Overlay and Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation Manual

DESIGN for ROADS and BRIDGES PART 4 – Overlay Design
2009
DESIGN for ROADS and BRIDGES
PART 4
MATERIALS & PAVEMENT DESIGN
b) –Overlay Design and Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation
The Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads Draft Document – September 2009

2009
1 Summary...................................................................................................................1
2 Definitions and Abbreviations...................................................................................2
3 Introduction...............................................................................................................5
4 Network level evaluation...........................................................................................7
4.1 Visual Inspection...........................................................................................7
4.2 Roughness Condition Data...........................................................................8
5 Project Level Evaluation.........................................................................................13
5.1 Detailed Visual Condition Survey................................................................13
5.2 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Survey..............................................15
5.3 Traffic Estimation........................................................................................15
5.3.1 Classified Traffic Counts and Axle Loading.........................................................15
5.3.2 Conversion to design traffic loading ....................................................................16
5.3.3 Effect of Road Geometry.....................................................................................16
5.4 Homogeneous Sections..............................................................................17
5.4.1 DCP and Test Pit Investigations..........................................................................20
5.5 Use of DCP data for remedial work............................................................20
5.5.1 Test Pits..............................................................................................................21
6 Calculation of Structural Number............................................................................23
6.1 Definitions....................................................................................................23
6.1.1 variation of bituminous layer coefficient with temperature...................................24
6.2 Use of Structural Number for Overlay Design............................................25
6.3 Use of the FWD to estimate SNPExisting...................................................26
6.4 Overlay Design Procedure using the FWD.................................................27
6.4.1 SNP for Future Traffic (SNPDesign)....................................................................27
6.4.2 Structural Deficiency............................................................................................28
6.4.3 Designing thick overlays......................................................................................30
6.5 Overlay Design Procedure using the DCP.................................................32
7 Remedial Works Prior to Overlay...........................................................................34
8 References..............................................................................................................35
9 Appendices.............................................................................................................36
9.1 Appendix 1 : DCP Test...............................................................................36
9.1.1 Description..........................................................................................................36
9.1.2 Operation ...........................................................................................................36
9.1.3 Interpretation of results.......................................................................................37
9.1.4 Calculation of Structural Number........................................................................39
9.2 Test Pit........................................................................................................41
9.2.1 Labour, equipment and materials........................................................................41
9.2.2 Sampling and testing procedure..........................................................................41
9.2.2.1 Field Procedure................................................................................42
9.2.2.2 Laboratory procedure.......................................................................43
The Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads Draft Document – September 2009

PART 4 – Overlay Design
2009
1 SUMMARY
The purpose of this Manual is to update the document of the same title produced for the
Ministry of Works, Roads Department in May 1988. The Manual recommends a practical
procedure to:
• design asphalt overlays; and

• audit overlay designs submitted by Consultants for major projects.
The procedure is based upon the AASHTO Design Guide (1993) which uses the concept of
Structural Number (SN) to establish the thickness of the overlay. The procedure uses a
correlation between Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) deflection measurements and the
Adjusted Structural Number (SNP) of the existing pavement. This correlation must be
calibrated for Kenya conditions.
Overlay design thickness is based on the equation:

Overlaythi ckness (mm ) =
SNP Design
−SNP
  Existing
/ a1
 ] ∗25 .4
   
Where:
SNPDesign = Structural Number for future traffic
SNPExisting = Structural Number of the existing road
a1 = Layer coefficient of asphalt overlay
25.4 = conversion mm to inches
SNPDesign values are determined by the AASHTO (1993) design equation.

SNPExisting values are based on FWD deflection measurements.
The use of the FWD allows designs to be completed quickly and at relatively low cost. In
common with all overlay design procedures the method described in this must be critically
reviewed and adjusted according to local experience.
The Manual also provides guidance on a method of designing overlays using the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer (DCP), when FWD results are not available.
Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 1

Draft Document – September 2009
2009
2 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Adjusted structural numberA numerical indicator of the overall strength of the pavement
layers including the subgrade. It consists of a summation of
the product of the thickness (in inches), layer coefficient and
drainage coefficient (if applicable) of each of the pavement
layers plus a contribution from the subgrade. It is independent
of where the boundary layer of the subgrade is selected.
Asphalt A generic term for any mixture of bitumen, filler and
aggregate. This includes asphalt concrete.
Asphalt concrete A mixture of bitumen, filler and crushed stone aggregate
proportioned to meet specific strength, deformation and
volumetric criteria related to the Marshall test method for
asphalt mixes.
Base course A pavement layer lying between the surfacing and the sub-
base. This can be constructed from asphalt, granular or
stabilised material.
Binder course The lower bituminous course of the pavement, usually asphalt
concrete. It is not always present ie the wearing course may
rest directly on the base course.
California Bearing Ratio This is the standard test for characterising subgrade material
and some granular layers (test method AASHTO T193).
CBR California Bearing Ratio
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer This is a portable, hand-operated, percussive penetrometer
for rapidly assessing the strength of subgrade and other
granular layers, on site. The results can be converted to CBR
values.
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Empirical A method of engineering design based on observation of the
performance of structures. New designs are extrapolated or
interpolated from the observations without necessarily
reverting to the calculated stresses and strains in the road
structure.
ESAL Equivalent Standard Axle Load
Equivalent Standard Axle This is the standard unit of measurement of the

damaging effect of traffic.
Falling Weight Deflectometer A road testing device that generates a pulse load on the road
surface and measures the peak vertical deflection at the
centre of the loading plate and at several radial positions by a
series of sensors.
FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer
Layer coefficient A number (a1 value) to indicate the strength of asphalt, base
course or unbound sub-base layers when calculating the
structural number of a road pavement.
Maintenance measures undertaken to preserve the pavement, consisting
of:
 routine: eg grass cutting, ditch & culvert cleaning
 recurrent: eg patching, pothole-filling, crack-sealing
 periodic: eg re-sealing road, re-gravelling shoulders

