PAVEMENT DESIGN OF ROADS – CBR

AND MODERN METHODS

BY
Engr. PROF TELIMOYE M. OGUARA,
FNICE, FNSE,FAEng
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT

AT THE
NIGERIAN INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
3-DAY WORKSHOP ON DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTIONOF ROADS IN PRACTICE
Aug 27 – 29, 2013 @ Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Method
The CBR method of pavement design was first used by the
California Division of Highways as a result of extensive
investigations made on pavement failures during the years 1928
and 1929.1 To predict the behaviour of pavement materials, the
CBR test was developed in 1929. Tests were performed on typical
crushed stones representative of base course materials and the
average of these tests designated as a CBR of 100 percent.
Samples of soil from different road conditions were tested and
two design curves were produced corresponding to average and
light traffic conditions. From these curves, the required thickness
of subbase, base and surfacing were determined. The
investigations showed that soils or pavement materials having
the same CBR required the same thickness of overlying
materials in order to prevent
1Development of CBR Flexible Pavement Design Methods for Airfields" Symposium
Transactions, Vol. 115, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1950.
 plastic deformation. So, once the CBR for the
subgrade and those of other layers are known, the
thickness of overlying materials to provide a
satisfactory pavement can be determined.
At the beginning of the second World War, the US
Corps of Engineers adopted the CBR method of design
for airfield pavements. Since then, several
modifications of the original design curves have been
made. Studies in 1956 also produced a relationship
between pavement thickness t, wheel load W, tyre
pressure p and CBR as follows:2
 1 1 
t  W   (1)
 8.1CBR p 
2Yoder E.J., and Witczak, M.W., Principles of Pavement Design. 2nd ed. John Wiley and
Sons, 1975
This and other relationships have been used to derive
design charts for flexible pavements.
Although the California Division of Highways no
longer use the CBR, many highway agencies use the CBR
and have well developed pavement design charts based
on their experience and research.
1. Nigerian (CBR) Design Method
In Nigeria, as in most developing countries, the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) method is almost the only method
used for the design of flexible pavements. Nigeria uses a
set of design curves to determine thickness
requirements. The curves, which were originally
developed by the US Corps of Engineers and modified by
the British Transportation and Road Research Laboratory
(TRRL),4 are adopted by Nigeria and are contained in the
Federal Highway Manual.5
3 Corps of Engineers, "Engineering and Design-Flexible Pavements". EM-1110-45-302, 1958.
4 Transport and Road Research Laboratory, " A Guide to the Structural Design of Pavements for New Roads".
Road Note 29, 3rd ed. Department of Environment, HMSO, London, 1970.
5. Highway Manual-Part 1, Design. Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Lagos, 1973.
The thickness of the pavement structure depends on
the anticipated traffic, the strength value of the
supporting or foundation material, the quality of
pavement materials used and the construction
procedure.

Traffic Analysis
The anticipated traffic for the design life of the
pavement is estimated in terms of the number of
commercial vehicles per day heavier than 3tonnes
loaded weight. Lane distribution of these vehicles is
taken into consideration for multi-lane roadways,
and reduction values applied as in Table 1.
Table 1: Lane Distribution factors on multi-lane roads
Number of Lanes Factors to Be Applied to Traffic (%)
Both Directions
Lane No. 1* Lane No. 2 Lane No. 3 Lane No. 4
2 100 - - -
4 100 100 - -
6 20 80 80 -
8 20 20 80 80
*Lane No. 1 is next to the centreline or median on the driver’s left.

Evaluation of Materials
The materials selected for use in the construction of the
pavement must be evaluated to provide information for an
adequate and economical design. The materials must also
be checked to determine quality and to establish
compaction requirements.
The mechanical strength test used for the subgrade,
subbase and base materials is the California Bearing
Ratio (CBR). It is recommended that for subgrade, the
90th percentile value of CBR be used from the results of
several CBR tests on a given project. The design
strength value is equal to or less than 90% of all test
values in the section as illustrated in Figure 1. For CBR
test values from soil tests of a road section. Values in
the third column of Figure 1 indicate that the test value
is equal to or less than the number of other tests. For
instance, CBR of 9% is equal to or less than 13 of the
tests in the series. therefore the percentage is
13/ x 100 = 65%. The values in the 4th column are
20
plotted, Figure (1b), to determine the 90% value, which
is 7.4%.
Design Procedure
After the CBR value for the subgrade and the estimate of
traffic have been determined, the thickness of the
pavement structure is determined from the design curves
in Figure 2. The recommended minimum asphalt
pavement thickness is as follows:
Light Traffic 50mm
Medium Traffic 75mm
Heavy Traffic 100mm.
For this method, it is necessary that the paving mixture
design be based on either the Marshall or Hveem
Stability Method. The CBR values of the subgrade and
other materials depend on the density of compaction
and the moisture content. The density of compaction in the
laboratory must therefore simulate fairly closely to the
density achievable with the road rollers commonly in use.
A minimum of 10 years service life is generally aimed at
for bituminous surface pavements. For bituminous concrete
pavements, it is desirable to achieve a service life of 20years.
This assumes periodic maintenance of the surface.

