Layer Coefficient Determination using

the MEPDG (Pavement-ME)

Prepared by:

Johann Farhat
Bilal Medawar
Jad Osseiran
Roy Sarkis

Submitted to: Dr. Ghassan Chehab

May 9, 2018
 DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared in the context of an in-class academic exercise under the supervision and
guidance of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Any remaining errors or
non-cited material are the sole responsibility of the authors with no prior knowledge of,
involvement with or implications to the Department, the course Coordinator or project Advisors.
The report is incomplete and cannot be cited. Information in this report cannot be used for any
purpose other than academic-training. The American University of Beirut reserves the right for
using information in this report and is not liable for its un-approved usage for any purpose
including academic-training.

Signature Date

Course Instructor

Dr. Ghassan Chehab

Students

Johann Farhat

Bilal Medawar

Jad Osseiran

Roy Sarkis

II
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratefulness to Professor Ghassan Chehab from the
American University of Beirut, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. We
couldn’t have completed our work without your encouragement and persistent care throughout
the entire course, and for that we thank you.

III
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project is to study the effect of multiple layers on the layer coefficient of
asphalt wearing course. It compromises of different runs on MEPDG and hand calculations using
AASHTO Design 1993. Default inputs are used to run 10 different MEPDG scenarios varying
the asphalt wearing course and asphalt binder type. By trial and error, using the results of
MEPDG software, back-calculations were done using AASHTO Design 1993 to determine layer
coefficients. The use of multiple layers causes a slight reduction in the structural layer coefficient
of the asphalt layer.

IV
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................... III

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................ IV

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Assumptions in Multi Layered Elastic Systems............................................................................ 2

2.2 AASHTO Empirical Equation ...................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 log W18 ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2.2 Structural Number ................................................................................................................. 3

2.2.3 S0 ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Assumptions.................................................................................................................................. 4

3.2 MEPDG Run ................................................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Solution of the AASHTO Equation .............................................................................................. 5

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 6

5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE GAPS ............................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 11

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................. 13

V
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. MEPDG Scenarios ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2. Layer Coefficients for Multi-layered System vs One Asphalt Layer ............................................. 6

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Multi Layered Pavement ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

VI
1 Introduction
Traffic data used to be classified into two types: Weigh in Motion (WIM) and Automatic Vehicle
Classification (AVC). The first is a tabulation of the number of axles observed within a series of
load groups with specified load interval while the second is in the form of number of vehicles by
type over a period of time (NCHRP Project 1-37A). Most of the states convert the data into simple
multipliers, referred to as truck equivalent factors, that are used to convert traffic into the number
of Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL).

In 1993, AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures provided a set of guidelines to
convert mixed traffic into a number of ESALs and it was the most common approach for the past
few years. Although this guide served the pavement design community reasonably well, there are
a number of limitations with this Guide’s design procedure such as: limited material types, no
climate data and the use of basic material characterization (resilient modulus).

In 2008, AASHTO published the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of

Practice (MEPDG) and three years later, the first software version was released. Mechanistic –
based pavement design procedures incorporate several factors that directly related to the
pavement’s performance such as traffic loadings, climate effects, material properties and existing
soil conditions. Hence, this would allow the user to overcome all the limitations of the 1993 Design
Guide. Moreover, another integral aspect of the MEPDG is the use of three hierarchical levels with
level 1 being the most detailed. This idea is based on the concept that not all agencies will be able
to collect detailed data or that not every pavement needs to be designed with the same level of
accuracy (i.e. designing a pavement for a farm-to-market road vs an urban interstate). However,
the analysis method is independent of the input level.

The purpose of this project is to use the mechanistic-empirical design properties to first determine
the thickness of the asphalt layer under four scenarios. The different scenarios were run using
MEPDG software; by trial and error, design thickness of the wearing course was determined to
satisfy the constraint of having 15% fatigue cracking (AC Bottom Up Cracking). Those
thicknesses were used to back-calculate the structural coefficients “a” of the asphalt layers and to
compare it to the typical value of “0.44”

1
The following is an overview of the sections included in the report: section 2 provides a literature
review about MEPDG software and AASHTO 1993 Design Guide; section 3 presents the
methodology adapted in this project followed the results and discussion in section 4.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Limitations of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide

Several limitations are faced when using the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide and this is mainly due
to its empirical nature. For instance, this method “fails to account for mechanistic responses
(stresses and strains) of the pavement structure to loading and unloading” (Hamdar & Chehab,
2016). Moreover, it does not include some essential factors such as material properties and traffic
characteristics. Finally, one main deficiency of this empirical method is the fact that it does not
cater for the properties of the numerous new mixes developed which have a higher structural
capacity thus a higher structural layer coefficient (Hamdar & Chehab, 2016).

