El Diseño Estructural

Mecanístico-Empírico y su
implementación en los
Estados Unidos
Presentado por Jorge A Prozzi
Jornadas Técnicas de Actualización
en Pavimentos Flexibles
Facultad de Ingeniería, UBA
3 y 4 de julio de 2008

Proceso de An álisis y Diseño

Foundation Climate Materials Traffic
Analysis EICM Testing Analysis

Inputs
Trial Design Strategy Analysis
Modify
Strategy
Transfer
No Pavement Response Model Function

Meet
Performance Distress Prediction Models Damage
Criteria? Accumulation

Yes

Constructability Viable Alternatives Life Cycle Cost

Issues Analysis

Select Strategy Strategy Selection

 Material
Traffic Foundation Climate
Properties
Inputs
Modify Trial Design Strategy Analysis
Strategy
No Pavement Analysis Models
Meet
Performance Damage

New Construction of
Distress Prediction Models
Criteria? Accumulation

Yes
Flexible
Constructability Pavements
Viable Alternatives Life Cycle Cost
Issues Analysis

Select Strategy Strategy Selection

Pavement Design Strategies

Deep Semi -
Semi-
Full Depth Strength Conventional Rigid
HMA Wearing Surface

ATB or Aggregate CTB or

HMA
Black Base Base Lime--Fly Ash
Lime
Binder &
Base Layers
Aggregate Subbase

Improved or Stabilized Embankment

Subgrade Soil
 Material
Traffic Foundation Climate
Properties
Inputs
Modify Trial Design Strategy Analysis
Strategy

No Pavement Analysis Models

Meet Inputs for Design
Damage
Performance Distress Prediction Models
Criteria? Accumulation

Yes
Constructability Viable Alternatives Life Cycle Cost
Issues Analysis

Select Strategy Strategy Selection

Propiedades de los
Materiales

HMA
Aggregate Base
Subgrade/Foundation Soils
 Propiedades de los Materiales
n Modulus of Elasticity
n Poisson’s ratio Asphalt Mixtures
Dynamic Modulus
HMA ASTM D3496,
NCHRP 9-19
Aggregate Base

Unbound Materials
Subgrade Resilient Modulus
AASHTO T307,
NCHRP 1-28A

Structural–Mix Design Integration

JMF
 Materials Characterization
HMA Layers
Property Level
Dynamic Modulus Master Curve 1
Poisson’s Ratio 1, 2, 3
Indirect Tensile Strength 1, 2, 3
Indirect Tensile Creep Compliance 1, 2, 3
Effective Asphalt Content 1, 2, 3
Air Voids 1, 2, 3
Total Unit Weight 1, 2, 3
Thermal Conductivity 1, 2, 3
Heat Capacity 1, 2, 3

Materials Characterization
HMA Layers
Property Level
Mixture Coefficient of Thermal 1, 2, 3
Contraction
Aggregate Coefficient of Thermal 1, 2, 3
Contraction
Voids in Mineral Aggregate 1, 2, 3
Gradation: 3/4, 3/8, #4, #200 2, 3
 Materials Characterization
HMA Layers - Binder
Property Level
Shear Modulus & Phase Angle 1, 2
Absolute & Kinematic Viscosities 1, 2
Specific Gravity 1, 2
Penetration 1, 2
Brookfield Viscosity 1, 2
Binder Grade: P-G, Viscosity, or 3
Penetration

Materials Characterization
Unbound Layers

Property Level
Resilient Modulus 1
Poisson’s Ratio 1, 2, 3
Coefficient of Lateral Pressure 1, 2, 3
CBR, R-Value, DCP, or PI & 2
Gradation
Soil Classification 3
 Materials Characterization
Unbound Layers
Property Level
Maximum Dry Density 1, 2, 3
Optimum Moisture Content 1, 2, 3
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 1, 2, 3
Specific Gravity of Solids 1, 2, 3
Soil-Water Characteristics Curve 1, 2, 3
Plasticity Index 1, 2, 3
Gradation: #4, #200 1, 2, 3
D(60) 1, 2, 3

Propiedades de los Materiales:

