Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Highway Pavements
AASHTO
The Asphalt Institute
Portland Cement Association
MEPDG
1
Inputs
2
MR
Reliability, %
(AASHTO, 1993)
n
S N = a1D 1 + i= 2
a iD im i
No Unique Solution!
(AASHTO, 1993)
6
3
Reliability (R) .
Cumulative ESALs .
Drainage coefficients (m i) .
Layer thicknesses (H i) .
Life-cycle cost .
4
Chance that pavement will last for
the design period without failure
Reliability
(AASHTO, 1993)
10
5
So = Standard Deviation
Flexible Pavements: So = 0.40 - 0.50
Rigid Pavements: So = 0.30 - 0.40
(AASHTO, 1993) 11
12
6
13
Lab testing
Correlations
14
7
(AASHTO, 1993)
15
Based u p on Present
Serviceability Rating
(PSR)
Su bjective rating by
ind ivid u al/ p anel
Initial/ p ost-
constru ction
Variou s tim es after
constru ction
0 < PSR < 5
(AASHO, 1961)
16
8
PSI = po pt
PSI = Pavem ent Serviceability Ind ex, 1 < PSI < 5
(AASHTO, 1993)
17
Basic Equations
p0
Serviceability (PSI)
p0 - pt
pt
Time
18
9
PSR correlated to physical pavem ent
m easu res via Present Serviceability Ind ex
(PSI):
2
PSI = 5.03 1.91log(1 + SV ) 1.38 RD 0.01(C + P)1/ 2
19
20
10
(AASHTO, 1993)
21
n
SN = a1 D1 + ai Di mi
i=2
22
11
23
12
(AASHTO, 1993)
25
a 2 0 .2 4 9 ( lo g 10 E base ) 0 .9 7 7
E base in p s i
(AASHTO, 1993)
26
13
a3 = 0.227(log10 Esubbase ) 0.839
Esubbase in psi
(AASHTO, 1993)
27
28
14
(AASHTO, 1993)
29
SN 1 a 1D 1
30
15
(Huang, 2004)
31
32
16
Asphalt Institu te:
Pavement response
Traffic ( ) calculated Incremental fatigue
using DAMA damage models
Climatic
data
Transfer functions
Design &
material
property Performance
parameters prediction models
(rutting, % cracks,
etc.)
33
Design Criteria
Lim it vertical stress at top of road bed soil (prevent .
rutting)
34
17
t
c
t at bottom of all bound layers (cracking)
c at top of subgrade (rutting)
35
Design Inpu ts
Traffic: .
18-kip ESALs for Pt=2.5 & SN =5
36
18
Material Properties
H igh Quality H MA .
Em ulsified AC base: .
Type I processed d ense grad ed aggregate .a
Type II sem i -processed grad ed aggregate .b
Type III sand s or silty-sand s .c
Criteria for base-subbase .d
37
Environm ental
38
19
Thickness Design
Fu ll d ep th m in. H MA = 4in .
H MA over Em u lsified Base .
Chart TOTAL pavem ent thickness .a
Min. HMA Traffic
2 in 105
5 in > 107
39
Design Selection
Full d epth H MA .
Less total required thickness .a
Relatively insensitive to frost/ m oisture .b
Aggregate base: .
Inexpensive .a
Read ily available .b
Show n good perform ance .c
40
20
Exam ple
41
Total ESALs
Buses + Trucks
2.13 m illion + 1.33 m illion = 3.46 m illion
42
21
CBR tests along a Road show :
CBR 8
M R conversion
AASHTO Conversion
43
44
22
Decid e on basic stru ctu re
H MA
Aggregate base (6 or 12 inches)
Softw are allow s for m ore choices
45
46
23
Final Design
9.5 inches H MA
12 inches aggregate base
6 inches UTB
6 inches aggregate subbase
47
24