Environmental Effects on

Pavement Design

Claudia E. Zapata
Assistant Professor
Arizona State University

2013 Seminar
International Civil Aviation Organization
ICAO South American Regional Office
Lima, Peru– August 6th-9th , 2013
Agenda - Introduction

- Moisture effects

- Temperature effects

- Environmental effect
in pavement life

- Drainage
considerations
part I: introduction
 Environmental Conditions
External Factors

Precipitation Solar radiation Wind speed Groundwater Table

Temperature Relative humidity Depth

PAVEMENT and SUBGRADE

Internal Factors
Moisture gradients
Temperature gradients
Freeze/thaw cycles
Drainage
Infiltration potential

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Influence on layer stiffness
 Environmental Conditions

MECHANISTIC ANALYSIS

FLEXIBLE RIGID

JPCP faulting and fatigue cracking

Fatigue cracking Curling and warping
Thermal cracking Drying shrinkage
Permanent deformations CRCP punchouts
IRI factor IRI factor
CRCP initial crack width
part II: moisture
effects
Unsaturated soils
 One-third of earth’s
surface is arid and
semi arid
 Unbound materials
under pavements are
generally unsaturated
Seasonal Water Deficient Area – 65% !!

By definition, in a water deficient climate, the monthly

evaporation from a free water surface exceeds the
monthly rainfall throughout the year
• After decades of focus on saturated soils,
the Geotech profession has begun to
turn its attention to unsaturated soils
• Construction in unsaturated soils is
preferred when practical, due to reduced
costs and effort
• Research community has made
substantial advances in understanding
fundamental aspects of unsaturated soil
behavior
Typical Pore Water Pressure Profile
 Pavements are constructed
primarily in soils that exhibit
continuous moisture changes
part IIa:
Thornthwaite
moisture index
Thornthwaite Moisture Index (TMI)
Balance between Rainfall and Potential Evapo-
transpiration (PE), which determines the amount
of water available in the soil
 P 
TMI = 75 − 1  + 10
 PE 
P = Annual Precipitation
PE = Evapotranspiration
f (temperature)
Thornthwaite Moisture
Seasonal Water Index
Deficient Area – 65% !!
 TMI is an index that indicates the relative aridity or
humidity of a given soil-climate system

 Factors included in TMI are:

- Precipitation
- Storage and runoff (soil type)
- Air temperature
- Evapotranspiration
- Solar radiation
Thornthwaite Moisture Index

• Potential
Evapotranspiration
 10ti 
a Hy = annual heat index for year y
PE i = 1.6 ti = mean monthly temperature in
H
 y  ºC

• Annual Heat Index Di N i

PE i = PE i
'
12
30
Hy = ∑ hi
i =1 Di = day length correction
hi = (0.2t i ) based on latitude and
1.514

sunshine
Thornthwaite Moisture Index
Thornthwaite Moisture Index
 Lima
TMI ≈ -30
 Luke-warm
(semi-calido)

 Desert climate

 Rainfall deficiency
during all weather
stations

 RH = Humid Ref: SENAMHI

part IIb: soil matric
suction
Most Accepted Stress State Variables

Negative Pore Water Pressure

Net Normal Stress Matric Suction

(σ – ua) (ua - uw)

Changes imposed by Changes produced by

human beings (σ – uw)
environmental
(design) conditions
Effective Stress
Positive Pore Water Pressure

Fredlund, 2006
Stress State for Unsaturated Soils in a
Nutshell

In general, soil has three (3) phases:

• Solid soil particles
• Water
• Air

Recall the mass-volume phase

relationships
Stress State for unsaturated Soils in a
Nutshell
Stress State for unsaturated Soils in a
Nutshell

When both air and water occupy the void

space between particles, the soil is called
Unsaturated.
Stress State for unsaturated Soils in a
Nutshell
When the void space is filled with water the
soil is called Saturated.

Saturated soil is just a special case of Unsaturated

soil
What Stresses Act on Soil?