2.2 Assumptions in Multi Layered Systems

According to Huang 1993, “flexible pavement are layered systems with better materials on top and
cannot be represented by a homogeneous mass, so the use of Burmister’s layered theory is more
appropriate.” For this, basic assumptions need to be satisfied:

 Each layer is homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic with an elastic modulus E and a
Poisson ratio n.
 The material is weightless and infinite in areal extent.
 Each layer has a finite thickness h, except that the lowest layer is infinite in thickness.
 A uniform pressure q is applied on the surface over a circular area of radius a.
 Continuity conditions are satisfied at the layer interfaces, as indicated by the same vertical
stress, shear stress, vertical displacement, and radial displacement. For the frictionless
interface, the continuity of shear stress and radial displacement is replaced by zero shear stress
at each side of the interface.

2
2.3 AASHTO 1993 Empirical Equation

Equation 1 below represents the empirical equation presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide.

(1)

The use of this equation requires the selection of reliability levels where 𝑍𝑅 is the normal deviate
for a given reliability R and 𝑆0 is the standard deviation. In this equation, the idea of reliability
assumes that the distribution of variables such as stress, the environmental conditions and the
strength/stiffness of pavement materials/layers can be represented by a normal distribution.
Reliability refers to the probability that the design life predicted will exceed the required design
based on the number of ESALs passing per year, or, more specifically, the strength of a material
will exceed the stress applied on that specific material.

The pavement initial and terminal serviceability index are also included (ΔPSI) along with the
soil’s resilient modulus 𝑀𝑟 . The following is a brief explanation of some parameters included in
the equation.

2.3.1 log W18

Base 10 logarithm of the predicted number of ESALs that are estimated to pass over the lifetime
of the pavement.

2.3.2 Structural Number SN

The Structural Number (SN) is an index providing an indication of the strength of the pavement
layers and of the total pavement structure. It is also used to determine the different layer
thicknesses by using the following equation:

𝑆𝑁 = 𝑎1 𝐷1 + 𝑎2 𝐷2 𝑚2 + 𝑎3 𝐷3 𝑚3 + ⋯ (2)

Where:

ai: structural coefficient of layer i.

3
Di: thickness of layer i.

mi: drainage coefficient of layer i.

3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Assumptions
The methodology considered assumes that the MEPDG method using Pavement ME is more
accurate and more reliable than the AASHTO 1993 Design Guide and generates structural design
and layer thicknesses that are closer to optimal. Other assumptions are as follows (Hamdar &
Chehab, in press):
 As-built air void content (%) is assumed to be between 7% and 9% depending on the HMA
mix type used.
 A change in pavement serviceability index (∆PSI) of 1.2 is equivalent to a fatigue cracking of
15%. This equivalence is obtained by matching the MEPDG recommended performance
criteria for fatigue cracking to the recommended 1993 Design Guide serviceability loss
criteria provided for interstate pavements (AASHTO 1993).
 Reliability was assumed to be 90% for both MEPDG and AASHTO design methods. Even
though the concept of reliability is different for each one of the two design guides, change in
reliability was assumed to have the same effect on design thickness for both cases.
 The structural coefficient a2 for the second asphalt layer (asphalt binder course) was
considered equal to 0.44 for all scenarios (Hamdar 2016).
 Conversion of traffic from average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) to equivalent single-
axle loads (ESALS) was done based on calculations performed specifically in Pavement ME,
which assumes a structural number SN of 5 and a terminal serviceability value of 2.5

3.2 MEPDG Run

Several trial and error runs were done on the MEPDG software to find the optimum design
thickness of the asphalt wearing course (to the nearest 0.05”) to meet the only distress limit of 15%
fatigue cracking at a design life of 10 years. The following process was done for the four different
scenarios using Mix 4 (as per our group number): “Warm Mix Sonnewarmix + fibers.

