- Collection:
- Georgia Government Publications
- Title:
- Determination of Georgia DOT design inputs for mechanistic-empirical pavement design
- Creator:
- Watson, Donald E
- Contributor to Resource:
- Moore, Jason R
Wu, Peter
Jared, David
National Center for Asphalt Technology (U.S.)
Georgia. Department of Transportation. Office of Materials and Research - Date of Original:
- 2008
- Subject:
- Pavements--Georgia--Design and construction
Roads--Georgia--Design and construction - Location:
- United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018
- Medium:
- line graphs
state government records - Type:
- Text
- Format:
- application/pdf
- Description:
- Includes bibliographical references (page 21)
Final report;
Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Materials & Research - External Identifiers:
- OCLC 916483309
NZ MMS ID 9910195187602931
Call Number T700.R4 S1 C6 D44 2008 - Metadata URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bt700-pr4-bs1-bc6-bd44-b2008
- Digital Object URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bt700-pr4-bs1-bc6-bd44-b2008
- Language:
- eng
- Extent:
- 1 volume (various pagings) : illustrations ; 28 cm
- Holding Institution:
- University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library
- Rights:
-
FINAL REPORT
Determination of Georgia DOT Design Inputs For MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design
by Donald E. Watson, Research Engineer Jason R. Moore, Laboratory Manager National Center for Asphalt Technology
277 Technology Parkway Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36830
Phone: (334) 844-6228 Fax: (334) 844-6248 and
Peter Wu, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant State Materials and Research Engineer
David Jared, P.E., Special Research Engineer Georgia Department of Transportation 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, Georgia 30297-2534 Phone: (404) 363-7500 Fax: (404) 363-7684
October, 2008
277 Technology Parkway Auburn, AL 36830
,..
Determination of Georgia DOT Design Inputs For Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
Final Report
Submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation
by
Donald E. Watson, Research Engineer Jason R. Moore, Laboratory Manager National Center for Asphalt Technology
277 Technology Parkway Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36830
Phone: (334) 844-6228 Fax: (334) 844-6248
and
Peter Wu, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant State Materials and Research Engineer David Jared, P.E., Special Research Engineer Georgia Department of Transportation 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, Georgia 30297-2534 Phone: (404) 363-7500 Fax: (404) 363-7684
October, 2008
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
l.Report No.: FHWA-GA-08-0621
2. Government Accession No.:
3. Recipient's Catalog No. :
4. Title and Subtitle:
Determination of Georgia DOT Design Inputs For Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
5. Report Date: October 2008
6. Performing Organization Code:
7. Author(s): Donald E. Watson, Jason R. Moore, Peter Wu, David Jared
8. Performing Organ. Report No.: 0621
9. Perfonning Organization Name and Address: National Center for Asphalt Technology Auburn University 277 Technology Parkway Auburn, AL 36830
12. Sponsoring Agency N arne and Address: Georgia Department of Transportation Office ofMaterials & Research 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2534
10. Work Unit No.:
11. Contract or Grant No.: SPR00-0007-00(993)
13. Type ofReport and Period Covered: Final; November, 2006- August, 2008
14. Sponsoring Agency Code:
15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract: The objective of this research is fourfold: (1) measure the dynamic modulus of commonly used Superpave and
SMA mixes, (2) measure the resilient modulus values of typical soils and aggregate base courses, (3) compare the measured moduli with default moduli from M-EPDG for a range of subgrade and aggregate base material, and (4) evaluate the sensitivity of the M-EPDG and the PerRoad Perpetual Pavement Design Software to changes in the HMA moduli. A comparison was also made using the AASHTO 1972 Design Guide currently being used by GDOT to determine differences in required structure for proposed new construction. Conclusions and recommendations from the research are:
1. The M-EPDG level3 default values for resilient modulus of both soil and aggregate materials are significantly higher than the actual values determined from laboratory test results.
2. Use of actual materials properties and load spectra resulted in significantly greater structures being recommended than when default values were used for the M-EPDG design program. As a result, GDOT is cautioned against using the default values built into the M-EPDG software.
3. The dynamic modulus test may not accurately capture the improved performance experienced with polymer-modified Superpave and SMA mixtures. For this reason it is recommended that the same structural layer coefficient as for unmodified mixtures be used for SMA and polymer-modified Superpave mixes until further study is conducted regarding the benefits of polymer modifiers.
4. A design could not be determined at 90% reliability for one of the scenarios of this study. This revealed a limitation of the software and indicates that 50% reliability may be more practical for HMA mixtures.
17. Key Words: Pavement design, Mechanistic-Empirical, M-EPDG, PerRoad,
18. Distribution Statement:
19. Security Classification (ofthis report): Unclassified
20. Security Classification
(of this page): Unclassified
21. Number ofPages: 19
22. Price:
Form DOT 1700.7 (8-69) 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... v Introduction and Problem Statement .......................................... .................................. 1
Project Objectives ................................................................................................ 3 Scope ..................................................... ...... ..... .................................................... 3 Experimental Plan ............................................. ... .. .......................... .... .... ............. ....... . 3 Soil Subgrade ........................................................................................................ 3 Aggregate Base Course .................................................................................. ...... 4 Hot Mix Asphalt ........................................................... ..... .. ................................ 4 Pavement Structure ............................................................................................... 5 Data Results and Analysis .............................................. ..... .... ........ ............................. 6 Weather ................................................................................................................ 6 Traffic ........... ;.................................................. ....... ................ .. ........................... 6 Subgrade ............................................................................................................ 10 Aggregate Base Course ...................................................................................... 13 Asphalt Mixtures .. ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .... ..... .. .. ... ... .. ........ ..... .... .... .. .. .... .. .. ... ..... ...... .. ....... 14 Pavement Design .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ..... .... ... ... ........ .. ... .... .. .. ...... .... .... ....... .. ..... .. ... .... 15 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 20 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... ...... 21 References .......... ....... ................................................. .. .... ....... ... ................................. 21 Appendix .................................. .. .... ..... ... ........................................... .......................... 22
11
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Combination of Mixtures in This Study ........................................................... 5 TABLE 2 GDOT 18 Kip Axle Equivalents ..................................................................... 10 TABLE 3 Subgrade Properties ................ ............ .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .... ..... .. ...... .... ..... 11 TABLE 4 Subgrade k Values .................................................................... ................... .... 11 TABLE 5 M-EPDG Default and Actual Mr Values For Georgia Soils .......................... 13 TABLE 6 Default and Actual Mr Values and k Values for Aggregate Base .................. 13 TABLE 7 Dynamic Modulus Results for a Variety ofGDOT Mixtures (70F, 10Hz) ... 15 TABLE 8 Recommended Pavement Structure for Minor Rural Arterial .. .. .... .. .. ..... .... . 19 TABLE 9 Recommended Pavement Structure for Rural Principal Arterial .... .. ............ 19 TABLE 10 Recommended Pavement Structure for Urban Principal Intersta~e ............. 19
iii
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Pavement Models ......................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2 Typical Pavement Design Structure ............................................................... 6 FIGURE 3 FHWA Vehicle Classes ................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 4 Urban Interstate Vehicle Distribution ........ .......... ........... .............................. 9 FIGURE 5 Growth in Distribution of Class 9 Vehicles on Urban Interstates ............... 10 FIGURE 6 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Mr for Coastal Subgrade Sample .. 12 FIGURE 7 Example of Mixture Dynamic Modulus Master Curve ............................... 14 FIGURE 8 M-EPDG Prediction of Rutting for Urban Interstate Design with
41.5 Inches of Asphalt and 12 Inches of Aggregate Base ......................... 17 FIGURE 9 M-EPDG Prediction of Rutting for ~DOT Urban Interstate Design ......... 18
/
IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) uses the AASHTO Interim Guide for Pavement Design, 1972 Edition, as a basis for its current pavement design program. This design method uses some of the information from the AASHO Road Test which began in 1956 and was completed in 1961. As a result, the AASHTO design method is based on conditions that existed in the 1950's and is irrelevant for many of today's traffic conditions. The AASHO Road Test was also limited to only one subgrade type, was conducted under one environmental condition, did not have any triple axle configurations, and the truck traffic was limited to loading conditions of two million Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs). That means data from the AASHO Road Test has to be extrapolated several orders of magnitude beyond the original loading conditions for the current day traffic environment.
The objectives of this research are fourfold: (1) measure the dynamic modulus of commonly used Supe!~Jave and SMA mixes, (2) measure the resilient modulus (Mr) values of two soils and aggregate base courses, (3) compare the measured moduli with default moduli from M-EPDG for subgrade and aggregate base material, and (4) evaluate the sensitivity of the M-EPDG software to changes in the HMA moduli. A comparison was also made using the PerRoad Perpetual Pavement Design software and the AASHTO 1972 Design Guide currently being used by GDOT to determine differences in required structure for proposed new construction.
In order to evaluate the effect of various pavement design methods, it was decided to consider three traffic functional classifications: an urban principal arterial interstate (6 lanes), a four-lane rural principal arterial highway, and a low volume rural minor arterial highway. To evaluate the effect of various soil and aggregate bases on the pavement design output, GDOT furnished a typical limestone and granite aggregate used in base courses, and two soil types. The effect of hot mix asphalt (HMA) properties was also considered by using three different mix types, three aggregate sources, and two asphalt binder grades.
Based on test results of materials and other data used in this study, the following conclusions are made.
1. The default values for resilient modulus of both soil and aggregate materials are significantly higher than the actual values determined from laboratory test results. As a result, the required pavement structure using M-EPDG default values versus actual materials properties and traffic loading values showed that significantly more structure was needed when actual values were used. Therefore, GDOT is cautioned against using the default values built into the M-EPDG software.
2. The dynamic modulus test may not accurately capture the improved performance experienced with polymer-modified Superpave and SMA mixtures. Therefore, the same structural layer coefficient should be used for SMA and polymer-modified Superpave mixes as for unmodified mixtures until further study is done for validation.
3. GDOT should use the 1972 AASHTO design procedure until the M-EPDG is further validated on the state level. However, pavements may be underdesigned since the software has not been updated for changes in traffic conditions.
Keywords: Mechanistic-empirical, dynamic modulus, resilient modulus
v
DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration or the National Center for Asphalt Technology. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Vl
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
Determination of Georgia DOT Design Inputs For Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) uses the AASHTO Interim Guide for Pavement Design, 1972 Edition, as a basis for its current pavement design program. This design method uses some of the information from the AASHO Road Test which began in 1956 and was completed in 1961. As a result, the AASHTO design method is based on conditions that existed in the 1950's and is irrelevant for many of today's traffic conditions. The AASHO Road Test was also limited to only one subgrade type. A study in 1991 that considered the difference in subgrade modulus concluded that laboratory resilient modulus (MR) values on cohesive soils conducted at deviator stresses and confining pressures expected below the completed pavement will result in unconservative MR values when used in the 1986 AASHTO design guide (1).
The AASHO Road Test was also conducted under one environmental condition. For that reason, regional factors were used to compensate for the anticipated difference in environmental effects. Research conducted at the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) Test Track has indicated that it is important to develop rutting and fatigue transfer functions that represent the environmental conditions of the pavement structure and the performance of that pavement. The NCAT research also pointed out that separate fatigue transfer functions were needed for thick and thin pavement sections (2).
Along with significant increases in truck traffic, there has been a shift from the use of biasply tires to radial tires. The bias-ply tires used at the AASHO track which had typical air pressures of 70-80 psi where today's radial tires may have pressures of 120 psi or higher. The trucking industry is even using "super single" wide-based tires (to replace dual tires) that will add even greater stress to the pavement. In addition, the AASHO test did not have any triple axle configurations, and the truck traffic was limited to loading conditions of two million Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs). In contrast, Interstate highway I-85 in northeast Georgia (which is one of the most heavily used truck routes in Georgia) carries more than 20 million ESALs over its 20 year design life. That means data from the AASHO Road Test has to be extrapolated several orders of magnitude beyond the original loading conditions for the current traffic environment.
With the AASHTO design procedure, it is possible to set the pavement thickness and make up the remainder of the required structural number with an aggregate base course. However, Figure 1 shows that the main stresses that must be accounted for in a pavement design are the vertical strain at the top of the subgrade (to resist rutting) and the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer (to resist cracking). If the asphalt layer is not thick enough to withstand the tensile strain at the bottom of the layer, it will begin cracking at the bottom of the layer and rapidly propagate to the surface.
The beta version of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (M-EPDG), was essentially completed in February 2004. In addition, analysis techniques have been developed
1
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
by the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) for perpetual pavements. Both of these design systems use mechanistic-empirical (M-E) analyses that require modulus values for the various pavement layers. For hot mix asphalt (HMA), the dynamic modulus can be determined using testing protocols developed as part of NCHRP 9-19. This testing is complicated and requires servo-hydraulic or servo-pneumatic loading equipment, environmental chamber, and triaxial cell.
HMA
Aggregate Base
Sub grade
FIGURE 1 Pavement Models. Dynamic modulus values can be estimated in the Level III M-EPDG using the following inputs: Gradation PG Binder Grade Effective Binder Content (by volume) AirVoids Compacted unit weight (at Nnesign)
These values would be more readily available to state agencies. However, properties such as gradation, effective binder content and compacted unit weight will most likely not be available at the time of the pavement design since it is unlikely that a contract will have been awarded and a mix design approved. Agencies ma:y elect to determine typical ranges available for a region (district or division) of the state. Therefore, agencies need to know how variable the moduli are for various asphalt mixes typically used by the agency and how sensitive the MEPDG analyses are to the dynamic moduli.
2
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this project was fourfold: 1. To measure the dynamic modulus of commonly used Superpave and SMA mixes in order to develop typical ranges for asphalt mixtures used by Georgia DOT, 2. To measure the resilient modulus values of two soils and aggregate base courses used in Georgia, 3. To compare the measured moduli with moduli calculated as part of the M-EPDG using commonly available material properties, 4. To evaluate the sensitivity of the M-EPDG Software to changes in the HMA moduli for a given pavement structure. A comparison was also made using the PerRoad Perpetual Pavement Design software and the AASHTO 1972 Design Guide currently being used by GDOT to determine differences in required structure for proposed new construction.
SCOPE
In order to evaluate the effect of various pavement design methods, it was decided to consider three traffic functional classifications: an urban principal arterial interstate (6 lanes), a four-lane rural principal arterial highway, and a low volume rural minor arterial highway. Traffic classification and load distribution data is furnished to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is processed through a computer software program for Vehicle Travel Information System (VTRIS). Both the load distribution data determined from the VTRIS database, and default spectra from the M-EPDG were used to determine the effect of using historical traffic data as compared to default values in the pavement design software.
To evaluate the effect of various soil and aggregate bases on the pavement design output, GDOT furnished a typical limestone and granite aggregate used in base courses. Two soil types including one soil with a high soil support value and one with a low soil support value were also provided by GDOT.
The effect of hot mix asphalt (HMA) properties was considered by using a 25mm Superpave base mixture, 19mm Superpave intermediate course mixture, and a 12.5mm Superpave surface course. For comparison of surface mix types, both 12.5mm Superpave and 12.5mm SMA mixes were evaluated. To consider the effects of asphalt binder modification, both the standard, unmodified PG 67-22 and a styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) polymer modified PG 76-22 were used in the Superpave surface mixes. Since SMA mixes use the PG 76-22 binder, those mixes were compared to the Superpave surface mixes that also used PG 76-22 binder.
EXPERIMENTAL PLAN
Soil Subgrade
Georgia soils were tested in order to determine typical ranges in subgrade modulus values for the M-EPDG input. To accomplish this task, GDOT furnished two different soil types. One was a GDOT Class IA-2 soil (AASHTO A-2-4) from the Coastal Plain region (Pierce County) that had
3
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
a soil support value (SSV), of 6.0. The other soil was classified as GDOT IIIC4 from the Piedmont Region (Paulding County) and had a SSV of 1.3. Georgia does not use the AASHTO soil classification system because it does not give as much consideration as GDOT would like for the reduction in strength some soils with high mica content have. For that reason, the GDOT classification of the Piedmont soil does not relate to a specific AASHTO classification. The soil properties fall into the classification of AASHTO A-2-7 based on sieve analysis, but if the material is to be used based only on resilient modulus for the M-EPDG designs, the soil would be better classified as A-7-6. These two soils were used because they represent an extreme from high to low regarding SSV that may give an idea how sensitive the M-EPDG software is to actual resilient modulus values.
In actual design practice, GDOT uses 4.5 as a maximum SSV so that overly thin pavement sections are not designed. Subgrade with SSV=l.3 would also not be used without some type of stabilization (or undercutting the soil and replacing it with additional aggregate base). However, the two soils were used in this study to evaluate the sensitivity of the M-EPDG design procedure to such extreme values and determine if there may be some limitations of the software that have not been known previously. Design results using the high and low values were compared to designs where the default values were used to determine differences in predicted performance and the resulting difference it would make on the designed pavement structure.
Aggregate Base Course
Two aggregate base types, limestone and granite, were used that represent a typical gradation of graded aggregate base used in Georgia. The granite material was from Vulcan Materials at Lithia Springs and had a maximum modified proctor density of 135.4 lb/ft3 at optimum moisture content of 5.5%. The limestone aggregate was from Vulcan Materials at Dalton, Georgia and had a maximum modified proctor density of 141.8 lb/ft3 at 5.9% optimum moisture. Samples of the aggregate base courses were compacted at the optimum moisture and density levels in order to conduct resilient modulus tests.
Hot Mix Asphalt
A laboratory mix design was conducted for ten mixes including one surface, one intermediate, and one base mix. A range of commonly used aggregate types, asphalt binder grades, mix gradations, and mix types -Superpave and Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) - were tested in this study (Table 1). Since Georgia uses two main aggregate types, limestone and granite, this research plan included a Superpave base and intermediate HMA mixture with both granite and limestone materials. In addition, granite from two sources (with unmodified binder) was used for comparison between granite materials used in HMA surface mixes. Vulcan Materials at Lithia Springs and Martin/Marietta at Ruby, Georgia (Macon) were the granite sources of aggregate and Vulcan Materials at Dalton, Georgia was the limestone aggregate source. In addition, a polymer modified 12.5mm Superpave and 12.5mm SMA surface mix with granite aggregate was included. This allowed a comparison of the effect of aggregate for three typical mix types. For the surface mixes, the combination of materials and mix types used allowed an evaluation of the
4
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
effect of modified binders and a comparison between Superpave and SMA mixes.
TABLE 1 Combination ofMixtures Used in this Study
Aggregate Source Vulcan@ Lithia Springs
12.5mm Superpave (PG 67-22)
X
12.5 mm Superpave (PG 76-22)
X
12.5 mm SMA
(PG 76-22)
X
19mm Superpave (PG 67-22)
X
25mm Superpave (PG 67-22)
X
Martin-Marietta @ Ruby
X
X
X
Vulcan @Dalton
X
X
NCAT performed a Superpave mix design for each of the mix types used in order to determine the optimum asphalt content, gradation, and volumetric properties at 65 gyrations which is the design gyration level (Nnesign) used by GDOT in all their Superpave mixes. An exception was that the 50-blow Marshall compaction procedure was used for the SMA designs in order to be consistent with GDOT SMA mix design practices.
Dynamic modulus testing for each mix was performed according to NCHRP 9-19 protocol. Dynamic modulus testing was performed at six frequencies; 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5, 10 and 25
Hz; and five temperatures; 14, 40, 70, 100 and l30F to allow the development of a master curve that could be used for seasonal modulus determinations.
Pavement Structure
A pavement structure was determined for each of the materials used in this study and several comparisons were made. A typical illustration of what the pavement structure may look like is shown in Figure 2. In the actual design process, the thickness of the 25mm HMA Base mix and the thickness of the aggregate base course are adjusted as needed to meet the required structure that will withstand the estimated traffic loading over the design life of the pavement.
One of the assumptions a designer makes is for the traffic growth factor. Typically, a three to four percent growth rate in overall traffic is used for the growth factor. For this study, a four percent growth rate over a 20-year design life was used during the design calculations. It was also assumed that traffic growth would be constant between all traffic categories and vehicle types.
5
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
Low Volume
Medium Volume
High Volume
FIGURE 2 Typical pavement design structure based on traffic volume.
DATA RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Weather
Since weather and other environmental factors will have an effect on long-term pavement performance, it is useful to consider those effects in the pavement design process. The M-EPDG design procedure uses moisture and temperature profiles that are predicted through the Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model (EICM) module integrated into the software. The climatic effects can be dramatic. In the M-EPDG manual for example, the recommended resilient modulus for A-2-4 soil is 42,500 psi, but the default value after climatic effects are considered through the ICM feature is only 21,500 psi. For this study, weather information was used based on data from the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. It was also assumed that pavement construction would be completed in July and that the constructed pavement would be immediately opened to traffic. This assumption should give a worst-case scenario when considering the rutting effect on pavement performance.
Traffic
One of the problems encountered on this project was to obtain accurate traffic data to use as inputs for load spectra in the pavement design software. In years past this data was kept by
6
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
GDOT and used periodically to update the load distribution factors and Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) values for various functional classifications on the highway network. Although GDOT no longer analyzes this data for pavement design, it is still collected and furnished to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The Vehicle Travel Information System (VTRIS) database where this information is stored was reviewed for this study and it was found that the 2007 truck traffic count information reported for Georgia's highway system was inaccurate. Therefore, the data for 2006 was also evaluated. In order to verify the data, W-4 tables from Alabama and Florida were also checked and it was found that all three states reported similar truck traffic by functional class for each of the vehicle reporting types. Based on this verification, it was determined that the 2006 reported truck traffic data appeared to be accurate and was therefore used in this study.
The VTRIS data is also not in a form that can be copied directly into either the M-EPDG or PerRoad software, so some interpretation and data calculations are needed. For example, the PerRoad design software allows load input on the steering axle of trucks, but there is no specific data in the VTRIS database itemized as being just for steering axles. In order to determine these values, the FHWA vehicle Class 9 was used. Class 9 is a vehicle configuration with 5 axles and includes two sets of tandem axles. Therefore, the only single axle is the steering axle. This enabled the steering axle load to be determined by using the VTRIS table for single axles in a Class 9 configuration. Figure 3 shows the various vehicle classifications. Class 1 (motorcycles), Class 2 (passenger automobiles), and Class 3 vehicles (pick-ups and small delivery trucks) are considered lightweight and are not used in the axle load distribution tables.
The M-EPDG software has Level 3 default values for vehicle traffic distribution in case the designer does not have that information. Level 1 design analysis allows a designer to input state-specific traffic data if it is available. The default values are general values for an average of traffic combinations from across the country. However, the values may be greatly different than the actual data from state specific reports for each highway functional class. For example, Figure 4 shows the default percent distribution for Class 9 vehicles on an urban interstate is 42 percent while the actual data reported by GDOT shows Class 9 vehicles make up about 60 percent of the truck traffic for several of the functional classes of highways in Georgia (60% for Urban Primary Arterial Interstate, 62% for Rural Primary Arterial (4 lane), and 61% for Minor Rural Arterial). The PerRoad software also has default values for load spectra and shows about 45% Class 9 vehicles on an urban interstate, 48% on a rural primary route, and 41% on a rural minor arterial. For this study, the GDOT values were used in the GDOT, PerRoad, and M-EPDG Level 1 calculations while the default traffic configuration was used in the M-EPDG Level 3 analysis.
7
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
FHWA Vehicle Class
Axle Configuration
Description
Class 4
Bus
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Single Unit, 2 axles, 6 tires
Single Unit, 3 axles
Single Unit, 4 axles or more
Standard Tractor 4 axles or less
Trailer'
Standard Tractor Trailer, 5 axles
Standard Tractor Trailer,
6 axles or more
Multi-unit Tractor 5 axles or less
Trailer'
Multi-unit 6 axles
Tractor
Trailer '
Multi-unit Tractor 7 axles or more
Trailer '
FIGURE 3 FHWA Vehicle Classes.
8
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
!EJ I I [!) Mortt'l)~<lju,;n,.rt [1] V~hlda oa, [)s::~lon
Houriy Dist..'b.Jtion El Traffle Gro...Ul Factors
~\.l~ ~lln~ 04-It~
-
AADTT dl~bulicn b't vetid~ d~ss
o ~n: ..s
r- ~
o~:~ ,s 5
'
Cla!l:. lii
rm- ~
141~ u
rLood Dol~ O.strou!~ ---~
r Levell : ~~ Spedio: DisVtuiOn
0... 7 Cll)n8_
oau-9
Ot 1 ~1 o
OJJ'u l l O ~a l2 Oim l l lo!ol
~Q ~ w~
C' l.: ! :..~ fl~j:y J t>;!ribo:t:n
I
:::1
rm- Q
rs:s- ~ ~ -~
r. Level J. O~atJt 0-~~-
- II lilr t.>6rl o.1,;., Didrun.frm
ru-- ~rJ
~ ~-
roo:o:-
No!ot -~~DDT dost11butlon must lctai 1~Y,
.e:o, . r- -._ v.,.... Oi,tlil;t,iio n ~MOTT
:;.._.,. f ~
~.:::J r--u
~J I ~
~.~ .,..---,,. ! " '
)l.. , ~. 1 I " '
~ "
!1 ~.1~ II
,'l n ..~lr--=:J It
~w
........._..,. .QJ I 1D
:
.
~.----,
iI I
1-l
ro~
II' II'
I"" I
1'1' l'i"i
~ l h'l!fltl tl'l Ma i P\.IVf!l.ltH
tii!"Q I
TM !Pno!
Trii:lm
~""' ~""' I '
~-, !""' I '
r-~--"
r--
r--...
r---..s
I' I..,
lfli Jlif r-
.J"'i" ~"" I '
~ r--ow ~'"''" -~ ['""li! r-o-
~ ! " " '1'-"
~ r-r.rr J ~ ~-
- r ~~-1
"
(a)
(b)
a.,-s
Oaso 9
co;, IO Q&s\ aa...-11
Jl ~
'
-0
~~~ D<laul ~--.--.,---,.~ ,
_r..
: :r .
I
. c::'
'I'-.,
.
-l~.-ol l : s~-~9!JC- 0<0\>!b.tton '
-~~
-; - -.-:.:.:.- -.
FIGURE 4 Urban Interstate Vehicle Distribution: M-EPDG Default (a) PerRoad Default (b) and GDOT 2006 Data (c).
GDOT currently uses the 18 kip ESAL equivalents shown in Table 2 which are based on a truck axle load factor of 0.40 for single unit trucks and 1.50 for multi-unit trucks. This data is outdated due to the growth in truck traffic since the last analysis was conducted. For example, the table shows an assumed value of 60 percent multiple unit trucks (Class 8 or higher) on an urban interstate, but Figure 4 shows that value should be about 76 percent.
Pavement design programs typically assume the same growth in traffic across all vehicle configurations. Figure 5 shows that there has been a steady increase in the distribution of Class 9 vehicles on Georgia urban interstates in recent years that considerably exceeds the growth rate normally used in pavement design software. For these reasons, it is very likely that GDOT highways are under-designed more than has been believed.
9
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
Type Facility
Rural Interstate
Primary Routes Heavy State Routes &
Urban Interstates Medium State Routes
Local Collector Light State Route Secondary System &
City Street
TABLE 2 GDOT 18 Kip Axle Equivalents
% Single Unit Trucks 0 10 20 30
% Multiple Unit
Trucks 100 90 80 70
40
60
50
50
60
40
70
. 30
80
20
90
10
100
0
Average 18 kip ESAL 1.50 1.39 1.28 1.17
1.06
0.95 0.84 0.73 0.62 0.51 0.40
65
c
0
60
~
....:c::s 55
'i:
.~ 50
c
0~ 45
40 2002
%Distribution -Class 9 Vehicles
2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
2007
FIGURE 5 Growth in distribution of Class 9 vehicles on urban interstates.
Subgrade
The subgrade for this study represents an extreme in the range of values that would be expected. These results would allow a comparison of the effect of good and poor soil properties in relation
10
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
to pavement performance. It also allows a comparison of the effect of using only the default values built into the software for both the M-EPDG and PerRoad pavement design software. A description of the soil properties provided for this study is shown in Table 3.
Geologic Soil Type
Piedmont Coastal
TABLE 3 Subgrade Properties
Percent Passin
No. No. No. No.
10 40 60 200
99.4 87.8 68.2 27.6 100 75.0 54.0 8.0
0/o Clay 21.7 5.0
Max. Dry Density, lb/ft3
93.7 113.3
Opt. Moist.
(%) 24.1 11.2
Soil Support
Value (SSV)
1.3 6.0
AASHTO Class A-7-6 A-2-4
Level 1 resilient modulus values for unbound granular materials and subgrade are
determined from cyclic triaxial tests based on AASHTO T 307, Determining the Resilient
Modulus of Soil and Aggregate Materials (3). The model for resilient modulus used in the M-
EPDG is a function of the bulk stress, e. The nonlinear elastic coefficients and exponents of the
constitutive model (k1, k2, and k3) are determined by using regression analyses to fit the model to laboratory generated Mr test data. Tests for this study were conducted over a range of normal
stresses from 6 to 24 p.s.i. and confining stresses from 2 to 8 p.s.i. to determine the appropriate k
values. Table 4 shows the k values obtained from materials used in this study.
TABLE 4 Subgrade k Values
Geologic Soil Type Piedmont Coastal
kl 1647.4 431.4
k2 0.763 0.962
k3 -0.807 -2.933
Level 1 design analysis does not recommend the actual k values be used because that portion of the design guide has not been validated nationally. The designer can still input the values, but is warned that the model at this time may not accurately predict performance. To compare the default predictions to actual material data, the k values obtained from the lab tests were used to calculate the resilient modulus. The generalized model for unbound materials (4) used in the design procedure is expressed as:
11
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
(Equation 1)
Where,
Mr =resilient modulus, psi
8 =bulk stress= cr1 + cr2 + cr3
cr1 =major principal stress.
cr2 =intermediate principal stress(= cr3 for Mr test on cylindrical specimen)
cr3 =minor principal stress/confining pressure
'toct = octahedral shear stress = _!_ ~r(o-----o----:)--=2--+- (o-- -+---:-( - -o----:)--2:- o-----a-,.....,....Y
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
Pa =normalizing stress(= atmospheric pressure= 14.7 p.s.i.)
kt, k2, k3 =regression constants obtained by fitting resilient modulus test data to the k-8 model
Figure 6 shows the actual Mr values obtained compared to the predicted values from the model. One of the Coastal region replicate samples was used for this comparison, but other subgrade samples showed a similar, very good relationship as well. Samples were compacted to optimum moisture content.