2009
 urgent: eg debris removal, erecting warnings
Mechanistic Method of engineering design based on mathematical models
of material behaviour and determination of stresses and
strains within the structure.
Modified Structural Number A numerical indicator of the overall strength of the pavement
layers including the subgrade. It consists of a summation of
the product of the thickness (in inches), layer coefficient and
drainage coefficient (if applicable) of each of the pavement
layers plus a contribution from the subgrade
Overlay A strengthening layer of either granular or asphalt placed on
top of an existing road to strengthen the road.
Rehabilitation measures undertaken to increase significantly the functional
life of a road pavement
Reliability The reliability of a pavement design is the probability that the
pavement section will perform satisfactorily for the traffic and
environmental conditions over the design period.
Regulating course A layer of material, usually asphalt concrete, placed on an
irregular or unsatisfactory road surface primarily to achieve a
substantially smoother surface or a changed surface profile.
Its thickness will be variable and is typically used when
overlaying existing pavements which have ruts. The
maximum particle size may be fairly small as this material is
sometimes laid to less than 20mm thickness.
Selected subgrade Imported, good quality soil or rock fill material, which is placed
at the top of the subgrade. Its purpose is to increase the
strength and stiffness of low strength in-situ material and thus
reduce the pavement thickness.
Serviceability The serviceability of a pavement is its ability to serve the type
of traffic using the pavement.
SN Structural Number
SNC Modified Structural Number
SNP Adjusted Structural Number
Sub-base A medium quality granular layer resting on the subgrade and
supporting the base course.
Subgrade All the material below the sub-base. It may consist of in-situ
material, ordinary fill or “selected subgrade “. (Subgrade has
the same meaning as the AASHTO term “roadbed”.)
Surfacing The layer(s) of asphalt or surface dressing forming the surface
of the pavement. If constructed of asphalt it may include a
wearing course and an optional binder course.
Structural Number A numerical indicator of the overall strength of the pavement
layers. It consists of a summation of the product of the
thickness (in inches), layer coefficient and drainage coefficient
(if applicable) of each of the pavement layers above the
subgrade.
Structural deficiency The difference between the required strength of a road to be
overlaid and its existing strength. Recorded in units of
Structural Number
Terminal serviceability index This is the index of the lowest serviceability that will be
tolerated by the road users, before rehabilitation, resurfacing

2009
or reconstruction becomes necessary. The value will depend
on the status of the road and generally lies between 3 and 2.
Wearing course The uppermost bituminous course of the pavement, usually
asphalt concrete. The top surface of this layer should provide
a smooth surface but with adequate texture to provide
adequate friction for safe vehicle braking and turning. See
also surfacing
WMAAT Weighted Monthly Average Annual Temperature.

2009
3 INTRODUCTION
Roads in Kenya vary widely in their geometric standard and the traffic they carry. They have
been constructed and maintained over a period of years; indeed, many have ‘evolved’
rather than been designed and constructed by a formalized process. The range in
topography and traffic loading results in roads having a wide range of construction thickness
and strength. However, the common theme is that they have a granular road base and
either a relatively thin asphalt concrete or surface dressing surfacing. The road network,
both in flat and hilly terrain, is also criss-crossed with patches and utility trenches. These
often contribute to road deterioration through poor reinstatement.
The present overlay practice is either to mill the existing surface and overlay with 40-50mm
(periodic maintenance) of asphalt, or to apply a new surface dressing, or to engage
consultants to carry out the overlay design for major projects. The overlay designs
submitted by Consultants are generally based on the methods described in ‘Design of
Pavement Structures’ (AASHTO, 1993).
The proposed empirical overlay design method, described in this , is also based upon the
AASHTO recommendations (1993) and uses the concept of Structural Number (SN) to
establish the thickness of the overlay. The design process is illustrated in Fig 3.1.
The procedure uses a relationship to convert FWD deflection measurements to the
Adjusted Structural Number (SNP) of the existing pavement, allowing designs to be
completed quickly and at relatively low cost.
In common with all overlay design procedures the method described in this recommends a
method to formulate designs which must be reviewed by the Engineer and adjusted based
on his/her own local experience.
The design process envisages the following two levels of survey:
• Network level surveys, consisting of roughness and visual condition, carried out to
demarcate road sections of equivalent condition, followed by:
• Project level surveys, more detailed in scope, consisting of visual condition, FWD,
DCP and Test Pit investigations, carried out to determine the level of maintenance
required.

2009
Figure 3.1: Design Process
Establish BoQ of
remedial works from Results from Network VCS and Roughness Survey
VCS. identifies sections of road for rehabilitation
-
Carry out nondestructive tests
Project Level VCS
FWD deflections
Traffic count (where necessary)
Axle load survey (where necessary)
Identify homogeneous sections of road

using FWD deflection (do)
Plan and carry out destructive tests

(DCP and Test Pits)
Establish Adjusted Structural Number

at each FWD point
Correct Adjusted Structural Number

for temperature
Establish required Design Structural Number

for future traffic
Calculate Structural Deficiency from Existing

Structural Number
Design thickness of strengthening overlay

for each homogenous section
Calculate Costs

2009
4 NETWORK LEVEL EVALUATION
The network level evaluation categorises road sections into the following :
• those where only minimal routine or periodic maintenance needed

• those where major treatment, such as reconstruction needed, and
• those of intermediate condition where further project-level investigation is needed to
decide what measures to take.
4.1 Visual Inspection