Table 1 below summarizes the main input data for the different scenarios.

4
 Table 1 - MEPDG Data Input

Scenario 1 2 3 4
Design
10 years 10 years 10 years 10 years
Life
Climate Chicago Chicago Dallas Dallas
Traffic*
1,500 15,000 1,500 15,000
(AADTT)

Asphalt Layer - TBD Asphalt Layer - TBD Asphalt Layer - TBD Asphalt Layer - TBD

Base Layer - 12" Base Layer - 15" Base Layer - 12" Base Layer - 15"
Structure
30,000 psi 30,000 psi 30,000 psi 30,000 psi
Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade
25,000 psi 25,000 psi 25,000 psi 25,000 psi
Initial IRI 65 in/mi
Reliability 90%
Constraint 15% Fatigue Cracking Bottom Up
Mix** Warm Mix Sonnewarmix + Fibers

* Leave all other traffic inputs default

** Appendix A provides a summary of the asphalt mix used in this study analysis.

3.3 Solution of the AASHTO Equation

Solution of the AASHTO Equation

The AASHTO equation (1) is solved using an iterative process. The equation is often solved
assuming ESAL values, if the values are not accurate or have not been provided. In this case, the
number of ESALS is equal to 17,500,000 ESALs equivalent to 15,000 AADTT. The process
consists of performing the following steps:

1. Determine the total ESALs passing over the pavement layers.

2. Determine resilient modulus (Mr), or, using the CBR formulas, convert existing CBR values
to Mr. That could be done either by AASHTO method: Mr (psi) = 1500 * (CBR) or by
NCHRP 1-37 method: Mr (psi) = 2555*(CBR)0.64
3. Select reliability (which means selecting a specific value of ZR and S0).
5
 4. Select po, pt (serviceability range).
5. Select a basic layer and get its MR value.
6. Solve the 1993 equation and get SN assuming the pavement is composed just of two layers
(e.g., combine lower two layers and upper two asphalt layers); solve each layer using the
resilient modulus of the layer directly underneath it.
7. Using the SN obtained from the previous step and the thickness withdrawn from the MEPDG
software, plug them in equation (3) to back-calculate the structural coefficient a1 of the
asphalt wearing course for each one of the 10 scenarios, giving that the structural coefficient
of the second asphalt binder layer is equal to a2 = 0.44.
8. Analyze the results and compare them with those obtained when having one asphalt layer of
the same mix type.

4 Results and Discussion

This section contains the results and analysis of MEPDG runs and AASHTO 1993 Design. The
1993 design equation gave an SN of 3.7 given all data and using the modulus of the aggregate
base as the Mr value. MEPDG runs gave the thickness of the first layer varying the asphalt
wearing course in some scenarios while varying the binder in others, as shown in Table 2. The
runs were made continuously for different thicknesses until the optimum thickness was found,
which is the one that gave the required 15% fatigue cracking. The MEPDG runs are summarized
in detail for every scenario in the Excel spreadsheets attached along this report. The results
obtained for two layers were compared with those that were found when considering only one
asphalt layer (Hamdar 2016). Accordingly, the coefficient of asphalt wearing course layer was
calculated for each scenario, and the results are presented in the following table:

Table 2. Layer Coefficients for Multi-layered System vs One Asphalt Layer

Asphalt Back- Asphalt Back-

Layer calculated Layer calculated
Asphalt Design Asphalt Design Asphalt
Asphalt Asphalt
Binder Thickness Layer Thickness Layer
Wearing Binder
Scenario Course (2 layers) Coefficient (1 layer) Coefficient
Course Course
Thickness (in) Based on (in) Based on
Type** Type**
(in) Multiple One Layer
ST LOUIS Layers ST LOUIS

6
 ST LOUIS ST LOUIS
1 HMA-1 4.05 0.435 7.2 0.474
2 M-HMA-3 3.55 0.496 6.25 0.546
3 HMA-3 HMA-2 4.4 4.3 0.41 7.35 0.464
4 HMA-4 5 0.352 8.5 0.401
5 HMA-RAP-1 4.4 0.4 7.5 0.455
6 HMA-1 4.5 0.45 7.2 0.474
7 M-HMA-3 3.95 0.513 6.25 0.546
8 HMA-3 WMA-O 3.8 4.75 0.426 7.35 0.464
9 HMA-4 5.45 0.372 8.5 0.401
10 HMA-RAP-1 4.9 0.413 7.5 0.455