Because soil is, in general, a three-

phase medium (air, water, and solid),
there are three stresses that must
be considered in describing the
overall state of soil stress:
What Stresses Act on Soil?
• Total stress (σ):
Normally compressive
• Pore air pressure (ua)
Normally positive
• Pore water pressure (uw)
Can be positive or negative, but is
normally negative when the soil is
unsaturated and all three phases are
present
What Stresses Act on Soil?
• We can combine these three stresses into
two measurable “net” stress state
variables, both of which tend to keep the
grains together when the soil is
unsaturated:

• The “net” total stress: (σ-ua)

• The matric suction: (ua-uw)
A simple example of how matric suction
pulls grains together follows.
When building a
sand castle, it is the
matric suction (water
in tension) that tends
to pull grains of sand
together, providing
strength and
stiffness.
Simplifications for Saturated Soil
Conditions

When the soil void space is filled

with water, and the soil is saturated,
the stress state is represented by
two stresses:
- Total Stress
- Pore Water Pressure
When combined, the Effective Stress is the stress
that controls the behavior of saturated soils
Soil Matric Suction
 Matric suction or negative pore water
pressure is an independent stress state
variable fundamental to the behavior
unsaturated soils
 Affects the total head for flow
 Affects the hydraulic conductivity
 Control soil moisture retention capabilities
 To consider the effect of moisture
fluctuations on strength (modulus), one
must characterize the soil in terms of its
matric suction
 Darcy’s Law Gets a Bit Complicated when
S < 100%

31
Hydraulic Conductivity Function
Conventional Assumption Used to
Estimate Negative Pore Water Pressures
• For a relatively near-surface groundwater table,
significant potential exists for capillary rise into
subgrade soils
Pavement • Assumption
Ground Surface
appropriate
Point of when soils
Interest are wetted to
a saturation
Suction of 85% or
Profile, yγw more
Water Table
Flux Boundary Conditions
 Microclimate
controls flux
boundary
conditions
Lateral flow from
shoulders
Vertical flow from
cracks
Evapotranspiration
Modeling Development

Flux Boundary Conditions

as f (Climate + GWT Depth) Soil
Properties

Soils Stress State =

Matric Suction
 Climate Data
• Temperature
– Sunrise/sunset
time
– Solar radiation
– Air temperature
– Percent sunshine
– Wind speed
– Longitude and
latitude

• Moisture
– Relative humidity
– Precipitation
– Groundwater table
depth
 Soils Data Collected to Calibrate
Models
• 30 visited sites within the continental USA
 Site Selection
• Pavement Type
• Depth to Groundwater Table
• Mean Annual Air Temperature
• Precipitation
• Freezing Conditions
• Soil Type
• Pavement Cracking
 Experiment Design – Field Data
30 Sites Visited
Pavement Type
AC PCC
Calibration with Field Data GWT depth
Deep Shallow Deep Shallow
Coarse Sg
Frozen High PI
Fine Sg
High Low PI
Precipitation Coarse Sg 1 1
No
> 800 mm High PI 1 1 1 1
freeze Fine Sg
High Maat Low PI 1
> 15oC Coarse Sg
Frozen High PI
Fine Sg
Low Low PI
Precipitation Coarse Sg 1 1
No
< 800 mm High PI 1
freeze Fine Sg
Low PI 1 1
Coarse Sg 1 1
Frozen High PI
Fine Sg
High Low PI
Precipitation Coarse Sg 1 1
No
> 800 mm High PI 2 1
freeze Fine Sg
Low Maat Low PI 1
< 15oC Coarse Sg 2
Frozen High PI 1
Fine Sg
Low Low PI 2 1
Precipitation No Coarse Sg 1 1
< 800 mm High PI 1 1
freeze Fine Sg
Low PI
Fieldwork in Groton, CT
 Typical Sample Location Layout
10-20 ft
TEST SECTION

Joint/Crack
Test Section Limit
Outside Lane Transition Zone
Traffic 1 2 3 C
12'
3' 3'

Outer Wheel Path

2-3 ft

5+00 ft TDR
Shoulder
Instrumentation

5'-10'
S

41
 Laboratory Testing Completed
 In-situ Moisture Content 257
 In-situ Dry Density 251
 Atterberg Limits 144
 Grain Size Distribution 148
 Specific Gravity of Solids 104
 Soil-Water Characteristic Curves 94
 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 64
on Unbound Materials
 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 22
on Bound Materials
 Parameters Considered
for Correlation with Matric Suction
• Annual Mean Relative Humidity
• Annual Mean Precipitation
• Thornthwaite Moisture Index (TMI)
• Depth to Groundwater Table
• P200 and Plasticity Index
• and more …
TMI-P200 Model – Granular Bases

