.67 Pass
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal

3000
2700
2400
Longitudinal Cracking (ft/mi)
2100
Surface
1800
1500 Depth = 0.5"
1200
900
600
300
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
33
34
3.4 Run 4b
Table 19: Run 4b reliability summary

AC Surface Down
15 90 0 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(ft/mi):
25 90 N/A
0.15 90 0.09 94.65 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.44 99.9 Pass
35
Figure 22. Surface Down Cracking Longitudinal- Run 4b
Figure 23. Bottom up Damage for Alligator cracking- Run 4b
36
Figure 24. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run 4b
Figure 25. IRI- Run 4b
37
3.5 Run 5

AC Surface Down
Cracking (Long. 2000 90 1 99.999 Pass
15 90 0 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(ft/mi):
0.15 90 0.1 90.61 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.45 99.99 Pass
38
39
3.6 Run 6

AC Surface Down
15 90 0 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(ft/mi):
25 90 N/A
0.15 90 0.08 98.41 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.49 94.53 Pass
40
41
42
3.7 Run 7
Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 90 111 97.67 Pass

AC Surface Down
15 90 0 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(ft/mi):
0.15 90 0.07 99.23 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.48 99.94 Pass
43
44
3.8 Run 8


AC Surface Down Cracking
2000 90 2.8 99.99 Pass
(Long. Cracking) (ft/mile):
15 90 0.1 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
1000 90 2.3 99.999 Pass
(Transverse Cracking) (ft/mi):
Permanent Deformation (AC
0.15 90 0.11 93.14 Pass
Only) (in):
Permanent Deformation (Total
0.75 90 0.47 99.95 Pass
Pavement) (in):
45
46
47
3.9 Run 9


AC Surface Down
15 90 0 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(ft/mi):
0.15 90 0.09 95.82 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.43 99.999 Pass
48
49
3.10 Run 10


AC Surface Down
15 90 0.1 99.999 Pass
AC Thermal Fracture
(ft/mi):
0.15 90 0.08 98.82 Pass
(AC Only) (in):
0.75 90 0.35 99.999 Pass
50
51
52
4 Conclusion
As pavement engineering is growing widely, different upgraded techniques are used to provide
accurate data inputs such as weighing trucks and classify them accordingly through sensors.
Accurate input aids in obtaining reliable distresses and pavement performance parameters such
IRI at the end of design life of a pavement that support the QA/QC tasks by which the contractor
can be accountable for in case of any mismatch (Nega et al. 2015). Unfortunately, Lebanon is still
on the margins of making use of the potentials that MEPDG encompasses, where 1993 AASHTO
is primarily used. Studies show that the new MEPDG analysis yielded thinner AC sections for all
projects than those obtained from the 1993 AASHTO design guide analysis (Ghadimi et al. 2013).
Thus, economic design and quality control cannot be easily practiced in the absence of MEPDG
use. This report focuses on both the pros and cons of using the Mechanistic Empirical equations
to redesign Dbayyeh interchange based on traffic data and seasonal temperature variations without
considering the asphalt mix design (%air voids, %binder...). On the other hand, the potential of
using MEPDG was emphasized on by varying the parameters that are not accounted for in the
equations.
This paper recommends a serious traffic count and climate reference for critical roadways in
Lebanon such that MEPDG can be effectively used. Consequently, distresses and pavement
performance will be reliably predicted which yield a transparent cost system that penalizes the
contractor when deviating from the specifications in case the performance is remarkably
downgraded.
53
Acknowledgement
The team members would like to express deep appreciation to Professor Ghassan Chehab for
helping and providing us with the necessary information and files needed to cover the scope of the
project. Many thanks to Mr. Hussein Kassem who was patient and facilitated the installation of
MEPDG. Also, thanks to our colleague Bassam Hallak and Rafic Hariri International Airport who
provided us with the traffic count of Dbayyeh interchange and annual temperature in Lebanon,
respectively.
54
References
ANON 2017. <https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/designGuide/CH_9.pdf> (May
18, 2017).
Class notes.
Ghadimi, B., Nikraz, H., Leek, C., and Nega, A. (2013). "A Comparison between Austroads
Pavement Structural Design and AASHTO Design in Flexible Pavement". Advanced Materials
Research, 723, 3-11.
Magorka, E. (2017). "Market Facts". Asphaltpavement.org,
<http://www.asphaltpavement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=891&Itemi
d=1068> (May 18, 2017).
Nega, A., Nikraz, H., Herath, S., and Ghadimi, B. (2015). "Distress Identification, Cost Analysis
and Pavement Temperature Prediction for the Long-Term Pavement Performance for Western
Australia". International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 267-275.
"What Is Mechanistic-Empirical Design? – The MEPDG and You | Pavement Interactive".
(2017). Pavementinteractive.org, <http://www.pavementinteractive.org/2012/10/02/what-is-
mechanistic-empirical-design-the-mepdg-and-you/> (May 18, 2017).
55