40000 .-------------------------------~
35000
30000
Cll
0;: 25000 ~
] 20000
~ "fC!. 15000
D.. 10000
y = 0.972x + 704.37 R2 = 0.9925
5000
0
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 4000
Measured Mr, psi
FIGURE 6 Comparison of measured to predicted Mr for Coastal subgrade sample.
12
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
Once the lab testing is performed, it is possible to determine Mr for any specific loading and confinement conditions. The subgrade Mr values for this study were determined using a cyclic deviator stress of 5.5 p.s.i. and a confining stress of 2 p.s.i. which represents the typical stress state a subgrade encounters under traffic loading (4). The Mr values determined for Georgia soils were significantly different than the default values used in the M-EPDG design program (Table 5). The piedmont soil (A-7-6) had a default value ofMr that was about 277% higher than the actual test data and even the minimum recommended Mr value (5,000 p.s.i.) is about 60% higher than the actual test data. The coastal region soil had default values that were about 35% higher than the actual test data.
TABLE 5 M-EPDG Default and Actual Mr Values for Georgia Soils
Geologic Soil Type
Piedmont Coastal
AASHTO Class A-7-6 A-2-4
Actual Mr (psi) 3,048 15,914
Default Mr (psi) 11 ,500 21 ,500
Aggregate Base Course
The aggregate base material used in this study was also tested under a variety of normal stress and confining stress conditions. The normal stress varied from 12 to 100 p.s.i. and the confining pressure varied from 3 to 20 p.s.i. From that information, the Mr was selected based on a normal stress of 15 p.s.i. and a confining stress of 5 psi (5). Table 6 shows the lab tests resulted in significant differences between the actual and default values for resilient modulus. The default value used in the M-EPDG is about 125% higher than the actual value for the granite aggregate and is about 44% higher than the limestone aggregate results. The minimum Mr value recommended by the M-EPDG software program is 20,000 psi.
TABLE 6 Default and Actual Mr Values and k Values for Aggregate Base
Aggregate Type Granite
Limestone
ActualMr (psi) 13,304 20,895
Default Mr (psi) 30,000 30,000
kt 589.5 953.7
k2 0.725 0.784
kJ
0.172
-0.052
Table 6 shows a considerable difference between the Mr results of limestone and granite aggregate. The results were somewhat surprising because it was assumed that the rougher surface texture of granite aggregate particles would produce a higher resilient modulus. GDOT assigns the same structural value for aggregate base course regardless of aggregate type. Actual Mr values were used in the design analysis for both the M-EPDG and PerRoad software.
13
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
Asphalt Mixtures
Asphalt mixtures used in this study were designed using 65 gyrations with a gyratory compactor in order to determine optimum asphalt content at 4.0% air voids. Once the optimum asphalt content was selected, dynamic modulus samples were prepared by compacting the mixture to obtain 6.0% air voids. The dynamic modulus for asphalt mixtures is determined from laboratory tests conducted at five temperatures and six frequencies. The five temperatures were -10, 40, 70, 100, and 130F and the frequencies were 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, and 25 hz. The M-EPDG software then uses the laws of superposition to shift the data to produce one master curve. The master curve values are then used to account for seasonal variation in dynamic modulus. An example of the plotted data as well as the master curve for the 12.5mm Superpave mixture using PG 67-22 asphalt binder is shown in Figure 7. For comparison of the material properties for each of the mixes used in this study, the dynamic modulus (E*) at a temperature of 70F and at a frequency -- -of 10Hz is given in Table 7.
Table 7 shows that there is very little difference in dynamic modulus values for HMA base (25mm) and intermediate courses (19mm), but there is a difference in the dynamic modulus for surface mixes. Surprisingly, both the Lithia Springs and Ruby 12.5mm mixes using PG 67-22 asphalt binder resulted in higher dynamic modulus values than the same mixtures with polymermodified asphalt. Likewise, the SMA mixtures with polymer-modified asphalt also had lower dynamic modulus values. Since agencies have typically had improved performance with polymer-modified asphalt mixtures and SMA, it appears the dynamic modulus test may not accurately reflect the actual field performance of those mixtures which have polymer modified asphalt.
Master Curve- Lithia Springs 12.5mm Superpave
PG 67-22 10,000.0 -,----- -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - ,
I
10.0 + - - - - - . , . ," ' - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - r - - -- - , - - - -- - , , - - - - - - - i
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Log Frequency, Hz
FIGURE 7 Example of mixture dynamic modulus Master Curve.
14
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
TABLE 7 Dynamic Modulus Results (psi) for a Variety of GDOT Mixtures at 70F, 10Hz
Dalton Dalton Lithia Lithia Lithia Lithia Lithia Ruby Ruby Ruby Mix 19mm 25mm 12.5mm 12.5mm 19mm 25mm SMA 12.5mm 12.5mm SMA
(67-22) (67-22) (67-22) (76-22) (67-22) (67-221 (76-22) (67-22) (76-22) (76-22)
E* 568,103 586,454 532,850 517,003 616,747 622,684 395,233 530,943 422,196 328,148
It has been suggested that SMA and polymer-modified asphalts should be assigned a higher structural layer coefficient for use in the previous AASHTO pavement design systems. To do so would reflect the improved performance seen from these mixes. However, both the PerRoad and M-EPDG design procedures showed that the same structural thickness was needed as for conventional unmodified asphalt mixtures. It may be that the thicker asphalt film thickness on polymer-modified (and especially on SMA) mixtures results in lower dynamic modulus even though those mixes are generally believed to be more durable.
Pavement Design
A couple of assumptions were made in the pavement design process that may have influence on the results. The PerRoad program requires modulus values to be input for each material. For this study, the dynamic modulus for average summer temperatures (85F) was used. The PerRoad program has default values available, but they were slightly higher than results for Georgia materials. The M-EPDG software has built-in threshold values for failure criteria that includes 0.25 inch rut for the asphalt pavement and 0.75 inch total rut depth. For this study, the rut threshold for the asphalt pavement was changed to 0.5 inch rut and the total rut depth was left at 0.75 inch. A maximum rut depth of 0.5 inch was thought to be more practical as a maximum value for asphalt layers. The M-EPDG software uses a default of 90% reliability when determining predicted performance. However, the reliability can be changed by the user, if desired.
For the PerRoad software, pavement structures were selected that would provide 100% probability that the performance would not be below critical limits. The critical limits were set so that the horizontal strain at the bottom of the lower asphalt layer would not exceed 100 microstrain and the vertical strain at the top of the subgrade would not exceed 200 micro-strain. These strain levels are assumed to give adequate performance and strain levels lower than this will not have an impact on pavement life.
One point that became quickly evident is that designers that are used to the current GDOT software for pavement design may become frustrated with the slower speed of M-EPDG software analysis. The GDOT program gives calculated results almost instantaneously so the user can conduct several trial pavement structures in a matter of minutes to determine a pavement thickness that meets the required structural number. Due to the many calculations and models used in the M-EPDG software, each trial design takes about 25 minutes (depending on computer processing speed).
Another point to be made is that the PerRoad software showed that a minimum hot mix asphalt thickness is needed in order to keep the strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer below a
15
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
threshold value that would prevent fatigue cracking from the bottom toward the top of the pavement. For this study, the threshold limit for horizontal strain at the bottom of the asphalt layers was set at 100 microstrain (Jlm). Where the GDOT procedure would allow interchanging about 2 inches of aggregate base for every inch of asphalt layer, the PerRoad program showed that the Rural Minor Arterial with good subgrade needed at least 8.5 inches of asphalt pavement. For comparison, the asphalt structure was reduced by one inch and the aggregate base course was increased by four inches and the analysis still showed that the structure would fail due to bottomup fatigue cracking.
The M-EPDG program also made a similar distinction for the Rural Principal Arterial with Piedmont soil using actual project data. In that case, design criteria was met using 1.5 inch asphalt surface, 2 inches of 19mm intermediate course, 13 inches of 25mm asphalt base layer, and 12 inches of aggregate base course. When a more economical design was tried, it was found that it would take 12 inches of aggregate base to replace one inch of asphalt base. For this reason GDOT- may need to consider a minimum asphalt structure for various traffic conditions. Otherwise, users may substitute aggregate base course thickness to meet structural number requirements, but would produce a pavement that would fail prematurely due to fatigue cracking in the asphalt layers.
A comparison of required pavement structures using the M-EPDG default values versus using actual materials properties and traffic loading values showed that in some cases significantly more structure was needed when actual traffic and material properties were used. This difference was due to the default traffic loads being lower than found for most Georgia highway conditions and the default values used a higher Mr for material properties than was found for Georgia materials. The difference was especially noted for the Piedmont soil which had actual Mr results that were below the minimum range suggested in the guide. The granite aggregate base course also had Mr values lower than the minimum suggested in the design guide.
For the Rural Principal Arterial used in this study, the M-EPDG default values resulted in an asphalt pavement thickness of only one inch difference between use of the Piedmont and Coastal soil types. When actual material properties and traffic conditions were used, there was six inches difference in the required structure. The current GDOT procedure showed 11 inches difference in thickness would be needed for the two soil types.
Designing an urban interstate principal arterial with the poor Piedmont subgrade (SSV=1.3) proved to be impossible with the M-EPDG software. In actual practice, soil of this low quality would be undercut and replaced with additional graded aggregate. However, the actual values were used in this study to test the limitations of the software programs.
Typically, when a designed pavement is predicted to fail in rutting, the most economical solution is to increase the thickness of the layer immediately above the subgrade. That did not prove to be true with the M-EPDG program. One trial design of 1.5 inches of asphalt surface, 2 inches of asphalt intermediate course, 26 inches of asphalt base, and 24 inches of aggregate base failed to meet accepted performance for rutting. A second trial included an additional 12 inches of aggregate base, but the predicted performance was unchanged. For that reason, aggregate base layers greater than 12 inches in thickness were not used. Even_including a cement-stabilized base course did not change the outcome.
It was found that increasing the thickness of asphalt layers has limitations as well. Once a
16
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
pavement layer exceeds 20 inches in thickness the software warns that the entered value is outside the typical maximum limit of 20 inches. Beyond that limit it seems the software considers additional thickness of asphalt or aggregate base layers to be of little benefit. It was also discovered that if the total asphalt thickness exceeds 48 inches, the software will cease calculations and return you to the input screen shortly after beginning the calculation routine.
For the urban interstate design, even a structure of 1.5 inches of asphalt surface, 20 inches of asphalt intermediate course, 20 inches of asphalt base, and 12 inches of aggregate base still failed to meet the rutting threshold values. A graph plot of predicted performance (Figure 8) shows that the structure with over 40 inches of asphalt pavement would fail in rutting in about 15 years at 90% reliability. At 50% reliability, the proposed structure would perform satisfactorily. A trial structure with 10 inches less asphalt thickness (8 inches intermediate course and 22 inches for asphalt base) was still acceptable at 50% reliability but showed rutting failure in 12 years at 90% reliability.
For comparison; -an -analysis was- made with the M-EPDG program of the structure designed with the GDOT software for an urban interstate as described above with Piedmont soil subgrade. The GDOT design structure consisted of 24 inches of aggregate base, 12 inches of HMA base, 2 inches of intermediate HMA and 1.5 inches of HMA surface. The results shown in Figure 9 indicate that the pavement structure would fail in rutting with 50% reliability in eight years, and would fail with 90% reliability in just three years.
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.90 -r-- --rl---,------,---,---,..-------.---.--------,-----:------.--,
0.80 -- - :I - - -rl -
0.70
AC Rulting Design Value = 0.5 -
Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75
~ 0.60 - - t - ----,---...,...-----..,...-'
.c
11 0.50 cGl
gg' 0.40
~ 0.30 -1---~=9'
0.20
0.10
0
24
48
72
96
120 144 166 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
FIGURE 8 M-EPDG prediction of rutting for urban interstate design with 41.5 inches of asphalt pavement and 12 inches of aggregate base.
17
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5
Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
I
I
, -Total - 9o%!Rellnblllty
0
24
46
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
FIGURE 9 M-EPDG prediction of rutting for GDOT urban interstate design mix.
Tables 8-10 give the design structure needed for the three traffic scenarios used in this study; rural minor arterial (2,000 AADT), rural principal arterial (15,000 AADT), and urban principal interstate arterial (125,000 AADT). In each case a traffic growth factor of 4% per year was used for a 20-year design life. It must be noted that the GDOT software typically predicts structural needs based on fatigue analysis. However, both the PerRoad and M-EPDG software indicated the primary failure mode would be rutting and those designs were adjusted to meet the rutting criteria.
For the designs shown in Tables 8-10, each proposed design was run for comparison using the current GDOT software. The results show that the GDOT procedure appears to be conservative by 25-30 percent when the poor Piedmont soil (SSV=1.3) was used. In contrast, the GDOT procedure may significantly under-design pavement structures for the Coastal soil (SSV=6.0). Pavements designed by PerRoad and M-EPDG were 24-107 percent over-designed based on the GDOT procedure.
Typically GDOT uses soil support values between 2.0 and 4.5. If a SSV is less than 2.0, the soil is undercut or stabilized to bring it up to at least 2.0. A SSV of 4.5 is the maximum value used even if actual values are higher.
18
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
Pavement Structure
AC Surface (in) AC Intermediate (19mm)
AC Base (25mm) Aggregate Base % Over-design by GDOT
------- ,--- - - - - - -, - - - - - - - -- / --
- - --~--------------------
Piedmont Soil (SSV=l.3)
Coastal Region Soil(SSV=6.0)
M-EPDG M-EPDG
M-EPDG M-EPDG
GDOT PerRoad Default Actual GDOT PerRoad Default Actual
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
4
3
7
n/a
5
3
6
12
6
6
12
7
8
12
12
3.6
-22.0
-28.1
15.8
2.2
71.3
72.9
107.4
-
- - - - - - --------- --- -- --
Pavement Structure
AC Surface (in) AC Intermediate (19mm)
AC Base (25mm) Aggregate Base % Over-design by GDOT
GDOT 1.5 2 13 12 3.4
----- -- -- -------- --- --------- - ---c -- - ---- - ----- - - -,--- - - - - ' --- - -- ----- ,
Piedmont Soil (SSV=1.3)
Coastal Region Soil (SSV=6.0)
I
M-EPDG M-EPDG
M-EPDG M-EPDG.
PerRoad Default
Actual
GDOT PerRoad Default
Actual
' I
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
8
5
13
n/a
8
6
7
8
12
12
-26.1
-29.7
3.4
-
12
12
12
12
I
0.4
43.4
29 .1
36.3 I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - I:"" -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - -
Piedmont Soil (SSV=1.3)
Coastal Re!rion Soil (S SV=6.0)
Pavement Structure
M-EPDG M-EPDG
M-EPDG M-EPDG
GDOT PerRoad Default Actual GDOT PerRoad Default Actual
AC Surface (in)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
AC Intermediate (19mm)
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
AC Base (25mm)
12
9
11
?
6
11
10
16
Aggregate Base
24
12
12
?
12
12
12
12
% Over-design by GDOT
2.5
-29.2
-22.4
?
1.0
29.1
23.5
57.2
19
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study was conducted with soil and aggregate materials that represent the best and worstcase scenarios found in Georgia and these conclusions are only applicable to the materials used in this research. The ranges were intended to give GDOT personnel and other users an indication of the effect that changes in material properties may have on predicted performance. Based on test results of materials and other data used in this study, the following conclusions are made.
1. The M-EPDG default values for vehicle distribution show significantly less Class 9 vehicles than were found for most of Georgia highways based on W-4 tables.
2. The default values for resilient modulus of both soil and aggregate materials are significantly higher than the actual values determined from laboratory test results. Actual test results for the Piedmont soil and granite aggregate base courses were lower than the minimum Mr values recommended to be used in the M-EPDG software. As a result, the required pavement structure using M-EPDG default values versus actual materials properties and traffic loading values showed that significantly more structure was needed when actual values were used.
3. The M-EPDG design program with default values and the PerRoad program with actual load spectra and material properties resulted in somewhat similar recommended structures.
4. PerRoad indicates a minimum asphalt structure may be needed for various traffic conditions. Otherwise, users may substitute aggregate base course thickness to meet structural number requirements, but would produce a pavement that would fail prematurely due to fatigue cracking in the asphalt layer.
5. Use the same structural layer coefficient for SMA and polymer-modified Superpave mixes as for unmodified mixtures. The same structural thickness was needed for SMA and polymer-modified mixtures, but dynamic modulus results were generally lower, than for conventional unmodified asphalt mixtures. It may be that the thicker asphalt film thickness on polymer-modified (and especially on SMA) mixtures results in lower dynamic modulus even though those mixes are generally believed to be more durable.
6. GDOT is cautioned against using the default values built into the M-EPDG software. In some cases the results were very similar while in other cases the required asphalt pavement structure was as much as 8 inches thicker. Further validation is needed with a broader range of materials found in Georgia.
7. The M-EPDG software was unable to design a satisfactory pavement structure at the 90% reliability level for the high traffic urban principal interstate arterial when poor soil subgrade (SSV=l.3) was used. The software warned that asphalt layers greater than 20 inches in thickness are not typical, and would not perform calculations when a total asphalt structure greater than 48 inches was used. Typically this subgrade would be undercut or stabilized to bring it up to a SSV of 2.0. However, these results also indicate that 90% reliability may be too high for general use.
8. GDOT should continue to use the 1972 AASHTO procedure until further validation is performed on a greater variety of Georgia materials. However, pavements may be
20
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
under-designed since the software has not been updated to account for changes in traffic conditions.
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Georgia Department of Transportation for its support in sponsoring this study. GDOT Materials and Research personnel helped locate and provide soil and aggregate base course samples used in this study. Thanks are also extended to Dr. Saeed Maghsoodloo, Statistician, for conducting the statistical analysis of test results.
Burns, Cooley, Dennis, a private consultant firm in Jackson, Mississippi was a subcontractor on this project responsible for conducting the required testing on soil and aggregate base materials to determine resilient modulus (Mr) and corresponding regresswn coefficient (k) values.
REFERENCES
1. Robert P. Elliott, Selection ofSubgrade Modulus for AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design, Transportation Research Record No. 1354, TRB/NRC, Washington, D.C., 1992. pp 3944.
2. Angela L. Priest, Calibration of Fatigue Transfer Functions for Mechanistic-Empirical Flexible Pavement Design, Thesis presented to graduate Faculty of Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 2005.
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Washington, D.C. 2007.
4. Munir D. Nazzal, Louay N. Mohammad, and Kevin Gapard, Development of Resilient Modulus Prediction Models for Louisiana Subgrade Soils, presented at 2008 TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C., 2008. pp 5-22.
5. Ravindra Gudishala, Development ofResilient Modulus Prediction Models for Base and Subgrade Pavment Layers from In Situ Devices Test Results, Thesis presented to graduate Faculty of Louisiana State University, 2004. pp 57-58.
21
Watson, D.E., J,R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
AP"P.ENDIX A W-4TABLES
7/14/2008
W-4 Table
Equivalency Factor By Direction
Axle Grouping Method
State GA Period 2006
Rural Minor Arterial
Vehicle Size & Weight
Station Codes
21321251,93000671,26101371
0
ftde~al Hiqhway Adminis:t~>:ti on Ufuc~ otH1ghway Yoh~y llll>o~mai1oH
niPPil
7/14/2008
Page 1 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
6
DAn.Y AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
SINGLE AXLES
Upto1
0.0003 0.0002
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
lto2
0.0017 0.0017
0
0
5
1
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
2 toJ
0.0090 0.0093
0
0
10
3
0
5
15
0
0
0
0
3 to4
0.0317 0.0336
0
18
12
0
5
59
I
I
0
4 to5
0.0858 0.0919
0
13
15
0
5
56
I
5
1
0
5 to 6
0.1952 0.2083
0
0
8
4
0
4
10
0
4
0
6to7
0.3922 0.4110
0
0
7
0
3
3
0
8
0
0
7to 8 8 to 9
0.7169 0.7299
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
6
0
1.2156 1.1944
0
0
o.
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
9 to 10
1.9380 1.8331
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10 to 11
2.9342 2.6761
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 to 12
4.2538 3.7579
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12to 13
5.9482 5.1207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13 to 14
8.0779 6.8162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14 to 15
10.7185 8.9074
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 to 16
13.9664 11.4686
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16 to 17
17.9388 14.5862
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 to 18
22.7722 18.3580
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18 to 19
28.6197 22.8941
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19 to 20
35.6494 28.3167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above20
39.4816 31.2656
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SJNGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
2
65
36
0
32
I 52
2
27
4
2
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED
0
32
36
0
13
14I
2
5
1
AVERAGE VEIDCLES COUNTED
481
32
36
0
I3
I41
2
5
TOTAL AXLES
321
Page 2 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
6
DAILY AVERAGES BYVEIDCLE CLASS
Upto2
0.0007
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 to4
0.0042
0.0023
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
I
4to6
0.0228
0.0128
0
0
0
3
0
18
0
0
0
0
6 to 8
0.0800
0.0462
0
0
0
8
0
35
0
0
0
0
8 to 10
0.2163
0.1265
0
0
0
8
0
57
0
0
0
0
10 to 12
0.4899
0.2866
0
0
0
5
0
66
1
0
0
0
12 to 14
0.9754
0.5654
0
0
0
5
0
52
2
0
0
0
14 to 16
1.7580
1.0041
0
0
0
5
0
0
32
0
0
0
16 to 18
2.9258
1.6429
0
0
0
I
0
0
6
0
0
0
18 to 20
4.5666 2.5215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20 to 22
6.7774
3.6811
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22 to24
9.6817 5.1692
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24 to 26
13.4446 7.0437
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26 to 28
18.2764 9.3760
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 to 30
24.4284 12.2525
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 to 32
32.1870 15.7756
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32 to34
41.8693 20.0639
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34 to36
53.8227 25.2522
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 38
68.4258 31.4918
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38 to 40
86.0899 38.9508
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above40
95.7407 43.0072
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
0
0
36
0
6
272
4
0
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED
0
32
36
0
13
141
2
5
AVERAGE VEIDCLES COUNTED
481
32
36
0
13
141
2
5
TOTAL AXLES
640
Page 3 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
6
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
TRIDEM AXLES
Up to3
0.0012 0.0004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 to {i
0.0073
0.0027
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6to9
0.0393
0.0154
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9 to 12
0.1376 0.0557
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12 to 15
0.3705
0.1524
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 to 18
0.8335 0.3453
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18 to 21
1.6420 0.6813
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21 to24
2.9179
1.2099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24 to27
4.7849
1.9798
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27 to 30
7.3849 . 3.0385
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 to 33
10.9081 4.4358
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33 to 36
15.6137 6.2291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 39
21.8295 8.4880
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39 to 42
29.9418 11.2985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42 to 45
40.3871 14.7648
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45 to 48
53.6505 19.0103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48to 51
70.2665 24.1778
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51 to 54
90:8223 30.4299
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54 to 57
115.9606 37.9489
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57 to 60
146.3827 46.9373
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above60
163.0061 51.8254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED
0
1
32
36
0
13
141
2
5
AVERAGEVEBICLESCOUNTED
481
32
36
0
13
141
2
5
TOTAL AXLES
3
Page 4 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
6
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
QUAD AXLES
Upto4
0.0010
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4to 8
0.0098
0.0037
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 to 12
0.0523
0.0206
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12 to 16
0.1834
0.0742
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16 to20
0.4940
0.2032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20 to24
1.1114
0.4604
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24 to 28
2.1894
0.9084
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 to 32
3.8905
1.6132
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32 to 36
6.3799
2.6397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 40
9.8465
4.0513
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40 to 44
14.5441 5.9144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44 to 48
20.8183 8.3054
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48 to 52
29.1060 11.3173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52 to 56
39.9223 15.0646
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56 to 60
53.8495 19.6864
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60 to 64
71.5340 25.3470
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64 to 68
93.6887 32.2371
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68 to 72
121.0964 40.5732
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72 to 76
154.6141 50.5985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76 to 80
195.1769 62.5830
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above SO
217.3415 69.1006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED
0
1
32
36
0
13
141
2
5
AVERAGE VEIDCLES COUNTED
481
32
36
0
13
141
2
5
TOTAL AXLES
0
Page 5 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
6
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEffiCLE CLASS
ESAL PER VEffiCLE
0.0000 0.2700 0.2900
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION USING
AVERAGE DAILY COUNT I#IJ~.;~l:li:i:JIIii!
0.00
0.13
3.46
ESAL PER VEffiCLE
0.0000 0.2800 0.3000
PERCENT DlSTRIBUTION USING
DAILY COUNT BY TRUCK TYPE
0.00
0.20
5.40
FFic-V.OIJUME : ->.:_.:. :" :.~ }: ~:~~...: .... ,;..~ ~:r.-::-.~.: : .-- .