(β + γ (TMI +101))
h= α+e
TMI-P200/wPI Model – Subgrades

  β  
  (TMI + γ ) 
h=α e + δ
 
 
 Error Analysis
Comparison with yγw Method

Model for Model for

Error
Granular Plastic yγ w
Analyzed
Material Material
Mean
Absolute 9.5% 37.7% 267%

Mean
2.1% 0.07% -259%
Algebraic
 Conclusions
• TMI seems to quantify the environmental
factors beneath a covered area (pavement)
effectively
• Soil type can be effectively represented by
Passing #200 and Plasticity Index
• Suction prediction based on TMI is far
superior than the traditional upward
extrapolation from groundwater table
depths
• Models are easy to implement
part IIc: soil-water
characteristic curve
 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve
• Moisture content is directly related to soil
matric suction by means of the soil-water
characteristic curve
1.0
0.9 Sand
Degree of Saturation, S

0.8 Silt

Clay
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric Suction (kPa)
 SWCC Parameters
• The SWCC is the relationship between soil
moisture content and the matric suction at
equilibrium conditions
• Suction dictates the moisture retention or
storage capacity of the soil
• Suction is perhaps the most important stress
state in the gradient that causes fluid flow
when the soil is not 100% saturated

50
SWCC Descriptive Parameters
SWCC Models

52
 SWCC Parameters
 
 
 
 1 
S = C( h ) ´
   h   
cf
bf

 ln  exp( 1) +  ÷  

Degree of Saturation     af    

Matric Suction
  h  
 
ln 1 + 
  hr  
C ( h ) = 1 − 
  10 6 
ln 1 +
  ÷
 53  hr 
How to obtain the
soil suction?
How to
 How to Obtain Soil Suction?

Hierarchical Levels

DIRECT MEASUREMENTS INDIRECT MEASUREMENTS

Laboratory Measurements Prediction based on Prediction based on

Field Measurements Grain-Size Dtstribution Simple Index Properties

Most accurate Higher uncertainty

Sophisticated Very low cost
equipment
Easier to
High cost implement
 How to Obtain Matric Suction?
• Laboratory measurements
– Pressure plates, pressure membranes
– Filter paper method
• Field measurements
– Thermal conductivity sensor
– Tensiometers
• Concept and theories have been developed
• Routine testing implementation has proven
difficult to achieve
SWCC Cells

57
 Difficulties when Measuring Suction
(SWCC)
• Greater level of difficulty
– Non-linear functions
• Time and cost associated with unsaturated
soil characterization
• Variability associated with measured suction
• Practitioners have not fully adopted and/or
accepted suction measurements as part of
the regular laboratory soils testing programs
– Reluctance to accept new practices
SWCC prediction
models How to
 Predicting the SWCC

• Predictions of SWCC are based on:

–Saturated soil properties
–Grain size distribution
–Soil index properties
• Plasticity Index, PI

60
 Estimating Suction based on Index
Properties (Zapata, 1999)

61
 New Model Available
Torres and Zapata, 2011
Measured vs Predicted - Fine Grained Soils
1.2

1
Plastic material
Degree of Saturation, Predicted

0.8

0.6
n = 31,869
R2 = 0.7543
0.4 Se/Sy = 0.50

log(af) = 0.69 - 2.7 / (1 + exp (4 - 0.14GI))

0.2
log (bf) = 0.78/(1+EXP(6.75-(0.19*GI)))

0 cf=0.03+0.62*(EXP(-0.82*((logaf-0.57)^2)))

hr = 494 + 660 / (1 + EXP(4 - 0.19GI)

-0.2
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Degree of Saturation, Measured
National catalogue
for more than
How to

31,000 soils
 Origin of Database
• National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
from the US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA)
database
– Initially intended for agricultural purposes
– Key soil properties useful in highway/pavement
engineering
– Joint agreement with the then Bureau of Public
Roads (BPR)
• Data is of public domain and available from the
Soildatamart website
65 – http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov
 Areas of Available Data