671 Pavement Project Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

671 Pavement Project Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CIVE 671 – PAVEMENT DESIGN

REDESIGNING DBAYYEH INTERCHANGE AND

SUBMITTED TO: DR. GHASSAN CHEHAB

3.9 Run 9 .............................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 1. Upgraded pavement conditions of airports in the United states………………………...7

Figure 32. Permanent Deformation: Rutting- Run 6 .................................................................... 42

Table 11. Stresses and strains of season 3 .................................................................................... 20

Figure 1. Upgraded pavement conditions of airports in the United States

Figure 2. Dbayyeh interchange location in Google Maps

• Determining Mechanistic Empirical equations

• Plotting seasonal variations

• Running different iterations in MEPDG

2 Manual Mechanistic Empirical Method: Redesign of Dbayyeh

Figure 4. Seasonal Variation

Table 1:Weeks per Season

2.1.2 Asphalt Concrete Sinusoidal Temperature

Figure 5. Asphalt concrete temperature variation

Table 2:Asphalt concrete moduli

Seasons Representative Week Temperature (Fahrenheit) E (ksi)

Table 3:Pavement layers’ moduli

Layer S1 Modulus (ksi) S2 Modulus (ksi) S3 Modulus (ksi)

2.2 Equivalent Single Axel Load Calculation

For calculating ESAL, the following equation was used:

𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿 = 𝐴𝐷𝑇0 × 365 × 𝑇 × 𝑇𝑓 × 𝐺𝑌 × 𝐷 × 𝐿

= 9,000 × 365 × 0.02 × 0.23 × 25.54

= 386,000 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 20 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠

D=1 (count per lane)

L=1 (2 lanes per direction), obtained from table 6.16 in AASHTO

Table 5:Design ESAL

Design ESAL 390,000

Annual average ESAL 19,500

Table 6:Number of vehicles per season

Season 1 Season 2 Season 3

6,750 9,750 3,000

2.3 Pavement Design

Figure 6. Dual load effect

2.3.1 Critical Response Calculations

Figure 7. ME process summary

Figure 8. Equivalent thickness conversion

 Vertical compressive stress on top of aggregate base and Subgrade

 Horizontal tensile strain at bottom of asphalt concrete

Due to Load 2 (using the point equation):

 For unbounded material, Kirk permanent deformation model is applicable:

 The Remaining Life

Table 7. Stresses and strains in season 1

Table 8. Pavement damage in season 1

Layer N (millions) n Damage per season

Strain at bottom of AC 230.8 Microns

Stress on AB 25.94 Psi

Stress on SG 2.77 Psi

Table 10. Pavement damage in season 2

Layer N (millions) n Damage per season

AC 5.2433 9750 0.00186

AB 1.6060 9750 0.00607

SG 7.1171 9750 0.00137

Strain at bottom of AC 74.52 Microns

Stress on AB 7.94 Psi

Stress on SG 1.20 Psi

Table 12. Pavement damage in season 3

Layer N (millions) n Damage per season

AC 38.8290 3000 7.72618E-05

AB 75.7745 3000 3.95911E-05

SG 36.3200 3000 8.2599E-05