Efectos Ambientales
Changes in layer
modulus over time.
n HMA – Temperature &
Aging Effects
n Unbound Aggregate –
Moisture Effects
n Soil – Moisture Effects
 Traffic Data for Design:
Number of axles by:
n Truck type
n Axle type
n Axle load interval

Number of axles
within:
n Each year
n Season within a year
n Time of day

Traffic Design Inputs

Section 182008

AADTT 800
600
1992 Truck
ADTT

Distribution volume
1993
400
1996

factors:
200
1997 distribution
0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
•Direction Vehicle Class

•Lane Rural Pavement Design Classes, Single Axles

•Month 20

Axle
Percent Axles

15 VC 8

•Hour weight
VC 9
10
VC 10
5
distribution
•Growth 0
0 15000 30000 45000
Axle Load (lbf)
 Climate Inputs:
Enhanced Integrated Climate Model
(EICM) is an enhanced version of the
FHWA Integrated Climate Model (ICM)
n EICM sub-models:
l Precipitation
l Infiltration and drainage
l Climate-materials-structure
l Frost heave and thaw settlement
n Additional validation currently
underway in NCHRP 9-23

Modelos para Predicción

Material
Traffic Foundation Climate
Properties
Inputs
del Deterioro Analysis
Modify Trial Design Strategy
Strategy
No Pavement Analysis Models
Meet
Performance Distress
Damage Calculation
Criteria? Prediction Models

Yes
Constructability Viable Alternatives Life Cycle Cost
Issues Analysis

Select Strategy Strategy Selection

Modelos para Predicci
Material
Traffic
ón
Foundation

Inputs
Climate
Properties

del Deterioro Analysis

Modify Trial Design Strategy
Strategy
No Pavement Analysis Models
Meet
Performance Distress
Damage Calculation
Criteria? Prediction Models

Yes
Basado en Teorí a
Constructability Life Cycle Cost
Issues ElViable
ástica Alternatives
MulticapaAnalysis
Select Strategy Strategy Selection

Response Model Options

n Multilayer Elastic Theory (MLET)
l JULEA program
l Standard computational option

l Axisymmetric w/ superposition

n Nonlinear Finite Elements (FEM)

l DSC2D program
l Advanced computational option
l Axisymmetric w/ superposition
 Criteria for Acceptable Designs
– They’re inputs!

Fisuramiento
por Fatiga: Fisuramiento IRI;
<10% <175 in/mi
Longitudinal:
<2,500 ft/mi

Fisuramiento
Termico
<500 ft/mi Ahuellamiento
<0.5 in.

Rutting/
Ahuellamiento
 Rutting Analysis
HMA Surface er n Vertical elastic strain
at incremental
HMA Base er depths

εp
= β r (10) (T )β (N )β
β r1K r1 r 3K r 3
er
r2
Granular Base
εr

Subgrade er RD = ∑ (ε pi * hi ) j

Rut Depth, inches

Permenant Deformation: Total Rutting in Pavement Layers (inch)
Predicted
Total &
0.70
Ac Rutting Design
Value = 0.25"

90% Reliability
0.60
Layer
Design Limit
0.50
Rutting
Maximum Rutting (inch)

0.40 SubTotalAC
SubTotalGB
Total, Mean SubTotalSG
Total Rutting
0.30
TotalRutReliability

HMA
0.20

0.10

Subgrade
0.00
Aggr. Base
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180 198

Pavement Age, month

Pavement age, month
Fisuramiento por Fatiga

Análisis de Fatiga
n Area fatigue
HMA Wearing Surface
cracks initiate at
the bottom of the
HMA Base
HMA layer.
n Longitudinal
Granular Base cracks initiate at
the top of the
HMA layer.
Subgrade
Análisis de Fatiga
t e n Tensile strain; top &
HMA Wearing Surface
bottom of HMA
layers
HMA Base
et
N f = αβ f 1K1 (ε t )
K 2 β2
(E ) * K 3β 3

Granular Base n
DI =
Nf

C4
Subgrade FC B = C3 +
1 + e (C1 −C2 ( DI ) )

Area Cracking, sq. ft. Predicted

Bottom Up Cracking (ft^2/500ft), Alligator Cracking

Area
90

81

72 Fatigue
63 Cracking
Maximum Cracking (ft^2/500ft)

54
Design Limit
Maximum Cracking
45
Maximum Cracking Limit

36

27

18

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement age, month
Pavement Age, month
 Fisuramiento Termico