AVERAGE VEffiCLES WEIGHED AVERAGE VEHICLES COUNTED DAILY COUNT BY TRUCK TYPE
0
1
32
481
1
32
0.00
0.00
13.94
0.7700 10A2
0.4800 9.75
36 36 15.54
0.2700
O.o3
0.1700 0.03
0 0 0.14
0.5200 2.53
0.4600 3.37
13 13 5.63
1.3500 71.29
0.8200 64.86
141 141 60.67
3.1300 2.91
1.7800 2.49
2 2 1.07
2.1500 4.28
2.1900 6.56
5 5 2.29
TOTAL AVG. WEIGHED: TOTAL AVG. COUNTED: TOTAL AXLES: TOTAL RIGID ESAL: TOTAL FLEX ESAL:
234 2,467 988 267 178
1.4500 0.59 1.1600 0.71
0.47
0.3200 0.07 0.1900 0.06
0.25
Page6 of7
State
GA
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
0/o
TRUCKS
0
2
4
6
8
10
2
0.10 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22
0.27
4
0.21 0.25 0.31 0.35 0.43
0.53
6
0.31 0.38 0.46 0.53 0.65
0.80
8
0.42 0.51 0.62 0.70 0.86
1.06
10
0.52 0.63 0.77 0.88 1.08
1.33
IS
0.78 0.95 1.16 1.32 1.62
2.00
20
1.04 1.26 1.55 1.76 2.16
2.66
25
1.30 1.58 1.94 2.20 2.70
3.33
30
1.56 1.90 2.32 2.64 3.24
3.99
35
1.82 2.21 2.71 3.08 3.77
4.66
40
2.08 2.53 3.10 3.52 4.31
5.32
45
2.34 2.85 3.49 3.96 4.85
5.99
50
2.60 3.16 3.87 4.40 5.39
6.66
Averaging Method 1' eriod
Hour of Day 2006
20 YEAR ESAL ESTIMATES ADT=lOOO
Values in millions
% TRUCKS
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
RIGID PAVEMENTS
0
2
4
6
8
0.16
0.19
0.24
0.27
0.33
0.32
0.39
0.48
0.54
0.66
0.48
0.58
0.72
0.81
1.00
0.64
0.78
0.95
1.08
1.33
0.80
0.97
1.19
1.35
1.66
1.20
1.46
1.79
2.03
2.49
1.60
1.95
2.39
2.71
3.32
2.00
2.43
2.98
3.39
4.15
2.40
2.92
3.58
4.06
4.98
2.81
3.41
4.18
4.74
5.81
3.21
3.90
4.77
5.42
6.65
3.61
4.38
5.37
6.09
7.48
4.01
4.87
5.97
6.77
8.31
10 0.41 0.82 1.23 1.64 2.05 3.08 4 . 10 5. 13 6.15 7.18 8.20 9.23 10.25
Page 7 of7
7/14/2008
W-4 Table
Equivalency Factor By Direction
Axle Grouping Method State GA
Period 2006
Rural Principal Arterial
Vehicl~ Size & Weight
Station Codes
29502351,1611&951, 11508131,63004171
0
~deral Hiqhway Adn1ini;:tr;rti on Ulhce otH19hway roh~y II!Nrmrl1on
IHPPil
7/14/2008
Page 1 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
2
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEHICLE CLASS
SINGLE AXLES
Up to 1
0.0003
0.0002
0
6
0
0
4
1
0
3
2
lto2
0.0017
0.0017
0
3
4
0
0
12
3
0
0
0
1
2 to 3
0.0090
0.0093
0
3
18
3
0
9
18
0
0
3to4
0.0317
0.0336
0
2
32
13
0
10
95
4
2
2
0
4to5
. 0.0858
0.0919
0
5
55
29
0
18
165
3
4
6
5 to~;
0.1952
0.2083
0
14
10
0
6
30
3
2
0
6to'l'
0.3922
0.4110
0
0
9
4
0
6
4
0
3
0
7 to 8
0.7169
0.7299
0
0
6
2
0
5
4
0
3
1
0
8 to 9
1.2156
1.1944
0
0
5
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
9 to 10
1.9380 1.8331
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
10 to 11
2.9342
2.6761
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11 to 12
4.2538
3.7579
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12 to 13
5.9482
5.1207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13 to 14
8.0779
6.8162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14 to 15
10.7185 8.9074
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 to 16
13.9664 11.4686
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16 to 17
17.9388 14.5862
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 to 18
22.7722 18.3580
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18 to 19
28.6197 22.8941
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19 to 20
35.6494 28.3167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Abon20
39.4816 31.2656
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGESINGLEAXLES~GHED
0
20
147
62
74
326
9
18
17
4
AVERAGE VEHICLES WEIGHED
0
8
72
62
30
303
9
4
4
2
AVERAGE VEHICLES COUNTED
964
9
73
62
30
305
9
4
4
2
TOTAL AXLES
675
Page 2 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
2
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
TANDEM AXLES
Upto2
0.0007
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2 to 4
0.0042
0.0023
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
4 to 6
0.0228
0.0128
0
0
0
2
0
19
0
0
0
0
6 to 8
0.0800
0.0462
0
0
0
8
0
2
67
0
0
0
8 to 10
0.2163
0.1265
0
0
0
25
0
8
141
0
2
0
10 to 12
0.4899
0.2866
0
0
0
12
0
3
73
2
0
1
12 to 14
0.9754
0.5654
0
0
0
7
0
2
72
2
0
0
14 to 16
1.7580
1.0041
0
0
0
5
0
1
81
2
0
0
0
16 to 18
2.9258
1.6429
0
0
0
3
0
0
.73
2
0
0
0
18 to20
4.5666
2.5215
0
0
0
0
0
37
1
0
0
0
20 to22
6.7774
3.6811
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
22 to 24
9.6817
5.1692
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
24 to 26
13.4446 7.0437
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
26 to 28
18.2764 9.3760
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 to 30
24.4284 12.2525
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 to 32
32.1870 15.7756
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32 to34
41.8693 20.0639
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34 to 36
53.8227 25.2522
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 38
68.4258 3L4918
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38 to 40
86.0899 38.9508
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above40
95.7407 43.0072
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
1
0
62
1
16
584
12
0
4
8
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED
0
8
72
62
30
303
9
4
4
2
AVERAGEVEIDCLESCOUNTED
964
9
73
62
30
305
9
4
4
2
TOTAL AXLES
1,358
Page3 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(t"s)
2
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
TRIDEM AXLES
Upto3
0.0012
0.0004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 to6
0.0073
0.0027
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6to 9
0.0393
0.0154
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9toU
0.1376
0.0557
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12 to 15
0.3705
0.1524
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 to 18
0.8335
0.3453
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
18 to 21
1.6420
0.6813
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
21 to ~4
2.9179
1.2099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
24 to Z7
4.7849
1.9798
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27 to 30
7.3849
3.0385
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 to 33
10.9081 4.4358
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33 to 36
15.6137 6.2291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 39
21.8295 8.4880
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39 to 42
29.9418 11.2985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42 to 45
40.3871 14.7648
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45 to 48
53.6505 19.0103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48 to 51
70.2665 24.1778
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51 to 54
90.8223 30.4299
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54 to 57
115.9606 37.9489
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57 to 60
146.3827 46.9373
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above60
163.0061 51.8254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
AVERAGE VEHICLES WEIGHED
0
8
72
62
1
30
303
9
4
4
2
AVERAGE VEIDCLES COUNTED
964
9
73
62
1
30
305
9
4
4
2
TOTAL AXLES
12
Page 4, of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Func.tional Class(es)
2
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
QUAD AXLES
Upto4
0.0010 0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 to 8
0.0098 0.0037
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 to 12
0.0523
0.0206
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12 to 16
0.1834 0.0742
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16 to 20
0.4940 0.2032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20 to 24
1.1114 0.4604
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24 to 28
2.1894 0.9084
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 to32
3.8905 1.6132
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32 to 36
6.3799 2.6397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 40
9.8465 4.0513
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40 to 44
14.5441 5.9144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44 to 48
20.8183 8.3054
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48 to 52
29.1060 113173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52 to 56
39.9223 15.0646
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56 to 60
53.8495 19.6864
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60 to 64
71.5340 25.3470
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64 to 68
93.6887 32.2371
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68 to 72
121.0964 40.5732
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72 to 76
154.6141 50.5985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76 to 80
195.1769 62.5830
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above SO
217.3415 69.1006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED
0
8
72
62
30
303
9
4
4
2
AVERAGEVEIDCLESCOUNTED
964
9
73
62
30
305
9
4
4
2
TOTAL AXLES
8
Page 5 of7
State Period
GA 2006
AYeraging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
2
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
ESAL PER VEIDCLE
0.0000 0.2800 0.4100
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION USING
AVERAGE DAILY COUNT
mm;tt&YWi
0.00
0.26
2.96
ESAL PER VEIDCLE
0.0000 0.2300 0.4100
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION USING
DAILY C9UNT BY TRUCK TYPE
0.00
0.35
4.81
C 'VOLfJllfE: .:_~.......-:.~ .-'...--:.:_.._;i~~;.;.; x.::<~:-o:!{-:~:;r: '~ _.;:{
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED AVERAGE VEIDCLES COUNTED DAIT.,Y COUNT BY TRUCK TYPE
0
8
72
964
9
73
0.00
0.00
14.84
0.8000 4.91
0.5200 5.22
62 62 12.61
1.8600 0.21
0.8700 0.16
1 1 0.23
0.8400 2.56
0.7500 3.69
30 30 6.21
2.7500 83.82
1.6000 79.59
303 305 62.31
3.2200 2.74
1.7400 2.41
9 9 1.74
2.4000 0.86
2 .3600 1.38 4 4 0.73
1.3300 0.54
1.1100 0.74
4 4 0.83
1.1900 0.28
0.7000 0.27
2 2 0.48
TOTAL AVG. WEIGHED: TOTAL AVG. COUNTED: TOTAL AXLES: TOTAL RIGID ESAL: TOTAL FLEX ESAL:
496 4,435 2,100 997 611
Page 6 of7
State
GA
0/o TRUCKS
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
0
2
0.18 0.22 0.36 0.44 0.54 0.66 0.72 0.87 0.90 1.09 1.35 1.64 1.80 2.19 2.25 2.73 2.70 3.28 3.15 3.83 3.60 4.37 4.05 4.92 4;50 5.47
4 0.27 0.54 0.80 1.07 1.34 2.01 2.68 3.35 4.02 4.69 5.36 6.03 6.70
6
8
0.30 0.37
0.61 0.75 0.91 1.12 1.22 1.49
1.52 1.87 2.28 2.80
3.04 3.73 3.80 4.66 4.56 5.60 5.32 6.53 6.08 7.46 6.84 8.39
7.60 9.33
10
0.46 0.92 1.38 1.84 2.30 3.45 4.60 5.76 6.91 8.06 9.21 10.36 11.51
Averaging Method Period
Hour of Day 2006
20 YEAR ESAL ESTIMATES ADT=1000
Values in millions
% TRUCKS
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
RIGID PAVEMENTS
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.30
0.36
0.44
0.50
0.61
0.76
0.59
0.72
0.88
1.00
1.22
1.51
0.89
1.08
1.32
1.50
1.84
2.27
1.18
1.44
1.76
2.00
2.45
3.02
1.48 1.79 2.20 2.50 3.06
3.78
2.22
2.69
3.30
3.74
4.59
5.67
2.95
3.59
4.40
4.99
6.12
7.56
3.69
4.49
5.50
6.24
7.65
9.45
4.43 5.38
6.60 7.49 9.18
11.33
5.17 6.28
7.70
8.73 10.71 13.22
5.91
7.18
8.80
9.98 12.24 15.11
6.65
8.08
9.90 11.23 13.78
17.00
7.39 8.97 11.00 12.48 15.31 18.89
Page 7 of7
7/14/2008
W-4 Table
EQt.~ivalencv Factor By Direction
Axle Grouping Method State GA Period 2006
Urban Principal Arterial Interstate
Vehicle Size &. Weight
Station Codes
21033451,89031431,21533611,89337211,67237971
0
Federal Hiqhwa~ Ad111inis:tnti on Uthct ot H19hway rob~y lnt..rnrrtiOH
n!PPil
7/14/2008
Page 1 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es}
11
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEHICLE CLASS
Up t(l1
0.0003
0.0002
0
30
4
0
29
9
41
11
29
Ito 2
0.0017
0.0017
0
41
25
1
70
23
0
72
13
27
2 to 3
0.0090
0.0093
0
12
78
6
0
35
44
0
18
6
10
3 to 4
0.0317
0.0336
0
9
128
40
60
365
9
22
18
6
4 to 5
0.0858
0.0919
0
17
124
88
75
666
14
47
35
11
5 to 6
0.1952
0.2083
0
8
50
46
(I
31
129
2
28
11
2
6 to 7
0.3922
0.4110
0
4
44
20
(I
28
23
1
31
9
7 to 8
0.7169
0.7299
0
3
30
7
(I
19
23
0
31
7
8 to 9
1.2156
1.1944
0
2
16
2
0
l3
18
0
21
3
9 to 10
1.9380
1.8331
0
3
6
0
0
6
6
0
13
1
10 to 11
2.9342
2.6761
0
1
0
()
1
0
0
0
11 to 12
4.2538
3.7579
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
12 to 13
5.9482
5.1207
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
13 to 14
8.0779
6.8162
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
14 to 15
10.7185 8.9074
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 to 16
13.9664 11.4686
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
16 to 17
17.9388 14.5862
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
17 to 18
22.7722 18.3580
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18 to 19
28.6197 22.8941
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19 to 20
35.6494 28.3167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above 20
39.4816 31.2656
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVE:RAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
132
505
212
3
367
1,308
27
327
115
89
AVE:RAGE VEHICLES WEIGHED
0
69
247
211
3
156
1,171
26
70
33
22
AVE:RAGE VEHICLES COUNTED
2,258
71
252
215
3
160
1,190
26
72
34
23
TOTAL AXLES
2,996
Page 2 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es}
II
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
TANDEM AXLES
Up to 2
0.0007
0.0003
0
1
0
0
7
0
2
5
2 to 4
0.0042
0.0023
0
3
0
2
0
9
0
4
3
4 to 6
0.0228
0.0128
0
0
0
16
0
3
64
0
2
6 to 8
0.0800
0.0462
0
0
0
36
0
19
280
0
0
4
3
8 to 10
0.2163
0.1265
0
1
0
46
0
30
590
8
0
10
4
10 to 12
0.4899
0.2866
0
0
34
0
16
276
5
I
8
4
12 to 14
0.9754
0.5654
0
0
25
0
11
284
6
0
6
4
14 to 16
1.7580
1.0041
0
0
21
0
6
354
7
0
5
5
16 to 18
2 .9258
1.6429
0
0
0
20
0
4
262
3
0
5
4
18 to 20
4.5666
2.5215
0
0
0
8
0
1
78
2
0
1
1
20 to 22
6 .7 7 7 4
3.6811
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
22 to 24
9.6817
5.1692
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
0
0
0
24 to 26
13.4446 7.0437
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26 to 28
18.2764 9.3760
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 to 30
24.4284 12.2525
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 to 32
32.1870 15.7756
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32 to 34
41.8693 20.0639
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34 to 36
53.8227 25.2522
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 38
68.4258 31.4918
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38 to 40
86.0899 38.9508
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above 40
95.7407 43.0072
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
9
209
1
93
2,210
34
9
41
35
AVERAGE VEHICLES WEIGHED
0
69
247
211
3
156
1,171
26
70
33
22
AVERAGE VEHICLES COUNTED
2,258
71
252
215
3
160
1,190
26
72
34
23
TOTAL AXLES
5,218
Page 3 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
11
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEHICLE CLASS
TRIDEM AXLES
Up~J
0.0012
0.0004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3~6
0.0073
0.0027
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6~9
0.0393
0.0154
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9~U
0.1376
0.0557
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
u~~
0.3705
0.1524
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
~~~
0.8335
0.3453
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u~n nw~
1.6420
0.6813
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2.9179
1.2099
0
0
0
0
0
()
0
0
0
0
M~n
4.7849
1.9798
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n~D
7.3849
3.0385
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D~D
10.9081 4.4358
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D~B
15.6137 6.2291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~~"
21.8295 8.4880
0
0
0
0
(I
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dfu~
29.9418 11.2985
0
0
0
0
(I
0
0
0
0
0
0
~fu~
40.3871 14.7648
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~fu~
53.6505 19.0103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~fu~
70.2665 24.1778
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~~~
90.8223 30.4299
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~fu~
115.9606 37.9489
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~~~
146.3827 46.9373
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above60
163.0061 51.8254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
0
0
0
15
0
AVERAGE VEHICLES WEIGHED
0
69
247
211
3
156
1,171
26
70
33
22
AVERAGE VEHICLES COUNTED
2,258
71
252
215
3
160
1,190
26
72
34
23
TOTAL AXLES
60
Page 4 of7
State .Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
11
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
QUAD AXLES
Upto4
0.0010
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 to 8
0.0098
0.0037
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
8 to 12
0.0523
0.0206
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12 to 16
0.1834
0.0742
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16 to 20
0.4940
0.2032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20 to 24
1.1114
0.4604
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24 to 28
2.1894
0.9084
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 to 32
3.8905
1.6132
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32 to 36
6.3799
2.6397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 to 40
9.8465
4.0513
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40 to 44
14.5441 5.9144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44 to 48
20.8183 8.3054
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48 to 52
29.1060 11.3173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52 to 56
39.9223 15.0646
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56 to 60
53.8495 19.6864
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60 to 64
71.5340 25.3470
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64 to 68
93.6887 32.2371
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68 to72
121.0964 40.5732
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72 to 76
154.6141 50.5985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76 to 80
195.1769 62.5830
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above80
217.3415 69.1006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE SINGLE AXLES WEIGHED
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED
0
69
247
211
3
156
1,171
26
70
33
22
AVERAGE VEIDCLES COUNTED
2,258
71
252
215
3
160
1,190
26
72
34
23
TOTAL AXLES
28
Page 5 of7
State Period
GA 2006
Averaging Method Hour of Day
Functional Class(es)
11
DAILY AVERAGES BY VEIDCLE CLASS
ESAL PER VEIDCLE
0.0000 0.3400 0.4000
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION USING
AVERAGE DAILY COUNT
0.00
0.69
2.88
iif.l f&J,;,1fi:Ji2ii:!'liii!ii~i!iilll
ES.AL PER VEIDCLE
0.0000 0.3100 0.4100
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION USING
DAILY COUNT BY TRUCK TYPE
0.00
0.98
- FFIG.V'OL'lJME ..,_ -:!::.~~J:,-:'-;_:I:;o~t_:;Y,'*-'-o ~~-!!.'~,~~~~
AVERAGE VEIDCLES WEIGHED AVERAGE VEIDCLES COUNTED DAII.Y COUNT BY TRUCK TYPE
0
69
2,258
71
0.00
0.00
4.51
247 252 12.77
1.1000 6.77
0.7000 6.66
211 215 10.88
0.5700 0.06
0.3100 0.05 3 3 0.17
0.9500 4.33
0.7500 5.32 156 160 8.09
2.1500 73.06
1.2800 67.46 1,171 1,190 60.27
3.9800 2.96
2.0900 2.41
26 26 1.32
1.4900 3.06
1.4700 4.66
70 72 3.63
TOTAL AVG. WEIGHED: TOTAL AVG. COUNTED: TOTAL AXLES: TOTAL RIGID ESAL: TOTAL FLEX ESAL:
2,009 15,232 8,616 3,444 2,225
1.8400 1.78
1.3300 1.99
33 34 1.72
2.1000 1.36
1.3000 1.30
22 23 1.15
Page 6 of7
State
GA
% TRUCKS
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
0
2
0.16 0.19 0.32 0.38 0.47 0.58 0.63 0.77 0.79 0.96 1.19 1.44 1.58 1.92 1.98 2.40 2.37 2.88 2.77 3.36 3.16 3.84 3.56 4.32
3.95 4.80
4 0.24 0.47 0.71 0.94 1.18 1.77 2.35 2.94 3.53 4.12 4.71 5.30 5.88
6
8
0.27 0.33
0.53 0.66
0.80 0.98
1.07 1.31
1.34 1.64
2.00 2.46
2.67 3.28
3.34 4.09
4.01 4.91
4.67 5.73
5.34 6.55
6.01 7.37
6.68 8.19
10
0.40 0.81 1.21 1.62 2.02 3.03 4.04 5.05 6.06 7.08 8.09 9.10 10.11
Averaging 1\Idhod Period
Hour of Day 2006
20 YEAR ESAL ESTIMATES ADT=lOOO
Values in millions
0/o TRUCKS
2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
RIGID PAVEMENTS
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.25
0.30
0.37
0.42
0.52
0.64
0.50
0.61
0.74
0.84
1.03
1.28
0.75 0.91
1.11
1.26 1.55
1.91
1.00 1.21
1.49
1.69
2.07
2.55
1.25 1.51
1.86 2.11
2.58
3.19
1.87
2.27
2.78
3.16
3.88
4.78
2.49
3.03
3.71
4.21
5.17
6.38
3.12
3.79
4.64
5.27
6.46
7.97
3.74
4.54
5.57
6.32
7.75
9.57
4.36 5.30
6.50
7.37
9.04
11.16
4.99
6.06
7.43
8.43 10.34 12.76
5.61
6.82
8.35
9.48 11.63
14.35
6.23
7.57
9.28 10.53 12.92
15.95
Page 7 of7
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
APPENDIXB SUBGRADE RESILIENT MODULUS
0'1
0'2
Sequence psi
psi
1
13.8
7.9
2
11.4
5.9
3
9.0
3.9
4
6.6
1.9
5
16.8
7.9
6
14.4
5.9
7
11.9
3.9
8
9.6
1.9
9
19.8
7.9
10
17.4
5.9
11
14.9
3.9
12
12.6
1.9
13
23.9
7.9
14
21.3
5.9
15
18.9
3.9
16
16.6
1.9
std.
15.0
4.0
O's
a
Toct
0'1- O's
MR
Pred. MR
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
050088
7.9
29.6
2.8
5.9
23.2
2.6
5.9
8460
8181
5.5
6675
6632
Project Name: Date:
Resilent Modulus Testing GDOT
3.9
16.8
2.4
1.9
10.4
2.2
5.1
4869
4971
4.7
3681
3190
Sample I.D.:
10/14/2008 Paulding Subgrade
7.9
32.6
4.2
8.9
6996
7157
Piedmont Class
5.9
26.2
4.0
8.5
5672
5933
Replicate Test:
3.9
19.7
3.8
1.9
13.4
3.6
8.0
4313
4640
7.7
3180
3237 1
7.9
35.6
5.6
11.9
6307
6311
5.9
29.2
5.4
11.5
5228
5328
3.9
22.7
5.2
11.0
4067
4296
1.9
16.4
5.0
10.7
2998
3177
7.9
39.7
7.5
16.0
5854
5377
5.9
33.1
7.3
15.4
4968
4662
3.9
26.7
7.1
15.0
3920
3863
1.9
20.4
6.9
14.7
2913
3014
4.0
23.0
5.2
11.0
4353
K1 =
463.3
K2 =
0.993
Ks=
-2.953
n=
16
SES = Sy=
0.009 0.138
Se= Se/Sy =
R2=
0.027 0.195 0.962
Summary, US units
Paulding_Rep 1.xls
I
(11
O"z
Sequence psi
psi
1
13.8
7.9
2
11.4
5.9
3
9.0
3.9
4
6.6
1.9
5
16.8
7.9
6
14.4
5.9
7
11.9
3.9
8
9.5
1.9
9
19.8
7.9
10
17.3
5.9
11
15.0
3.9
12
12.5
1.9
13
23.7
7.9
14
21.4
5.9
15
19.0
3.9
16
16.6
1.9
std.
15.0
4.0
(13
8
Toct
(11- (13
MR
Pred. MR
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
050088
7.9
29.6
2.8
5.9
23.2
2.6
5.9
8388
8061
5.5
6654
6582
Project Name: Date :
Resilent Modulus Testing GDOT
3.9
16.8
2.4
1.9
10.4
2.2
5.1
4869
4983
4.7
3725
3246
Sample !.D.:
10/14/2008 Paulding Subgrade
7.9
32.6
4.2
8.9
6890
7058
Piedmont Class
5.9
26.2
4.0
8.5
5615
5890
Replicate Test:
3.9
19.7
3.8
8.0
4295
4647
2
1.9
13.3
3.6
7.6
3236
3282
7.9
35.6
5.6
11.9
6241
6231
5.9
29.1
5.4
11.4
5185
5310
3.9
22 .8
5.2
11.1
4061
4288
1.9
16.3
5.0
10.6
3047
3215
7.9
39.5
7.4
15.8
5799
5355
5.9
33.2
7.3
15.5
4924
4617
3.9
26.8
7.1
15.1
3910
3853
1.9
20.4
6.9
14.7
2954
3040
4.0
23.0
5.2 - 11.0
4354
K1=
462.7
Kz =
0.961
K3 =
-2.900
n=
16
SES = 0.009 Sy = 0.134
Se = Se/Sy =
Rz=
0.026 0.198 0 .9 61
Summal)', US units
Paulding_Rep 2.xls
0"1
0"2
Sequence psi
psi
1
13.8
7.9
2
11.4
5.9
3
9.0
3.9
4
6.6
1.9
5
16.6
7.9
6
14.3
5.9
7
12.0
3.9
8
9.6
1.9
9
19.8
7.9
10
17.4
5.9
11
14.9
3.9
12
12.6
1.9
13
23.8
7.9
14
21.4
5.9
15
19.0
3.9
16
16.6
1.9
std.
15.0
4.0
'--
0"3
9
Tact
0"1- 0"3
MR
Pred. MR
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
050088
7.9
29.6
2.8
5.9
23.2
2.6
5_9
6875
6236
5_5
5187
5132
Project Name: Date:
Resilent Modulus Testing GDOT
3.9
16.6
2.4
1.9
10.4
2.2
5.1
3704
3924
4.7
2858
2594
Sample J.D.:
10/14/2008
Paulding Subgrade
7.9
32.6
4.2
8.9
5489
5426
Piedmont Class
5.9
26.1
4.0
8.4
4327
4577
Replicate Test:
3.9
19.8
3.8
6.1
3342
3619
3
1.9
13.4
3.6
7.7
2573
2593
7.9
35.6
5.6
11.9
4664
4762
5.9
29.2
5.4
11.5
3901
4070
3.9
22.7
5.2
11.0
3134
3333
1.9
16.4
5.0
10.7
2467
2514
7.9
39_6
7.5
15.9
4235
4048
5.9
33.2
7.3
15.5
3633
3523
3.9
26.8
7.1
15.1
2998
2960
1.9
20.4
6.9
14.7
2450
2355 I
4.0
23.0
5.2
11.0
3374 I
K1 =
368.3
K2 =
0.931
K3 =
-2.945
n=
16
SES = 0.008 Sy= 0.131
Se= Se/Sy =
R2 =
0.025 0.191 0.964
Summary, US units
Paulding_Rep 3.xls
0"1
0"2
Sequence psi
psi
1
8.2
5.9
2
10.2
5.9
3
12.2
5.9
4
14.3
5.9
5
16.1
5.9
6
6.2
3.9
7
8.2
3.9
8
10.3
3.9
9
12.2
3 .9
10
14.3
3.9
11
4.2
1.9
12
6.2
1.9
13
8.2
1.9
14
10.3
1.9
15
12.3
1.9
std.
15.0
4.0
0"3
e
Toct
0"1 - O"a
MR I Pred. MR I
psi
psi
psi
5.9
20.0
1.1
5.9
22.0
2.0
psi
psi I psi
2.3
I 3o5oo 31121
4.3
I 32472 31875
BCD Project: Project Name: Date:
050088
Resilent Modulus Testing GDOT
5.9
24.0
3.0
6.3
I 33501
32524
Sample J.D.:
5.9
26.1
4.0
8.4
I 33863 33112
5.9
27.9
4.8
10.2
I 33846 33553
3.9
14.0
1.1
2.3
I 2276o 23338
Replicate Test:
3.9
16.0
2.0
4.3
I 24147 24652
3.9
18.1
3.0
6.4
I 25333 25839
3.9
20.0
3.9
8.3
I 26826 26773
10/14/2008 Pierce Subgrade
Coastal Class
3.9
22.1
4.9
10.4
27185 27679
1.9
8.0
1.1
2.3
15255 14858
1.9
10.0
2.0
4.3
17041
16871
1.9
12.0
3.0
6.3
19003 18591
1.9
14.1
4.0
8.4
19436 20147
1.9
16.1
4.9
10.4
4.0
23.0
5.2
11.0
28213
K1 =
1,762.2
K2 =
0.807
K3 =
-0.913
n=
14
SES = Sy=
0.001 0.116
Se = Se/Sy =
R2=
0.011 0.091 0.992
Summary, US units
Pierce_Rep 1.xl:;
a,
O"z
Sequence psi
ps i
1
8.2
5.9
2
10.2
5.9
3
12.2
5.9
4
14.2
5.9
5
16.2
5.9
6
6.1
3.9
7
8.2
3.9
8
10.3
3.9
9
12.3
3.9
10
14.2
3.9
11
4.2
1.9
12
6.4
1.9
13
8.1
1.9
14
10.2
1.9
15
12.2
1.9
std.
15.0
4.0
0"3
e
Toct
a,_a3
MR
Pred. MR
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
050088
5.9
20.0
1.1
5.9
22.0
2.0
2.3
25736 27089
4.3
29292 28045
Project Name: Date:
Resilent Modulus Testing GDOT
5.9
24.0
3.0
6.3
30403 28916
Sample I.D.:
10/14/2008
5.9
26.0
3.9
8.3
30775 29715
5.9
28.0
4.9
10.3
30887 30451
Pierce Subgrade Coastal Class
3.9
13.9
1.0
2.2
20361 20912
Replicate Test:
3.9
16.0
2.0
4.3
21515 22327
2
3.9
18.1
3.0
6.4
22975 23590
3.9
20.1
4.0
8.4
24473 24678
3.9
22.0
4.9
10.3 25045 25622
1.9
8.0
1.1
2.3
14846 14056
1.9
10.2
2.1
4.5
16187 16122
1.9
11.9
2.9
6.2
17874 17525
1.9
14.0
3.9
8.3
18168 19075
1.9
16.0
4.9
10.3
4.0
23.0
5.2
11.0
26196
K, =
1,540.3
Kz =
0.716
K3 =
-0.579
n=
14
SES = Sy=
0.003 0.107
Se = Se/Sy =
Rz =
0.017 0.163 0.973
Summary, US units
Pierce_Rep 2.xls
~,I Sequence
0'1 ps i
0'2 psi
I
1
8.2
5.9
2
10.3
5.9
3
12.2
5.9
4
14.2
5.9
5
16.2
5.9
6
6.2
3.9
7
8.2
3.9
8
10.2
3.9
9
12.2
3.9
10
14.2
3.9
11
4.2
1.9
12
6.2
1.9
13
8.2
1.9
14
10.2
1.9
15
12.1
1.9
std.
15.0
4.0
0'3
e
Tact
0'1.0'3
MR
Pred. MR I
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
050088
5.9
20.0
1.1
5.9
22.1
2.1
2.3
29047 28549
4.4
29652 29120
Project Name: Date:
Resilent Modulus Testing GDOT
5.9
24.0
3.0
6.3
30287 29553
Sample I.D.:
10/14/2008
5.9
26.0
3.9
8.3
30367 29937
Pierce Subgrade
5.9
28.0
4.9
10.3 30798 30261
Coastal Class
3 .9
14.0
1.1
2.3
20526 21734
Replicate Test: .
3 .9
16.0
2.0
4.3
21811 22808
3
3.9
18.0
3.0
6.3
23049 23718
3.9
20 .0
3.9
8.3
24634 24496
3.9
22.0
4.9
10.3 24947 25165
1.9
8.0
1.1
2.3
14861 14169
1.9
10.0
2.0
4.3
16088 15923
1.9
12.0
3.0
6 .3
17786 17396
1.9
14.0
3.9
8.3
17946 18649
1.9
15.9
4.8
10.2
4.0
23.0
5.2
11 .0
25634
K1=
1,639.6
K2 =
0.765
K3 =
-0.929
n=
14
SES = Sy=
0.002 0.110
Se= Se/Sy =
R2=
0.015 0.132 0.983
Summary, US units
Pierce_Rep 3.xl ~>
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
APPENDIXC AGGREGATE BASE COURSE RESILIENT MODULUS
a1
Uz
a3
9
Toct
a1.a3
MR Pred. MR
Sequence psi
psi
psi
psi
ps i
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
050088
1
6.0
2.9
2.9
11.8
1.5
3.1
7401
7888
Project Name:
Resilent Modulus Testing
2
9.4
2.9
2.9
15.2
3.1
6.5
9756
9610
Date:
GDOT
3
12.0
2.9
2.9
17.8
4.3
9.1
11239 10863
Sample I.D.:
10/1 4/2008
4
10.1
4.9
4.9
19.9
2.5
5.2
12469 11986
5
15.0
4.9
4.9
24.8
4.8
10.1 14435 14181
Lithia Springs Base Granite
6
20.1
4.9
4.9
29.9
7.2
15.2 16103 16346
Replicate Test:
7
20.0
9.9
9.9
39.8
4.8
10.1 21347 20799
3
8
30.0
9.9
9.9
49.8
9.5
20.1 24307 24509
9
40.1
9.9
9.9
59.9
14.2
30.2 27282 28057
10
25.0
14.9
14.9
54.8
4.8
10.1
26334 26946
11
30.1
14.9
14.9
59.9
7.2
15.2 27987 28691
12
45.1
14.9
14.9
74.9
14.2
30.2 33379 33622
13
35.1
19.9
19.9
74.9
7.2
15.2 34403 34382
14
40.0
19.9
19.9
79.8
9.5
20.1 36403 35903
15
60.1
19.9
19.9
99.9
19.0
40.2 42929 41943
std .