CBR No. of Locations Values Equal to or Percent

(1) (2) greater than (4)
(3)
6 4 20 100
8 3 16 80
9 3 13 65
10 3 10 50
11 2 7 35
12 3 5 25
14 2 2 10
Figure 1: Sample Determination of Design CBR
Figure 2:Flexible Pavement Design
Example Problem
A 6-lane trunk A highway with a 20-year design period is
proposed between Port Harcourt and Yenagoa. The
expected average daily traffic exceeding 3tonnes loaded
weight during the first year is 3500 vehicles Results of CBR
tests carried out on locations along the proposed highway
gave a design CBR of 7.0%. Design the pavement, if cement
stabilized laterite base with 80% CBR and a sandy clay
subbase of 25% CBR are to be used.

Solution
From Table 1, for a 6-lane road way, use 80% of 3 tonne
weight vehicles for the design lane. i.e 3,500 * .80 =2800
On Figure 2, Use Curve F.
TABLE 1: Design Data Summary
Material Design Thickness Thickness Adjusted thickness
CBR% above layer of layer of layer (cm)
(cm) (cm)
Subgrade 7 39 -
Subbase 25 18.5 20.5 17.0
Base 80 8.5 10.0 12.0
Surface - - 8.5 10.0

The design can be 8.5cm of asphalt concrete surfacing,

10.0cm of stabilized laterite base and 20.5cm of sandy clay
subbase as in the Design Data Summary.
Checking for minimum asphalt pavement (surfacing), the
thickness of 8.5cm is less than the specified 10cm for heavy
traffic category. Adjustment of thicknesses may be necessary
as in the Data summary, or redesign with different quality of
subbase or base materials may be warranted. In this case,
with thickness adjustment, the design will be 10cm of
surfacing, 12cm of base course and 17cm of subbase
materials.
British Design procedure
The original design procedure in Britain is similar to
that of Nigeria, relating CBR values to design curves (A,
B, C......G) that took direct account of the number of
commercial vehicles per day having unladen weights
exceeding 1.53tonnes or 1530kg. Later British road
tests in the mid 1960s provided sufficient information
on the performance characteristics of different road-
base (Base cause) materials.
• Figure 3 shows the current curves developed for the
sub-base, rolled asphalt road base and dense macadam
road base. The curves for lean concrete soil cement and
cement bound granular road base and wet-mix and dry
bound macadam road base are not included here.
It should be noted that only the curves for the
sub-base use the CBR to determine survey
thickness the other curves specify thicknesses of
surfacing and road base (Base course) based on
the cummulative number of standard axle loads.
The number of standard axles were derived using
the axle load equivalence from the AASHTO Road
Test expressing the commercial vehicles as
equivalent number 80KN or 8200kg standard
axles. The cummulative number of standard axles
are then based on traffic survey data on initial
commercial traffic, traffic growth rate and design
life.
Fig. 3
3. The AASHTO Design Guide Method - USA
Many pavement design methodologies have evolved over
the years, and many countries or even states have their
own design methods. The United States, in an effort to
provide an acceptable design method for state
departments of transportation embarked on a series of
road tests, from which design methods have been derived.
The AASHTO i.e. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials method is an empirically
derived design method based upon the results of the $27
million AASHO Road test conducted in Ottawa, Illinois in
the later 1950s and early 1960s. The first interim design
guide was published in 1961 and a revised edition issued
in 1972.(1) The edition of

1. AASHO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of

State Highway Officials. Washington D.C., 1972.
1986(2) and 1993(3) presented here, reflect the changes in
design methodologies developed since 1972. The most
recent edition is that of 2001(4) with not much difference.