66
 Properties Collected
• Grain-size distribution (99%)
– Passing #4, #10, #40, #200
– Percentage of clay (> 0.002 mm) (4%)
• Atterberg limits
– Liquid limit (88%)
– Plasticity Index (99%)
• AASHTO soil classification (100%)
• Saturated hydraulic conductivity (100%)

• Groundwater table depth

– Annual average (32%)
– Seasonal (29%)

67
 Properties Estimated
• Enough data to estimate the Fredlund and
Xing soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC)
parameters (66%)
• AASHTO Group index
• CBR
– From soil index properties
• Resilient modulus
– From estimated CBR

68
6
9
Soil-Water Characteristic Parameters
Database (NCHRP 923B Project)
Soil Units Available for the Whole USA
 More Information Available

Integrating National Database of Subgrade Soil-Water Characteristic Curves and

Soil Index Properties with Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Claudia E. Zapata, Arizona State University
Carlos Ernesto Cary

Or

Zapata, C.E. (2010). Research Results Digest 347: A National Catalog of Subgrade
Soil-Water Characteristic Curves and Selected Soil Properties for Use with the
MEPDG. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, of the National Academies. ISSN 0077-5614. ISBN: 978-0-309-09929-5.
Library of Congress Control Number 2008924251. pp. 23.
part IId:
Environmental
adjustment factors
How do we adjust the MR due to
environmental conditions?

Moisture Freeze / Thaw

Adjustments Adjustments

Environmental Factor

Mr = Fenv x Mr opt
 Stiffness Adjustment

Environmental Factor
Stiffness Value
Triaxial Test
Used in
LEA
Mr = Fenv x Mr opt

EICM Model
 Models by Andrei and Witczak,
2003
• Normalize MR, and S with respect to
values at optimum and to plot change in
MR versus change in saturation
• Divide materials into:
–Coarse-Grained and Fine-Grained
• Use sigmoid model form to fit the
“data”
Effect of Moisture on Modulus

Andrei and Witczak, 2003

 MR – Moisture Model
b−a
a+
( (
1+ EXP β + km ⋅ S − Sopt ))
M R = 10 ⋅ M Ropt
MOISTURE
ADJUSTMENT M R = F U *M R opt
FACTOR (F U )

MR = Resilient Modulus at S
MRopt = Resilient modulus at Sopt
a, b, km = Regression parameters
β = lne(-b/a) from condition of (0,1) intercept
 Resilient Modulus Adjustment Factor

Fenv
MR = Fenv x MR opt

k2 k3
 θ   τ oct 
MR = k1×p a× × 
 + 1
 pa   pa 
opt

• This form was implemented in the ME-PDG for

“unfrozen” unbound materials
 Freeze-Thaw Effects: Freezing
• From Literature:
– MR = 2,500,000 psi for non-plastic
materials
– MR = 1,000,000 psi for plastic materials
• Model Form:
– MR = FF*MRopt
• FF = Adjustment factor for frozen materials
 Freeze-Thaw Effects: Thawing
• Modulus Reduction Factor
– 0.40 … 0.85 as a function of plasticity index and
% fines (wPI)
• Recovery Period
– 90 … 150 days as a function of wPI
• Model Form:
– MR = FR*MRopt
• FR = Adjustment factor for thawing
(recovering) materials
 Example
Minnesota

100

FROZEN

10
Fenv

OPTIMUM TR
1
EQUILIBRIUM

EQUILIBRIUM
RECOVERY
0.1
08/23/96 12/01/96 03/11/97 06/19/97 09/27/97
Time
 From NODE to LAYER …
Time (days)
Nodes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SPRING
1 AC ANALOGY
2
3 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR BASE
4 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR
5 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
6 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
7 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
8 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
9 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR FR SUBBASE
10 F F F F F F FF FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
11 F F F F F F FF FF FF FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
12 F F F F F R FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
13 F F F R F R FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR
14 F R F R F R FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FU FU FU
15 F R F R F R FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FU FU FU FU
16 F R F R F R FR FR FR FR FR FU FU FU FU FU FU
17 FR FR FR FR FR FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU SUBGRADE
18 FR FR FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU
19 FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU
20 FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU
21 FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU LEGEND:
22 FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FROZEN
23 FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU RECOVERING
24 FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU FU UNFROZEN
 Fenv = Layer Adjustment Factor
Principle: Find Fenv corresponding to an equivalent (composite) modulus that
produces the same average displacement over the total thickness of the
layer/sublayer for the considered analysis period (1 month or 2 weeks).

