Pavement Design Values

Project Title
Company Project #: Developer Project #:
Design Company: Developer Company:
Designer:
Submittal Date: Developer Agreement Date:

Value Units Comments

1. Drainage Considerations
a. Subgrade Elevation:
b. Water Table Elevation:
c. Difference of Water Table Elevation to Subgrade Elevation:
d. Drainage Consideration
2. Sub-Drainage System
a. Edge Drain:

b. Drainage Layer:
3. Subgrade Support Conditions
a. Soil Type:
b. Design CBR:
c. Subgrade Resilient Modulus (Mr):
4. Roadway Classification
a. Cross Section:
b. Road Group:
c. Design Period:
5. Transportation Report
a. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT):
b. Traffic Growth Rate:
c. Percent Commercial:
d. Percent Single Axle Trucks (SUT):
e. Percent Semi-Trailer Combination (TTC):
f. Number of Buses/Day:
h. Direction Split:
i. Number of Lanes in each Direction:
j. Commercial Lane Distribution Factors (LDF):
k. Bus Lane Distribution Factors (LDF):
l. Load Equivalency Factors SUT: 1.2 Fixed Based on the Design Guide
m. Load Equivalency Factors TTC: 2 Fixed Based on the Design Guide
n. Load Equivalency Factors BUS: 3 Fixed Based on the Design Guide
o. Commercial Load Equivalency Factor (LEF)
p. Bus Load Equivalency Factor (LEF) 3 ESALs/vehicle Based on the Design Guide value for Bus LDF
q. Traffic Growth Factor:
r. Commercial Design ESALs
s. Bus Design ESALs
t. Design ESALs:
5. Serviceability
a. Reliability (R):
b. Standard Normal Deviate (Zr):
c. Standard Error (So): 0.45 Fixed
d. Initial Serviceability (pi): 4.2 Fixed
e. Final Serviceability (pt): 2.5 Fixed
f. ΔPSI 1.7 Fixed
6. Structure Layers
a. Design SN 124 mm As calculated
Layer Minimum Option 2 -
Pavement Layer Material Drainage Coefficient Option 1 Option 3
b. Coefficient Layer Recommend
ACP Thickness
Granular Base
Granular Sub-Base
Drainage Layer:
Total SN Provided
7 Alternative Design ( in cases of unforseen conditions or alternate design strategies)
a. Design SN mm
Layer
Material Drainage Coefficient Alternative Optional 1 Optional 2 Option 2
b. Pavement Layer Coefficient
ACP Thickness
Granular Base
Granual Sub-Base
Drainage Layer:
Total SN Provided
1. General Information Value Unit
Cross Section: Urban

Road Group: Commercial - Arterial

Design Period: 30 years

2. Geotechnical Report Value Unit

Soil Type: ML - Silt
Subgrade Elevation: 512.155 m
Water Table: 511.3 m

Difference of Water Table Elevation to

Subgrade Elevation: -0.855 m
Design CBR: 4
Subgrade Resilient Modulus (Mr): 41 MPa

3. Sub-Drainage System Value Unit

Edge Drain: Yes

Drainage Layer: Yes

5. Transportation Report Value Unit

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): 7000 Vehicles/day
Traffic Growth Rate: 3%
Percent Commercial: 6%
Percent Single Axle Trucks (SUT): 3%
Percent Semi-Trailer Combination (TTC): 3%
Number of Buses/Day: 40 buses/day
Direction Split: 50 %
Number of Lanes in each Direction: 1 lane
Lane Distribution Factors (LDF): 100 %
Load Equivalency Factors SUT: 1.2 Fixed
Load Equivalency Factors TTC: 2 Fixed
Load Equivalency Factors BUS: 3 Fixed

3. Subgrade Support Conditions Value Unit

Design CBR: 3%
Effective Roadbed Resilient Modulus (Es) 25-35 MPa
Subgrade Resilient Modulus (Mr): 35.5 MPa

6. Load Equivalency Factors Value Unit

Load Equivalency Factors SUT: 1.2
Load Equivalency Factors TTC: 2
Load Equivalency Factors BUS: 3

Split Value Unit

Direction Split: %
Number of Lanes in each Direction: lane
Lane Distribution Factors (LDF): %

Design Traffic Value Unit

Number of Lanes in each Direction: 1 lane
Lane Distribution Factors (LDF): 100 %

Heavy Vehicle LEF Unit

Single Unit Trucks (SUT) 1.2 ESALS
Tractor Semi- Trailer Combination (TTC) 2 ESALS
Transit Buses (Bus) 3 ESALS

Design Traffic Value Unit

Load Equivalency Factor (LEF) 1.66 ESALS/vehicle

Design Traffic Value Unit

Traffic Growth Factor: 26.9 years

Design Traffic Value Unit

Design ESALS 3.9x10^6 ESALS/lane

ASSHTO Design Inputs Value Unit

Reliability (R): 85
%
Standard Normal Deviate (Zr): -1.037
Standard Error (So): 0.45
Initial Serviceability (pi): 4.2
Final Serviceability (pt): 2.5
ΔPSI 1.7

Pavement Layer Design Layer Coefficient Drainage Coefficient

ACP Thickness (mm) 0.42 n/a
Granular Base Course Thickness (mm) 0.13 1

Granular Sub-base Course Thickness (mm) 0.1 1

Drainage Layer Thickness2 0.1 1

Pavement Layer Design Layer Coefficient Drainage Coefficient

ACP Thickness (mm) 0.4 n/a
Granular Base Course Thickness (mm) 0.13 1

Granular Sub-base Course Thickness (mm) 0.1 1

Drainage Layer Thickness 2

0.1 1
Total SN Provided (mm) - -

Pavement Layer Design Layer Coeffcient Drainage Coeffcient

ACP Thickness (mm) 0.42 n/a
Granular Base Course Thickness 0.13 1
Granular Sub-Base Couse Thickness (m 0.1 1
Drainage Layer Thickness (mm) 0.1 1
Total SN Provided - -