The objectives are to identify the type and severity of the distress in a quantitative manner
in order to estimate maintenance interventions and also to enable the function of
performance modelling tools (eg HDM) if required.
The inspection is implemented by examining the condition of road cross sections at discreet
intervals, or samples. The condition is evaluated at each sample and combined with a
qualitative assessment of the interval between each sample.
The inspection should be undertaken by a trained engineer who also has knowledge of the
software system that he will use to process the data recorded.
Each sample is subdivided into a number of sub-samples and the distress in each sub-
sample is recorded. The severity of the distress is estimated as the proportion of the total
number of sub-samples affected.
The total number of sub-samples influences the survey precision. The number of samples
influences the reliability of the survey. The level of detail required is governed by the
purpose for the data and the resources available to do the work. For network surveys,
sample points could be spaced at up to 1km spacings, each with 2 sub-sample points. For
project surveys, sample points would be more frequent (from 0.01km to 0.1km spacings),
each sample point having 4 sub-sample points.
Table 4.1 gives details of the assessment criteria, Table 4.2 the roughness values to be
expected, Table 4.3 the recommended threshold values for all the assessment criteria and
Table 4.4 lists the risks associated with these partial surveys and recommended follow-up
work. Table 4.5 is a recommended field form.
For 2-lane roads ( ≥ 5.5m), the defects will be assessed in 4 transverse strips
corresponding to each wheel path, covering the full width of the pavement. For road widths
< 5.5 m wide, such that the inner wheel paths overlap leading to 3 rather than 4 wheelpaths,
the assessment shall be carried out over three strips corresponding to the wheelpaths. The
centre wheel path ratings shall be allocated to both strips 2 and 3.
Table 4.1: Assessment criteria for Visual Condition Survey

Feature Rating
Wide cracks > 2m 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on
number of strips with this defect
Depressions with cracks 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on

2009
Rutting (Visible, >10mm) 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on

Edge failures 0, 1 or 2 depending on number of

edges with this defect
Shallow potholes - No base Number per sampling interval

exposed
(Include shallow local failures on

the basis of 1m2 = 1 pothole )
Deep Potholes - Base exposed Number per sampling interval
(Include shallow local failures on

the basis of 1m2 = 1 pothole )
“Shiny” Surface 0, 1 or 2 depending on number of

edges with this defect
General Condition 1 Routine: No depressions, only a

few cracks and shallow potholes,
(Surveyor’s estimate of the required
very minor rutting.
maintenance for the sample length)
2 Thin Overlays: Slight depressions,
some shallow potholes, some
NB. Not all the indicated defects
cracks, slight rutting.
need to be present to qualify for a
particular treatment.
3 Thick overlays: Major
depressions with cracks, some deep
potholes, wide cracks and
significant rutting.
4 Reconstruction: Broken up
pavement areas, deep potholes,
depressions with cracks and
substantial rutting.
The results of the survey can be evaluated according to Table 4.3 and this will enable the
road sections to be categorised.
4.2 Roughness Condition Data

Roughness is normally measured using a Bump Integrator and expressed through the
International Roughness Index (IRI), in m/km. Typical values of the IRI with reference to the
type and condition of the road are indicated in Fig 4.2.
Table 4.2: Roughness criteria

2009
IRI Ranges Road Condition
Lower than 6 very good

6 to 11 good
11 to 15 fair
15 to 19 poor
Larger than 19 very poor

2009
Table 4.3: Proposed Analysis of Network Visual Condition Survey Data

Class 1 2 3 4
Treatment Routine Thin Overlays ≤ 40mm Thick overlays Reconstruction
(Patching and crack sealing)
Purpose • Local repairs and sealing • Restore surface • Strengthening • Replace excessively
characteristics • Reduce roughness weakened and distorted
• Prevent moisture entry AC and Base
• Restore transverse
shape ( + reg. Layer)
Typical Pavement Small number of local failures or Some local failures, minor More frequent failures and Frequent and severe failures and
Condition cracks rutting, cracked or poor surface. depressions, some weakness in deformation, general weakness in
(Strength, Ride and Surface OK) (Strength OK) AC and/or Base, AC and/or Base.
Road Class Int. P+S Local Int. P+S Local Int. P+S Local Int. P+S Local
Roughness (IRI ≤ 4 ≤ 5 ≤ 6 ≤ 4 ≤ 5 ≤ 6 4 to 6 5 to 7 6 to 8 >6 >7 >8
m/km)
Wide cracks 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 ≥ 3 ≥ 3 4
Depressions with ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≥ 2 ≥ 2 ≤ 3 >3 >3 4
cracks
Rutting ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≥ 2 ≥ 2 ≤ 3 >3 >3 >3
Edge Failures ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 2
Shallow Potholes ≤ 20 ≤ 20 ≤ 30 ≤ 30 ≤ 30 ≤ 40 > 30 > 30 >40 > 30 > 30 >40
(No. per km)
Deep Potholes ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤ 20 ≤ 15 ≤ 15 ≤ 30 ≤ 20 ≤ 20 >30 > 20 > 20 >30
(No. per km)
“Shiny” Surface ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 >1 >1 >2 >1 >1 >2
>1 >1 >2
General Condition Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 10 Draft Document – September

2009
2009
Table 4.4: Risks involved and action required on completion of Network Surveys
Class 1 2 3 4
Treatment Routine Thin Overlays ≤ 40mm (or Thick overlays Reconstruction

Surface Dressing or
(Patching and crack sealing)
Microsurfacings)
Risks of Fast- More serious deterioration May over or under-estimate May over or under-estimate May exaggerate deterioration.
Track VCS between sample lengths may be deterioration but this will be deterioration but this will be There is a need for condition
assessment missed. There is a need for corrected during follow-up corrected during follow-up checks of some of the non-
condition checks of some of the Detailed VCS. Detailed VCS. sample lengths before
non-sample lengths to confirm proceeding with FWD
this classification.
Further Patching Works Records only Essential: Essential: Essential:
Surveys
• Detailed VCS Detailed VCS (100% • FWD @ 100m, staggered
(100% in 5m sample lengths) in 5m sample lengths) L + R, outer wheel
• Traffic survey paths.
FWD @ 50m, staggered L + R,
outer wheel paths. • DCP@ 200m
Discretionary
Traffic survey • Traffic survey
FWD + Cores + DCP + Test pits
Axle weight survey • Axle weight survey
Discretionary:
• Cores + DCP + Test pits at
frequencies and locations to
suit FWD d1 values.