21.0
5.0
5.0
31.0
7.5
16.0
--
16809
K1=
646.0
K2 =
0.810
K3 =
-0.080
n=
15
SES = 0.002 Sy= 0.233
Se= Se/Sy=
R2 =
0.013 0.056 0.997
Summary, US units
Lithia_Rep 3.xls
Sequence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 std.
a, psi 6.1 9.0 12.1 10.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 30 .0 40.1 25.0 30.0 45.0 34.9 40.0 60.0 21.0
O"z
psi 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 14.9 14.9 14.8 19.8 19.9 19.9 5.0
0"3 psi
2.9 2.9 2.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 14.9 14.9 14.8 19.8 19.9 19.9 5.0
8 psi 11.9 14.8 17.9 19.8 24.8 29.8 39.8 49.8 59.9 54.8 59.8 74.6 74.5 79.8 99.8 31 .0
Toct
a,_o-3
MR Pred. MR
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
1.5
3.2
5581
6727
Project Name:
2.9
6.1
7479
8025
Date:
4.3
9.2
9790
9418
Sample I.D.:
2.4
5.1
9402
9274
4.8
10.1
12891 11472
7.1
15.1
15631 13727
Replicate Test:
4.8
10.1
16914 14949
9.5
20.1
21372 19602
14.2
30.2
24945 24524
4.8
10.1
17488 17879
7.1
15.1
19880 20272
14.2
30.2
27228 27729
7.1
15.1
21454 22925
9.5
20.1
24327 25522
18.9
40.1
32825 36079
7.5
16.0
14217
050088 Resilent Modulus Testing
GDOT 10/14/2008 Lithia Springs Base
Granite
2
K,=
482.4
Kz =
0.560
K3 =
0.671
n=
15
SES = Sy=
0.021 0.222
Se = Se/Sy =
Rz=
0.042 0.189 0.964
Summary, US units
Lithia_Rep 2.xls
Sequence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Stcj,__
cr1 psi 6.0 9.0 12.1 .10.0 15.1 20.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 25.0 30.0 45.0 35.0 40.0 60.1 21 .0
a2
psi 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 5.0
a3
psi 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 5.0
e
psi 11 .8 14.8 17.9 19.8 24.9 29.8 39.8 49.8 59.8 54.8 59 .8 74.8 74.8 79.8 99.9 31.0
Toct
psi 1.5 2.9 4.3 2.4 4.8 7.1 4.8 9.5 14.2 4.8 7.1 14.2 7.1 9.5 19.0 7.5
a1_a3
psi 3.1 6.1 9.2 5.1 10.2 15.1 10.1 20.1 30.1 10.1 15.1 30.1 15.1 20.1 40 .2 16.0
MR psi
7175 9093 10920 12372 14745 16531 22091 24995 27606 26236 27806 33121 32570 34484 40732
Pred. MR psi
7827 9334 I 10814 I 11825 14082 16138 20550 24217 27689 26589 28281 33160 33868 35406 41385 16635
BCD Project: Project Name: Date : Sample 1.0.:
Replicate Test:
050088 Resilent Modulus Testing
GDOT
10/14/2008 Lithia Springs Base
Granite
K1=
640.1
K2 =
0.806
K3 =
-0.075
n=
15
SES = Sy=
0.004 0.233
Se =
Se/Sy = R2=
0.019 0.080 0.994
Summary, US units
Lithia_Rep 1.xls
0'1 Sequence psi
1
6.1
2
9.1
3
12.1
4
10.0
I 5
15.1
6
20.3
7
20.1
I 8
30.1
9
40.3
10
25.1
11
30.0
12
45.0
I 13
35.0
14
40.0
I 15 std
60.0 21.0
0'2
0'3
8
Teet
0'1.0'3
MR Pred. MR
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project
2.9
2.9
11.9
1.5
3.2
10013 12145
Project Name:
2.9
2.9
14.9
2.9
6.2
14191 14517
Date:
2.9
2.9
17.9
4.3
9.2
17523 16765
Sample J.D.:
4.9
4.9
19.8
2.4
5.1
20420 18628
4.9
4.9
24.9
4.8
10.2 24450 22163
4.9
4.9
30.1
7.3
15.4 27101 25547
Replicate Test:
9.9
9.9
39.9
4.8
10.2 35591 33222
9.9
9.9
49.9
9.5
20.2 40257 38759
9.9
9.9
60.1
14.3
30.4 42889 44052
14.9
14.9
54.9
4.8
10.2 42990 43693
14.9
14.9
59.8
7.1
15.1
44487 46110
14.9
14.9
74.8
14.2
30.1
52009 53201
19.9
19.9
74.8
7.1
15.1
53569 55878
19.9
19.9
79.8
9.5
20.1
56242 58020
19.9
19.9
99.8
18.9
40.1
65739 66367
5.0
5.0
31.0
7.5
16.0
26143
050088 Resilent Modulus Testing
GDOT 10/14/2008
Dalton Limestone
3
K1-
1,007.61
K2 =
0.859
K3=
-0.1751
n=
15
70000
I 60000
50000
I 40000
SES= 0.914 Sy= 0.242
Se= Se/Sy =
R2=
0.034 0.140 0.980
I 30000
20000
I 10000
0 0
10000
20000
Summary, US units
Dalton_Rep 3.xl~.
Sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 std
O"j
psi 6.0 9.0 12.1 10.0 15.0 20.1 20.1 30.0 40.0 25.0 30.1 45.0 35.1 40.0 60.0 21.0
0"2 psi 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 5.0
0"3 psi 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 5.0
8
psi 11.8 14.8 17.9 19.8 24.8 29.9 39.9 49.8 59.8 54.8 59.9 74.8 74.9 79.8 99.8 31.0
-
Toct
psi 1.5 2.9 4.3 2.4 4.8 7.2 4.8 9.5 14.2 4.8 7.2 14.2 7.2. 9.5 18.9 7.5
O"j- 0"3 psi 3.1 6.1 9.2 5.1 10.1 15.2 10.2 20.1 30.1 10.1 15.2 30.1 15.2 20.1 40.1 16.0
MR psi 12382 15667 18076 21203 24431 26569 36489 40712 43134 45610 47085 53866 57572 60126 68262
Pred. MR psi
13172 : 15611 17957 20156 23566 26763 35318 40209 44741 46316 48385 54144 58537 60096 66399 27470
BCD Project: Project Name: Date: Sample LD.:
Replicate Test:
050088 Resilent Modulus Testing
GDOT 10/14/2008
Dalton Limestone
2
K1=
1,109.2
K2 =
0.852
K3=
-0.276
n=
15
SES = Sy=
0.002 0.232
Se= Se/Sy =
R2 =
0.014 0.060 0.996
Summary, US units
Dalton_Rep 2.xls
(71
O'z
(73
e
Toct
(71 - (73
MR
Pred. MR
Sequence psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
BCD Project:
050088
1
6.0
2.9
2.9
11.8
1.5
3.1
8309
9774
Project Name:
Resilent Modulus Testing
2
9.1
2.9
2.9
14.9
2.9
6.2
11339 11641
Date:
GDOT
3
12.0
2.9
2.9
17.8
4.3
9.1
14024 13335
Sample I.D.:
10/14/2008
4
10.0
4.9
4.9
19.8
2.4
5.1
13901 13844
Dalton
5
15.1
4.9
4.9
24.9
4.8
10.2
18233 16664
Limestone
6
20 .2
4.9
4.9
30.0
7.2
15.3
21178 19428
Replicate Test:
7
20.0
9 .9
9 .9
39.8
4.8
10.1
24685 22486
8
30.0
9.9
9.9
49.8
9.5
20 .1
29396 27666
9
40.0
9.9
9.9
59.8
14.2
30.1
32448 32777
10
25.0
14.9
14.9
54.8
4.8
10.1
27751 27597
11
30.0
14.8
14.8
59.6
7.2
15.2
28934 30136
12
44.8
14.8
14.8
74.4
14.1
30.0
36554 37681
13
35.0
19.8
19.8
74.6
7.2
15.2
33451 34795
14
39.9
19.8
19.8
79.5
9.5
20.1
35670 37328
15
60.0
19.9
19.9
99.8
18.9
40.1 45900 47568
- - std
21 .0
5.0
5.0
31 .0
7.5
16.0
19928
K1=
744 .3
Kz =
0.640
1(3 =
0.294
n=
15
SES = Sy=
0.012 0.21 4
Se = 0.032
= Se/Sy 0.150 = Rz 0.978
Summary, US units
Dalton_Rep 1.xls
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
APPENDIXD GDOT PAVEMENT DESIGNS
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
Project:
County:
P.I. no.:
Description: Rural Minor Arterial (Low Volume)-poor ' soil
Traffic Data (NOTE: AADTs are one-way) 24-hour Truck Percentage: 12.00% AADT initial year of design period: AADT final year of design period: Mean AADT (one-way):
1,000 vpd 2,191 vpd 1,596 vpd
(2008) (2028)
Design Loading
Mean AADT
1,596
*
LDF
Trucks
1. 00 * 0. 120
*
18-K ESAL 0.40
Total Daily Loads 78
Total predicted design period loading 78 * 20 * 365 = 569,400
Design Data Terminal Serviceability Soil Support: 1.30 Regional Factor: 1.80
Index:
2.50
PROPOSED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thickness
Structural
Structural
Material
Inches
(mm)
Coefficient
Value
===========================================================================
9.5 mm Superpave
1. 50
(38)
0. 4 4
0.66
19 mm Superpave
2.00
(51)
0.44
0.88
25 mm Superpave
1. 00 4.00
( 25) (102)
0.44 0.30
0.44 1. 20
Graded Aggregate Base
12.00
( 305)
0.16
1. 92
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required SN = 4.92
Proposed SN = 5.10
>>> Proposed pavement is 3.6% Overdesign <<<
Remarks:
Prepared by
Don Watson
July 16, 2008 Date
Recommended ----S-t-a-t-e--M ---a-t-e-r-i-a-l-s--&--R-e-s-e-a-r-c-h---E-n--g-in--e-e-r------------D-a-t-e-------------
Approved
--------------------~--------~------~---------------------------------
State Consultant Design Engineer
Date
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
Project:
County:
P.I. no.:
Description: Rural Minor Arterial (Low Volume)-good soil
Traffic Data (NOTE: AADTs are one-way) 24-hour Truck Percentage: 12.00% AADT initial year of design period: AADT final year of design period: Mean AADT (one-way):
1,000 vpd 2,191 vpd 1,596 vpd
(2008) (2028)
Design Loading
Mean AADT
1,596
*
LDF
Trucks
1. 00 * 0.120
*
18-K ESAL 0.40
Total Daily Loads 78
Total predicted design period loading 78 * 20 * 365 569,400
Design Data Terminal Serviceability Index: Soil Support: 6.00 Regional Factor: 1.80
2.50
-_-__-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_--__-P_-R_-O_-P_-O_-S_-E_-D-_-_F_-L-,_E-_X-_-_IB-_L-_E-_-_P-_A-_V-_E-_M-_E-_N-_T-__-_-ST_-R_-U_-C_-T_-U_-R_-_E-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Thickness
Structural
Structural
Material
Inches
(mm)
Coefficient Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.5 mm Superpave
1. 50
( 38)
0.44
0.66
19 mm Superpave
2.00
(51)
0.44
0.88
Graded Aggregate Base
7.00
(17 8)
0.16
1.12
Required SN = 2.60
Proposed SN 2.66
>>> Proposed pavement is 2.2% Overdesign <<<
Remarks:
Prepared by ______D_o__n __W_a_t_s_o__n _________________________________J_u_l~y~1_6~,__2_0_0_8_______ Date
Recommended ----S-t-a-t-e--M ---a-t-e-r-i-a-l-s--&--R-e-s-e-a-r-c-h---E-n--g-in--e-e-r------------D-a--te-------------
Approved
State Consultant Design Engineer
Date
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
Project:
County:
P.I. no.:
Description: Rural Primary Arterial (4-Lane) - poor soil
Traffic Data (NOTE: AADTs are one-way) 24-hour Truck Percentage: 12.00% AADT initial year of design period: AADT final year of design period: Mean AADT (one-way) :
7,500 vpd (2008) 16,433 vpd (2028) 11,966 vpd
Design Loading
Mean AADT
LDF
Trucks
11,966
*
0.85 * 0.120
*
18-K ESAL 1.17
Total Daily Loads 1,429
Total predicted design period loading 1429 * 20 * 365 = 10,431,700
Design Data Terminal Serviceability Index: 2.50 Soil Support: 1.30 Regional Factor: 1.80
PROPOSED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thickness
Structural Structural
Material
Inches
(mm)
Coefficient
Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.5 mm Superpave
1.50
(38)
0.44
0.66
19 mm Superpave
2.00
(51)
0.44
0.88
25 mm Superpave
1. 00 12.00
(25) (305)
0.44 0.30
0.44 3.60
Graded Aggregate Base
12.00
( 305)
0.16
1. 92
- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
Required SN = 7.25
Proposed SN = 7.50
>>> Proposed pavement is 3.4% Overdesign <<<
Remarks:
Prepared by
Don Watson
July 21, 2008
----------------------------------------------------~D~a-t~e~-----------
Recommended ----S-t-a-t-e--M ---a-t-e-r-i-a-l-s--&--R--e-se-a--r-c-h--E-n--g-i-n-e-e-r------------D-a--te-------------
Approved ---------S--t-a-t-e--C--o-n-s-u-l-t-a-n-t--D--e-s-i-g-n--E--n-g-i-n-e-e-r-------------D--a-t-e------------
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
Project:
County:
P.I. no.:
Description: Rural Primary Arterial (4-Lane) - good soil
Traffic Data (NOTE: AADTs are one-way) 24-hour Truck Percentage: 12.00% AADT initial year of design period: AADT final year of design period: Mean AADT (one-way):
7,500 vpd (2008) 16,433 vpd (2028) 11,966 vpd
Design Loading
Mean AADT
LDF
Trucks
11,966
*
0.85 * 0.120
*
18-K ESAL 1.17
Total Daily Loads 1,429
Total predicted design period loading 1429 * 20 * 365 = 10,431,700
Design Data Terminal Serviceability Soil Support: 6.00 Regional Factor: 1.80
Index:
2.50
PROPOSED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thickness
Structural
Structural
Material
Inches
(mm)
Coefficient
Value
12.5 mm Superpave
1. 50
(38)
0.44
0.66
19 mm Superpave
3.00 1. 00
(7 6) (25)
0.44 0.30
1. 32 0.30
Graded Aggregate Base
12.00
(305)
0.16
1. 92
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required SN = 4.18
Proposed SN = 4.20
>>>Proposed pavement is 0.4% Overdesign <<<
Remarks:
Prepared by ______D__o n___W_a_t_s_o__n _________________________________ _ J_u_l~y~2~1~,~-2_0_0_8 ______ Date
Recommended ---- S-ta-- te--M--a-t-e-r~ ia~l-s--&--R-e-s-e- a- rc-h-~E-- n~ g~ in-e-e-r-----------D--a-t- e -----------
Approved ----------S-t-a-t-e--C--o-n-s-u--lt-a-n--t -D--e-s-i-g-n--E--n-g-i-n-e-e-r-------------D--a-te-------------
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
Project:
County:
P.I. no.:
Description: Urban Interstate Primary Arterial (6 lanes)-poor soil
Traffic Data (NOTE: AADTs are one-way) 24-hour Truck Percentage: 12.00% AADT initial year of design period: AADT final year of design period: Mean AADT (one-way) :
62,500 vpd (2008) 136,945 vpd (2028) 99,722 vpd
Design Loading
Mean AADT
LDF
Trucks
99,722
*
0.60 * 0.120
*
18-K ESAL 1. 06
Total Daily Loads 7,612
Total predicted design period loading 7612 * 20 * 365 = 55,567,600
Design Data Terminal Serviceability Index: Soil Support: 1.30 Regional Factor: 1.80
2.50
PROPOSED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thickness
Structural
Structural
Material
Inches
(mm)
Coefficient
Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.5 mm PEM
135 lb/sy (75 kg/sm)
0.00
0.00
12.5 mm SMA
1. 50
(38)
0.44
0.66
19 mm Superpave
2.00
(51)
0.44
0.88
25 mm Superpave
1. 00 11.00
(25) (27 9)
0.44 0.30
0.44 3.30
Graded Aggregate Base
24.00
(610)
0.16
3.84
~=======================================================~==--=======--====-~
Required SN = 8.89
Proposed SN = 9.12
>>>Proposed pavement is 2.5% Overdesign <<<
Remarks:
Prepared by
Don Watson
July 16, 2008 Date
State Materials & Research Engineer
Date
State Consultant Design Engineer
Date
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
Project:
County:
P.I. no.:
Description: Urban Inters tate Primary Arter i al (6 lanes)
Traffic Data (NOTE: AADTs are one-way) 24-hour Truck Percentage: 12.00% AADT initial year of design period: AADT final year of design period: Mean AADT (on e -w a y):
62,500 vpd (200 8 ) 136,945 vpd (2028) 99,722 vpd
Design Loading
Mean AADT
LDF
Trucks
99,72 2
*
0. 60 * 0.120
*
18-K ESAL 1. 06
Total Daily Loads 7,612
Total predicted design period loading 7612 * 20 * 365 = 55,567,600
Design Data Terminal Serviceability Index: Soil Support: 6.00 Regional Factor: 1.80
2.50
PROPOSED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thickness
Structural
Structural
Material
Inches
(mm)
Coefficient
Value
===========================================================================
12.5 mm PEM
135 lb/sy (75 kg/sm)
0.00
0.00
12.5 mm SMA
1. 50
(38)
0.44
0.66
19 mm Superpave
2.00
(51)
0.44
0.88
25 mm Superpave
1. 00 5.00
(2 5) (127)
0.44 0.30
0.44 1. 50
Graded Aggregate Base
12.00
(305)
0.16
1. 92
===========================================================================
Required SN = 5.34
Proposed SN = 5.40
>>> Proposed pavement is 1.0% Overdesign <<<
Remarks:
Prepared by
Don Watson
July 16, 2008 Date
Recommended ---- S-t- a- t e--M --a-t-e-r~i~ a-l s--&--R-- e s-e-a-r- c h-~E-n-g~i-n-e-e-r----------~ D~a-t-e-----------
Approved
--------------------------------------~---------------------------------
State Consultant Design Engineer
Date
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, andP. Wu
APPENDIXE M-EPDG PAVEMENT DESIGNS
'
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
Project: Low volume-2-3-6-poordefault.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
Analysis Parameters
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description : Rural Minor Arterial - poor soil
1 of 10
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (ftlmile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (ftlmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking(%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Date:
Low Volume Highway
Local Routes and Streets 6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTT:
240
Number of lanes in design direction:
1
Percent of trucks in design direction (%):
50
Percent of trucks in design lane(%):
100
Operational speed (mph):
55
Traffic-- Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Month January February
. Class 4 1.00 1.00
Class 5 1.00 1.00
Class 6 1.00 1.00
Vehicte,.cJass
Class7 . Class s. Ciass 9, : (:las~ 1.0 G.Ia$s:11 Clas.s. f2 crass 13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
2 of 10
April May June July August September October November December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i.OO
i .OO i. OO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 3, Default Distribution)
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
3.3%
Class 5
34 .0%
Class 6
11.7%
Class 7
1.6%
Class 8
9.9%
Class 9
36.2%
Class 10
1.0%
Class 11
1.8%
Class 12
0.2%
Class 13
0.3%
Hourly truck traffic distribution blY pen.od beg.mm.ng:
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00 am
2.3% 1:00pm
5.9%
2:ooam
2.3% 2:00 piJJ
5.9%
3:00am
2.3% 3:0"0 pm
5.9%
4:00am
2.3% 4:oopm
4.6%
p:OO am
2.3% o:oopm.
4:6%
6:00 ain
5.0% 6:00 pril
4.6%
7:00am
a:oo am
5.0% 7:QO.pn) 5.0% 8:00 pri't
4.6% 3.1%
9:00am
1o:oo am
5.0% 9:00pm 5.9% 10:00 pm
3.1% 3.1%
11 :ooam
5.9% 11 :00 pm
3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class. Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic --Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
VehiCle
Cl ~ss
Class 4
Single Tandem ' Tridem
Axle
& le ' Axle
1.00
0.00
0.00
Quad Axle.
0.00
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
3 of 10
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.44
0.44
0.00
0.00
1.07
1.92
0.10
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions,ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi):
120
Average Axle Spacing
Tandem axle(psi):
51.6
Tridem axle(psi):
49.2
Quad axle(psi):
49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude {degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation {ft) Depth of water table {ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33 .38 -84 .26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-40D G* based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties
General
Reference
temperature
(F 0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9
6
145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 16
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
36
% Passing #200 sieve:
6
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
High temp.
Thermal Cracking Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in .lin.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
ow
Load Temp.
Tim~
-4oF
(s~) . ..(1/p.si)
1 2.7E-07
2 2.96E-07
5 3.33E-07
10 3.65E-07
20 3.99E-07
50 4.5E-07
100 4.92E-07
Mia . Temp. 14F (1/psi) 4.26E-07 4.96E-07 6.05E-07 7.04E-07 8.19E-07
1E-06 1.16E-06
H.lgn Temp.
32F (1/psi) 5.74E-07 7.31E-07 1.01E-06 1.28E-06 1.63E-06 2.25E-06 2.86E-06
393.04 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Layer 2 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%):
Asphalt concrete
2
70 10.3
4 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11:44 AM
Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
6 146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fo): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 32
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
49
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
temp.
oc
Layer 3 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete
3
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ) :
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3
6
148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fo): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67
0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 21
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 39
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
45
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
5 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
Asphalt Binder Option : A VTS :
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
6 of 10
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 6
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 30000
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1 6
No 8.7 16.7 48.7 0.1152 0.5715 1.417 9.111 26.11
Si ~ve
0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16
Percent Passing
8.7 12.9
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
#10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 21/2" 3" 31/2" 4"
33.8
72.7 88.8 100 100
100 100
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pet): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content (%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Pare~ meters a b
c
Hr.
Value 3.7678 1.7964 0.74507 117.4
127.9 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.02801 (derived) 7.0 (derived) 59.9 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-7-6
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
A-7-6 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0 .35 0.5 11500
30 51 No 27.6 87.8 100 0.001101 0.01212 0.08053 0.196 0.6547
7 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 31/2"
4"
Percent Passing
27.6
68 .2
87.8
93 99.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100 100
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fVhr): Optimum gravimetric water content (%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soi! water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a
b
c
Hr.
Value
101.85 0.72477 0.25918
500
120.7 (derived) 2. 70 (derived) 6.814e-006 (derived) 10.6 (derived) 72.5 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally
AC Fatigue
calibrated values)
k1
0.007566
k2
3 .9492
k3
1.281
AC Rutting k1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412
8 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11:44 AM
k2
1.5606
k3
0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0 .8026)+0 .001
Thermal Fracture k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std . Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue k1
k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular: k1 Fine-grain: k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1 1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0 6000
1.13+13/(1 +exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTIOM+0.0001)))
CSM Cracking C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
Standard Deviation (CSM)
1 1 0
1000
CTB*1
IRI
9 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :44 AM
IRi HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40
0.4
0.008 0.015
IRI HMAIPCC Pavements C1(HMA/PCC) C2(HMA/PCC) C3(HMA/PCC) C4(HMA/PCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 10
Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default. dgp 10/14/2008 11 :58 AM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking -Longitudinal
3000
2700 -1
I
I
I
j
-'-----..i-~.- -~-
.
___ .......I.,.__...,_.
"" ,).. ~
''
----+-- ....,...,,., ,.' -~
., :~ -wo.---. ~~- . __ ,.,. J ., __
2400 ~--
.-..:-------1------- l--
r
.------------ ---- - ..- . - - ! 1 -- ----- --- -- ;i._.-- -----
+- - - - 2100
-!-----------i'-
, _
_
_
_
'
_!_
__
---
~ E ~ 0'1 1800 ~ c o
.C_IS
0 1500
--
CCIS
j-.a5- 1200
900
I ~
I .
I '
;1 _ _____ _ ___rt _ _____ ..-j---
I ,
,
; ! I
,
,
j
-- -~-- --
I
,. ' I - .....-+'r ----- -1'-- ---------;.--
l
:
I
I
I
! :
--t- - .......... -- . --- ..... -- ~.. ---- ...
I
l
:
I ---!' -- l'
.
i
_ I
_L_,., -
'
--,-----
'
--..-- ----1--;~_ji ---..-;..
--. ...... ~--.. --
!
600
.. ....,-
_ _I_
-surface
= -o- Depth 0.5"
--Surface at Reliability
-Design Limit
300
0 ~ Ill 0
i
, l
24
48
'"I"
:-----
----1.....
. '
'iii"" r ihiiiillihiiijmmmuaallllll"/"m"'""m"fi ' iiiil!!!l!lll""".'m";;""""""""lw"""";;;""""
I
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 11 :54 AM
1 of 'l
Bottom Up Cracking - Alligator
100
90 -l-
----t--- ---~ ---~---~
- -- ~-
.,.,... - ,_ . -j--~-~
~--"'
1
i
so
I
-.- --- --~
-- - - ' '1 '
I
_ 70 i
I
-.0 _~ o 60 ~_____;I _
C)
I
1
1-------- i- - - - ~--------L--- .--\---
i .
l I
l i
I
___., i i
---. I ____..
---"-- ... --- -=---... - - ! -----, -- -
r:::
I
32
I
I
(.)
~
(...).
-0;a
50
-1--T. ------:i-
: l.
.!21 40
l
-;
-------:-- . . . . . ;- -I~-----I--r---,I~----w--:I-
I
I l
-
l
;
--J!-- - - - +------1 -~-----;----.- --- ~--
<(
I l
30 +-----".,
;
. -
!-
j
i l
. !
~
I
f i
I
!
I
I
) t
t
:
I
'!"----------~!----:"----t--------;--
---- --
t
,
I
I
1
I
20 -t~---~: -
-I
1 ,
l
i
~-~ --- ~
\ ;
-- - -------1I
I . -~I --- l- -~.----->---
~----__.L.. --.--
!
-- -- -~- --~
,
l
.
.
.
10
I
l--
. 1 ... ...___,~-----
I
r--r--
;I ----:J---~----~----
!
0 1;
i !
iii!
t
!
t' j
l
i
l
i
I
I
., 'I@ =>
I
"'"'
.
(
\
I
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
-Maximum Cracking -Bottom Up Reliability -Maximum Cracking Limit
Low volume-2-3-6-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:01 PM
0.80
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
.
1 of 1
0.70 - -
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
0.60
.
- --- - -
90%;Reliability
~~::.:~::~ ~~~-;..;.-....~..........~..-- :;::~~;;;;~ - .. I
1 ;
~ i
:
j
0.50 -----;------+-----~-L.--~- --~ ~.~~-- - -- -~-- ~ - -. ____,.
c
I
I
;
.. -~~- - -- ~0% Reliability
:.::.
J::
c..
C1)
~<D:J:D:~Jlrr--
i
. '
r'--. ;.- -
--- ~ ____,._
-
';, 0.40
E c
::::J
0::: 0.30
i
,1.
Subgrade
-- -- - - - - ~--
I ' ---- ~..- " .
I
--- l ------..- ! ....
. .........,....."",_, .., ,-~ -----
)
_ I
!.._-----_..._.._, -.... "' ~
0.10 ;
--
L,.,., ! """' '
0.00
0
24
- -1-- - - ---~ - -- - -~ -- -- - - - - ---!,
! """' "'"'J"""'"' 00"""":!!lliliiiiiil"11 """"':""""' "'"'""" """""' ,,.,/,
____ HMA _.
-- ---- -~-----:----
" "" "'"""" "' ""'"""'~ A~~~;~~te Base
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
Project: Rural Minor-2-7-12-pooractual.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
Analysis Parameters
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description: Rural Minor Arterial-poor soil-actual data
1 of 16
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (ft/mile) : AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking) (%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (fUmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking (%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Rural Minor Arterial-poor soil-actual data
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end : Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTT:
240
Number of lanes in design direction:
1
Percent of trucks in design direction(%):
50
Percent of trucks in design lane(%):
100
Operational speed (mph):
55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Month
Vehicle Glass
Class 4 Clas_s 5 Class s Class 7 Cla~s fl Class 9 . Clas$ to
January
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
February
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class 1~1-- -Giass-, 12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class 13 1.00 1.00 1.00
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
April
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
May
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
June
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
July
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
August
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
September
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
October
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
November
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 of 16
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 1, Site Specific Distribution )
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
0.0%
Class 5
13.9%
Class 6
15.5%
Class 7
0.2%
Class 8
5.6%
Class 9
60.7%
Class 10
1.1%
Class 11
2.3%
Class 12
0.5%
Class 13
0.2%
Hourly truck traffic distribution
by -~e nod begmnmg:
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00am
2.3% 1:00pm
5.9%
2:00 arn
2.3% 2:00pm
5.9%
3:00am
2.3% 3:00pm
5.9%
4:00 ani
2.3% 4:00pm
4.6%
5:00am
2.3% 5:00pm
4.6%
6:00am
5.0% 6:00.pm
4.6%
7:00am
5.0% 7:00pm
4.6%
8:00am
5.0% 8:00pm
3.1%
9:00am
5.0% 9:00pm
3.1%
10:00 am
5.9% 10:00 pm
3.1%
11:00 am
5.9% 11 :00 pm
3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 crass 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic -- Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
1 0
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehicle Glass Class 4
Single Tandem Tridem
Axle
Axle
Axle
2.00
0.00
0.00
Quad Axle
0.00
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
3 of 16
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.46
0.46
0.00
0.00
1.08
1.93
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.50
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions,ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle(psi): Tridem axle(psi): Quad axle(psi):
51 .6 49 .2 49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33 .38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete
1.5
70
10.9 6
145.1
0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
Thermal Properties
Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) :
0.67
Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F o):
0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1
855234 566220 155484 42360 10000
0.5 866483 741295 258053 76594 18079
Mixture E~ (psi)
1
5
880544 993030
821334 1009408
309866 457657
103212 178704
25732 54139
10 1133637 1092157 532850 221330
69651
25 1555460 1219071 677287 297097
91155
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data
0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp. OF
120 140 275 77
.
Thermal Crackmg Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
Binder P.roperty
13000 2200 450 1.03
474.77 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Load Tinie (sec)
1 2
5
10 20 50 100
LOW
Temp. 4F
(1'/psi) 3.34E-07 3.76E-07
4.4E-07 4.95E-07 5.57E-07 6.51 E-07 7.32E-07
Mid.
Temp~
14F (1/psl) 5.04E-07 6.04E-07 7.68E-07 9.21E-07 1.11 E-06 1.41 E-06 1.69E-06
ttlgh Temp. 32F (1/psi) 6.74E-07 9.15E-07 1.37E-06 1.86E-06 2.53E-06 3.78E-06 5.14E-06
Layer 2 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Asphalt concrete
2
70
4 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids (%) : Total unit weight (pcf):
10.3 6 146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo) :
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14
40 70 100 130
0.1
948063 631790 199557 42729 12326
0.5
958932 805188 316779 80331 23153
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
972518 1081207
884998 1078331
376079 538752
107691 193954
33357 69403
10 1217068 1161103 616747 238578
91706
25
1624650 1275247 727400 307156 127327
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
T~st
Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
Of
120 140 275
77
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 3 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 7
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3 6 148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0.67 0.23
5 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies :
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1
840879 573018 200017 46395 10000
0.5
851932 753399 316664 80273 15326
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
865748 976279
833300 1031157
374644 539280
106866 195998
22569 46188
10
1114443 1111954 622684 247581 59240
25
1528934 1272170 769096 316573 71922
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 13304
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1 6
No 8.7 16.7 48.7 0.1152 0.5715 1.417 9.111 26.11
SitW~ .