The Present Serviceability Concept

Several important concepts were introduced during the
AASHTO road test. One of such concepts is that of
serviceability, defined as the ability of a pavement to serve
the traffic for which it was designed. The smoothness and
rideability of the various pavement sections are keyed to
serviceability ratings.
2AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures .American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1986.
3AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO Washington DC, 1993.
4 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO Washington DC, 2001.
Initially, serviceability ratings were obtained by a
selected panel of highway users who individually rated
each pavement section on an arbitrary scale ranging
from 0 to 5, with lower ratings for poorer pavements
and 5 being an excellent pavement. This measure of
serviceability using ratings was termed the Present
Serviceability Rating (PSR). Additionally, using statistical
procedures of multiple linear regression analysis,
equations were developed to correlate the subjective
user rating, PSR, to measurements of road deformation
and surface deterioration such as cracking, spalling,
potholing and patching. The final rating equation
developed for flexible pavements; called Present
Serviceability Index (PSI) was:
PSI = 5.03- 1.91log(1 + SV) -1.38RD2 -0.01(C + P)½ (1)
where
SV = slope variance, a measure of longitudinal roughness
RD = average depth of wheel path rut
C = measure of cracked area in ft2/1000 ft2
P = measure of patched area in ft2/1000 ft2
Figure 4 is the standard present serviceability rating form.

Design equations for flexible pavements were developed

based on an analysis of the effects of structural design
(including layer thicknesses and material types) and
magnitude and frequency of axle loads upon the
performance of the flexible pavement test sections. Figure
5 shows the 1986 flexible pavement design equation and the
nomograph which solves the equation. The major design
inputs as described in the Design Guide are as follows.
Traffic
The cumulative expected 80kN (8,200kg)
equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) during the
analysis period must be estimated. Mixed traffic
of different axle loads and axle configurations are
converted to an equivalent 80kN single axle load
by use of the load equivalency factors. If the
number of equivalent axle loads represents the
total for all lanes and both directions of travel,
this number must be distributed by direction and
by lanes for design purpose. The following
equation my be used to determine the traffic
(W80) in the design lane,5
5AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures .American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1986.
Figure 1: Present serviceability rating form
 (2)
W80  DD x DL x W 80
where
DD = directional distribution factor that accounts for the
distribution of ESAL units by direction

DL = lane distribution factor, when two or more lanes are available

in one direction.

= the cumulative two-directional 80kN ESAL units predicted for a

W 80 specific section of highway during the analysis period.

Another formula for computing the W80 in the design lane is:
W 80 .1  0.01r   1
n

W80 = DD x dL x (3)
0.01r
where r = annual growth rate of ESAL in percent
Figure 5: Design chart for flexible pavements based on using mean
values for each input
Although the DD factor is generally 0.5 for most
roadways, it may vary from 0.3 to 0.7, depending on
which direction is “loaded” and which is “unloaded”.
For the DL factor, Table 2 may be used as a guide.
Table 2: Lane Distribution Factors

Number of Lanes in Percent of 80kN ESAL

Each Direction in Design lane
1 100
2 80-100
3 60-80
4 50-75
Reliability
This is included in the method to incorporate some
degree of certainty into the design process and to
ensure that the various design alternatives will last the
analysis period. The reliability factor accounts for
chance variations in both traffic predictions and the
performance predictions, and therefore provides a
predetermined level of assurance R% that pavement
sections will survive the period for which they were
designed.
Generally, as the volume of traffic, difficulty of
diverting traffic and public expectation of availability
increases, the risk of not performing to expectation
must be minimized. Thus higher levels of reliability
must be selected in such situations. Table 3 presents
levels of reliability for various functional highway
classifications given by AASHTO.
Table 3: Suggested Levels of Reliability for Various
Functional Classifications(6)
Functional Classification Recommend Level of
ed Urban Reliability Rural

Interstate, Freeways or 85-99.9 80-99.9

Expressways
Principal Arterials 80-99 75-95
Collectors 80-95 75-95
Local 50-80 50-80
Note that the higher levels of reliability correspond to
the facilities which receive the most use. It follows that
the greater the value of reliability, the more pavement
structure is required.
6 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures .American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1993.
For a given level of reliability, the reliability factor is a
function of the overall standard deviation So, that
accounts for both chance variation in the traffic
prediction and normal variation in pavement
performance prediction for a given W 80 The selected
levels of R and S0 account for the combined effect of the
variation of all the design variables. The value of S0 has
been estimated to range between 0.35 and 0.50 for
flexible pavements.