2009
2009
Region:…………………………………. Road Name:……………………………. Road ID:…………… Sampling Interval:……..
…m Direction:………………………. Single / Dual Width:…………. m Date:……………….. Form Start Time:
………………
Start of Survey: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Roughness (IRI Ex database

m/km)
Wide cracks 01234
Depressions with 01234

cracks
Rutting 01234
Edge Failures 012
Shallow Potholes Number

(No. per sample i’val)
Deep Potholes (No. Number
per sample interval)
“Shiny” Surface 01234
General Condition 1 2 3 4
Remaining interval Worse = 0

condition Similar = 1
Better = 2
Surveyed by – Name:…………………………….. Signed:…………..………………..

2009
2009
5 PROJECT LEVEL EVALUATION
5.1 Detailed Visual Condition Survey
The project Visual Condition Survey (VCS) is more detailed than the network survey,
covering the whole of the road. It is carried out during on foot, each sample length (5, 10 or
20 metre) of the road being examined to identify defects in the wheelpaths. Notes on the
collection of the defects are presented in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Explanation of Defects

Defect Unit Notes
Wide single cracks m Cracks (wider than 3mm) to be sealed, in m
Wide connected cracks m Cracks wider than 3mm, separating pavement into
blocks, to be sealed, in m
Alligator cracks, no m2 Cracks separating pavement into small pieces, but no
depressions depression or rut
2
Alligator cracks, m As above, with associated depression
depressions
Deep Potholes N Potholes that penetrate through base
2
Structural rutting m >10mm depth, originating in base
Edge failure m Loss of pavement surface >50mm
Trench/Patch Failure m2 Rutted (>10mm) or broken-up patch
Shallow potholes N Potholes that occur just in surfacing
Asphalt shoving N Pushing-up of asphalt surfacing
Surface rutting m2 >10mm depth but just in surfacing
Slippage cracks N Adhesion failure of asphalt surfacing to base
Neither the condition of the road shoulders, nor of the drainage are covered in this type of
survey, which refers to bituminous-surfaced roads only.
Any one defect should only be counted once: for example, ‘rutting with cracks should be
counted as “Depressions with cracks” only and not also recorded as “Rutting”. The data
from the VCS is transferred to a spreadsheet that automatically calculates the Bill of
Quantities for the remedial work prior to overlay. Quantities for crack sealing should be
adjusted to an area not affected by previous deep or surface patching.
Prior to overlay a number of these defects will need remedial work. The survey enables the
quantity of materials required to be estimated.

2009
TABLE: PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY (Project Level)
:‫رقمالطرينق‬ :‫إسمالطرينق‬ :‫ل مننطقة‬

Road ID Road Name Region
:‫المساف ة العينننينة‬ ‫عرضالطرينق‬ :‫التنجاه‬

Sample Interval Carriageway Width Direction
BILL OF QUANTITIES
Start of Survey:
Mean
Sta 0+000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Unit Sum Quantity
Width
CRACK SEALING
Wide Single cracks l.m 0 0
Wide Connected
l.m 0 0
cracks
Alligator Cracks
sq.m 0 0
without Depression
Alligator Cracks with
sq.m 0 0
FULL DEPTH PATCHING
Depression
Base Shoving sq.m 0 0
Deep Potholes sq.m 0 0
Structural Rutting sq.m 0 0
Edge Failure sq.m 0 0
Trench / Patch Failure sq.m 0 0
Shallow Potholes sq.m 0 0

MILL AND REPLACE
Asphalt Shoving sq.m 0 0
Surface Rutting sq.m 0 0
Slippage Cracks sq.m 0 0
“Shiny” Surface sq.m 0 0

2009
2009
5.2 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Survey

On 2 lane single carriageway roads FWD tests should be carried in both lanes (ie both
directions) in the outer wheel-path (closest to the shoulder of the road). The location of the
FWD tests should be ‘staggered’ to allow for maximum coverage. For multi-lane dual
carriageways FWD measurements should be carried out, as a minimum, in the outer wheelpath
of the heaviest loaded lane. In addition, tests should be carried out in other lanes where the
condition of the lane is worse than the heaviest loaded lane.
On Class A, B and C roads, the tests should be carried out at 50 metre intervals. On 2 lane
single carriageway roads the location of the tests should be ‘staggered’ by 25 metres so as to
result in an FWD test every 25 metres along the road.
On Class D and E roads, the tests should be carried out at 100 metre intervals. On 2 lane
single carriageway roads the location of the tests should be ‘staggered’ by 50 metres so as to
result in an FWD test every 50 metres along the road.
The FWD tests should be normalised to a standard load of 50 KN.
5.3 Traffic Estimation

5.3.1 CLASSIFIED TRAFFIC COUNTS AND AXLE LOADING
Reference is made to the Design for New Bituminous, Gravel and Concrete Roads for
procedures to undertake traffic and axle load surveys. Fig 6.1 summarises the steps described.
Figure 5.2: Steps for carrying out Traffic and Axle Load Surveys
Select Design Period
Determine Initial Traffic