0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
Perc~nt Passhig
6 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
#200 #100 #80 #GO #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10
#8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 21/2" 3" 31/2" 4"
8.7
12.9
33 .8
72.7 88.8 100 100 100 100
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr): Optimum gravimetric water content (%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 3.7678 1.7964 0.74507 117.4
127.9 (derived} 2.70 (derived) 0.02801 (derived) 7.0 (derived) 59.9 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-7-6
Unbound Material: Thickness(in) :
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL)
A-7-6 Sem i-infinite
Level 3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 3048
30 51
7 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%) : 010(mm) D20(mm) 030(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
No
79 .1 88 .8 94 .9 0.0002309 0.0005333 0.001231 0.01516 0.6616
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"
1" 1 1/2"
2" 2 1/2"
3" 3 1/2"
4"
Percent Passing
79.1 84.9
88 .8
93 94.9 96.9 97.5 98.3 98.8 99.3 99.6
99.9 99.9
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pet): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fVhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters. a
b
c Hr.
VaJt.e
136.42 0.51828 0.032384
500
97.7 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 8.946e-006 (derived) 22.2 (derived) 82.7 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
8 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
AC Fatigue
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 0.007566 3.9492 1.281
AC Rutting
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3 .35412 1.5606 0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0 .001
Thermal Fracture
k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue
k1
k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1
Fine-grain:
k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking
C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1 1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001 )))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0 6000
1.13+13/(1+exp(7.57-15.5*log(BOTTOM+0.0001 )))
CSM Cracking
9 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:05 PM
C1 (CSivi) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
1 1 0 1000
Standard Deviation (CSM) CTB*1
IRI IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40 0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMA/PCC Pavements C1(HMNPCC) C2(HMNPCC) C3(HMNPCC) C4(HMNPCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 16
Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:07 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal
3000
i
1
I
'
I
I
I
:
.
2700 -1- -
!
1-~--+-- -----~----- .~- ~-
1
I '
I
i
I
2400 -----+I l
I I
1
. I
I :
r- - :- ! _____
(
~
J.
I
I ___ _ I
21 00
--r
i
= E
!
-;; 1800 -----~-----+--
r:::
~
...cuu
0 1500 - - ---- :
.. .. - - ... . - ---
:
I l
---~ - __..._-
T> ---------I-------
I
i
:
i .
I l
-- '- - - -- I --- lI --- ---i-
-. ~ ~; -
~- - -' -
cu r:::
"0
~ 1200 - --I
:
C)
r:::
0
...J
(
900 ------r-~-~
1
!
i
--
1\ -
-
-
.. l -!--
-
--
-+I .
-~ -
-
... - ~- --------,------,~---
- -'+--
l
!
1
I
600
:
- --~i----
l
!
'
300 I
;
:: ~
!
:
-:-
'
'";. iii!
!
I I
------
_, ......_._!..... ,..,
. - _._.. ___..,-
~-..'~-~
~
~
I
I
I:: ; ; ;; ;
; -;;; -;- - -
~ u:m~
~-- --- --
iiliii!; , - -- '
-surface
= -o- Depth 0.5"
-Surface at Reliability
-Design Limit
0 -1
iiliii iii!Jii
I
I
:
'
I
ii!@O
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
21I 6
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:07 PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking- Alligator
100
I
I
l
i
90 -l-
j
l
--- ---w~ - -----+----~
----~ ~-- ---l-----J_... - -- -~- -- --
.Jc....,.._.-.,~"
I I
I '
. I
t
I
I
. I I
I
80 -!1- - - + - - -- ---o-- _, ____Ii __ ----' - - - .._ - ~--I--- - --
I
!
!
____,___ _.__ ____ 70
I I ----,~ -t--
l
i_-
. - -- --- . --
~ --;- I
cen 60
!
;
--+---- II
! I
- -.-
'
t
t-~ ---- -
:~
,
I
:
,
E
(...).
50 i
~
.!2l 40
.
- - -r'---- I . .
1
I '
~---!- --
I
. :
i
-'~--------0 --+-----:- --
l
!
.
--r +---+,i - ____.;.;_ ......___-
-:-
<(
30 +- - - -
!
--~-----,-
. )
j
:
;
' . - I -~----4!---~~-...;i-- ----
---~ t--"" ___,...____ ...........,
-----
'
1
!
20 i 10
I
~--~-.- I -+-
.....
I
I
r~-
I
l I
-1 r - - -I:
.!.,..---+-~
i
~ I : - . ___ _ j_ ........
I --r-~~~ I
'
-.,! -----
I
---1~
I
-Maximum Cracking --Bottom Up Reliability
J
--Maximum Cracking Limit
1
0
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Rural Minor-2-7-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:1 0 PM
0.80
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
1 of 1
0.70
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
0.60 ..J_ . -- -c - )_ _ __ -
_..lq~-~~Jl~biltty_ -- -
1-
50% Reliability
- 0.50 -'--~ -- ~ - ...&Y- - - : . - - -~1- ---~~- ...-~- -
::s=:::..
~--~-: -
...sc.:....
cQ) 0.40
- - - - J_ - - -- - -r -
I
C)
s:::
I
E
:::s
0:: 0.30
,________,~_---- ----+ ------- -..J.-- "-------:- - ---- ___ ,____.,_.......
Subgrade
--I
0.20 ;F 0.10 -l
. .....- .....---~:--~-- ._.......... '
---1it
j
I
i
I ' . ---..,... -,~.. <=--....... ,...._.,..f' _ _ _
I
'
'
- t . __. . . - ,...,.___ -,-! . ,_ __........-.. . ........... ..... .
~
1
;
I
i i
: ~--! --- -
-~--
.....
---
-
---
___ _, __
,_
-i ~--
--
- ;_ _ ,.
-
.
Aggregate Base
-- - ---------
HMA
0.00 0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
Project: Low volume-2-3-12-gooddefault.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description : Rural Minor Arterial -good soil
Analysis Parameters
1 of 10
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) Terminal IRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (fUmile) : AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (fUmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking (%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Low Volume Highway
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTI:
240
Number of lanes in design direction:
1
Percent of trucks in design direction (%):
50
Percent of trucks in design lane(%):
100
Operational speed (mph):
55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
Month January February March
Class 4 1.00 1.00 1.00
Class5 1.00 1.00 1.00
crass s
1.00 1.00 1.00
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Vehicle Cl ~ss
Class 7 etass .s Class9
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Cl.ass 10 1.00 1.00 1.00
C!ass u
1.00 1.00 1.00
Class 12 class 1:3'
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
2 of 10
April May June July August September October November December
AI.U' "U'
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AI.U' "U'
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 3, Default Distribution)
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4 Class 5
1.8% 24.6%
Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12
7.6% 0.5% 5.0% 31.3% 9.8% 0.8% 3.3%
Class 13
15.3%
Hourly truck traffic distribution
by pen'od begmnlr'lg~
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00am
2.3% 1:00pm
5.9%
2:00am 3: 00am
2.3% 2:oo prn 2.3% 3:00pm
5.9% 5.9%
4:ooam
2.3% 4:00pm
4.6%
5:00am
2.3% 5:00pm
4.6%
6:00am 7:00 arn
5.0% 6:00 Prh 5.0% 7:00 ptn
4.6% 4.6%
S:OOam 9:00am 10:oo am 11 :00 am
5.0% 8:00pm
5.0% ~:OQ pni
5.9% 1o:oo pm
5.9% ,11 :oo pni
3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic -- Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level 3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
'
Number of Axles per Truck
VehiCle Gl_ass Class 4
S!ngl:& T~ndem Tridem Quad_
AJI;I1Q.62'
'"
Axle 0 .3 9
Axle
' Axl ~
0.00
0.00
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
3 of 10
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.00 1.02 1.00 2.38 1.13 1.19 4.29 3.52 2.15
0.00 0.99 0.26 0.67 1.93 1.09 0.26 1.14 2.13
0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.06 0.06 0.35
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions, ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle(psi): Tridem axle(psi): Quad axle(psi):
51.6 49.2 49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees. minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft}
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974
3
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-40D G* based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9
6
145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative% Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 16
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
36
% Passing #200 sieve:
6
Asphalt Binder
Thermal Cracking Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
Low
Mid.
H1gh
Load Temp. Temp. Temp.
Time -4F
14F
32F
(sec) .(1/ps i) (1/psi) (1/psi)
1 2.7E-07 4.26E-07 5.74c-07
2 2.96E-07 4.96E-07 7.31 E-07
5 3.33E-07 6.05E-07 1.01 E-06
10 3.65E-07 7.04E-07 1.28E-06
20 3.99E-07 8.19E-07 1.63E-06
50 4.5E-07' 1E-06 2.25E-06
100 4.92E-07 1.16E-06 2.86E-06
0.67 0.23
393.04 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Layer 2 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 2
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
10.3 6 146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties
Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ):
0.67
Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 32
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
49
4 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
Asphalt Binder Option:
A
VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
High temp.
Layer 3 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 3
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (Fo):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3 6 148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt {BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67
0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 21
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 39
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
45
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
Asphalt Binder Option:
A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
temp.
5 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
... ,.
10
82
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 30000
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve (%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1
6 No
8.7 20 44 .7 0.1035 0.425 1.306 10.82 46.19
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10
#8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 21/2" 3" 3 .1/2" 4"
Percent Passing
8.7 12.9
20
33.8 44.7 57.2 63.1 72.7 78.8 85.8 91 .6
97.6 97.6
6 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%) : Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 7.2555 1.3328 0.82422 117.4
127.2 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.05054 (derived) 7.4 (derived) 61.2 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-2-4 Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
A-2-4 Semi-infinite
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level 3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 21500
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve (%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
2
14 No 22.4 67.2 87.2 0.001921 0.0369 0.1115 0.3476 7.383
Si~Ve
0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20
Percent Passi~g_
22.4 42.3 67.2
7 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
.,,.~
Tt"IU
#10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2"
3" 3 1/2"
4"
82 .5
87 .2 91 .6 93 .5 95 .9 97.2 98 .5 99
99 .6 99 .6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ftlhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 9.5043 0.64386 3.0636 189.6
124.0 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.0005854 (derived) 9.0 (derived) 67.5 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally
AC Fatigue
calibrated values)
k1
0.007566
k2
3.9492
k3
1.281
AC Rutting
k1 k2 k3
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412 1.5606 0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0 .001
Thermal Fracture
k1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
8 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12: 12 PM
CSM Fatigue
k1 k2
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
1 1
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1 Fine-grain:
k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking
C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
7 3.5 0 1000
Standard Deviation (TOP) 200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0
6000
1.13+13/(1 +exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTTOM+0.0001 )))
CSM Cracking
C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
Standard Deviation (CSM)
1 1 0
1000
CTB*1
IRI
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40
0.4
0.008 0.015
IRI HMA/PCC Pavements C1 (HMA/PCC) C2(HMA/PCC) C3(HMA/PCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014
9 of 10
Input Summary: Project Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:12 PM
f'\ f"'I"O"lC U.UUU~v
10 of 10
Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:13 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking -Longitudinal
3000
'
l
:
I
~- i ._.___- -- l 2700 ----___II1__--- , i------~--~-'-~-- - ----t
(
____________!____ _' -- 2400
- .---- I "" ' ~~ .....
--. -- ..... ~-
- ~ ... !._...
2100
- - ---.
:::-
'
i -
=-E
Cl 1800 ~~~ - -....;---.--- --r -~ -- - - . -
- - --,--
c
I
32
(.J
0ca 1500 ~~-- -
l
I
'
I
.i- .
I
----- -
- - - - - - -
ca
:e="C 1200
Cl
s::: 0 ...J
900
- _; - ~ - - -
!
~
-- ---,
I '
600
--1
I
------j--
...__!..._. ........ -
300 LF= I
I 1
-j-~l~
i . ----"--~-----------r--'--- ---------~- -----~-----
" -l
I
!
. .!. . . , ! """""""""";""""'"'""'""";"' iliihili!jhil!lliiili!j..ililjilililllllllh........, ........,,,,,,,,
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
Pavement Age (month)
-surface
= -o- Depth 0.5"
-Surface at Reliability --Design Limit
I 264
Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp
10/14/2008 12:13 PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
100 90 ~---
'--- - -- :
; 1
[______ _t- - - - -...,;.--- - ---~--. -- ------ - - - i
80 ; - --- -,l -
I
l
70 ----;-- - -- 4--
-~ 60
C)
:.t;;:;::
...0
C'CS
0...
~ 0
tn
-
<
50
l40 -
30
j __ l
I
I
_
:
L
_
_ __.L
.
i t
. --~I -
l.II"'
i
i
20 1
! l
f
10 1
.- I
-
I
0
0
24
48
-rI - - - - ' --
i
- - --i - - ---- -:- -- ....
--,I-
I
i -- -j------ -! --- ------ -.----- - -- -- --- -
I
.
j
--~
---''-- ---- --- - <-["
-~ -(--
J
; '
:
'
- - -i---- ---,-- -
I
'
--ll~'-- ---r- -
--.---- - - -- - ----- ----- t....---- --f--- ~-'~- ---- -
!
i-
-
l_
.
~
+i --~-
-
-Li --~---1 -
__ ___ - - _ ______ ,, .. ,........,.
. .........: .- .
,_,.
I l I ! ---f--:
~-L-!
~
jI _
__
_
I
L _
I
l
I
I
_
_ L
!
_
_
-
-
lIt-
--!-
I
--'--~ -- -~
I
hiiiillihlhiiiddl
iiliilih
II!
iihiiiii.
-Maximum Cracking -o- Bottom Up Reliability -Maximum Cracking Limit
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Low volume-2-3-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:16 PM
0.80 0.70 ..._ 0.60 -1
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
- ..._ l _,_. .. '- ........ ...
- - - .,___..... --- ---- --- ---!----
~ .!a~- - - ,, . -
1 of 1
- 0.50
1:
-.I:
c.
cQ) 0.40
C)
1:
E a:::I:
0.30 -j
- ------ - -,--
1
-1 '---- -
--t -
- - ---+---- - - --.------- - --- ---
l
_____L ----- -~----
!
t
- sp%Hemaoility -so%-Re1ia.bility
0.20 ++--~ .
:
Subgrade
-- ---- - ------- ------------"------------- -- -----
0.00 0
__ ______ _._
-- -- -- -- - - - -
HMA
Aggregate Base
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
Project: Rural Minor-2-6-12-goodactual.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description: Rural Minor Arterial-good soil-actual data
Analysis Parameters
1 of 16
Performance Criteria
Initial IRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (fUmile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) {fUmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation {Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking (%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Rural Minor Arterial-poor soil-actual data
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTT:
240
Number of lanes in design direction:
1
Percent of trucks in design direction (%):
50
Percent of trucks in design lane (%):
100
Operational speed (mph):
55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Month January February March
_Class 4 1.00 1.00 1.00
Classs: , Cla$5~
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class 7 1.00 1.00 1.00
Vehicle,Ciass .
Class 8 'CI~ss 9
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
: Class ~Q 1.00 1.00 1.00
Class11- C.la.~s 12: Class 13 '
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
2 of 16
April May June July August September October November December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 1, Site Specific Distribution )
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
0.0%
Class 5
13.9%
Class 6
15.5%
Class 7
0.2%
Class 8
5.6%
Class 9
60 .7%
Class 10
1.1%
Class 11
2.3%
Class 12
0.5%
Class 13
0.2%
Hourly truck traffic distribution
b>Y pen.odbegm. m.ng:
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00am 2:00am
2.3% 1:00pm 2.3% 2:0Q pm
5.9% 5.9%
3:00am
2.3% '3:00pm
5.9%
4:00am
2.3% 4:00pm
4.6%
5:00am
2.3% 5:oo prn
4.6%
6,:00 am .
7:00 qni
8:00am
5.0% 6:oopm
5.0% T:oo pm
5.0% 8:00pm
4.6% 4.6% 3.1%
9:ooam
1o:oo am
5.0% 9:oopm 5.9% 1:0:00pm
3.1% 3.1%
11:oo:am
5.9% 11:00 pm
3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate. 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic -- Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic --General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehic[e I @lass Class 4
Slrigle Tandem Tridem
Axle
Axle
Axle -
2.00
0.00
0.00
Quad ~le
0.00
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
3 of 16
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.03 1.00 0.00 2.46 1.08 1.00 5.00 4.00 2.00
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.46 1.93 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions, ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle(psi): Tridem axle(psi): Quad axle(psi):
51.6 49.2 49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table {ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9
6
145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ) :
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1
855234 566220 155484 42360 10000
0.5
866483 741295 258053 76594 18079
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
880544 993030
821334 1009408
309866 457657
103212 178704
25732 54139
10
1133637 1092157 532850 221330 69651
25
1555460 1219071 677287 297097 91155
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0
0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosityjP) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Thermal Crackmg Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
474.77 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Loa~
Time ( s e.c ) ,
1 2 5 10 20 50 100
.Low
Mid.
Temp. Temp.
-4oF
14"F
(1'/psi) ' (1/psi)
3.34E-07 5.04E-07
3.76E-07 6.04E-07
4.4E-07 7.68E-07
4.95E-07 9.21E-07
5.57E-07 1.11 E-06
6.51E-07 1.41 E-06
7.32E-07 1.69E-06
High T emp.
32"F (.1/psi) 6.74E-07 9.15E-07 1.37E-06 1.86E-06 2.53E-06 3.78E-06 5.14E-06
Layer 2 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Asphalt concrete
2
70
4 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids (%): Total unit weight (pet):
10.3
6
146.4
Poisson's ratio :
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1 948063 631790 199557 42729 12326
0.5 958932 805188 316779 80331 23153
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
972518 1081207
884998 1078331
376079 538752
107691 193954
33357 69403
10 1217068 1161103 616747 238578
91706
25 1624650 1275247 727400 307156 127327
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Property_
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 3 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 6
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%}: Total unit weight (pcf}:
8.3
6
148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 } : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo}:
0.67 0.23
5 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
().1 840879 573018 200017 46395 10000
0.5 851932 753399 316664 80273 15326
Mixture E* (psi)
1
.5
865748 976279
833300 1031157
374644 539280
106866 195998
22569 46188
10 1114443 1111954 622684 247581
59240
25 1528934 1272170 769096 316573
71922
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Test Softenin_g p_oint(P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 13304
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve (%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30{mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
, Si'e:v~ 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
; Per~eot .~ass it1 g
1 6
No 8.7 16.7 48.7 0.1152 0.5715 1.417 9.111
26.11
6 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"
1" 11/2"
2" 21/2"
3" 3 1/2"
4"
8.7
12.9
33.8
72.7 88.8 100 100 100 100
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters
a
b
c
Hr.
Valu.e
3.7678 1.7964 0.74507 117.4
127.9 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.02801 (derived) 7.0 (derived) 59.9 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-2-4
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL)
A-2-4 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 15914
2 14
7 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%) : Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
No 22.4 67.2 87.2 0.001921 0.0369 0.1115 0.3476 7.383
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10
#8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
Percent Passing
22.4 42.3
67.2
82.5 87.2 91.6 93.5 95.9 97.2 98.5 99
99.6 99.6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value
9.5043 0.64386 3.0636
189.6
124.0 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.0005854 (derived) 9.0 (derived) 67.5 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
8 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
AC Fatigue
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 0.007566 3.9492 1.281
AC Rutting
k1
k2 k3
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412 1.5606 0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT) :
0 . 2 4 * P O W E R ( R U T , 0 .8026)+0.001
Thermal Fracture
k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue
k1
k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1
Fine-grain:
k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking
C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
1 1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1 +exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0 6000
1.13+13/(1 +exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTIOM+0.0001 )))
CSM Cracking
9 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:17 PM
C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
1 1 0 1000
Standard Deviation (CSM) CTB*1
IRI
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40
0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMA/PCC Pavements C1 (HMA/PCC) C2(HMA/PCC) C3(HMA/PCC) C4(HMA/PCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 16
Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:18 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking -Longitudinal
3000
1
. i
' 1
'
'
2700
I ;
j
-
-
-
..
1
-
-
--.
-
-
I------.f--.,..,.__-~--
I
I
.
.
.
.-.-.
--2...i.~-
.
_ ... __
-
--
~......:...:.-
;. __,.._......_....,;.___. -
-----~i.- -
2400 ' ---.J
I
--:- I
;
I
--~----r --
_.:__ ---- --!--
----+ -- - 2100 +---~--
:::-
:
_____ _,.. !__ - -
I
__j_ -
I
~
-; 1800
:.c;:
---r---It
__I_
!1
. . ------~- - - --;-- .
!
- - - - ,_l_, .... ----t-
1
1
'
I
(J
0ca 1500 -1- - -
t
'I
:
-i -
;
'
I
l - -;--- j
i
_ _l_
I
cca
l
"C
~ 1200
-1 --- - -,
Cl
s::: 0 ...J
900
I !
I
~-~'
---.!--
--. --...
.
---~---~--+~ -----;~~------- . .,..:.--- "' . _. ,._. .------~ ' ..... --": ' '<
-surface -Depth= 0.5" -Surface at Reliability --Design Limit
300~
!
0 j
" II
'
:
i
I
'-
' I
- ~I: - - -<II' -- - ' ... .'... -- - ....... - .....
I ~'"
,
""'i' """"""""""";"'"""""'""""':llliil"'iii" llll!i!l'f""m"m """
I
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:18 PM
1 of'
100
l
90 -l-----r1 I
80 +
~
70 -1
--0~ 60 ___,__
C)
c
:i:
-.uC.'G.
u...
50 -1
0
C'G
-~ 40 -1
~
30 i---~-r
20
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
i
!
j
I
I ! ; r
'
i
I
i
--~-1-~--, ~.......1i~-------.:---J-I ...-
; I
l
I '
i \
' I
!
'
!
t
i
:
-
.'.
.
...........
I
~~""""" +
I
--~ ..- - - + -
---I
----;; -----~I:--- ~
:
_____ -
___ ,.,. .
! -t-- I
1
.- --- ---- ~- - ----T _., __ ,
I
"i - .... ..c.... - - -
1
{
!
I
---~ - -- ~} --
.t - - -i ---.
- - -- - -. -~
I
- - ---j--- ---+-~-~'"'!-.....::------
- --
- :
I
J____ _ _ _-_ _
I
--,l
! ---~--
i
-Maximum Cracking --o- Bottom Up Reliability --Maximum Cracking Lirnit
10
0 l"'"iiii I
Ii""U!!
iiil"bll
i
"tiiii'liii""' \
;
iii!
"""" '
I
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age {month)
Rural Minor-2-6-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:20 PM
0.80
.
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
1 of 1
0.70
-- ---~ ---- ..~-..-r-- . -- - --:
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5
Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
0.60 +
l
-
0.50
-s:::
.s:::
-cccu. 0.40
C)
s:::
E
::I
0::: 0.30
. I I
j
j
;
-
j
---~--~
------
-
-,~--
-
-----
I
~,
.
-
--i
-----
.. _ ....._ ;
1
.
l
1
- ---__,.:..- ----+ --- -
.
-
' 90% Reliability
- 56%-R:eflability
~ i !
- --+I - -
- i-- - - -
~a,um:c:r1I;p--
j
___ ~
1 '
.__J __ _ _ __
r-i
. I
-
~~-- -rI
-~ --
--;l ---. I
-~:
-,
. .. subgrade
~ I
0.00 1
t
0
24
-;
I
48
-r u__ _
HMA
Aggregate Base
I
I
I
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
lnput Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07PM
Project: Rural 4 lane-2-5-12-Poordefault.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description: Rural Primary Arterial 4 lane- Poor soil-Default
Analysis Parameters
1 of 10
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (ftlmile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (ft!mi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking (%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Rural 4 lane - poor soil
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTT: Number of lanes in design direction: Percent of trucks in design direction (%): Percent of trucks in design lane(%): Operational speed (mph):
1800 2
50 85 55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Vehi cl~ Class
Month January
Class 4 Cfass5 Class 6 . Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10. Class n~ c1ass12 Class13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
February March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/1 4/2008 4:07 PM
April May June July August September October November December
i .OO
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i .UU
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1. 00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i .00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i.OU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i .ou
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
; .ou
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 of 10
i. OO i .uo
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 3, Default Distribution)
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
1.8%
Class 5
24 .6 %
Class 6
7.6%
Class 7
0.5%
Class 8
5.0%
Class 9
"31.3%
Class 10
9.8%
Class 11
0.8%
Class 12
3.3%
Class 13
15.3%
Hourly truck traffic distribution
b>Y pen.od beg.mnm. g:
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00am
2.3% 1:00pm
5.9%
2:00am
2.3% 2:00 pro
5.9%
3:00am
2.3% 3:00pm
5.9%
4:00am
2.3% 4:00pm
4.6%
5:00am
2.3% 5:00pm
4.6%
6:00am
5.0% 6:00 prii"
4:6%
7:00am
5.0% 7 :00 phl
4.6%
8:00am
5.0% 8:00pm
3.1%
9:00am
5.0% 9:00pm
3.1%
1o:oo am
5.9% 10:00 pm
3.1%
11:00 am
5.9% 11 :00 pm
3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic -- Axie Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
Veh icle Class Class 4
Single Tandem Tridem
Axl e
Axle
Axl e
1.62
0.39
0.00
Qu ad . Axle
0.00
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07 PM
3 of 10
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.02
0.99
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.26
0.83
0.00
2.38
0.67
0.00
0.00
1.13
1.93
0.00
0.00
1.19
1.09
0.89
0.00
4.29
0.26
0.06
0.00
3.52
1. 14
0.06
0.00
2.15
2.13
0.35
0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions,ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle(psi): Tridem axle(psi): Quad axle(psi):
51 .6 49.2 49 .2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Volumetric Properties as BUilt Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9
6
145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07PM
Thermal Properties
Thermal conductivity asphalt {BTU/hr-ft-Fo) :
0.67
Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 16
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
36
% Passing #200 sieve:
6
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
gh temp.
Thermal Cracking Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: iviixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
Low
Mid.
High
Load Temp. Temp. Temp.
Time -4F
14F
32F
(sec) (1/psi) (1/psi) (1/psi)
1 2.7E-07 4.26E-07 5.74E-07
2 2.96E-07 4.96E-07 7.31E-07
5 3.33E-07 6.05E-07 1.01 E-06
10 3.65E-07 7.04E-07 1.28E-06
20 3.99E-07 8.19E-07 1.63E-06
50 4.5E-07 1E-06 2.25E-06
100 4.92E-07 1.16E-06 2.86E-06
393.04 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Layer 2 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%):
Asphalt concrete
2
70 10.3
4 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07PM
Air voids (%): Total unit weight (pcf) :
6 146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 32
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
49
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
High temp.
Layer 3 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 5
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ) :
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%}: Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3 6 148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 21
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 39
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
45
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
5 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07PM
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
High temp.
oc
46 52 58 64 70 76 82
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
Low temperature, oc
-10
''4';~
.. ...,,
-:.
~ I
.. . -16
-22
-28
f"'; ,. (c.:. l.l, .\ ~~.~'.-':"''~:.:.=t'~\~1~,_;, l ~i"~J1~.}~\' :tt,--\:".L.~.~R~;
-34
-40
-46
~"' -~-"~'l~...A
l.ii\fi' !~~~
'1P!J~~t&l 1.:;!;'!(J,.~.~':l.i-"1.,ll1:J1',
;<lt~ ~ ~.-- ~:.;.;'~''-'!t:'~"'~'~!
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 30000
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1 6
No 8.7 20 44.7 0.1035 0.425 1.306 10.82 46.19
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16
Percent Passh'lg
8.7 12.9 20
6 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07 PM
#10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
33.8
44.7 57.2 63.1 72.7 78.8 85.8 91.6
97.6 97.6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ftlhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 7.2555 1.3328 0.82422 117.4
127.2 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.05054 (derived) 7.4 (derived) 61.2 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-7-6
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
A-7-6 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 11500
30 51 No 79.1 88.8 94.9 0.0002309 0.0005333 0.001231 0.01516 0.6616
7 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07 PM
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
Percent Passing
79.1 84.9
88.8
93 94.9 96.9 97.5 98.3 98.8 99.3 99.6
99.9 99.9
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content (%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters
a
b c Hr.
Value 136.42 0.51828 0.032384
500
97.7 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 8.946e-006 (derived) 22.2 (derived) 82.7 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally
AC Fatigue
calibrated values)
k1
0.007566
k2
3.9492
k3
1.281
AC Rutting k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412
8 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07 PM
k2
1.5606
k3
0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0.001
Thermal Fracture k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue k1 k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1 Fine-grain:
k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking
C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level 3: NCH RP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1 1
Level3: NCHR.P 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7
3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1 +exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001 )))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0
6000
1.13+13/(1 +exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTTOM+0.0001)))
CSM Cracking
C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
Standard Deviation (CSM)
1 1 0
1000
CTB*1
IRI
9 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:07PM
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40 0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMAIPCC Pavements C1(HMNPCC) C2(HMNPCC) C3(HMNPCC) C4(HMNPCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 10
Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:08PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal
3000~----~-----,,-----~----~-----,~----.-----~------~----~----~-----r
2700 ~-
-l- ---1-- .. -t---. --r- ..
-----t-----::----:-- 2400
.
i \
.
I
I
.
I
j ---- ~-- ---
I
;
I
I
2100
1
I ~
----r- ----- ~-----
ri' -----T
....,_""--T----
..... -
::-
= ( E
I
-~ 1aoo - --rI-----T
:;:
i
.
-----Iwo~-- -t. .... - ..--...... ------ . -~--- -t-
i
1
I
- --..~ - '
~o~ 1500
.a 1200
g>
I
.
I
I
! - - -- .. - ~,. ----;-I-
- ________ ,_.. - - - - - . - - - -
I
I I
I I
li ..
--r----- ; ------ j-
'I
- .-- 1
0
...J
1 1-------;------ goo
I
I _j_I~
I!I
600 - - ----j
l . I -
I
t ___ -- 1-
- - -- _ __;___-! --- -- ....__
; 1
~:1 ---!-i . I
I
i
~I--- ~-
I I
-~i-
~--
I _.,.J
----- ----~
'
?" rS
I
--'--
I ~ I
I !;
' i
I ' - ---~- ------ - -l- -- ---- -;------ -------- , -- -
0 ~
I
'
t
:
I
I
!
;
i
:
.
i ,
I
:
liihh!ll llllllllllhil!lllllllli llhlllllllllllllllllii:
llllllhjllj
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
Pavement Age (month)
-surface
= __,_Depth 0.5"
-Surface at Reliability --Design Limit
I
264
Rural4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:08PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
100
9o -1- - - +- - -r.I - --
i
lII
-------
,__
1
. ----i
I
8o
l
-t------1----i- --.
l---- --r---.---~--.-
--
" ----
.,------ -----~--
.