Effective Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus

The Resilient modulus is measured using a triaxial test
device capable of applying repeated dynamic loads of
controlled magnitude and duration. Figure 6 illustrates a
typical device.
Figure 6: Schematic of a Resilient Modulus Testing Device
The resilient (recoverable) deformation over the
entire length of the specimen is measured with
linear variable differential transducers (LVDT).
The specimen size is normally 100mm in
diameter by 200mm high. The resilient modulus
Mr is calculated by dividing the repeated axial
stress d (equal to the deviator stress) by the
recoverable strain r, i.e.
d
Mr = (4)
r

It should be noted that the strain used to

calculate the Mr is the recoverable portion of the
deformation response.
 For roadbed materials, laboratory resilient modulus
(Mr) tests (AASHTO T274) should be performed on
representative samples in stress and moisture
conditions simulating those of the primary moisture
season. Alternatively, the seasonal Mr may be
determined by correlations with soil properties. The
correlation that has been used extensive by many
design agencies and researchers is that between CBR
using dynamic compaction and M r of soil given as:

Mr MPa  10.3 x CBR (5)

(for fine grained soils with soaked CBR <10)

or MrkN / m 2   220 x CBR

The purpose of identifying seasonal Mr is to quantify the
relative damage a pavement is subjected to during each
season (wet and dry seasons) of the year and treat it as part
of the overall design. The seasonal Mr values can be
translated into an effective roadbed soil resilient modulus,
which is a weighted value that gives the equivalent annual
damage obtained by treating each season independently in
the performance equation and summing the damage. This is
accomplished with the aid of a chart.

Design Serviceability Loss

The primary measure of serviceability is the Present
Serviceability Index (PSI) which ranges from 0 (impassable
road) to 5 (perfect road). The basic design philosophy is the
serviceability-performance concept, which provides a means
of designing a pavement based on a minimum level of
serviceability desired at the end of the performance
period and a specific total traffic volume. A terminal (or
lowest allowable) serviceability index Pt of 2.5 or
higher is suggested for design of major highways and
2.0 for highways with lesser traffic volumes. Where
economic constraints restrict capital expenditures for
construction, the Pt can be as low as 1.5.
Since the time at which a given pavement structure
reaches its Pt depends on traffic volume and the
original or initial serviceability P0, some consideration
must be given to the selection of P0 in design. Once P0
and Pt are established, the following equation is
applied to define the total change in serviceability
index or Design Serviceability Loss PSI:
PSI = Po – Pt (6)
Design Structural Number
The structural number SN is an index number derived from
an analysis of traffic, reliability, road-bed soil resilient
modulus and serviceability loss that may be converted to
thickness of various flexible-pavement layers through the
use of suitable layer coefficients (ai) related to the type of
material being used in each layer of the pavement
structure. The layer coefficient expresses the empirical
relationship between SN and thickness and is a measure of
the relative ability of the material to function as a structural
component of the pavement
The following generalized equation reflects the relative
impact of the layer coefficients (ai) and thickness (Di):
SN = a1Dl + a2D2 + a3D3 (7)
 where
al, a2 and a3 = Layer coefficients representatives of surface,
base and subbase courses respectively.
Dl, D2, D3 = thickness (in inches) of surface, base and
subbase courses respectively.
Table 4 gives layer coefficients ai values for different layer materials based
upon NCHRP evaluation study(7) of the 1972 AASHO Interim Design Guide
and compressed into a table.(8)
Considering the effects of certain levels of drainage on predicted
pavement performance, the layer coefficients are modified through the
use of drainage coefficients (mi) which are integrated into the SN
equation. Thus:
SN = alDl + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3 (8)

7. Van Till, C.J., et al., “Evaluation of AASHTO Interim Guides for Design of Pavement
Structures" National Cooperative Highway Research Program 128, Washington, D.C. 1972.
8. Oguara, T.M. Highway Engineering: Pavement design, construction and maintenance
Malthouse Engineering Series, 2006
where m2, m3 = drainage coefficients for untreated base
and subbase
Table 5 presents recommended mi values as a function of the
quality of drainage and the percent of time during the year
the pavement structure would normally be exposed to
moisture levels approaching saturation.
The SN equation does not have a single unique solution. It
should be realized that many combinations of layer thicknesses
and material types satisfy the SN equation. When selecting
appropriate values for layer thicknesses, it is necessary to
consider their cost effectiveness along with construction and
maintenance constraints in order to avoid the possibility of
producing an impractical design. Table 6 presents minimum
thicknesses provided as a guide by AASHTO. A layered design
analysis procedure for computing maximum allowable
thicknesses is also included in the AASHTO Guide.
 Table 4: Estimates for Structural layer coefficientsa
Asphalt Concrete surface course
Modulus @ 20oC, MPa, (Psi) a1 Modulus @ 20oC, MPa, (Psi) a1
1030 (150,000) 0.25 2070 (300,000) 0.36
1375 (200,000) 0.30 2750 (400,000) 0.42
1720 (250,000) 0.33 3100 (450,000) 0.45