Thermal Fracture Analysis

s t n Tensile stress at the
HMA Wearing Surface
surface

HMA Base
  C 
 Log   
Granular Base   h HMA 
TC = K 1 N  
σt
 
 
 
Subgrade
 Thermal Cracking Model
n Uses SHRP Thermal Fracture Model
l Roque and Buttlar
l Improvements Since SHRP
l Recalibrated Using Approximately 30
Sections in NCHRP Project 9-19

Rugosidad (IRI)
Modelo General de Rugosidad

IRI = IRIO + ? IRID+? IRISF

IRIO = Initial IRI
IRID = Change in IRI due to distress.
? IRISF= Change in IRI due to site factors.

HMA Pavements with

Unbound Aggregate Bases
 age 
IRI (t ) = IRI o + 0.0463(SF ) e 20 −1 + 0. 00384(FC )T
 
+ 0.1834(COVRD ) + 0. 00119(TC L )T + 0. 00736( BC )T
+ 0.00155(LC SNWP )MH
No. Of Observations = 353
R-Squared = 62.0%
Se/Sy = 0.747
RMSE = 0.387
 IRI, inches/mile
Predicted IRI
Predicted
IRI
152.00

Design Limit
136.80

121.60

106.40

91.20
IRI, in/mile

IRI
76.00
IRI Limit

60.80

45.60

30.40

15.20

0.00
0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180 198

Pavement Age, month

Pavement age, month

Material
Traffic Foundation Climate
Properties

Calibración de losInputs
Analysis
Modelos de Deterioro
Modify Trial Design Strategy
Strategy
No Pavement Analysis Models
MeetPredictions
Performance Damage
Versus Distress Prediction Models
Criteria? Accumulation
Observations!
Yes
Constructability Viable Alternatives Life Cycle Cost
Issues Analysis

Select Strategy Strategy Selection

 Calibration

LTPP Test Sections Used in Calibration &

Validation of Distress Prediction Models

NCHRP 1 -37A
Calibration-Validation Process
n Used BEST Available Data.
n No Materials Testing – Relied on
existing databases for all inputs – LTPP.

Input Input Level

Element 1 2 3
Material Lab “Guessed”
Equations
Properties Testing Value
Calibration of Distress Prediction
Models
n Critical activity.
n LTPP database used to determine national
calibration factors.
n Variability in distress observations is high.
n Errors between predictions and observations are

Predicted Distress Value

high but no bias. 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Observed Distress Value

Accuracy of Prediction Models

All Models Have Errors .
Observed = Predicted ± e Total
1
Observed Values

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Predicted Values
 1

Predicted Distress
0.8

Value
0.6

D(t )Predicted = DObserved + e 0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Observed Distress Value

Reliability Concept for Design

50%
Predicted Distress
0.8

75% 0.6 Reliability = 50%

0.4 Reliability = 75%

95% 0.2 Reliability = 95%

0
0 10 20
Predicted Distress Value Age, year

Reliability Concept
Cracking

Probability of Prediction at
failure (α ) Reliability R

Cracking (failure) Reliability

R = (1 - α )
Cracking (average)

Mean prediction
R = 50 %
Cracking0

Time
 Principales Fuentes de Error
Distress Measurement Climate
Struture Simulation HMA Properties
Traffic Sublayer Properties
30
Percent of 20
Total Error
Term 10

0
Rutting Fatigue Thermal
Cracking Cracking

60

50 Global Cal.
Fatigue Cracking, %

40 Key Issue:
30
Reduce the error
20
term by regional
calibration!!
10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fracture Damage Index

60
Fatigue Cracking, %

50 Regional Cal.
Measure mix 40

property level 1 30
20

inputs. 10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Adjusted Damage Index
 Material
Traffic Foundation Climate
Properties
Inputs

Algunas
Modify
Strategy
Aplicaciones de
Trial Design Strategy Analysis

Nola Gu ía Mecanística-
Pavement Analysis Models
Meet
Emp
Performance
Criteria?
í rica
Damage
Accumulation (MEPDG)
Distress Prediction Models