When considering just the case of the two layers, it is noticeable that when the second layer has a
lower thickness, both the thickness and the structural coefficient of the asphalt wearing course
increased. Here, it must be must be mentioned that both asphalt binders HMA-2 and WMA-O
have the same ai = 0.44. The fact that the thickness of the first asphalt layer increases is a given
since it must account for the loss in asphalt binder. However, the results obtained shine the light
on another fact which is that the thickness of the asphalt binder course influences the value of a1
of the asphalt wearing course. Also, material properties are an important factor in getting the
layer coefficient, since there is a direct correlation between the effective dynamic modulus E* of
the asphalt wearing course and its structural coefficient, and that’s why the results gave a
different ai for the various asphalt course types used in the study scope. Using the typical value
of 0.44 is a dangerous assumption because it could lead to over-designing if the real ai value is
higher than the assumed value, and under-designing if it is lower than the typical value of 0.44.

The layer coefficient ai is defined as a combined structural and material indicator. It represents
the ability of the asphalt layer to act as a structural component in any given pavement, and so it
not only an indicator of the integrity of the asphalt as a paving material. Therefore, it is expected
that the structural coefficient ai would not only be dependent on the asphalt material mix type
and material properties but also on the layer’s boundary conditions, represented here by the
presence of multiple asphalt layers (in this case, a binder course directly below the asphalt
wearing course).

7
Studying the same mix types in two different scenarios (one layer system vs multi-layered
system) generated different results in terms of the thickness of the asphalt wearing course as well
as for the layer coefficient. Five asphalt wearing mix types were used with two different binders
having the same layer coefficient (a2=0.44) resulting in ten different scenarios and hence
different layer coefficients. In comparison with one layer system, the latter had greater values of
layer coefficients. Therefore, when using any of the two asphalt binders tested in this analysis,
the effect of multi-layered system is represented by lowering the layer coefficient of the asphalt
wearing course in each one of the 10 scenarios. Even though the effect of having multiple layers
is minimal, it is highly recommended to take it into consideration when calculation the layer
coefficient, because taking the “one layer” values of ai in a multiple layer pavements will give us
a higher structural coefficient than what is present and hence, will lead to under-designing the
pavement which is a serious issue.

5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE GAPS

In conclusion, the AASHTO Design Guide remains a major milestone in pavement engineering.
Although it is based on limited empirical data, yet it is still widely used by most of the important
companies worldwide. The layer coefficient of the asphalt wearing course represents a main
parameter in the design and is affected by various factors primarily the strength of the materials.
This study showed that it is also affected by the number of layers used in a pavement; both
MEPDG software and AASHTO Design equation were integrated to conclude the following:
layer coefficients recorded smaller values for multi-layered system compared to a one layer
system. The findings of this research report present a significant improvement in empirical
pavement design by integrating the effect of multiple layers in the structural design of asphalt
pavement.

For future gaps and need, there is still the possibility of expanding the scope of the research to
include a wider array of mix types and structural design scenarios other than those studied in this
report, in the aim of continuously enhancing the AASHTO 1993 Design Method, and coming up
with an equation that takes into consideration the properties of the asphalt material, as well as the
use of multiple asphalt layers.

8
9
 REFERENCES

1. AASHTO, 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
2. Daniel, J. S., and G. R. Chehab., 2008. Use of RAP Mixtures in Mechanistic–Empirical
Pavement Design Guide. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
3. Daniel, J. S., G. R. Chehab, and D. Ayyala. Sensitivity of RAP Binder Grade on Performance
Predictions in the MEPDG. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol.
78, 2009, pp. 325–376.
4. Hamdar, Y., 2016. Effective Incorporation of Asphalt Mixture Properties in the Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavements as a Precursor for Implementing Performance-Based Design.
American University of Beirut.
5. Hamdar, Y. & Chehab, G.R., Integrating the Dynamic Modulus of Asphalt Mixes in the 1993
AASHTO Design Method. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, in print.

10
APPENDIX A

11
12
 APPENDIX B

Figure A- 1 Warm Mix Sonnewarmix + Fibers Characteristics

13