Base course
Granular Base Cement-Treated Base Bituminous-Treated
Base
CBR% Modulus, Mpa a2 Comp. Modulus a2 Marshall Stability a2
(Psi) Strength Mpa N (lb)
Mpa (Psi) (Psi x 105)

100 205 (30,000) 0.14 6.9 (1000) 6550 (9.5) 0.25 #7160 (16,000) 0.30
55 175 25,000) 0.12 5.5 (800) 5650 (8.2) 0.22 3580 (800) 0.20
35 145 21,000) 0.10 4.8 (700) 5170 (7.5) 0.20 490 (110) 0.10
25 120 17,000) 0.08 2.9 (420) 4275 (6.2) 0.16
1.4 (200) 3585 (5.2) 0.12
Subbase Course
CBR% Modulus, Mpa (Psi) a3
100 145 (21,000) 0.14
40 120 (17,000) 0.12
30 100 (15,000) 0.11
25 90 (13,500) 0.10
10 70 (10,000) 0.08
* Values derived from NCHRP Report 128 and presented in AASHTO Guide
Table 5: Recommended mi Values for Modifying Structural Layer coefficients
of Untreated Base and sub-base materials in Flexible Pavements
Percent of time pavement structure is exposed to moisture levels

Quality of Water removed approaching saturation

Drainage within Less than 1% 1-5% 5-25% Greater than

25%

Excellent 2hours 1.40-1.35 1.35-1.30 1.30-1.20 1.20

Good 1days 1.35-1.25 1.25-1.15 1.15-1.00 1.00

Fair 1week 1.25-1.15 1.15-1.05 1.00-0.80 0.80

Poor 1month 1.15-1.05 1.05-0.80 0.80-0.60 0.60

Very poor (will not drain) 1.05-0.95 0.95-0.75 0.75-0.40 0.40

Table 6: Minimum thickness
Traffic, ESAL Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base
Less than 50,000 25mm (1.0inch) 100mm (4 inches)
50,001-150,000 50mm (2.0inches) 100mm (4inches)
150,001-500,000 63mm (2.5 inches) 100mm (4inches)
500,001-2,000,000 75mm (3.0inches) 150mm (6inches)
2,000,001-7,000,000 88mm (3.5inches) 150mm(6inches)
greater than 7,000,000 100mm (4.0inches) 150mm (6inches)

Example Problem
A low volume road with an initial serviceability of 4.0 is to be
designed by the AASHTO Guide method. The expected service
period for the road will be 20 years and traffic
counts indicate an average of 350 daily 80kN single axle
load repetitions with a reliability of 75% and overall
standard deviation of 0.40. The materials to be used consist
of sand asphalt surface course with coefficient a=0.40,
cement treated laterite base with a = 0.20 and a sandy clay
subbase with a=0.11. The subgrade is a plastic clay with a
CBR of 5%. Design the pavement, if the drainage
coefficients for the base and subbase are 1.15 and 0.80
respectively.
Solution
W80 = 350 x 365 x 20 = 2.56 x 106
R = 75%
S0 = 0.40
Mr = 10.3 x CBR = 10.3 x 5 = 51.5Mpa
PSI = 4.0 – 2.0 = 2.0
From figure 2, the solution SN = 3.60.
SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3
where D1, D2 and D3 are in inches.
To use SI units, multiply SN by 25.4 so as to produce
thicknesses in millimetres.
3.60 (25.4) = 0.40D1 + 0.20D2 x 1.15 + 0.11D3 x 0.80
For W80 of 2.56 x 106, minimum asphalt concrete surface
thickness from Table 5 is 88mm. So if D1=88mm, then 3.60
25.4)=91.44 =0.40x88+0.23D2 + 0.088D3.
Try D2 = 150mm, then
91.44 = 35.2 + 34.5 + 0.088D3
21.74 = 0.88D3
D3 = 21.74/0.088 = 247mm
So use:
88mm of asphalt concrete surfacing
150mm of cement treated base course, and
247mm of subbase course
Alternatively:
If D1 = 88mm and D2 = 200mm, then D3 = 116mm
D1 = 100mm and D2 = 150mm, then D3 = 193mm
D1 = 100mm and D2 = 200mm, then D3 = 62mm

Thus there are several feasible solutions to this

pavement design problem.
• Thanks for listening.

• Questions & Answers