Material Layer Coefficient Drainage Coefficient

ACP - Polymer Modified 0.42 n/a
Granular Base Course 0.13 1
Granular Sub-base Course 0.1 1
Drainage Rock 0.1 1
Total SN

Pavement Layer Material Layer Coefficient

ACP Thickness ACP – Modified 0.42
Granular Base Granular Base 0.13
Granual Sub-Base Granular Sub-Base 0.1
Drainage Layer: Drainage Rock 0.1
Total SN Provided -
 Load Equivalency
Comments Commercial Vehicle
Roadway cross Factor
sectional area will have
Based Single Unit Trucks 1.2 ESALS
a curb. on the City's
zoning bylaw and
estimate traffic Tractor Semi- Trail 2.0 ESALS
Based
demands.on the prescribe
Design Period from the
City's Manual for Road
Group and Section. Transit Buses (Bus 3.0 ESALS

Comments
As shown in the attached Report
As shown in the attached Report
As shown in the attached Report

As shown in the attached Report

Comments
Based on the is
The drainage City Manual
Poor,
the water table is less
than 1m from
subgrade.

Comments
As shown in the attached Report
Statistical average of traffic growth
As shown in the attached Report
As shown in the attached Report
As shown in the attached Report

Two-way Traffic
2 lanes, 1 lane in each direction
Based on the prescribe
LDF from the City's
Manual

Comments
As shown in the attached Report
As shown in the attached Report

Comments
As shown in the attached Report
As shown in the attached Report

Comments

Based on the LDF from the design guide for cross section

Comments

Comments
Refer to Calculation

Comments
Refer to Calculation

Comments
Refer to Calculation

Comments
Based on the prescribe
R from the Design
Guide
Based on the prescribe
Zr from the Design
Guide
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed

Minimum Layer Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

160 160 160 160
100

150

200 200 200 200

115

Minimum Layer (mm) Option 1 (mm) Option 2 (mm) Option 3 (mm)

160 160 160 175
100 150 100 100
150 175 220 150
 200 200 200 200
115 124 122 122

Minimum Thickness (mm)

Layer Thickness (mm)
160 Error
100 Error
150 Error
200 Error
115 Error

Drainage Coefficient Minimum Layer Recommended Optional 1 Optional 3

n/a 160 160 160 175
1 100 100 150 100
1 150 220 175 150
1 200 200 200 200
- 115 122 124 122
 Table 2.3.3: Commerical Vehicle Load Equivalency Factors
Commercial Vehicle Load Equivalency Factor
Single Unit Trucks (SUT) 1.2 ESALS
Tractor Semi- Trailer Combination (TTC) 2.0 ESALS
Transit Buses (Bus) 3.0 ESALS

Table 2.3.2: Lane Distribution Factors

LDF
Roadway Cross-Section
1 Lane Section 2 Lane Section
§ 70% in each lane
Urban § 100% in each lane
§ 100% buses in outside (slow)
lane
§ 85% in outside (slow) lane
Rural § 100% in each lane
§
 Table 2.3.1: Design Periods

Roadway Group Road Class

Locals
Residential Collectors
3 or more Lane Section Arterials
§ 70% in outside (slow) lane
Locals
and center lanes
§ 100% buses in outside (slow) Commercial
Collectors
lane
§ 70% in outside (slow) lane Arterials
§ Locals
Industrial Collectors
Arterials
Freeways and Ramps
Boundary Roads
e 2.3.1: Design Periods
Design Cross Section Type
Rural (years) Urban (years)
15 20
20 20
20 20

15 20

20 20

20 20
20 20
20 20
20 20
30 30
30 30

Table 3.1.1: AASHTO Pavement Design Inputs

AASHTO Design Input Value
As Determined in
Design ESALs
Section 2.3
Reliability (Function of ESALs)
Design ESALs Range
< 100,000 75
> 100,000 – 1,000,000 80
> 1,000,000 – 5,000,000 85
> 5,000,000 – 10,000,000 85
> 10,000,000 90
Serviceability
Initial Serviceability Index (pi) 4.2

Terminal Serviceability Index

(pt) 2.5

Serviceability Loss (∆psi) 1.7

Overall Standard Deviation (So) 0.45
Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR) As Determined in
Section 2.2
Table 2.3.1: Design Periods
Design Cross
Roadway Section Type
Road Class Rural Urban
Group
(years) (years)
Locals 15 20
Residential Collectors 20 20
Arterials 20 3020
Locals 15 20
Commerci
Collectors 20 20
al
Arterials 20 3020
Locals 20 20
Industrial Collectors 20 20
Arterials 20 3020
Freeways
and 30 30
Ramps
Boundary
30 30
Roads

Table 2.3.2: Lane Distribution Factors

Roadway LDF
Cross-Section 1 Lane Section

Urban 100% in each lane

Rural 100% in each lane

n Factors

2 Lane Section 3 or more Lane Section

70% in outside (slow)
70% in each lane
lane and center lanes
100% buses in outside
30% in inside lanes
(slow) lane
100% buses in outside
(slow) lane

85% in outside (slow) lane 70% in outside (slow) lane

40% in inside (fast) travel
65% in center lanes
lane
35% in inside lane