Volume (Initial AADT) per
Class of Vehicle
Determine Traffic Growth
Determine Cumulative
Traffic Volumes over the
Design Period
Estimate Mean Equivalent

Axle Load (ESA) per Class
of Vehicle
Estimate Cumulative
Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 15 ESAs
over the Design Period (in
one direction)
2009
The individual weights of each axle of a particular vehicle class are converted to ESA, which
are added to produce a total for the vehicle. It is usual to determine the average ESA for each
vehicle class based on the results of an axle load survey, allowing for the proportions of loaded
and unloaded vehicles in each class. (These may vary in each direction and between routes.)
It is essential that the individual axle weights are converted to ESA before any aggregation or
averaging of data is carried out for either the individual vehicle or for all the weighed vehicles of
a single class.
After the total ESA for each vehicle have been calculated, the average value of ESA is
calculated for the whole vehicle class. These average values of ESA are sometimes termed
“vehicle wear factors” or “vehicle damage factors”.
The total contribution to pavement loading of a vehicle class is the product of the vehicle
damage factor of the vehicle class and the number of such vehicles recorded on the road either
on a daily or annual basis. The process is repeated for the other classes and the total loading
per unit of time is determined by summation.
5.3.2 CONVERSION TO DESIGN TRAFFIC LOADING

The pavement loading calculated above must be summed for the whole of the design period
(normally 10 to 15 years), adjusted for annual traffic growth. The estimate of annual traffic
growth is usually based on historic trends and affected by predictions of future economic
activity, but normally increases vary between 2 and 7 per cent per annum. In some instances
there is the possibility of a sudden increase (or reduction) of traffic, when for example a new
factory, quarry or port comes into operation.
The Design Traffic Loading in the performance period is calculated from Equation 1:
Equation 1: Calculation of design traffic loading

  r 
N

n   100  − 1
1 +
ESALs = ∑  ESAL1 * 365 * 
1
 r 
 100 
 
Where:
N = Performance Period in years

ri = Growth rate (%)
ESAL1 = Daily number of ESA in the first year in traffic class ‘i’
5.3.3 EFFECT OF ROAD GEOMETRY

The vehicle damage to the road pavement is influenced by the road geometry. On narrow
single carriageway roads the wheelpaths can overlap in the centre of the road, causing more
damage. On multi lane dual carriageways medium and heavy traffic can use other lanes
besides the outer lane (most heavily trafficked lane). The criteria presented in Table 6.1 can be
used to calculate the design traffic.
Table 5.6 Effect of road geometry on design traffic loading

Single/Dual No of Width of Calculation of ESALs
Carriageways Lanes Carriagway
(m)
Single 2 <6.7 80% of the ESALs in both
directions is used in order to
allow for overlap on the

2009
central section of the road.
Single 2 > 6.7 The ESALs in the most
heavily trafficked direction is
used.
Dual 2 - With less than 2000
commercial vehicles per day
in one direction, 90% of the
ESALs in one direction is
used.
Dual 2 - With more than 2000
commercial vehicles per day
in one direction, a special
study shall be carried out to
establish the distribution of
commercial vehicles.
Dual >2 - A special study shall be
carried out to establish the
distribution of commercial
vehicles
5.4 Homogeneous Sections

Results from the Network Visual Condition and Roughness Surveys will identify lengths of road
in need of rehabilitation. Those lengths of road that require Detailed Design (see Fig 6.1) need
further investigation with the FWD or other equipment as described below, as part of the
rehabilitation design process.
Figure 5.3: Maintenance Thresholds
Roughness Surfacing Integrity & Texture

Maintenance Operation
IRI Cracked & Cracked Potholed Shiny
depressed
area % area % area % area %
< 10 Patch, Seal Cracks

Maintainable
<5
No 0
> 10 Patch, Seal Cracks, Grinding
< 10
IRI ≤ Min 0 to .3 Patch, Seal Cracks, Surface Dressing [SD]
< 15
<2 < .5 Patch, Seal Cracks, Inlay, Double SD
< 20
.5 to 1 Patch, Seal Cracks, Mill & Replace
< 1 Patch, Seal Cracks, Thin Overlay

< 30
<5
to Rehabilitate
1 to 2 Patch, Mill & Overlay[Detailed Design]

> 30
Min< IRI <Max < 3 Patch, Mill & Strengthen[Detailed Design]
5 to 10 < 30 Repair, Mill & Strengthen[Detailed Design]
> 30 Reclaim Base & Repave[Detailed Design]
IRI ≥ Max > 10 Reconstruction & Improvement
All roads vary in pavement thickness and strength along their length. For instance, the strength
of the underlying subgrade will vary along the road alignment as the road passes from areas of
cut to fill. Rehabilitation measures cannot be tailored to each and every variation in road
characteristic, so to produce cost-effective designs the road should be divided into lengths

2009
where the strength properties are similar, known as homogeneous lengths. Each
homogeneous length is then treated as a separate overlay design exercise. This will result in
reduced costs as the overlay thickness changes, reflecting the existing strength of each
homogeneous section.
This procedure is best carried out by using the Cumulative Sum Method (CUSUM) on FWD
central deflection measurements (do). The method involves plotting the cumulative sum of the
differences of the FWD deflection from the mean FWD value calculated from all the results.
The calculations are based on Equation 2 and a worked example is shown in Table 6.1:
Equation 2: CUSUM calculation
S = FWD − FWD +S
i i mean i −1
Where:
FWDmean = Mean FWD deflection of the road