70
-
i?fl. 60 .:.-:: 0~ 50
o
=~0 40 -
<(
30 -1
IrI -----11I ----
I
~-tt -
-
..
~-
I
I;--
.
-----
'
~l" .............
--.
-~ ..... .... -
:
:,~
! .
: '
' I
-I
.-- " I '
!
i
i
I
I ~
I
I
t
--~I ---r,-I ---;-r~
_j
- - . ! - - _ .......~......- _,......._! ~~ . - ----- .....: - ..............
I I -~1
l
---' f--
'
:
__j____ --
~
-- ~i - -----
'
'
'
-- ----- - - ..........:.
;
i
r
l
.
i
!
l I
I
I
1 -~-~ ~
rI------- I
;
!
-~--:-------
i
----.---- - - -----
:I---- --;.--
... --
. -
.
I
!
I
I
i
l
;
~----tj -- -'1 --~----;j--- -------,-- .. --- --:-- - -- ---
!
.
I
20 'I
-j
.
i .
: ~-~:-I
I
~--- - -------- ..----'-"-
-~-L
10
o 1
;
_j
I
I
\""""
~
,"iili" ~ ~iii
____ _..:.__
-"-._ -----'-- ---\-. ---
11!11!111111 II!@ iil\!l'l.ii!@iil jjjj
;
il@ii!ii:
I
-Maximum Cracking
J
--o- Bottom Up Reliability
--Maximum Cracking Limit
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Rural 4 lane-2-5-12-Poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 4:10 PM
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80
0.70 _, _ 0.60 ~
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
__ ,_... .,... .'~-
I
_ 1_
1 of 1
9~~ ~'eli~bllity 50% Reliability
- 0.50 + - - -----"-
r::::
..r.c::.:.:.
cQ) 0.40
C)
=r::::
:::J
0:: 0.30
! _ _,__,., _~,
I
'
---~-
0.10 -tr'-- - - - -l-!J--rtl!-:_--+'------+-
----;- ----
- . -
- 4 - ...!....--~--- - - ---- ----- -- ..
"" ~
---
subgrape
. ~Ht1A
-~ggre.gJ~ Bas~
0.00 0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
Project: Rural 4 lane-2-13-12-pooractual.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description : Rural Principal 4-lane-poor soil-actual data
Analysis Parameters
1 of 16
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (fUmile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (ft/mi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking (%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Rural Principal 4-lane-poor soil-actual data
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial t:wo-way AADTI: Number of lanes in design direction: Percent of trucks in design direction (%): Percent of trucks in design lane(%): Operational speed (mph):
1800 2
50 85 55
Traffic-- Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Month
~ebicle Clat;s
Class4 Ciass5 Class6 Class 7 Class 8 cJass 9
January
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
February
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Cia$~ 10 class '11' Cl~$s12 Class 13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
April May June July August September October November December
AI . U"U"
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AI . U"U"
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 of 16
i.OO
i.uo
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 1, Site Specific Distribution )
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
0.0%
Class 5
14.9%
Class 6
12.6%
Class 7
0.2%
Class 8
6.2%
Class 9
62.3%
Class 10
1.8%
Class 11
0. 7%
Class 12
0.8%
Class 13
0.5%
Hourly truck traffic distribution b)Y pen.odbeg.mnm. g :
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00am
2.3% 1;00 pm
5.9%
2:00am
2.3% 2:00pm
5.9%
3:00am
2.3% 3:00pm
5.9%
4:00am
2.3% 4:00 pril
4.6%
5:00am
s:ooam
7:00am
2.3% 5:00 pril .
5.0% 6:00 Pni
5.0% ?:00 pm
4 .6% 4.6% 4 .6%
8:.00 arri
5.0% 8:oopm
3.1%
9:00am
5.0% 9:0Q . pm
3.1%
10:00 am
11 :oo am
5.9% 10:00.pm 5.9% 1t:OOpm
3.1% 3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Functiqn Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic --Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level 3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehicle
Cl~ss
Class 4
Sing I ~ Tandem Tridem ' Quad
Axle
:A~Ie
Ax'e
Axle
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
3 of 16
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
2.47
0.53
0.00
0.00
1.08
1.93
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.33
0.44
0.22
4.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.25
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions, ft) :
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing
Tandem axle(psi):
51.6
Tridem axle(psi):
49.2
Quad axle(psi):
49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9 6 145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fa): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1 855234 566220 155484 42360 10000
0.5
866483 741295 258053 76594 18079
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
880544 993030
821334 1009408
309866 457657
103212 178704
25732 54139
10 1133637 1092157 532850 221330 69651
25
1555460 1219071 677287 297097
91155
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Test
Temp.
OF
Softening point (P)
120
Absolute viscosity (P)
140
Kinematic viscosity (CS)
275
Specific gravity
77
.
Thermal Crackmg Properttes
Average Tensile Strength at 14F:
Mixture VMA (%)
Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.)
Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
474.77 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Load
Time
(s~cj _-
1 2 5 10 20 50 100
Low Temp.
-4oF
(1/p~i)
3.34E-07 3.76E-07
4.4E-07 4.95E-07 5.57E-07 6.51E-07 7.32E-07
Mid. Temp.
1'4oF
(11psl) 5.04E-07 6.04E-07 7.68E-07 9.21E-07 1.11E-06 1.41E-06 1.69E-06
High
Temp.
32~F
(1/psi} 6.74E-07 9.15E-07 f.37E-06 1.86E-06 2.53E-06 3.78E-06 5.14E-06
Layer 2 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Asphalt concrete
2
70
4 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids (%): Total unit weight (pcf):
10.3 6 146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1 948063 631790 199557 42729 12326
0.5 958932 805188 316779 80331 23153
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
972518 1081207
884998 1078331
376079 538752
107691 193954
33357 69403
10 1217068 1161103 616747 238578
91706
25 1624650 1275247 727400 307156 127327
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
.oF
120 140 275 77
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 3 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 13
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids (%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3 6 148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
5 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural41ane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1 840879 573018 200017 46395 10000
0.5 851932 753399 316664 80273 15326
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
865748 976279
833300 1031157
374644 539280
106866 195998
22569 46188
10 1114443 1111954 622684 247581
59240
25
1528934 1272170 769096 316573
71922
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
T;est Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity_(P} Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone
12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 13304
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1 6
No 8.7 16.7 48.7 0.1152 0.5715 1.417 9.111 26.11
Sieve. 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
... Percent Passin_a
6 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
#200
8.7
#100
#80
#60
#50
12.9
#40
#30
#20
#16
#10
33.8
#8
#4
3/8"
1/2"
3/4"
72.7
1"
88.8
11/2"
100
2"
100
2 1/2"
3"
3 1/2"
100
4"
100
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 3.7678 1.7964 0.74507 117.4
127.9 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.02801 (derived) 7.0 (derived) 59.9 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-7-6
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL)
A-7-6 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 3048
30 51
7 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%) : Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
No
79.1 88 .8 94 .9 0.0002309 0.0005333 0.001231 0.01516 0.6616
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2"
3"
31/2" 4"
Percent Passing
79.1 84.9
88.8
93 94 .9 96 .9 97 .5 98.3 98.8 99.3 99.6
99.9 99.9
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ftlhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
.. Parameter$
a
b
c
Hr.
v~lue
136.42 0.51828 0.032384
500
97.7 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 8.946e-006 (derived) 22.2 (derived) 82.7 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
8 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
AC Fatigue
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 0.007566 3.9492 1.281
AC Rutting
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412 1.5606 0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0.001
Thermal Fracture
k1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue
k1
k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1
Fine-grain:
k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1 1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*log(TOP+0.0001 )))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0 6000
1.13+13/(1+exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTIOM+0.0001)))
CSM Cracking
9 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural41ane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
i
1 0 1000
Standard Deviation (CSM) CTB*1
IRI
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40 0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMAIPCC Pavements C1 (HMAIPCC) C2(HMAIPCC) C3(HMAIPCC) C4(HMAIPCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 16
Rural4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:24 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal
3000
p
I
I
I
0
2700 +
:
I
. :
I
t
I
I
I
- 2400 --[------
t
.
-
- - - ~- ~ ~ .... 4 .......: ... . ..._.._~ . . . . ..-r......-.....-~- -~-- ~-..... -- ,_,., -...:\.-_ .. . - . - . - . ...... .... . .
;
-- --I-t-
2100 ~--- - - ----
=:::-
E
j 1800
~ g
I I
l :
o._ 1500
I
=cu
"~0 1200
!
. t - - - -- __ !______ _
t
,._ ~
~
-, ---
t 1
---i:i------1Il - ---i:. -----.-I~---- --i -
-
! i
:
-----r - --- !~
! .
I l
-~!
---=t ------ ---:!.'-----
1
j
I
III
I -
I
.:. _ _ _,_____ ___ _ , _ _ _
0
..J
900
I ;
'
1
l ;
I
I
I,
.
I
I
I
.
I .
1 ~---~--;-----;-~
I I 600
,I -
-
-
-
-
:1:--
-
-
+
I
!l -~-;-I -
!
i 300
I
j
.!: ; ;
i 1
I
:
,
---I r---1! ----I,---~--:.. ....--~-
j
i
1
I
i
. \
I! ; ;; ; \ ;; ;;; ;.
;; - ,
I
0 -1
I iii!
I
I
\ '""'" 1
"'I
I
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
Pavement Age (month)
- +.- -
;
240
-surface -Depth= 0.5" -Surface at Reliability -Design Limit
I 264
Rural 4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:25 PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
100
I
I '
I
I
!
.
I
90
I
;
I
: I l ,--- -~ ------i--~----'----
I
I
;
I
I I
I I
I ,
~~-"'-j
!
I
l
:
;
i
;
i
l
8Q
I
j
:
I
I i I ~ -- - - - - :- - .;. - - - -1I
- - - ..~
----:-----
''"""'<r-o''*"'~'"''" ' , .. ,.,._r """~,., ._.,.
--
70
~-
:
o-I. -
---!.-.I0 ------~!I
--.j'!-. -
I
~I!-'""
"
-
;
~-
: l -
-
-
-- ..,I--
'-;/!.
i I
0
\
I !
J 1
II l
- 60
C')
~.~5 50 0
~.s= 40
<(
30 I
- 00
:
I
; ~
I '
i
,_1!
: J
i
I I
I I
I
l 0
---l-
I
I
!
I 1
l l I
I l
j _-Ir--o- ! .-~ !
-!-- _____j
I !
~ -
' (
I I i
I -'--- ---
I
I
I
.
LI ____.___ ,.
.":' ... ---
-- - o-- o--- ~
0
I
1
I
!
l
I
j
I
,----1I
I I
I
I
:
20 --
. ! 1 ....1-----,.-~--:-:t
--r-
.
I
:
__.....~,._r --~vl
I
I
I
10 + - ----..+---
~----;
.. - ----- ---- -~ ~
I _1_,__ 0
0 l"'"hh
ww,'uw
I
11
:
I
I !iii! @hi hi I ,
;
;
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
Pavement Age (month)
-Maximum Cracking --o- Bottom Up Reliability --Maximum Cracking Limit
I
264
Rural41ane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:27 PM
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80
1
I
;
I
I
I
0.70
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5
,_ ---__ -~-l!!-I
_
1 .
jI__..---..-
-
-i c
-90%
Relia:bility
- - -
1
Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
OBO +
:
L
0.50
-c::
-.c::
-c.
cQ)
0.40 -~~
C)
c::
E
::I
0::: 0.30
-~~ 0.20
: -
I
I
0.10
L
~ :--- - -
... ----'-l- -- -- .........
!
.-4-
--~ . - -- - - -
1
;
f
-- - ~
----21
-----~-j
- -"' -
...
' '
- - - -~ -'I
I
i
!
'---- j ----:...-.. I
_ - --.__. _, _ ,, .... ;----- --~-
.!...-.
I
I
i
r L
~- -- -_j
!
I I
~I -----..:j-
- , . - - - -.
0.00 0
;
l
l
.
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
Pavement Age (month)
1 of 1
5;o% Reliability Subgrade
HMA
Aggregate Base
216
240
264
Rural4 lane-2-13-12-poor-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:27 PM
1 of 'I
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80
0.70
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
I
i
--
-1~----
I
-
---L .
I
- - - - 90% Reliability
--: - -~-- -- --~ --~--- ;.--
"
ar 0.60 +- --- ,;-- --!- ------~ ~Lml""
<e:
! -- ~ - -- : -------- --- --- ------~
5:0% Reliability
- - ~~-
.~ -
0.50
-c
-.c
-Q.
cCl)
0.40
C)
c
E
::J
0:::: 0.30
0.20
---~~~
i
-..... ...4-- _. ... i _._,..,.~---
.
.--~
Subgrade
----!- -
- - - ~~-. - - - - - -
... 1
--r----l- - ---- ;
;
I
I
'
--~--:I
- - ~---- --- ~---~
. +- l ' I
i
I
!
I
I
------r~-----
i
I
'
-
-
----j--
I
--- -~-
.
I
HMA
0.10
0.00 0
I
1 - - -- -
-- - --..---i --.l---
iii!
$11'1 )
liOiltili1!
I
I
lllf!!IF!'t
I
Aggregate Base
:
'
'
'
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
Project: Rural 4 lane-2-6-12-gooddefault.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description: Rural Principal 4 lane- good soil-default
Analysis Parameters
1 of 10
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (ftlmile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (ftlmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking (%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Rural41ane
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTT: Number of lanes in design direction: Percent of trucks in design direction (%): Percent of trucks in design lane(%): Operational speed (mph):
1800
2
50 85 55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level3, Default MAF)
Month
VEthich~ Cla~s
Class 4 Class .5 Class6 Class 7 Class a Class 9 eras~ 10 chts.s 1:1 C.lass f2: Class. 1'3
Januaryi
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
February
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
April May June July August September October November December
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
i.oo
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i.uu
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i.Ou
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 of 10
i.UO
i.UU
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 3, Default Distribution)
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
1.8%
Class 5
24.6%
Class 6
7.6%
Class 7
0.5%
Class 8
5.0%
Class 9
31.3%
Class 10
9.8%
Class 11
0.8%
Class 12
3.3%
Class 13
15.3%
Hourly truck traffic distribution
b>Y pen.odbegm. nm. g:
Midnight
2.3% Nobh
5.9%
1:ooam
2.3% 1:00pm
5.9%
2:ooam
2.3% 2:00 -pni
5.9%
3:00 aill
2.3% 3:oopm
5.9%
4:00am
2.3% 4:00 pr'n
4.6%
'5:00am
2.3% 5:0Q pm.
4.6%
6:ooam
5.0% 6:00phi
4.6%
7:00 'am
5.0% ?:onpm
4.6%
8:00am
5.0% 8:00pm
3.1%
9:00am
5.0% 9:00pm
3.1%
10:00 am
5.9% 1.0:00 pm
3.1%
11:00 am
5.9% lt:OOpm
3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic -- Axie Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
ve-hicle ;t Class
Class 4
Single . 'Fandem : Axle ' Axle.
1.62
0.39
Tri_tJem~
Axle 0.00
Quad Axle
0.00
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
3 of 10
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.02
0.99
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.26
0.83
0.00
2.38
0.67
0.00
0.00
1.13
1.93
0.00
0.00
1.19
1.09
0.89
0.00
4.29
0.26
0.06
0.00
3.52
1.14
0.06
0.00
2.15
2.13
0.35
0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions, ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing
Tandem axle(psi):
51.6
Tridem axle(psi):
49.2
Quad axle(psi):
49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9
6
145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 16
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
36
% Passing #200 sieve:
6
Asphalt Binder Option:
A
VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10. 9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
Thermal Cracking Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
Load Time _.(sec)
1 2 5 10 20 50 100
Low
Mid.
Temp. Temp.
-4oF
1'4F
(1/psj) . (1/p~j)
2.7E-07 4.26E-07
2.96E-07 4.96E-07
3.33E-07 6.05E-07
3.65E-07 7.04E-07
3.99E-07 8.19E-07
4.5E-07 1E-06
4.92E-07 1.16E-06
High Temp.
32F (1/psi) 5.74E-07 7.31 E-07 1.01E-06 1.28E-06 1.63E-06 2.25E-06 2.86E-06
393.04 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Layer 2 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties
General
Reference
temperature
(F 0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%}:
Asphalt concrete
2
70 10.3
4 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
Air voids (o/~) : Total unit weight (pcf) :
6
146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 32
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
49
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
High temp.
Layer 3 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete
6
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3
6
148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 21
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 39
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
45
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
5 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
High temp.
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
6 of 10
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level 3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 30000
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve (%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1 6
No 8.7 20 44.7 0.1035 0.425 1.306 10.82 46.19
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16
. PercentPassi.ng
8.7 12.9 20
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
#10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3"
3 1/2" 4"
33 .8
44 .7 57.2 63 . 1 72.7 78.8 85.8 91.6
97.6 97 .6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 7.2555 1.3328 0.82422 117.4
127.2 (derived) 2. 70 (derived) 0.05054 (derived) 7.4 (derived) 61.2 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-2-4
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
A-2-4 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 21500
2
14 No
22.4
67.2 87.2 0.001921 0.0369 0.1115 0.3476 7.383
7 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 21/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
Percent Passing
22.4 42 .3
67 .2
82.5 87.2 91.6 93.5 95.9 97.2 98.5 99
99.6 99.6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content (%): Calculated degree of saturation(%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters .
a b
c
Hr.
vallu!.
9.5043 0.64386 3.0636
189.6
124.0 (derived) 2.70 (derived} 0.0005854 (derived) 9.0 (derived) 67.5 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings ~ Flexible
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally
AC Fatigue
calibrated values)
k1
0.007566
k2
3.9492
k3
1.281
AC Rutting
k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412
8 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
k2
1.5606
k3
0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0 .24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0 .001
Thermal Fracture k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std . Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue k1 k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular: k1 Fine-grain: k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1 1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0 6000
1.13+13/(1 +exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTTOM+0.0001 )))
CSM Cracking C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
Standard Deviation (CSM)
1 1 0 1000
CTB*1
IRI
9 of 10
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40 0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMAIPCC Pavements C1(HMAIPCC) C2(HMAIPCC) C3(HMAIPCC) C4(HMAIPCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 10
Rural 4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:29 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal
3000
'
'
'
.
2700 -1---------l.-
'
-+- - , ---- . !
I
--- - - -- ---
...... t---~
2400
:
I
)
I
--~- -
i
I l --- -;-~-,
I I
-- - -~---
!
I- , ----i
_,. ---~
!
ol -~~~
1
2100 :=-
- --!~-
-=E
C'l 1800
I
s:::::
+-
32
0n0s
ns
1500 '
s:::::
"0
~ 1200
I
I
I
----:~---r --
I I
.
. -, .;"~--
-- . ~-!- ---~i -
I - - -~-
I.r _ L_ _
~---L I.t
! l - ----
I I
I, -
--~I -----;- -~ --..---- .. .
I l '!-- - i - ---j _____ j
I
!
'I.- - - ; - -
' '
'~-- li -~
: i
C'l
s:::::
0 ...J
900
600 i
300
o ~
I
n
f
I
j
l
i
_j_
l
I
i
I
i
~---1l
--+----+~ l
l __ ,
!
j
----- - -- -i -- - ---- .
--, I ~---..-,..------ -- - ~----- - - - - - ---
I I' '''''''''"''''i'''
ihiiiii:
;;;;;;~ ;;n;;mmm;;m Iujilhi!hliliiilliiiiiii)iiiiiliiiill III II IiililIlliii!iiililllli!l!il!!i)iliiiiiii!i!lilljjjiii(
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
-surface
-o-Oepth =0.5"
-o- Surface at Reliability --Design Limit
I
264
Pavement Age (month)
Rural4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:30 PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking - Aliigator
100
I
I
!
0
.-. ----[-- -.--______;;__j 90
~~___:,
_L
- j -
i
i
---,----,-----
- -~t
i
;
]
;
80
.1;-I--~' --
i
. --r . - l; -- ---I r~---:
--- -~I ----
'
- - - '!-~
(
I . I
I
:
i t
---i' _ _ 70 +--~-~' ---~~--~l~
J!..__
'
t
_ ,i I .I . l I t
I
1
I~
- -- - ..1f -' "'
'"'"'"~
f
-1.'--~
1
--..:-i.....~-
- - ~.~-' l
i
! ~
g'
6o
-~I ---l' -~--J~.-jj_
J.--~---~--. .L_.___;.___.___.:.___ ___ ____~ --~--
I
:
I
l
.
3~2 so
'
I
:
I
1
I I
I
.
J___ ;
~
j____ _____
j __ -~ --- _.__ .
=0..~s.. 40
'j
.
I
I
1
I III
I
l !
:
I
'
J
:
I
.
l ---i t----l~-----1-----------t----;i - - - - -i - - - - --
<
30
; I .
--lIr----1! i---tIl-
~l'
l
I
--- - ~- ----1-,---
!
.
----
.
-
:
.'-----
1
;
!
I
I
I
l
t
20 ,I
-I
I
I~---- I
1'
' . : ' ~--i-~i----
~10
1
I
I
:
I
I
I
: --iI-
I -il ---;I --
L-..1
1
!
l
I
l
i
I
I
0
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
-Maximum Cracking -Bottom Up Reliability -Maximum Cracking Urnit
Rural 4 lane-2-6-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:32 PM
1 of 1
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80 0.70 ~0.60
I
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
, ,_ j _ _ ______ ! -
l
l
- l!'
-. . .. ...... _ .. ,, ,__-",....._,., ,.,:.- ., ..-- _...,. ,~- ~..-----
-! ....- -
-
- 1' "
9Q% Reliability
- 0.50
s::::
-..s::::
a.
cQ) 0.40
C)
s::::
E
::l
0::
0.20
0.10 -1--:::. ,.,.,-
t~
'
__ I
.._~ :..
-
5Q% Reliability
. -.
-t
---
-
I
---+' ---
---
!
I
I
--- ~ -' - - -- -
~--.......... - - - - - - -
l !
M-
- .n ..___ _ _ .;..,, - - -
.HMA
. . -----t~ -
-Subgr.ade;
I
I
!
:
I
I I
I
I
! I --~--- '
I
'
. : _ _ __ _ , _;___ - - -
I
;
I
... -
--
1
:-
-
- --
-Aggregate -Base.--
0.00
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
Project: Rural 4 lane-2-7-12-goodactual.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction : Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
Analysis Parameters
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description: Rural Principal 4-lane-good soil-actual data
1 of 16
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (ft/mile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture {Transverse Cracking) (ft/mi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking(%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Rural Principal 4-lane-good-actual data
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTT: Number of lanes in design direction: Percent of trucks in design direction (%): Percent of trucks in design lane (%): Operational speed (mph):
1800 2
50 85
55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Month
Vehicle CI~ss .
Class .4 ' Classs crass 6 Class 7 Class,a Class g ,.Ciass10
January
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
f.OO
February
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class.11~ Class 12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class 13
1.00 1.00 1.00
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
2 of 16
April May June July August September October November December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 1, Site Specific Distribution )
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
0.0%
Class 5
14.9%
Class 6
12.6%
Class 7
0.2%
Class 8
6.2%
Class 9
62.3%
Class 10
1.8%
Class 11
0.7%
Class 12
0.8%
Class 13
0.5%
Hourly truck traffic distribution by pen.odbegm. nm. g:
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00am
2.3% 1:00pm
5.9%
2:00am
2.3% 2:00pm
5.9%
3:00am
2.3% 3.:00 Pni
5.9%
4:00 ani
2.3% 4:00pm
4.6%
o:ooam
2.3% 5:00pm
4.6%
6:00am
5.0% 6:0_0 pm
4.6%
7:00am
5.0% 7:00pm
4.6%
8:00am
5.0% 8:00 Pril
3.1%
9:00am
10:00 am
5.0% 9:00pm
5.9% 1o:oo prn
3.1% 3.1%
11:00 ani
5.9% 11:00pm
3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle' Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
'Growth
Rate.
4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic --Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic --General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehicle SingJe Tandem Tritfem:
CJ' ass
AXle
Axle I Ax~e
Class 4
2.50
0.00
0.00
Quad Axle ''
0.00
Input Summary: Project Rural41ane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
3 of 16
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
2.47
0.53
0.00
0.00
1.08
1.93
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.33
0.44
0.22
4.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.25
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions,ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing
Tandem axle(psi):
51.6
Tridem axle(psi):
49.2
Quad axle(psi):
49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude {degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33 .38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9 6 145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
Thermal Properties
Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fo):
0.67
Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1 855234 566220 155484 42360 10000
o~5
866483 741295 258053 76594 18079
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
880544 993030
821334 1009408
309866 457657
103212 178704
25732 54139
10 1133637 1092157 532850 221330
69651
25 1555460 1219071 677287 297097
91155
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data
0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Thermal Crack.mg Properties
Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
474.77 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
ow
Mid.
Load I. Temp. Temp.
Time -4oF
14F
(sec.) t1/psi) . (1/psi)
1 3.34E-07 5.04E-07
2 3.76E-07 6.04E-07
5 4.4E-07 7.68E-07
10 4.95E-07 9.21E-07
20 5.57E-07 1.11 E-06
50 6.51E-07 1.41 E-06
100 7.32E-07 1.69E-06
High Temp.
32F
(-~/psi)_'
6.74E-07 9.15E-07 1.37E-06 1.86E-06 2.53E-06 3.78E-06 5.14E-06
Layer 2 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Asphalt concrete
2
70
4 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural41ane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids (%): Total unit weight (pcf):
10.3
6
146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fa):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0.1 948063 631790 199557 42729 12326
0.5 958932 805188 316779 80331 23153
Mixture-E* (psi)
1
5
972518 1081207
884998 1078331
376079 538752
107691 193954
33357 69403
10 1217068 1161103 616747 238578
91706
25 1624650 1275247 727400 307156 127327
Asphalt Binder Option : Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data
0 0
Test Softening_f!oint (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 3 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 7
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ) :
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3 6 148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt {BTU/hr-ft-Fo): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ) :
0.67 0.23
5 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
14 40 70 100 130
0;1 840879 573018 200017 46395 10000
0.5 851932 753399 316664 80273 15326
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
865748 976279
833300 1031157
374644 539280
106866 195998
22569 46188
10 1114443 1111954 622684 247581
59240
25 1528934 1272170 769096 316573 71922
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Propert y
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness( in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level 3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 13304
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI : Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve (%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
~ ie~e
0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
Percent Passing
6 No 8.7 16.7 48.7 0.1152 0.5715 1.417 9.111 26.11
6 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10
#8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2"
3"
3 1/2" 4"
8.7
12.9
33.8
72.7 88.8 100 100 100 100
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr): Optimum gravimetric water content (%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Val4e 3.7678 1.7964 0.74507 117.4
127.9 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.02801 {derived) 7.0 (derived) 59.9 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-2-4
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL)
A-2-4 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 15914
2
14
7 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
No 22.4 67.2 87.2 0.001921 0.0369 0.1115 0.3476 7.383
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10
#8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 21/2"
3"
3 1/2"
4"
Percent Passing
22.4 42.3
67.2
82.5 87.2 91.6 93.5 95.9 97.2 98.5 99
99.6 99.6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr): Optimum gravimetric water content (%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 9.5043 0.64386 3.0636 189.6
124.0 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.0005854 (derived) 9.0 (derived) 67.5 (calculated}
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
8 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural 4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
AC Fatigue
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 0.007566 3.9492 1.281
AC Rutting
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412 1.5606 0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24 *POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0.001
Thermal Fracture
k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue
k1
k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1
Fine-grain:
k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking C1 (top)
C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1 1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1 +exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4(bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0 6000
1.13+13/(1+exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTTOM+O.OOD1)))
CSM Cracking
9 of 16
Input Summary: Project Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:33 PM
C1 (CSM) C2(CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
1 1 0 1000
Standard Deviation (CSM) CTB*1
IRI
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40 0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMAIPCC Pavements C1(HMAIPCC) C2(HMAIPCC) C3(HMAIPCC) C4(HMAIPCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 16
Rural 4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:34 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal
3000
1
'
2700
-I
I
i
!
I . ---:-- :, -~~-r-\.. ;
' ----I~~-
.... ..... ---~~ ; ..,...,
-~--
!
2400
- - -I1I. -
l
------r't
I
I
I l ---r' _l ___._:' __
i
, I
-- -- +. - -
I
_ 21oo 1 : ---r-- ---t-- - ---1-- --~- - ----. -+.- -_______,.... --
- - I_
E
i
~
; ; 1800 - -- I _ _ _.IL_
.1; _ _ _ jI_ _- -~ Ij - - - --, -
c 32
(,)
(~.) 1500 -r--- --L--
! --4------~1
i
I
i----~- -----I~--
- - ... -~ ------
ccu
"0
~ 1200 tc:n
t . -:-- !
1
:rtf-='1 --~-- -
. i
---A
+--
0
..J
900 - - --...1-----i
I . - -. .- ---
-~' --~~ -:i --~-; ----
-- --
600 -1
r=
~i.-.
-
1 i
. -
j _J__ - - - - - - --- -;--- - ------~---~,- --..
-surface -Depth= 0.5" -Surface at Reliability -Design Limit
!
3000 ~,..-
:
0
~!-i-~------.,..... -~ - I
M - 0 _ _ ::... . . . _ __
4J<_ .. _ - _ ..................
0
WI
I I
\.
I
I .
'I
Whiliii!lllj iiililiiiiiili
IIj,
i
ii!iil f .
.. .!iililiiiii!ij' iiiiill!iiii......,....JI, :li@ll.li!IIIM,
I
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:34 PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
100
.
I
I
:
J t
f
i' I
l
90
+---~
-I'-----;"--
~....i1------
j I
i " ---~~-----l. --~-~-------~ ..- ----
'
'
'
i !---1----:-- ...--. 80 ~---~
--~-
' ~ . .i _ _ ___ .__ '_ _ ' .
70
~- -
---1- -. ,_-- - I i____-- .
f
! '
1
l
;.
-~I--- --,l-"- -r; -- . . --~t - ____I
' !
....
-,.....---...... .
- -~ ~0 60
C)
:.1;::
0(n,s) 50
~
.21 40
<(
I
I
; -- : -;- ,
I I
: '
. !