ttotal ⋅ htotal
Fenv =
 n  hnode  
ttotal

∑  ∑ 
  F

 
t =1  node =1  node ,time  

• hnode = Length between mid-point nodes

• htotal = Total height of the considered layer/sublayer
• ttotal = The desired time period (either a two-week period or a month
period)
• Fnode,t = Adjustment factor at a given node and time increment which
could be FF , FR , or FU
 Fenv Calculation Example
Time (days)
Nodes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
3 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 BASE
4 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 F env = 1.45
5 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
6 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
7 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
8 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

9 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 SUBBASE

10 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 F env = 0.92
11 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7
12 75 75 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
13 75 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 LEGEND:
14 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 FROZEN
15 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 RECOVERING
16 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 UNFROZEN
 Goodness of Fit
Phoenix Valley Subgrade
part IIe: an
improved
environmental
adjustment model
 More data collected indicated…
1.5
 EICM  FU = MR / MRopt
1.0  a = min FU
0.5  b = max FU
 km = slope
log FU

0.0

 FU conservatively
-0.5
Database - Coarse Grained predicted
Database - Fine Grained
-1.0 M-EPDG Prediction - Coarse Grained  FU for fine grained
-1.5
M-EPDG Prediction - Fine Grained
materials underestimated
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20
S-Sopt (%)
-10 0 10 20 30
at dry conditions

b−a
log FU = a +  −b
( )

 ln + k m ⋅ S − S opt 
1+ e  a 
New Model as Function of Soil Type
(Cary and Zapata, 2010)

(δ + γ ⋅ wPI 0.5 ) − (α + β .e − wPI ) −1

(
log FU = α + β ⋅ e )
− wPI −1
+
(
  − δ +γ ⋅wPI 0.5 )  + (ρ +ω ⋅e 
 ln  )
− wPI 0.5  S − Sopt  
⋅ 
 
(α + β )
− wPI −1   100  
1+ e    
. e
 Proposed Model as Function of
Soil Type
1.5
n = 591
S e /S y = 0.650
1.0 R 2 adj =0.581

0.5
Observed

0.0
log FU

-0.5

-1.0
log F U Observed = 1.002 x log F U Predicted
2
R = 0.581
-1.5
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
log FU Predicted
 Proposed Model as Function of
Soil Type
12
wPI = 50

wPI = 45
10
F U-STD - Environmental Factor

wPI = 40

wPI = 35
8 wPI = 30

wPI = 25

6
wPI = 20

wPI = 15
4
wPI = 10 Cary and Zapata, 2010
wPI = 5
2 wPI = 0

0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
S-Sopt (%)
 Conclusions
 A database comprising 96 soil types aimed at the
enhancement of the environmental effects on Mr was
developed.
 Current M-EPDG model predicts conservative estimates
of the FU, especially for plastic materials on the drier state
 Stress state level effects on FU predictions were found to
be no significant for the data collected
 Data for compaction energy effect evaluation (upon FU)
for subgrade material is hard to get and therefore, the
model does not account for compaction effort for these
materials
 The evaluation performed on granular materials was
based on preliminary findings by Rada (1981)
part III: temperature
effects
 Temperature
Boundary Conditions

30 ft

Known
Temperature

Ground Temperature below 30’ = MAAT

 Temperature
Boundary Conditions

Isogeothermal Map: United States

FHWA-RD-90-033: Figure 8
 Temperature Averaging
• AC stiffness varies with temperature

• AC stiffness affects the stiffness of underlying

stress-dependent materials

• Pavement life estimates are based on the

pavement stiffness and so can vary widely
depending on AC temperature used in the
analysis
Temperature Averaging: Monthly Data