Yes
Constructability Viable Alternatives Life Cycle Cost
Issues Analysis

Select Strategy Strategy Selection

100

Efecto del
Fatigue Cracking, %

80

60 HMA = 6 inches

espesor
HMA = 8 inches
40
HMA = 10 inches
20

del HMA 0

0.3
0 5 10

Age, year
15
Rut Depth, iinches

0.25

HMA
0.2
HMA = 6 inches
0.15 HMA = 8 inches

12”” Crushed Stone

12
0.1 HMA = 10 inches
0.05

12”” Aggr. Subbase

12
0
0 5 10 15
120
Age, year
A-5 Soil
IRI, inches/mile

100
80
HMA = 6 inches
60 HMA = 8 inches
40 HMA = 10 inches
20

0
0 5 10 15

Age, year
 120

Fatigue Cracking, %
Efecto del
100
80 Air Voids = 8%
60 Air Voids = 12%

contenido 40
20
Air Voids = 4%

de vacios
0
0 5 10 15

0.35 Age, year

Rut Depth, inches

0.3
0.25
6” HMA 0.2
Air Voids = 8%
0.15 Air Voids = 12%

12”” Crushed Stone

12 0.1 Air Voids = 4%
0.05

12”” Aggr. Subbase

12 0
0 5 10 15
140

A-5 Soil 120 Age, year

IRI, inches/mile

100
Air Voids = 8%
80
60 Air Voids = 12%
40 Air Voids = 4%
20
0
0 5 10 15

Age, year

120
Fatigue Cracking, %

Efecto del
100

80 PG 70-28

tipo de
60 PG 64-22
40 PG 58-16
20

cemento
0
0 5 10 15

0.35 Age, year

asfaltico
Rut Detph, inches

0.3
0.25
PG 70-28
0.2
0.15 PG 64-22
6” HMA 0.1 PG 58-16
0.05

12”” Crushed Stone

12 0
0 5 10 15
140

12”” Aggr. Subbase

12 120 Age, year
IRI, inches/mile

100
PG 70-22
A-5 Soil
80
60 PG 64-22
40 PG 58-16
20
0
0 5 10 15

Age, year
 100

Efecto de

Fatigue Cracking, %
80
No Drainage
60

la capa
Layer
40 ATPB Layer
20

drenante 0
0 5 10 15

0.3 Age, year

Rut Depth, inches

6” HMA
0.25
0.2 No Drainage
Layer
4” ATPB 0.15
ATPB Layer
0.1

8, 12”
12” Crushed Stone 0.05

12”” Aggr. Subbase

12 120
0 5 10 15

Age, year
IRI, inches/mile

100
A-5 Soil 80 No Drainage
60
Layer

40
ATPB Layer
20

0
0 5 10 15

Age, year

Material
Traffic Foundation Climate
Properties
Inputs
Modify Trial Design Strategy Analysis
Aspectos de la
Strategy

No Pavement Analysis Models

Implementación de la
Meet
Damage
Performance Distress Prediction Models
MEPDG
Criteria?
Yes
Accumulation

Constructability Viable Alternatives Life Cycle Cost

Issues Analysis

Select Strategy Strategy Selection

 Problema Clave: La
Magnitud del Error
Its too large, we
It’s fine for should be more
highway work!!!! accurate!!!

Critical Questions:
•Applicability of error?
•Too much error?

Are our design

standards &
Problema Clave materials similar to
LTPP sites?
• Si – Confirmar los •Pavement types
•Rehab strategies
valores por •Materials/Mixtures
default.
• No – Re-calibrar.
 How were the Level 3 default values
determined?

Analysis of
LTPP data.

Dual Purpose Plan

Local Calibration Confirmation of
Default Values
Rut Depth Number of Test
Traffic
Fatigue Sections
Cracking Required for Materials
Calibration &
Thermal
Determination Soils
Cracking
of Default
Ride Quality Values.
Implementation Plan
States to become equipped to do:

n Axle load spectra (TMG).

n Deflection testing & back-
calculation of layer modulus.
n Repeated load/cyclic
testing; materials
characterization.

M-E Pavement Design

The future
of pavement
design
 M-E Pavement Design

The future
of pavement
design ?

Agradecimiento especial para

Harold von Quintus (ARA)