FWDi = FWD deflection at chainage i
Si = Cumulative sum of the deviations from the mean deflection
Table 5.7: Cusum Calculations on FWD central deflections (d0)

2009
Chainage FWD D0 - Mean Cusum
(m) D0
0 0.381 -0.061 -0.061
50 0.407 -0.035 -0.096
100 0.313 -0.129 -0.225
150 0.404 -0.038 -0.263
200 0.261 -0.181 -0.444
250 0.314 -0.128 -0.572
300 0.305 -0.137 -0.709
350 0.301 -0.141 -0.850
400 0.308 -0.134 -0.984
450 0.435 -0.007 -0.990
500 0.261 -0.181 -1.172
550 0.215 -0.227 -1.398
600 0.261 -0.181 -1.580
650 0.166 -0.276 -1.856
700 0.482 0.041 -1.815
750 0.769 0.327 -1.488
800 0.366 -0.076 -1.564
850 0.247 -0.195 -1.759
900 0.366 -0.076 -1.835
950 0.228 -0.214 -2.049
1000 0.313 -0.129 -2.178
1050 0.273 -0.169 -2.346
1100 0.245 -0.197 -2.543
1150 0.318 -0.124 -2.667
1200 0.304 -0.138 -2.805
1250 0.483 0.041 -2.764
1300 0.559 0.117 -2.647
1350 0.665 0.223 -2.424
1400 1.003 0.561 -1.863
1450 0.559 0.117 -1.747
1500 0.769 0.327 -1.420
1550 0.665 0.223 -1.196
1600 0.559 0.117 -1.080
1650 0.769 0.327 -0.753
1700 0.462 0.020 -0.733
1750 0.467 0.025 -0.708
1800 0.467 0.025 -0.684
1850 0.462 0.020 -0.664
1900 0.479 0.037 -0.627
1950 0.665 0.223 -0.403
2000 0.559 0.117 -0.287
2050 0.404 -0.038 -0.325
2100 0.476 0.034 -0.291
2150 0.559 0.117 -0.174
2200 0.462 0.020 -0.155
2250 0.467 0.025 -0.130
2300 0.435 -0.007 -0.136
2350 0.559 0.117 -0.020
2400 0.462 0.020 0.000
Mean 0.442
The FWD d0 deflection values and CUSUM plot are given in Fig 6.2 and Fig 6.3 respectively.
Error: Reference source not foundA change in slope of the graph indicates a change in
strength along the road. In Fig 6.3 five distinct homogeneous sections can be identified. These
sections should be treated as separate overlay designs.
Figure 5.4: FWD d0 deflection values

2009
1.200
1.000
0.800
FWD (D0) @ 50KN
Figure 5.5: CUSUM plot showing homogeneous sections
0.000
0.600 0 500
-0.500
0.400
-1.000
0.200
5.4.1 DCP AND TEST PIT INVESTIGATIONS
Cumulative Sum
Destructive testing may be needed after the non-destructive testing is completed to establish
the thickness and strength of the existing pavement layers and relate these to the road failure.
Two methods are available, either the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) or Test Pits. Details
of these field methods are presented in Appendices respectively
0.000
-1.500
DCP tests are relatively quick and therefore should be used where there is no risk of damaging
0
0
0
any utilities in the road pavement. The results from DCP tests are particularly useful in
10
20
50
60
70
30
40
80
90
identifying areas of weak base course and sub-base layers which will need deep patching
1
required prior to overlay.
Test pits are best used when the road is to be partially or fully reconstructed. In this case
-2.000
laboratory tests are carried out on the samples collected from the various granular layers in the
road to establish whether they can be used in the reconstruction process.
5.5 Use of DCP data for remedial work

DCP tests should be carried out at points in the road where the Detailed Visual Condition
Survey and FWD deflection profile show the road to be abnormally weak. In Fig 6.4 the FWD
-2.500
test are high at chainages 750 and 1400 metres. DCP would be carried out the outside

-3.000
2009
wheelpath at these chainages to establish the cause of the weakness. Prior to testing a
detector should be used to ensure there are no utilities beneath the test location.
Figure 5.6: FWD deflections and points for DCP testing
1.200
1.000
DCP Test
0.800
FWD (D0) @ 50KN
The DCP is driven through the road pavement under a standard force to a maximum depth of
approximately 800mm. The strength of the layers is related to their resistance to penetration,
measured as mm per blow, and there are correlations to convert the DCP values to in-situ
values of CBR. The thickness of the road layers are identified by the changes in mm/blow as
the apparatus penetrates the pavement layers.
0.600
Where the in-situ CBR of the granular base course and sub-base are below 80% and 30%
respectively (as measured from the DCP), the base course and sub-base (if necessary) shall
be deep patched. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between the base and subbase and
test pits may be necessary as a last resort to determine the layer interval.
0.400
5.5.1 TEST PITS
Where the FWD results indicate that the road should have a thick overlay or be either partially
or fully reconstructed then test pits will be needed. If the road is to be overlaid then the pits
should be dug in areas where the FWD shows the road to be weak.
If the road is to be partially or fully reconstructed the Test Pits should be dug at regular intervals
0.200
where the road is weak. Two test pits would normally be dug in every one kilometre of road.
The test pit data are used to determine the reasons for the weaknesses identified from the
FWD investigation, which could include:
 whether the existing granular base course and sub-base meet normally acceptable
0.000
material standards for partial or full reconstruction.
 whether the existing granular base course and sub-base meet normally acceptable
0
0
0
standards for thickness for the appropriate road class.

10
20
50
60
70
30
40
80
90
 confirmation of the pavement layers identified during DCP analysis.

 to enable mechanistic analysis of FWD measurements
Test Pits will be dug at points in the road where the Detailed VCS and FWD deflection profile
show the road to abnormally weak. The measurements and tests required are listed in Table
6.2.