.L---- ~---- -r------~
~
. -- ---<.- ----,I-- ----.: --- ---: -;-- --'.'-- -
<
. ...... -- - --- --- -~-- -----.--
i
30 +-- -
i.~-1---~---------+---- ------ -~~i' - 1 I
20
-Maximum Cracking
J
-Bottom Up Reliability
--Maximum Cracking Limit
10
h
j
.----.-- -
l
0
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Rural4 lane-2-7-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:37 PM
1 of 1
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80
'
'
0.70 ~-
0.60 ~
- 0.50
::r::::.: . ....ar..:.:..
cQ) 0.40
C"l
r:::
E
::I
0::::
0.30 _,_
0.20
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
;
---------t---- ----
I
I
..........
---
.' --~- , _;,.
'
..._.. - -
9Q% Reliability 5Q% Reliability
r l
I
!
--1I.-:-
i
' i
--~-- -"---'-- - - ----- ----- ..
i
III i.- -.r~---~-~---.- --
HMA
------~ -
'
''"',:--------I-
'
- ---- --- ...... -~(--.-.-
Subgrad~
0.10
f
!
Aggregate Base
0.00
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
Project: GDOT Urban Interstate 2-1112-poor-default.dgp
General Information Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
20 years June, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description: Urban Primary Arterial Interstate (6 Lanes)
Analysis Parameters
1 of 10
Performance Criteria lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (fUmile) : AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (fUmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in) : Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking(%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Date:
Principal Arterials- Interstate and Defense Routes 7/15/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level Default input level
Leve.l 3, Default and historical ag.ency values.
Traffic Initial two-way AADTT: Number of lanes in design direction: Percent of trucks in design direction (%): Percent of trucks in design lane(%): Operational speed (mph):
15000 3
50
60
55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level 3, Default MAF)
Month January February March
Cl~s$4
1.00 1.00 1.00
Class 5 . Class 6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Clas~7 .
1:00 1.00 1.00
Vehicle Class
Cl~ss~ Class 9
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
cntss 10 Ciass11' ;c1ass "1a Class 13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
Ap ril
AI . U"U"
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
May
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
June
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
July
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
August
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
September
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
October
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
November
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.oo
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 of 10
i .OO
i .OO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 3, Default Distribution)
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
1.0%
Class 5
23.8%
Class 6
4.2%
Class 7
0.5%
Class 8 Class 9
10.2% . 42:2%
Class 10
5.8%
Class 11
2.6%
Class 12
1.3%
Class 13
8.4%
Hourly truck traffic distribution
bJY pen.odbeg1. nn.mg:
Miqn.ight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:00 'am
2.3% 1:00pm
5.9%
2:00am
2.3% 2:00pm
5.9%
3;00 am.
2.3% 3:po pm
5.9%
4:00am
2.3% 4:0opm
4.6%
5:00am
2.3% s:oo pm
4.6%
6:ooam
5.0% 6:00pm
4.6%
7:00 qn:t
5.0% 7:00pm
4.6%
8:00am 9:00 .am
ta:OO' ar:rt
11:ooam
5.0% 8:0Qpm 5.0% 9:0opm 5.9% .10:00 pm 5.9% 11:00 pm
3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
GroWth
Rate
4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth F.unctlori Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic --Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehicle Class Class 4
1 Shigle Tandem Tridem
J.\xle
1,\xle
AXle
1.62
0.39
0.00
Quad Axler
0.00
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.00 1.02 1.00 2.38 1.13 1.19 4.29 3.52 2.15
0.00 0.99 0.26 0.67 1.93 1.09 0.26 1.14 2.13
0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.06 0.06 0.35
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions, ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle(psi): Tridem axle(psi): Quad axle(psi):
51.6 49.2 49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties
General
Reference
temperature
(F 0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9
6
145.1 0.35 (user entered)
3 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
Thermal Properties
Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F 0 ):
0.67
Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F 0 ):
0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 16
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
36
% Passing #200 sieve:
6
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 9. 7150 (correlated) -3.2080 (correlated)
temp.
Thermal Cracking Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VIVIA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
I.:ow
Mid.
High
Load Temp. Temp. Temp...
1Jm~
-4oP
14F
32bF
(sec.) . (1ipsi) (1/psi) (1/psi)
1 4.31 E-07 6.15E-07 8.18E-07
2 4.66E-07 7.07E-07 1.02E-06
5 5~18~07 8.5E,.07 1;35E~06
10 5.61 E-07 9.76E-07 1.68E-06
20 6.07E-07 1.12E-06 2.09E-06
50 6.74E-07 1.35E-06 2.78E-06
100 7.29E-07 1.55E-06 3.46E-06
420.77 i6.9 0.000005 0.000013
Layer 2 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (P):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%):
Asphalt concrete 2
70 10.3
4 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
Air voids (%) : Total unit weight (pcf) :
6 146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 32
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
49
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
Asphalt Binder Option : A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
H
Layer 3 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 11
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F 0 ) :
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3 6 148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0 .67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 21
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 39
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
45
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
5 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
h temp.
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
6 of 10
Layer 4 --Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 30000
JCM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve (%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1
6 No 8.7 20 44.7 0.1035 0.425 1.306 10.82 46.19
Sieye
0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16
Per.cent Passing
8.7 12.9 20
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
#10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
33.8
44 .7 57 .2 63.1 72.7 78.8 85.8 91 .6
97.6 97 .6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Paranfeters a b
c
Hr.
Value 7.2555 1.3328 0.82422 117.4
127.2 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.05054 (derived) 7.4 (derived) 61.2 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-7-6
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL} Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
A-7-6 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 11500
30 51 No 79.1 88.8 94.9 0.0002309 0.0005333 0.001231 0.01516 0.6616
7 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"
1" 11/2"
2" 2 1/2"
3" 3 1/2"
4"
Percent Passing
79.1 84.9
88.8
93 94.9 96.9 97.5 98.3 98.8 99.3 99.6
99.9 99.9
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
;Parameters a b
c
Hr.
. Valu~ 136.42 0.51828
0.032384 500
97.7 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 8.946e-006 (derived) 22.2 (derived) 82.7 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally
AC Fatigue
calibrated values)
k1
0.007566
k2
3.9492
k3
1.281
AC Rutting
k1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412
8 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
k2
1.5606
k3
0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0.001
Thermal Fracture
k1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL):
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue
k1 k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1 Fine-grain:
k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking
C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
1 1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*1og{TOP+0.0001)))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0
6000
1.13+13/(1 +exp(7 .57-15.5*1og(BOTTOM+0.0001)))
CSM Cracking
C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
Standard Deviation (CSM)
1 1 0
1000
CTB"1
IRI
9 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40 0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMA/PCC Pavements C1(HMA/PCC) C2(HMA/PCC) C3(HMA/PCC) C4(HMA/PCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
1oof 10
GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:47 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking -Longitudinal
3000
'
2700 ---,----~:--- ~-----.1
t
I
I
' l
!
!
2400 ~
~
:
_..1-...... _, ....; -~ -,._,~ ~ -~ - .... ......--. ... ......_, ... ...........-.A.-
..:... - ......-..
~
'i ~ ' I' '
2100
:::E ~
-; 1800
r::
:s2
u
~
0c;;
1500 -1
"=0
~ 1200
_.rt::
0
900
600 ~
i 300
'
- -+ ---- ----- -'-
- !---- ~~--
-j
- r ----
!
----,f------ Ii- -. I
1
'
--tI
- r - -
+-- :
'
- ----- ----+ --- ---
!
--~: __.. .___..,-.---=----..~;
I I
.
I
~
'
:
I
, I
. "~ --- --~-1-..-
'
.
I I ';;;; ; 1-
i '
'
I
;; ; .I
::"1'1 l iiJ;;""~~-;j;';;llw'i!!mJ!PmnnJIIi; :; "
......,- -
- -;,;
-surface -Depth == 0.5'' -Surface at Reliability -Design Limit
0 -I
F
I
'
l
f""""""""""' :
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
GDOT Urban Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:48 PM
1 of 'I
100
90 -1
80 -1
70
-
?fl.
-; 60
o~..Cll-:::
so
~
~ 40
30 I
20 -l
]
0
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
, j
i ;
f I
1
1 I
I .
l
1
I;f
I I
I
! I
:
l I
I
i
I
'
' ~
l . - -- -;------ - ------ ; -- 1
~-:'- ~ - ~-- r' ------!_--- - ----~-
'
,
___ Ii
I'---l----~.I----
I
j
!
I
!_ __ _ ,__ __:, - --_- - . - -
!
:
I
l i I1
i
1
'
!
~ '
I
!
t
. -I
. e
~-
l
1
.
'
! 1
- -~ ----!"- -~1- -- , - . - - - - ... - -
- 1I -
- :1
T ! I
' I
! 1
,.
'
r
: I
! I
:
-+I ---- -~; -
~
.;.
'
l
I
I
!
;_ - ,---
- .- -----
'II
I I
I 1I
~
I 1
I
I
I I
I t
I
'
i~---!t---
l i
---- - ---- - ---- -i - - .;.... -
..
I
---t---t;--- : ----:- - i
iI - !'
I
l
;
i
_L_ -r;'--:-;-- i .I;
j
l
+ !
----iI.!~~~ ---.-ti1----.---t"I'"-------;r1I!---------TIiI
-
-
--! r-
I
I
i
,~ ---~.- ,
I
~..---;-1.l -........- ~ ~~ -- ~ -"-
;
I
.. ..,_..,._.
-Maximum Cracking --Bottom Up Reliability -Maximum Cracking Limit
----- I
-__,.._~
i ... I
! !"":: i. i ' "'""' ! ':.. '\ I I
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
GDOT l)rpan Interstate 2-11-12-poor-default.dgp
10/14/2008 12:50 PM
1 of 1
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80
0.70 ~0.60
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
l
0.50 J1
-c -..c
-c.
cQ) 0.40
-' .- - - - ,I
C)
c
E
::I
0::: 0.30 ~
t
!~ !
:
__ _! -
I
.
' -----t-- ----- -
-
'
......--90% -Reliability.. 50% Reliability
- ---
I)- - -- - -~- --I -
---r--'
:
- -[------ rj ---
l
HMA.
1
0.10 -l:f
0.00 0
~~
:
'
24
48
h- [
EiiiijrrrirM
- - - -'Sutigraue,
~ l
rlI
I
t
I
I
- - -- - --r---- --- - - --- -
~
Aggregate Base'
'
t
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
Project: GDOT Urban Interstate 2-1012-good-default.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open : Type of design
20 years June,2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description : Urban Primary Arteria/Interstate (6 Lanes)
Analysis Parameters
1 of 10
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerniinaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (fUmile}: AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (ftlmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking(%):
Limit
63 172 2000
25 1000
25 0.5 0.75 100
Reliability
90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Date:
Principal Arterials - Interstate and Defense Routes 7/15/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
- Default inp1.1t level
Level 3; Defa1.1lt and nistorical agency values.
Traffic
Initial two-way AADTT: Number of lanes in design direction: Percent of trucks in design direction (%): Percent of trucks in design lane (%): Operational speed (mph):
15000 3
50 60 55
Traffic-- Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level3, Default MAF)
Month
venicl.e Glass Class 4 . Clcis$5 Class 6 class 7 Class 8 ' Qia~s, 9 :
January
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
February March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class tO. Class 1.1 ' Class12 .crass 13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
Aprii May June Jujy Aug_ust September October November December
i.OO
i.OO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
i.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i.Ou 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i .OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 of 10
i.OO
i.Ou
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 3, Default Distribution)
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
1.0%
Class 5
23.8%
Class 6
4.2%
Class 7
0.5%
Class 8
10.2%
Class 9
42.2%
Class 10
5.8%
Class 11
2.6%
Class 12
1.3%
Class 13
8.4%
Hourly truck traffic distribution
blYp_en.odbegm. n1.ng:
Midnight.
2.3% Noori
5.9%
1:00am
2.3% 1:00 prri
5.9%
2:00 ar:'n
2.3% 2;00 pm
5.9%
3:00am
2.3% 3~00 pm
5.9%
4:00. am 5:00am 6:oo am
2.3% 4:00pm
2.3% !:i:OQ' prri
5.0% 6:oopm
4.6% 4.6% 4.6%
7:00am
5.0% 7:Qo prn
4.6%
8:00am
5.0% 8:00pm
3.1%
~:oo am 10:00am
5.0% 9:00 PITJ 5.9% 10:oo:pm
3.1% 3.1%
11:00 am
5.9% ..11':00 ptn
3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic -- Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level3: Default
Traffic --General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
vehicle I <!:' lass
Class 4
Sihgle Ta~dern Tridem
,.AXle
.:Axle ... Axle
1.62
0.39
0.00
Quad Axle,
0.00
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.00 1.02 1.00 2.38 1.13 1.19 4.29 3.52 2.15
0.00 0.99 0.26 0.67 1.93 1.09 0.26 1.14 2.13
0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.06 0.06 0.35
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions,ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing
Tandem axle(psi):
51.6
Tridem axle(psi):
49.2
Quad axle(psi):
49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees. minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9 6 145.1 0.35 (user entered)
3 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fo): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F o):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 16
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
36
% Passing #200 sieve:
6
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 9.7150 (correlated) -3.2080 (correlated)
h temp.
oc
Thermal Cracking Properties
Average Tensile Strength at 14F:
Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
L QW
Mid.
Load Time
Temp.
. -4~F
T ef11p .
14F
(sec). - (1/psi) (1/psi)
1 4.31E-07 6.15E-07
2 4.66E-07 7.07E-07 5 -5:1-SE.;;o--7 - 8:5E::O/
10 5.61E-07 9.76E-07
20 6.07E-07 1.12E-06
50 6.74E-07 1.35E-06
100 7.29E-07 1.55E-06
H1g h Temp.
31F (1/ps i)
8.18E-07 1.02E-06
1.35E~06
1.68E-06 2 .09E-06 2 .78E-06 3.46E-06
420.77 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Layer 2 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ) :
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%):
Asphalt concrete
2
70 10.3
4 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
6
146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fo): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 32
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
49
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
Asphalt Binder Option: A VTS:
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3 .6800 (correlated)
High temp~
Layer 3 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 10
General Properties
General
Reference
temperature
(F 0 ):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids (%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3
6
148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fo): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ) :
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 21
Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 39
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve:
45
% Passing #200 sieve:
5
5 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
Asphalt Binder Option : A VTS:
High temp.
Superpave binder grading 10.9800 (correlated) -3.6800 (correlated)
6 of 10
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level 3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 30000
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve (%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1 6 No 8.7 20 44.7 0.1035 0.425 -1.306 10.82 46.19
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16
Percent Passing
8.7 12.9 20
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
#10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
33.8
44.7 57.2 63.1 72.7 78.8 85.8 91.6
97.6 97.6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%) : Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a b
c
Hr.
Value 7.2555 1.3328 0.82422 117.4
127.2 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.05054 (derived) 7.4 (derived) 61.2 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-2-4 Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) D30(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
A-2-4 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 21500
2 14 No 22.4 67.2 87.2 0.001921 0.0369 0.1115 0.3476 7.383
7 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4"
1" 1 1/2"
2" 21/2"
3" 3 1/2"
4"
Percent Passing
22.4 42.3
67.2
82.5 87.2 91 .6 93.5 95 .9 97.2 98.5 99
99.6 99.6
CalcuIated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pet): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ftlhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters c,
a b c Hr.
Value 9.5043 0.64386 3.0636 189.6
124.0 (derived) 2. 70 (derived) 0.0005854 (derived) 9.0 (derived) 67.5 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally
AC Fatigue
calibrated values)
k1
0.007566
k2
3.9492
k3
1.281
AC Rutting
k1
Level3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3.35412
8 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
k2
1.5606
k3
0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0.001
Thermal Fracture k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL) :
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue k1 k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular: k1 Fine-grain: k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
1 1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7 3.5 0 1000
200 + 2300/(1 +exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001 )))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0 6000
1.13+13/(1 +e'Xp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTTOM+0.0001)))
CSM Cracking C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
Standard Deviation (CSM)
1 1 0 1000
CTB*1
IRI
9 of 10
Input Summary: Project GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:51 PM
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40 0.4 0.008 0.015
IRI HMAIPCC Pavements C1(HMA/PCC) C2(HMA/PCC) C3(HMA/PCC) C4(HMAIPCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 10
GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:52 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal
3000r----;-----:----l, -----~ ~---;----~----~--~----~--------~
2700 ------Ir.-
;---~"-
1
'
, - .......
:
j
-r .- - - 2400 ----rI -----; ~-~TI
!
~t: ----
i
' ~
I j
-+---" + -- --. 2100 ~
~
~---
-r-
i
- --
'
------1-
- ' - --L --- ...---~-- --- ~ ----
1
-- -t-
I
1
---- -*':"-~- - ~---.
'
--"t' --
..1..-.. ---~- '-"'-~ ~ ~ r....
-o"41
,_.., . _._.....' ,_ ..
.
'
I
-surface
= --o- Depth 0.5"
-Surface at Reliability
-Design Limit
l; !I vuu ~~amii~mD~~mD~~~mm~=.
0 .j
II
;
I
'l !I
I
r
----r-1-:
I !
t
IiI
I .
!
I
j
4 ""
h ihiilii.'hiiHiitii!
: '
.I
; I
, Jiiijiiliihiiiiiiii
!
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:52 PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
100
90 1
I
1
r-1 ~---
! I
I
I
I
.
I
I
f
' ~
____ I ' -- ..._.,
..... ......- -; -- I
i
-.- --~- ,~--~~~ .....
I
... .
__. _~-------~ ..._
.
~
I
~
.
I
80
' j
- ~-.
--------
.--
-
--------- ..T
.------ -- ;-------- . .
70 ---+I'----+-
. . _JI~ _-~- I,' --;
- -,.'-
--
~.. J.- --. -9 . ~r~ -- --~- - ~- -~ -1
-~~~ 60
~
u(.)
CU
~ 50 .S
'~ 40
<
30
I 1
1
I
L
I
- . r - - - ""-t-- ____,_ _ . ----<--- -- - - - -
I I
I
r
I
I
I "
I ~
I
,_ _ _ .,i:
I
I
I
JI. .
--
. j
i
i - - - ___.!~------'- ________:_
I
!
I I i
!. ;
!
--r-' ---- - TI - ------ - I -- '
-- - -.--- - - --I--
l
i
I '
; I
I
I l --~ro
-,
I
--I T~-~~----~i-~~-
-
-rJ ~--
-
"~
-
-
-
-~--~
20
I
-l l l ; l l -i-l. l----~-~ --r--11--;--:~~--r---------
- r I .- 10 +---+-1 1
II -
i -
i
I
---;~--i'---~-------~-
0 I
; II
'lii:i!ii iiii
I
I
;
; """' ., IIIIIU!IIil:"'""""""iiiiiii '
"l
I
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
-Maximum Cracking --o- Bottom Up Reliability --Maximum Cracking Lirnit
GDOT Urban Interstate 2-10-12-good-default.dgp 10/14/2008 12:54 PM
1 of 1
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80
0.70 ~-
0.60 +
--- I 0.50
s::: .s:::
Q.
cQ) 0.40
C)
s:::
E
::I
0::
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5 Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
j
l
- -!-
--
-- L._ -- ----- ~- -- - .. --- - ..
''~....;
' \'" l
r
I
.
I -:---~- --~ ~--.~ - - ---~--- !
I
I
!
j
I
'
I
I
...,;_-.... ,.,._._.,._ --~
:
', __ , --- .. - ----1
. ----. - - --Ir --
-go.% Relia5HTty
50% Reliability
HMA
0.20
~~----:~---~ - ~-c:c,--w;---------~- ~----',_
., --sobgrade..
0.10 ~-
:
____j_
!
-~-----
-- - - ---- - - ------ ( --. Aggregate Base
0.00
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
1 of 16
Project: Urban lnterstate-2-16-12good-actual.dgp
General Information
Design Life Base/Subgrade construction: Pavement construction: Traffic open: Type of design
20 years May, 2008 July, 2008 July, 2008 Flexible
Description: Urban Primary Arterial Interstate-good soil-actual data
Analysis Parameters
Performance Criteria
lnitiaiiRI (in/mi) TerminaiiRI (in/mi) AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (ftlmile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking)(%): AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (fUmi): Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in): Reflective cracking (%):
Limit Reliability
63
172
90
2000
90
25
90
1000
90
25
90
0.5
90
0.75
90
100
Location: Project ID: Section ID:
Urban Interstate Primary-good-actual data
Date:
6/9/2008
Station/milepost format: Station/milepost begin: Station/milepost end: Traffic direction:
North bound
Default Input Level
Default input level
Level 3, Default and historical agency values:
Traffic
Initial two-way AADIT: Number of lanes in design direction: Percent of trucks in design direction (%): Percent of trucks in design lane(%): Operational speed (mph):
15000 3
50 60 55
Traffic --Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly Adjustment Factors
(Level3, Default MAF)
Vehicle Clas.s
Monfh January February
Class4 1.00 1.00
Class 5 1.00 1.00
Class 6' Class 7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class 8 1.00 1.00
Class:s . Class.10 :c1ass11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
March
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Class 12 class 13'
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
2 of 16
April
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
May
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
June
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
July
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
August
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
September
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
October
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
November
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
December
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 . 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Vehicle Class Distribution
(Level 1, Site Specific Distribution )
AADTT distribution by vehicle class
Class 4
0.0%
Class 5
12.8%
Class 6
10.9%
Class 7
0.2%
Class 8
8.1%
Class 9
60 .3%
Class 10
1.3%
Class 11
3.6%
Class 12
1.7%
Class 13
1.1%
Hourly truck traffic distribution bJY pen.odbeg.1nn.mg:
Midnight
2.3% Noon
5.9%
1:ooam 2:00am 3:0o am 4:ooam
2.3% 1:oopm
2.3% ~:00 Pill
2.3% 3:00pm
2.3% 4:00 pin
5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 4.6%
5:00 arn
2.3% 5;00 pril
4.6%
6:0oam T:OO am
5.0% 6:00 Pill 5.0% 7:00pm
4.6% 4.6%
a:oQam 9:oOam
Jo:oo am
n :oo am
5.0% 8:oopm 5.0% 9:00 pril
5.9% 10:00 pr\1
5.9% 11:oopm
3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1%
Traffic Growth Factor
Vehicle Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Growth ,Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Growth Function Compound Compound
Com~J_ound
Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound
Traffic -- Axle Load Distribution Factors
Level 3: Default
Traffic -- General Traffic Inputs
Mean wheel location (inches from the lane
18
marking):
Traffic wander standard deviation (in):
10
Design lane width (ft):
12
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehicle l Class Class 4
Single Tand'em . Tridem
Axle
AxJe . Axle
1.90
0.13
0.0 0
Quad . Axje
0.00
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
3 of 16
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
2.04 1.00 1.00 2.35 1.12 1.00 4.67 3.48 4.05
0.00 0.99 0.33 0.60 1.89 1.31 0.13 1.24 1.59
0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (edge-to-edge) outside
8.5
dimensions, ft):
Dual tire spacing (in):
12
Axle Configuration
Tire Pressure (psi) :
120
Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle(psi): Tridem axle(psi): Quad axle(psi):
51.6 49.2 49.2
Climate
icm file:
Latitude (degrees.minutes) Longitude (degrees.minutes) Elevation (ft) Depth of water table (ft)
C:\DG2002\Projects\GDOT M-E Design\Atlanta Airport.icm 33.38 -84.26 974 50
Structure--Design Features
HMA E* Predictive Model: HMA Rutting Model coefficients: Endurance Limit (microstrain):
NCHRP 1-37A viscosity based model. NCHRP 1-37A coefficients None (0 microstrain)
Structure--Layers Layer 1 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pet):
Poisson's ratio:
Asphalt concrete 1.5
70
10.9
6
145.1 0.35 (user entered)
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/1 4/2008 12:55 PM
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fo):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature OF
10 40 70 100 130
0.1 1047208 566220 155484
42360 10000
0.5 1060501 741295 258053
76594 18079
M ixture E (psi)
1
5
1077117 1210049
821334 1009408
309866 457657
103212 178704
25732 54139
10 1376214 1092157 532850 221330
69651
25 1874707 1219071 677287 297097
91155
Asphalt Binder Option: ---Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data .
0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
~F
140 140 275 77
Binder Property
13000 4500 950 1.03
Thermal Crackmg Properties Average Tensile Strength at 14F: Mixture VMA (%) Aggreagate coeff. thermal contraction (in./in.) Mix coeff. thermal contraction (in./in./F):
1-QW
Mid.
High
Lmid T emp. Temp. Temp.
' Tiine : -4oF
14F
32F
. (sec). (1/p-si) . . (~ /psi) ' (1fpsi) .
1 2.7E-07 4.26E-07 5.74E-07
2 2.96E-07 4.96E-07 7.31E-07
5 3.33E-07 6.05E-07 1.01E-06
10 3.65E-07 7.04E-07 1.28E-06
20 3.99E-07 8.19E-07 1.63E-06
50 4.5E-07 1E-06 2.25E-06
100 4.92E-07 1.16E-06 2.86E-06
393.04 16.9 0.000005 0.000013
Layer 2 -- Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
General Properties General Reference temperature (F0 ):
Asphalt concrete
2
70
4 of 16
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
10.3 6 146.4
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-Fa): Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-Fa):
0.67 0.23
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
OF
10 40 70 100 130
0.1 1159233 631790 199557 42729
12326
0.5 1171979 805188 316779
80331 23153
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
1187912 1315374
884998 1078331
376079 538752
107691 193954
33357 69403
10 1474701 1161103 616747 238578
91706
25 1952683 1275247 727400 307156 127327
Asphalt Binder Option: Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Test Softening point (P) Absolute viscosity (P) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
OF
120 140 275 77
Binder Propel':ty
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 3 --Asphalt concrete
Material type: Layer thickness (in):
Asphalt concrete 16
General Properties
General
Reference temperature (F0 ):
70
Volumetric Properties as Built Effective binder content(%): Air voids(%): Total unit weight (pcf):
8.3
6
148.3
Poisson's ratio:
0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F0 ) : Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/Ib-F0 ):
0.67 0.23
5 of 16
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
Asphalt Mix
Number of temperatures:
5
Number of frequencies:
6
Temperature
Of
10 40 70 100 130
0.1
1031016 573018 200017 46395 10000
0.5
1044161 753399 316664 80273 15326
Mixture E* (psi)
1
5
1060592 1192041
833300 1031157
374644 539280
106866 195998
22569 46188
10
1356353 1111954 622684 247581 59240
25
1849287 1272170 769096 316573
71922
Asphalt Binder Option : Number of penetrations: Number of Brookfield viscosities:
Conventional binder test data 0 0
Te.st Softening point (P) Absolute viscosityjP) Kinematic viscosity (CS) Specific gravity
Temp.
Of
120 140 275 77
BindeF Property
13000 2200 450 1.03
Layer 4 -- Crushed stone
Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Crushed stone 12
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 13304
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL) Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve(%): Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) D20(mm) 030(mm) D60(mm) D90(mm)
1 6 No 8.7 16.7 48.7 0.1152 0.5715 1.417 9.111 26.11
SJ~ve
0~001mm
0.002mm 0.020mm
Percent Passing
6 of 16
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2" 3/4" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
8.7
12.9
33.8
72.7 88.8 100 100 100 100
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (fUhr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation (%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters a
b
c
Hr.
Value
3.7678 1.7964 0.74507 117.4
127.9 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.02801 (derived) 7.0 (derived) 59.9 (calculated)
Default values
Layer 5 -- A-2-4 Unbound Material: Thickness(in):
Strength Properties Input Level: Analysis Type: Poisson's ratio: Coefficient of lateral pressure,Ko: Modulus (input) (psi):
ICM Inputs Gradation and Plasticity Index Plasticity Index, PI: Liquid Limit (LL)
A-2-4 Semi-infinite
Level3 ICM inputs (ICM Calculated Modulus) 0.35 0.5 15914
2 14
7 of 16
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
Compacted Layer Passing #200 sieve (%) : Passing #40 Passing #4 sieve(%): D10(mm) 020(mm) 030(mm) 060(mm) 090(mm)
No 22.4 67.2 87.2 0.001921 0.0369 0.1115 0.3476 7.383
Sieve 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm
#200 #100 #80 #60 #50 #40 #30 #20 #16 #10
#8 #4 3/8" 1/2" Ji4"" 1" 11/2" 2" 2 1/2" 3" 3 1/2" 4"
Percent Passing
22.4 42.3
67.2
82.5 87.2 91.6 93.5 !:lb.!:! 97.2 98.5 99
99.6 99.6
Calculated/Derived Parameters Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): Specific gravity of solids, Gs: Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr): Optimum gravimetric water content(%): Calculated degree of saturation(%):
Soil water characteristic curve parameters:
Parameters
a b
c
Hr.
Value
9.5043 0.64386 3.0636
189.6
124.0 (derived) 2.70 (derived) 0.0005854 (derived) 9.0 (derived) 67.5 (calculated)
Default values
Distress Model Calibration Settings - Flexible
8 of 16
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
AC Fatigue
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 0.007566 3.9492 1.281
AC Rutting
k1
k2 k3
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) -3 .35412 1.5606 0.4791
Standard Deviation Total Rutting (RUT):
0.24*POWER(RUT,0.8026)+0.00 1
Thermal Fracture
k1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values) 1.5
Std. Dev. (THERMAL) :
0.1468 *THERMAL+ 65.027
CSM Fatigue
k1
k2
Subgrade Rutting Granular:
k1
Fine-grain:
k1
AC Cracking AC Top Down Cracking
C1 (top) C2 (top) C3 (top) C4 (top)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
1 1
Level 3: NCHRP 1-37A coefficients (nationally calibrated values)
2.03
1.35
7
3.5
0
1000
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*1og(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Bottom Up Cracking C1 (bottom) C2 (bottom) C3 (bottom) C4 (bottom)
Standard Deviation (TOP)
1 1 0
6000
1.13+13/(1 +exp(7.57-15.5*1og(BOTTOM+0.0001)))
CSM Cracking
9 of 16
Input Summary: Project Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
C1 (CSM) C2 (CSM) C3 (CSM) C4 (CSM)
i 1 0 1000
Standard Deviation (CSM) CTB*1
IRI
IRI HMA Pavements New C1(HMA) C2(HMA) C3(HMA) C4(HMA)
40
0.4
0.008 0.015
- IRI HMAIPCC Pavements C1(HMA/PCC) C2(HMA/PCC) C3(HMA/PCC) C4(HMA/PCC)
40.8 0.575 0.0014 0.00825
10 of 16
Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:55 PM
1 of 1
Surface Down Cracking -Longitudinal
3000
i I
2700
-1
1
I
!