20%

15%
Frequency

10%

5%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Temperature (C)
 Temperature Averaging:
Monthly and Daily Data

20%
Daily
Monthly
15%
Frequency

10%

5%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Temperature (C)
 Temperature Averaging:
Monthly, Daily, & Hourly Data

20% Hourly
Daily
15% Monthly
Frequency

10%

5%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Temperature (C)
 Temperature Averaging
• What is the effect of the temperature
averaging interval on computed design
life if we assume a uniform distribution
of traffic throughout the day?
 Temperature Averaging
(Drumm)
Pavement Life Overestimation
Subgrade Using Uniform Traffic and ...
Stiffness Hourly Daily Monthly
Average Average Average
Temps Temps Temps
Very soft 11%
Soft 10%
Medium 10%
Stiff 9%
 Temperature Averaging
Pavement Life Overestimation
Subgrade Using Uniform Traffic and ...
Stiffness Hourly Daily Monthly
Average Average Average
Temps Temps Temps
Very soft 11% 58%
Soft 10% 54%
Medium 10% 47%
Stiff 9% 39%
 Temperature Averaging
Pavement Life Overestimation
Subgrade Using Uniform Traffic and ...
Stiffness Hourly Daily Monthly
Average Average Average
Temps Temps Temps
Very soft 11% 58% 76%
Soft 10% 54% 71%
Medium 10% 47% 62%
Stiff 9% 39% 52%
part IV:
environmental
effect in pavement
life
Environmental effect in pavement life

Environment effect in pavement life

can be measured by the sensitivity
of pavement distresses to
environmental factors
 0.30 MAAT
(75.1oF)
0.25
AC Rutting (in)

0.20 MAAT
(66.5oF)
0.15 MAAT (62.1oF)
MAAT
0.10 (47.2oF)

0.05

-
Phoenix Dallas Atlanta Minneapolis
Environmental Location
108
 Effect of Climate on Cracking
700

600
Phoenix
500
Damage (%)

400

Tennessee
300

200

100
Minnesota
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Time (Month)
 2500
Min. Air Temp.
(-47oF)
Thermal Cracking Amount (ft/mile)

2000 Min. Air Temp.

(-34oF)

1500

1000

500 Min. Air Temp.

(-29oF)
Min. Air Temp.
(-15oF)
0
Barrow Fargo Billings Chicago
Environmental Location
110
Effect of Ground Water Table on Cracking
300

250
2

200
Damage (%)

150
20
100

50

60
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Time (Month)

Depth to Ground Water Table, ft.

part V: drainage
considerations
Effect moisture has on the
characteristics of unbound road
building material

All the research shows clearly that

the bearing capacity of unbound
granular materials (MR and
deformation properties) are
affected by changes in the
moisture content.
Effect moisture has on the
characteristics of unbound road
building material

- For coarse graded soils this

effect is less significant.
- For dense graded materials and
materials with a high content of
fines the characteristics can
change considerably.
Subsurface drainage systems are
used for three basic reasons:

- To lower the groundwater level

- To intercept lateral flow of
subsurface water beneath the
pavement structure
- To remove the water that
infiltrates the pavement’s
surface
Typical drainage problems

- The biggest problems are in

road sections located on
sloping hills.
Berntsen and Saarenketo, 2005
Protecting ditch slopes

- Stops falling of material into ditch

- Aids clearance.
Roads must have a ditch

- If ditch missing, pavement will be

damaged
 Typical drainage problems and
proposed solutions

- Handout extracted from

“DRAINAGE ON LOW TRAFFIC
VOLUME ROADS” from
Berntsen and Saarenketo,
Norwegian Public Roads
Administration, 2005
 Modeling drainage benefit

• Berntsen & Saarenketo (2005)

b
1
N = a 
 εv 
• Hence, they reasoned
b b b
N undrained  1   1   ε v − drained 

= a  a  =  
N drained  ε v −undrained   ε v − drained   ε v −undrained 

• εν can be computed from any stress/strain analysis

program
• Improvement easily computed
Maintaining and improving the
drainage system is perhaps the
most cost effective measure on
paved fields where inadequate
drainage is the main cause of
deterioration.
part VI: gracias!