2009
The results of these tests should be compared to standard material specifications, listed in the
Design for New Bituminous, Gravel and Concrete Roads. Where the road base and sub-base
material do not meet these specifications the length of road affected should be deep patched.
Table 5.8
Field/Lab Pavement material Test Description Test
Test
Field Asphalt surfacing Thickness
Road base Description
Sub base/Selected Subgrade Moisture Content KS 999 Part 2 2001
Subgrade
Road base Layer density KS 999 Part 9 2001
Sub base/Selected Subgrade
Subgrade
Laboratory Road base Atterberg Limits KS 999 Part 2 2001
Sub base/Selected Subgrade
Subgrade Grading KS 999 Part 2 2001
Sub base/Selected Subgrade Compaction KS 999 Part 4 2001
Subgrade CBR KS 999 Part 2 2001

2009
6 CALCULATION OF STRUCTURAL NUMBER
6.1 Definitions
The Structural Number approach is probably the most reliable method of evaluating the
‘strength’ of pavements of similar type in terms of their likely traffic carrying capacity. It is
calculated from the following:
Equation 3: Definition of Structural Number
SN = 0.0394 ∑i a i hi
Where:
ai = Layer coefficient of layer i
hi= Thickness of layer i (mm)
The calculation of layer coefficients for existing pavement layers is based on the stiffness of
bituminous materials and the CBR of granular materials. They are indicated in Tables 6.1 and
6.2.
Table 6.9: Layer Coefficients for Existing Asphaltic Concrete and Granular Materials
MATERIAL SURFACE CONDITION COEFFICIENT, ai
AC Surface Little or no alligator cracking and/or only low-severity 0.35 to 0.40

transverse cracking
<10 percent low-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.25 to 0.35
<5 percent medium- and high-severity transverse cracking
>10 percent low-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.20 to 0.30
<10 percent medium-severity alligator cracking and/or
>5-10 percent medium- and high-severity transverse cracking
>10 percent medium-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.14 to 0.20
>10 percent medium- and high-severity transverse cracking
>10 percent high-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.08 to 0.15
>10 percent high-severity transverse cracking
Granular No pumping, degradation, or contamination by fines. 0.10 to 0.14
Roadbase or Some pumping, degradation, or contamination by fines.
Subbase 0.00 to 0.10
Table 6.10: Layer Coefficients for Existing Stabilised Road Bases

MATERIAL SURFACE CONDITION COEFFICIENT, ai
Stabilized Little or no alligator cracking and/or only low-severity 0.20 to 0.35

Roadbase transverse cracking
<10 percent low-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.15 to 0.25

<5 percent medium- and high-severity transverse cracking
>10 percent low-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.15 to 0.20

>5-10 percent medium- and high-severity transverse cracking

2009
>10 percent medium-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.10 to 0.20
<10 percent high-severity alligator cracking and/or
>10 percent medium- and high-severity transverse cracking
>10 percent high-severity alligator cracking and/or 0.08 to 0.15

>10 percent high-severity transverse cracking
The Structural Number was developed during the AASHO Road Test, which considered the
performance of trial sections constructed over a uniform subgrade having a particular strength.
A further parameter, the Modified Structural Number (SNC) (Hodges et al, 1975), was later
developed to take into account different subgrade strengths. This relationship is defined in
Equation 4:
Equation 4: Definition of Modified Structural Number
SNC = SNSG + SN
Where:
SNSG = Structural Number contribution from the subgrade= 3.51 Log10 (CBR) – 0.85 (Log10
(CBR))2 – 1.43
SNC = Modified Structural Number
CBR = In situ CBR of the subgrade.
6.1.1 VARIATION OF BITUMINOUS LAYER COEFFICIENT WITH TEMPERATURE
The AASHO Road Test was carried out in Illinois, USA. The layer coefficient taken for a new
asphalt concrete surfacing during the Road Test was 0.44. This was for asphalt concrete
having an elastic modulus of 3100 MPa at a temperature of 20oC. It is therefore necessary to
derive a strength coefficient suitable for Kenya, where the ambient temperatures, and hence
road temperatures, are different to those in Illinois. This is obtained by calculating the effective
elastic modulus of asphalt concrete using the Shell Method of Weighted Monthly Average
Annual Temperature (WMAAT) (Shell, 1978), shown below. The analysis shows that the layer
coefficient of asphalt concrete used in Kenya should be:
Altitude 0 – 600 metres = 0.38 (WMAAT=22.5 oC)

Altitude 600 – 1200 metres = 0.40 (WMAAT=19.6C)
Altitude > 1200 metres = 0.44 (WMAAT) = 11.3C
The analysis is shown below:
Step 1
Calculate equivalent modulus at the AASHO Road Test site (WMAAT = 15oC) of asphalt
concrete having an elastic modulus of 3100MPa at 20oC tested in laboratory, using the
equation 5:
Equation 5: Variation of Elastic Modulus with temperature

E1 = E 2 *10 −b (T1 −T2 )
where b = 0.024 and T1, T2 are two asphalt temperatures.
• ET=15 = 3100*10-0.024(15-20) = 4086 MPa

2009
Step 2
Calculate the elastic modulus of similar material, for instance, in the Coastal Region (WMAAT =
22.5oC) to that in Illinois (WMAAT = 15oC):
• ET=22 = 4086*10-0.024(22.5-15) = 2700 MPa
Step 3
Calculate layer coefficient of asphalt concrete in the Coastal Region having an elastic modulus
of 2700MPa:
• aT1/aT2 = (ET1/ET2)0.333
Where:
aT1 and ET1 are the layer coefficient and elastic modulus respectively at temperature T1.
• aT=22/aT=15 = (2700/4086)0.333 = 0.87