2400 i
I
!
:
l
l
J
!
21oo ..._ _ _L __ _j__
==-
I
I
= E
-; 1800
l '
I'
l ' I
I
_ji
,.
I I 1
-~ -----+
l
I i
;
t
i
I
r
j
i
I
.
i i
:
;
;.,..______.J....______~--l..~----..---1. ~ ---- .
!
:
'
.
;
1 i
I
I
.
:
'
I
I I
:
l . ----~ ---- -!-
. '
;
i
I
I
{
1
j
;
I
!.._ _ __;________;_- -- -- -----
!
i
:
I
~
r
!
'
l
'
!
-.
!
I
tsoo
iii
s::::
"'C
~ 1200
C) s::::
0 ...J
900 <
soo j
1 300
i ! ,_ ___
I :
~-1 .
I I !
I1 I --,
!,-4 : I ! --t
I II .I
:: -----i----i.------~~------~------
j
I
I
.
I ; "'"""', ----
-surface
-o- Depth =0.5"
-surface at Reliability
--Design Limit
0 -1
I
I
'
'
I
I
I
I
I
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dg[p 10/14/2008 12:56 PM
1 of 1
Bottom Up Cracking -Alligator
-t 100
I
I
90
1
,- -
" 80 -l-
I
-I
I
l
I i
.
I I
:
....!..... _ _ _ _ :
I
I
i i
-~.Ij i
'-
~
I
)
~-l! II...-~-, ~l-l.--
-
-
-
! i
J.I..
_,_
._.__.
1
I I ;.,'.
__
,__
f
.
I
.. ,.; ... I
,
~
.
. -
-
I i
J
,
'; ~ -
'I~
-j -
-
.
~ I ---:---;---
-
i
+.
-
-
-
TI I
-
--
---
I
"'' "-""'
70
j '
l
:
I 1
'
I '
I I
I I
l
I
;
-. I
I ,
I I
[ -~-- . .;. - ... ----
j'
____ ,.- - : - ..
:
.
- - .;... -
, i
i ~
--- --;- -
I
1
I - ---t-.. - ~...-...
60
1
i
l
~
,
I
:
:
l .
-~t
I ~
1-
l --~-i------1I
: I
'
! ~
'
r --- !----...... __. ---
J ----1 J t-.,.._._.L ___.:__ ~ug~..' s0 -
I -
I
'
! i
l I
----- - . , - 1
!
, .
I '
'
! ,_,_, .1~_- -.- _, _ ___ _ _
.
.
!
~ 1= -. - ~ 40 -
,
; 1
!1 --- ---~I----..-----!~-----r. --t.--~-; - ----r
--+-+--1 <( 3o j
+
;
i
t
;
I
I
I
: ---!;---;+---~!---
20 1I-
~
10 -1
II"" l
0
0
24
'
. j
---+I ---- 1
i
r
I
l
I
:
I
--n .
1
I l f
iU
'f'"iii!liiiiii!IIIU
\iI iillliiUIIIIU!ii.,~l
- rI
\
1 I
;l.
I
iiii!U 1:
l
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
-Maximum Cracking --o- Bottom Up Reliability --Maximum Cracking Limit
Urban lnterstate-2-16-12-good-actual.dgp 10/14/2008 12:58 PM
1 of 1
Permanent Deformation: Rutting
0.80
0.70
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.5
l .
~---- -~~- _l -- ~ ..
- - - -----
9U%' Reliaoilit~/
Total Rutting Design Limit= 0.75
0.60 -1- - - - l- .. _ . ------t- - - - - - - ; - - - - - --!----- ~-:- --
I
l
0.50
-1:
-.I:
-a.
cQ)
0.40
-
Cl 1:
E
::I
0::: 0.30
----~--- --: ----- - -- --- --T
l
!
-- ~, - - --- -j
50% Reliability
HMA
0.1 0 1-
0.00 0
I
I ~--~-
.
. i
:
-~~ --------r-- -- --;-~
i
l
:
.
l
l
'
I
- -1;-
T
I
I
sobgrade
I
I
t
! .
- 1 -----oA-~cgr-eg-at_e B_as_e
p
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
Pavement Age (month)
Watson, D.E., J.R. Moore, D. Jared, and P. Wu
APPENDIXF PerRoad PAVEMENT DESIGNS
r.
1
,I_
r
._
PerRoad Design - Rural Minor Arterial
-'I of L~;~ye!s
('"~
r~
r .1
r.~
- Seasonal Information----------- -----------
Season Duration (weeks)
[.(~ Summer ,, 8
w[F.:~ii]
110
Mean Air
jss
j?o
Temperature, F
-
-- --- -~~-
- layerl
Le.yer2
Me.terie.l Type
PGGrad~
lAc
3 lAc
3
(643 ]-22 3 1 6~ 3 f-223
Miri Modulus (psi) 50000
50000
Modulus
(psi) .,532850
J61 6747
M~.Modulus (psi)
~000000
400000.0
foi~son's' REitlo.
jo.Js
Jo.Js
MI~-Mex
0;15- 0.4
o.fs- 0.4
Thi6:1<ness Qn)
,, .5
J2
Ve.riE!b ility_j
Pe ffp r[n lilrl C!3 t;r\t~ri_a'
Va ri abi li ty J
i ' PB~Offl'lffn88
.Cnleri_a
,, 2 P Winter
]'12
w Sprin_g
r Spring2
I
Curren! Season
3 ] sum mer
jsg
js6
Le.yer 3 - - -
jAG
3
16431-22 3
j.'O
p- Temperature
Correcllon
''"'-, -Leyer5
3 ]Gran Be.se
]soil
3
50000
5000
3000
.16226~4
Jl 330~
13048
4000000
50000:
40000:.
,]0.35
Jo.4
.: ]0.45
0;15 - 9:4-
'oas - OA5
0.2 - 0.5
14
,js
Yf!!!P.qilit-y
,infinite
,.
Yari~!Jiliiy /
_ Pa.~lwm~n~!l' j :~~tetria ;'
PerRoad Design -Rural Minor Arterial
'
r -
Gena.raTi~JoraWifaicy.D.MetDn -T
-~- - - --
-
-
-
-%Trucks
f-~
Axles Groups (Day j sG~
% Tnick Gr.6wth
%Trucks in Design La(le ~~ % Olredionell O~stribution ~ %
lnpui Load Spectre:
byYahide Twa
"Loading onligurations (Chack AIIIhot Apply}
ITVUVi)J ~ @.ifJ!!<}.. ~~~ wTand~m
~. ~% w-w~%
ClJw steer
Gu rr.ent{Cqnflgumtiorr
~~% jTandem i]
Cu rre nt_Ali:l ~l,.o ad Distribution -
____.. ~ -----
-- ----
AXle
Wt klp ~. A'xfa's
0,2 jo
2'4 jo
::~ B,lO 3.3
1'0~12 3.4
12-14 8.2
14-16 Ja.J
t'&;lB ,10.1 1a;2.ti J10.1
_'f2{) ~2, J11.2
22-?4,11 .2
! ~dtl8116iig!1B
~e
Vv\
kip %AXles.
. 2~-26 19,2
2B-2B ,9.1
F 28-30
~ o~n
B
32,34 Ju
'3~,36 11.2 3!k38 Jo.z
~8-40 Jo.l 4il~42 _jo
42::44 jo 41-1!1.:. jo
4s'4B 10
Axle
Wt.
kip %Axle_~
48-50 jo 50-52 jo
52-54 Jo 5~-56 Jo
56-58 Jo
58--60 jo
so-oz Jo jo 626~
Jo 6~-6.6 6&.68 jo , 6Jl-i!!- Jo 7o~n Jo
Axle
Wt
kip
%~9$ -
7;e-74 Jo
Jn 74~(6
76-;78 ID
F -_ ~8:80, t~Q-82 ' 82=84 jo
B4-8G Jo
86-llB Jo 6~1,~. Jo
9p-9"2 jo ~<,2-':!3.4 jo
~~79:S 'lo
import l:ollfl _Spedre
'I . Save'L'oiii:.l~Spedra
Me-
1M
~i p'
% :Ald~s
96-96. Jo
96-J[)[) jo
F ,JOD-!02 Jo
::~:::
1o~>;-toa o
iP &1,10
-, IQ~ ,,-.
Total
jo
jo
L j100. ..
l 'j_. ~~~l'fh:n~~~
PerRoad Design - Rural Minor Arterial
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
p~i'petual Pave merit Design Results
Criteria
Threshold
Horizontal Str... 100.
Vertical Strain 200.
rnicr...
Percent Below Critical 100. 1 00.
'1r5" Nuo)b.er."!f Pavement Le.y13rs;
Lay~r1
~ay.er2
,,.
. ''f::tll,~Kn ess. li'r:.
i - L.,
I. ..t1.iscra'imei"
.
Layer 3
]A~
~e.y~(4~
'Jf'B' '
Js ' Jr--4- -
CestArle.lysi~
PerRoad Design - Rural Minor Arterial
- S~asonallnformation ---------- - --- -- -- ------- ----------- - - - - - - - , - -- - - -- - - - -- -- ,
See.son
!Pi~ Summer
Dumtiqn (waek~)
P' Spring
Jl2
r Spring2
jo
current-Season
:::J !summer
Mean Air Temperefure, F
w' T~m~~r.alu,e Gorrectien
IVte!eriEifTypa
PGGrade MinMl;ld\lfus ,(psij
Lo){Sr j c __ _
jAc
_:j
16~ 3 f-223
5000 0
Modulus (psQ 137709Q
L!'lyer 2.- ~~
IjAc 3 1643 1-22 :::1 1
'600110
:1 4276 62
50000
'
J4 35132
5000 . rl3304
]16!ll4
Max ~6cjUius (psi) Po i,sson!~ ~ljo~ .Min~,lv1ex
40000-00
jo.Js o.fs- 0.4
4000 000
jo.J5 ..
. OJ!i- OA'
1000QOO . ,0.35 o:l5 - o :~
50000.
, -
jo.4
0;:35 - oAs
4000--0-.,_
joAs
0)2' -- o:s '
Tl1icl<.ness on) J1.5
I .. 'vflrifilillity
Variability j
Vefia~li[%
-,.' Infinite -_.
-l
, V aiiabiiW ' -'
.,
Perrormenc~
Q-iteil~ _
Perlorme~ce
: o ril~ ri a
P~.rf.o.(!ft~tr.El ,._Cii.te}'ia ,
l?f11forlnaric!i ~i!ei'rfl:\.
PerRoad Design - Rural Minor Arterial
j20o0-- f - GenereiTreHicData-------- ------ - ------ - -- - - - ------- --
------------
Tw,ocWayMDT
%Trucks
%Truck~ in Designlane roo-%
lnp u\ Lc~:~d S_pectr~:~
Alde"s Groups /Day 1964
%Truck Growth r~
Di.redione.l Distribution ~ %
by"Vehicle ~Yf1tl
Loading eonn~urll,tions (CheckJ>JI That;l.pply)
~f-'~1~~) j17 %
P Ttmdem
~%
CUrrentAxle.)..oa_d.DistnbUII.;;;-_::==::==- - - -
P T ridem
~%
BJJ;TSteer
~%
-- -- ---------- -
CUrrent Configuration
jTandam ...:1
AXle.
wt
kip .%Axles
AxlE!
INt. kip %Axles
Axle
Wt l<.ip %_Axles
;A.xle
INt.
kip %A.xl.es
Axle WI.
kip %Axles
Q-2 jo
24-25 9.2
48-50 jo
72,74 jo
96C98 jo
2'4.,0
26-28 !3.1
50-52 jo
74-7.6 jo
98c1 QO jo
H jo.8
s-a Jo.8
8-10 ,3.3 iocf2[i4--
~8,30 5.9 30~32 ' 6.8 32-34 . 1.2 3~'36 1.2
52C54 jo
54-56 Jo SG~?B jo 58_,60 jo
.,., F76c78 Jo
?a,ad Jo
82"84 ' 0
J00-1.02 jo
1o z~i. o.!t F
10,4~1 06
101oli Jo
.
.> '
12.-:t4J8.2 14c1s )8.3
36-38. jo.2
38-40 jo.1
60-;62 Jo
62-64 jo
84-81i 0
M~a~ jo
1'08'l10: Jo H Oi-- Jo
F " _1_6~18: ,10.1 f8C20 . 20~22 11.2 22~~: ]11 .2
-40' 42 jo
~2-~.4
. 4~4(; F
41H jo
64-66 jo
~F 6a:::zo o
e_o:go _F
o ~om J
- ~2;9~ _jo
7;ff-l2 ; 0
.. '9~'-95 jo
. -
Tolfil jJ-~,~p
.
C~c9] Chtfn~~s , J
lm,POJI Load Spectra . J
PerRoad Design - Rural Minor Arterial
- ---. . ,. . =,--;--------; ] -_R_e-lia_b_il-itY_.A_. n-
e-".ty-
s-i_s-_-__-
_- _
I[ ~- -----Pe'i1Cirni.AiifJY.$f~-----:--"'~'l
_-_-_-_._-....._..=--_r-_:-_--:_--_---::=-n=-==r-=t::-=:;t~-_------_~.,t"J -:
L
Pelpl:!-tue,IPaliement D e~i gn Result;;
Ci'iterie.
Tnreshqld'
Horizontal Str... 100.
Vertical Strain 200.
PercentBelow Criti~ 100. 100.
. .: NITi.iii~er ot,:l?avement le.ye'rs:
, .~
,M.al~'.ri,~a\..l
1
1-.
'
:rrItli~fn~
~s>:
)
I
ri.
_jk\c
]1 .5..----
"'
't
.:. . ~
--
Leyer 2
~st-A..j.)elys-l..~
1-
,....
PerRoad Design - Rural Principal Arterial
:-#of Leyers
'(~
I ~l
r_1
(0.5_
Seesonellnformation- ----- --- ~-- - ----- - - --- - -~
Season
:~ti Summer w~~-~~~
]1 0 Duration (weeks)
,, 0
P Winter
f12
Mea!) Air
jss
Temperature. F
J70
j50
P' Spring
]12
J65
. r S,pring2 .Current Season
Je
3 Jsummer
j?o
- - Layerl
- teyer2 --~ f Layer 3
Material Type
jAC
::J jAc
3 jAc
3 :::J jGmnBese
il
PG Grad~
f6431223 )643 f-2"23 I .[6-13 f-223.
Min; Modulus (psi) 50000
Modulus
(psi). 1377090
50000 1427662
5oo.o.!i 1435132
S:OOO ...
.,, 330~
'30QO 13048
Ma;.<Modulus (psi) 4000000
4000000
40000.0Q
sa.oo_p;
. 40000
'P<iis~iiri~s Ralio-
,]0.35
jo.Js
Jo.Js
N!i~ - t-;tax l'hiQkness [in)
0.15- 0.4
jts
I V,arfabllity
OA 0;15 '~
12
I YEiriaqil)ty
,0.4
~ joAs
I
-:.~2- 0.5'
~- .
.J..n_._friite
,
P-erfo rmehce
Crlterlli '
Performance Griteria-
PerRoad Design - Rural Principal A1ierial
Generai ,Trafflc Data -~::::::=~=:...::::----
f _ , Two,WeyMDT 11800
%Trucks
r - A:4Jls:Groups/Day )2100
'Yo Truck _Growth
ro/. 'Y.T.ruc~jn-Design ,Lane
Diredioriel Distribution ~ %:
Ltiao;Jing1Co'nflgurotions (CheckAIITbciApply) ---=::::= _.: --=~=============.:====:
rv-% - ~~~~ Pisin.~l~l
':1{..l;1! , ~ r.
. ~~ ~
P"
Tandem
r AA?&JI p- 'Tridem l't
~~ p- s1ear 'Curr~nt COn 1g~r96on
~r-% JTcndem
3
GUr~n t AXIe' L';lrufQislil:iuUcin
~.vI/t ,
Rip r. Axles,
A-.:ta ~ kip r.Axles
.A~I~t
'WI.
~ip
~~ f.xles
!H jo -~r4 r:jo_ _ __ .. t~ jo.3
.. ll-& i'"""o.-=-3-'-'--
24.26 jn
.r::~:~- ~
30'32_
r---- 48.60 ~
60-52
62,-54 jt.4
54'-58 1,.,.,_..,.4_ _ _
- a~, cy j,
3N4 ._jl-5__.,..3- -- 511~58 jo.9
.' 10;1'2 Jr.-i- --
3~~36 js.z
sa.:so jr:-o.8=----
'12:M jJ.6
'.,.ib1 6_. 11"3:-..,.._6_ _ __
~;f( J6.3
1~8,2-0~1- r js.J--~-
z~21jr:-s.s=----
3&<3a Jr:-z.a=--- -
Ja14o jz.8
F 4~42
'
9 7
lf::--1.
-
-
-
42:4~
44~6
6062 jo.7 62-li~ r:-jo.J=----
F 64-66 jo.1
66-liS
68-;0 . 0
,.". . zzoz~ ]6.9
~
~:
J.
.j
'
~
~~8 ]1.7
ni~n jo
''
~ lmpgrt Lo~d Spe,ctra
%Al<les
.%/.l>:les
PerRoad Design- Rural Principal Arterial
~ .:.__: eliabllity Analysis----- - - -- - - - -- - -- - - -
- - ~
- -~
I[._~_:
-
..~-~-~~-.
~
.
-~;-ri?im -~~-~iysii:
-
- - - _..__
-~
.. _~
~JJ
_________ _ __________ __ -----
.
- r>erpetual Pavement Design Results------- - ---
....:._
.......,
Criteria
Thres hold
Horizontal Str... 100.
Vertical Strain 200.
micr...
Perce nt Below Critic~) 100. 1DO .
'li11jbkness'DesignStudio :__:_c___c.,-------.-~----- - - .
- tNumbe'r df f?e.'l{ementLayers: , -
,..
Laye r l
La.y_er2
!a
_,)
.c ~fi~ef!ii-
'.-----'---'--4'-----._-:' l~biii. l""""'-------, . ! /. .
.~ !' [!([nita.
PerRoad Design - Rural Principal Arterial
# ofleyerv :Sa(ls_onal lnformatipn
rz
r J.
rA
.Seoson
@I Summer
)18 Oure.lion (weeks)
r. ~
]as Meon Air
, Temperature; F
IV~
jto
po--
P: Winter
]12
jso
j>1.Spring ]12
J65
r spring2 J~
f't'l
0./(ent.Seoso.n
3 )summer
f'1 Teri)pe_rf!lurEI!
Go:rr~q1on
M \1-IE~fle i .Typa P"G Gmda
Loyer1
jAC
:::J
[643 !-22 3
~- Layer 2- ---
lAc
iJ
[6.13 J-22 3
1-~ye rJ -- ~-
[Ac
_:]
f643 '1-22 i l
- La~e r'4'----
3 !Gren Base
IVtin Modulus (ps~ 50000
50000
50000
5000
;:
3000
Modulus
(psi), : ]532850
MI.\"< Modulus . (ps~ 4000000
161 6747 ,4000000
r162 2684
' 4oooooo
,, 3304
smioo
]15914 <10000 '
Pbisso~t.s-Re"liq Min- .filq)c
joJs
0,15 - 0.4
jo.3s
0.15- 0._4
jo.Js
0.15, : 0.4
:. joA
I' joAs
o:Js-- .'O~'IS:
0:2 - 0.5,
Thitlg1ess - ~~) . .. ]1.5
jz
je
:VmlaliJiity I
I~ Yeriaf:tility
Parform1111ce
P.ertbrm~~nce .
..
Cr)terta
, - y~'~riB .
~1....__.,.-~-
. J12
1:
lll~rill~
. cc~~~J c)i;w~~~ J. I
- 'I~ ~al{~~9.~5 , 11
~-.
} ,.,\i.r-
PerRoad Design- Rural Principal A1ierial
-G:ilrr~ ~IA'<le toad Dlstlibu~
/ixl~ .
Axle
Wt;
Wt;
ki~ ~ -Axles_
k[p
.%Axles
02 jo
H jO
s~',s6-
F
0.3
?4'21i 17.7
26"28 p.a
28-30 jo.3 30-32 Ja.J
~10 ,, '1Q"1__2 ,,
32"34 js.J
3,4.36 js2
12-r 4 jJ.5
36-38 [2.8
-11:'11? jJ.6
i.6:iJJ Js.J !Ja.:2~~F'
.20~.?2 ' 6.9
36-40 ,2.6
F 40:42 ,.
12~4{ 8
44-46 ,1.8
'?.~-24 js.9
46-48 J1.7
~ Tridem
~ 'Yo
r;:;-JJ P' Steer
Current Configum_~on
~~- 24 - 'Y. JTendem ::::J
Axle Wt; kip %Axles
_.A.)( lei
Wt.
kip 'Y. Axle.s.
Axre
Wt
I$!P -'Y.A'<Ies
41Hi0 [t7 5i}52 jt 6 62-54 [1.4
54-56 11.4
7'2-74 jo
9'6-96 jo
:F . F - 74-76 jo
76-7~
~a-io o jo
100~102
76-60 0
102-1 0~
ss-5s jo.s
~0-82' jo
1041Q6 Jo
66-60 jo.6
'6062 jo.7
62-64 jo.J
FF 62cB4
e4:Sf
. 66,ae _
64-GS F ~ ,86-90 0
GIHiB
90r~ jo
69-70 jo
-$2-~~- ' jo
10Sl06 jo
'108-1'10 jo ),lp jo
. - . ~ T;otii t ' j1 o.a~
7D-?2 jo
'9>17~6 jo
.. . I
, Sp.ye Lo'?-d Spetira ;- . -
- , ' ! ,
PerRoad Design - Rural Principal Arterial
Bottom Top
Criteria
Threshold
Horizontal Str... 1DO.
Vertical Strain 200.
99.98 1 DO.
PerRoad Design- Urban Principal Arterial Interstate
- # ofLeysrs Seasonal Information ~- ---- -
- - ---- -------------------~
I r~
Season
RJ1 Summer p ~~~Jij
r 1-' Winter I" Spring
spring2 Curr~n Seoson
'1
('_1
Oure!la n (wesks) 118
r. ~
Meon Alt Temper!'llure. F
[as
,,.,_l rm-- 110
f-112
jso
165
Jo
1;(1
3 )spring
w Tempereture-
v c.drte'cti:on
!.4ye r 1 --~ Ley,er 2-'"-..-
L!'lyar 3'- - ..-
Lt:~y~r5
~ ~~-~e ria,l T.ype
JAc
_:j JAc
3 )Ac
3 :::J ' )Gran Base
)soil
3
RG_-Grade
f763f-28 [543 )-22 3 f6-!3:J-22 3
!\<lin Moduius (ps~ 50000
50000
soobo
5000
-. 3000
Modulus'' (psi) 13S5233
1616747
1622684
,j 13304
J3MB
_Nio:<;Modulus (J:ts.i). - 40.00000
Poisspn'-s R-atio ' Jo.Js
.400.0000 jo.3s
4000000
jo.35
50000
JD.4
40000 .jo.45
Thickne'Ss
OJ5- 'OA
.Cro) _ , jLS
Verleb.i!lty J
''
0.15,- 0.4 12 variability 1 PerloriTJ_anqJ I,
Griter!il:
0.15 - 0:4.'
.0.~ 5 .- 0;~6
Js
. -~ 1.12
V!') ri_Bb11 iiY._ 'I
vnri~ility I:
-r Perl!l-J-(-!'I:ari..;cloe . '
Pel!.orrop~-~
. g~\e rl !i ;. . ~!J!eli.e. :-~-
,i~
..
r
O;l - os 1-
I '<
:'~Prl~e .
V.a;i~llity
- ~~~trG~- 1
'
PerRoad Design- Urban Principal Arterial Interstate
GeneraJ TrefflcDeta - -- - - -
TwoN,IeY,M~T. j125000
_h.\desGroups/Dq.y J861 6
f F % -- --- %Trucks
- -----------------~-----.
% Trucks In Desigr\ Le.n~
' lnf.iu! .l:oc.d'f;>Re ,C!ra
%TruckGrowlh j-4--
Directione/Distributioh -rso--% I:!S-'Ye/lii:le :rYP.e
'L_ol!i_~ in cj Cl;lnflgurii.tl(fns (Che_ckA/1 Thc.tApPJ0 -- - - - ---_:-::_==-=-=-=--~~===~-=-::-::==========:=::;
~ ~I -fP iSfn~ %
r~rl
~
P~ ' Tan% dem
* r'lJ~.FJ'IW';[lD.T3riclem%-
H .- II
.
' I! ~ p Steer
~Cu_rrnf!t-C.onC.gum[on.
ITridem
::J_
c_u'~Fe'nt A;i:la .~.o_iid .~Jslrib_utio n
~P _
Ade
wt >
Wt.
l<jp %.Mas '
kiP.
%~es
Axle
vA
kip %,A.xles.
24-261
4tl'50
72"74
26-28 -
SD--52
74-76
.,.,
28-30.
5.2-54 p.n
7.6,78
.30-32 3 N11
F 5~-5 6
6_6-58
7B80 BOcB2
I :
34~3 -6
&8"60 11.9
~2-tl~
36-36
60-62 jo
38-40
6_2-li4 jo
~Q-4 2
' ~'1-66:
42+f
W4'6-
p.s . 46"~6
66-66
sa,7o
70-7~
PerRoad Design- Urban Principal Arterial Interstate
r=aly,,
- --
F.'erp'etual Pav.:ement Design Results - - - . - -
Criteria
Threshold
Horizontal Str... 100.
Vertical Strain 200.
micr...
Percerit Be l oY'tCrill~l 100. 100.
le.yer 1
L ~yer2
js
' ..
PerRoad Design - Urban Principal Arterial Interstate
ilol~aye, ~
r~
ra rs
"li.
Seasohtll lnforme.tion -
Season
:p;\ Summer
[18 'Dur<tliori (weeks)
Jas .. M.ee.nAi.r
Temperature, F
p~
110
170
Mflterie~llype PGGrage
-==:J Layer 1-
Le.yer2- - -
lAc
il'l lAc
3
!7631223 [643 1-22 3 '"
Min'JV,Iodlllus (f:l_siJ ' 50000,fvl adu luji. (f.isQ [377090
50900
J4mo2
-
- M!\x-Maduh.i ~f. (i:lsi)
4000000
4000000,
P" Winter
jl2
jso
P Spri ng [1 2
jss
I Spri11g 2 Gurrent See..s~m
[o-
' ISpring =:J
)ig
p T~mPe~ture
Correction
- ~yer3
lAc 3 .'[643122 3
'50000
Le.yer 4 -- - - Le.ye r5- - -
3 1Gr6Jl8t!SB
lsoll
3.
5000 ,'
3000
143.5132 4000000
jmo4
~oo oo.
11 5914 ' ~0 000
.Pajs~ o~' s' R61i_o "
Mrn- Mex '
.10.36 OlJ5- 0:4
]0.36 0. 15- tr.4
j o.3~
0.15 - 0.4
joA '
0.35 - .o:~s
joAs o: ~ - 0.5.:
T,h ic~ess, ~fl)
[1.6
Vrui~bill~ 1
....... -
..
. ,;.
':&anc_el '~lwnges
]11
I Variability
Pe~f~~~rf:ce I,
'
lnEhite.
I . r Variabil(ty
:P~rlcifmhnce
-e~l'" ;161;
1-F
PerRoad Design- Urban Principal Arterial Interstate
---. - - , Gener~:~~;:~:~~ --F~-~~~--
~% --- %Trucks 112 ---:;, Trucks in Design Lone
[ Mas Grciups I Day js616
%Truck Growth r~
rso- Direc1iona.l Distribution
%
lnP.ut Load Spec1t: l l
l:iyYehida Type~J
Il"'"'""f'~%"' i'"""@';'r~~% dom ~~ ~ ~~Tr% idem .
Curren! Configuration
-~ ~% ln"JJP Steer
jTridem
ICt.irrent Alde .Lo.ad'Dislljbution --
1
Alde
~. ~Axles
Axle
~
%Axles
Axle
Axle
Ax[e.
~ %Aldes
.'m %A-aes
~~
o,z 10
2:..1 lo
. H 1o
~,o j3s
8-1.0 jJ.9
12-1'4F 10-12 .J4
,14'16 2
l:t
<,
f2 JIHB
;~
._.., '-
I
Jll!-20 '16.9
2.w~2 -15.9
2H~ _js.s
Ca'lli:et~arjges J
24-2S ]7.6
p.s 26-20
2!fJO 17.9
F ~Oo-~.2
32:.311
34-'3!) 11.9
36-"90 js.s
F 3!h40
4.0-A2 9
F 42'-'14
44~46 ,,_g
46:.-,!!B
F 48-50
50-52
52,54 11.9
5456 J2
56-58' F 58'60 . 1.9
6~6? lo 62-64 Jo
jo 6"4-66
66--61l lo
F 6870
'7M2
' lmpor:tloa.dSpectra
72~74; Ja
Jo .96-96
7~,76' lo
. .,F75:79. Jo
78~ilo Jo
F 98-100 jo
.tOO]!i"2 .
102.1.0'1 0
104-101; jo
'
.
62' 64 0
~ . ~ ~
i ostQ'a Jo
8186 . 0
F .~~;a,( jo
..9a'a9!rM~E. 0
1ii"8:1.io jo
. . .. 110;.. .;jo
~ ~,T_Ijltal l_19'0
-I!.
I'
r ~ ~~
1
~z~9 ~: jo
'
; ; . ~
9'1;96. .
.
jo
~
. '
r ,
"'-
....~ .....
.. Sav~ Loai!'sl~CI{~--I . ~
I)P.-~Pt.~r.g~ I.
' .
:r - d ~~
PerRoad Design - Urban Principal Arterial Interstate
~ =io/Anwy,,, __~~_jc;:_Pe~.m:..~'Cj
.perpetual Pav.ement t?esign Results ---- --------~....;-,.,--.........~----~---,
Cri teria
Threshold
Horizontal Str... 100.
Vertical Strain 200.
micr...
Percent Belbw Crlti~I'
100. 100.
- ifhickhe!ss Qesign Sl~,Jdio ---
f ., 1!')1\Jrhl:l~r of Pavement layers:
L't,<
Layer 1
Le.yer2