• aT=22 = 0.44*0.87 = 0.38
6.2 Use of Structural Number for Overlay Design

The overlay thickness is derived from:
Equation 6: Derivation of overlay thickness from Structural Number

[
Overlaythi ckness , mm = ( SNPdesign − SNPexisting ) / a1 * 25,4 ]
Where:
SNPDesign = Structural Number for future traffic
SNPExisting = Structural Number of existing road
a1 = Layer coefficient of asphalt overlay
Therefore to calculate the thickness of required overlay, the Structural Number of the existing
road (SNExisting) has to be measured. There are a number of ways of doing this, all of which have
various advantages and disadvantages, as enumerated in Table 6.3.
Table 6.11: Advantages and Disadvantages of Investigative methods

Method Procedure to calculate Requirements Operational
SNExisting restrictions
Test Pits Direct calculation from Field and Laboratory Poor coverage
thickness and strength testing
(laboratory) of the
different pavement
layers
DCP Direct calculation from Test Pits needed to Fair Coverage
tests estimated thickness and gain information on
in situ strength of the actual pavement layer
different pavement thickness and material
layers
Back calculation DCP or Test Pits Good
FWD needed to establish coverage
pavement layer
thickness
Estimate of SNC from - Good
FWD deflection bowl coverage
(SNP)

2009
The Structural Number and Modified Structural Number concept, whilst simple in principle,
gives rise to a number of practical difficulties, especially on roads that have been in existence
for many years. When DCP tests and Test Pits are carried out, the boundaries between the
different materials are sometimes indistinct and differentiating base courses from sub-bases,
and sub-bases from the subgrade can be difficult. Changes of strength are expected to occur
when passing from one layer to another but significant changes of strength also occur within
reasonably well-defined layers. When the same pavement is tested with a DCP a more
complex, many-layered structure is often revealed.
This can cause a problem in defining the layers in Test Pits for calculating the Modified
Structural Number. The same difficulty also applies when trying to define the appropriate layer
thickness for back-analysis of FWD data and often makes this form of analysis somewhat
unreliable.
A procedure is therefore required which takes account of the contribution to Structural Number
of a pavement from all the pavement layers and the contribution of the subgrade, which is
independent of where the subgrade boundary is defined. This value is called the Adjusted
Structural Number (SNP) (Rolt and Parkman, 2000).
6.3 Use of the FWD to estimate SNPExisting

The most suitable tool to measure the Adjusted Structural Number of an existing road
(SNPExisting) is the DCP; its use to design overlays in Kenya is, however, often not ideal. This is
because:
• it may not be practicable to take sufficient DCP measurements along each road to cope
with the possible high variability found in Kenya, and
• the coarse granular road base in the Kenya roads prevent the instrument’s penetration.
An overlay procedure based on DCP results is described in Section 6.6 for Secondary and
Local roads where FWD results are not available.
As FWD deflection data can be measured very quickly and accurately, the proposed overlay
procedure uses the data to estimate the SNPExisting of the existing road, rather than the DCP.
Previous work (Rolt, 2000) showed that the most effective form of the correlation between FWD
measurements and SNP takes the form below:
Equation 7: Correlation between SNP and FWD

−0.5
d −d 
SNP =1.394 + 4.548 * (d * 0.8) −0.5 −1.760 *  900 1200 
0  d 
 900 
Where:
d0 = Central deflection (mm)

d900 = Deflection at 900mm from the load (mm)
d1200 = Deflection at 1200mm from the load (mm)
(FWD deflection is measured in mm at a load of 50KN)
Figure 6.7 : Correlation between SNP and Deflection

2009
12.00
10.00
8.00
The equation above has been used to convert FWD measurements taken from hypothetical
Trial Sites. The predicted values of SNP are shown plotted against the central deflection d0 in
Fig 6.1. The limited scatter around the ‘line of best fit’ (R2 = 0.96) shows the suitability of this
form of general relationship for the analysis of FWD results.
SNP(Existing)
2
R = 0.96
However, to enable the equation above to be used in for Kenya a series of comparative tests
between the FWD and the DCP must be carried out on a selection of Category A and B roads.
6.00
6.4 Overlay Design Procedure using the FWD
The required overlay thickness is calculated based on a comparison of the strength of the road
required for the future traffic and the existing strength of the road, as assessed by FWD
measurements.
4.00
6.4.1 SNP FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC (SNPD )
ESIGN
The first step in the process is to establish the value of Structural Number (SNPDesign) that is
required for each homogeneous section of road for future traffic loading. This is achieved by
using the AASHTO (1993) equation for flexible pavements, shown below:
Equation 8: Computation of SNP Design

 ∆PSI 
2.00 log 10 
4.2 −1.5 

log 10 (W8.16 ) = Z R ×S 0 + 9.36 ×log 10 ( SN +1) −0.20 + + 2.32 ×log 10 ( M R ) −8.07
1094
0.40 +
( SN +1) 5.19
Where:
W8.16 = predicted number of 8.16 tonne ESALs,

ZR 0.00
= Standard normal deviate for required reliability,
S0 = Combined standard error of the traffic and performance predictions - see below,
∆ PSI
MR
0.000
= drop in serviceability over the performance period,
= subgrade resilient modulus in psi,
0.200
SN = structural number to carry W8.16 ESALs.

2009
The recommended Reliability factors and decrease in Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI)
used in the equation are shown in Table 6.4. The Standard Deviation is set at 0.49 as
recommended by AASHTO (1993). The calculated values of SNPdesign for various values of ESA
are presented in Table 6.5.
Table 6.12: AASHTO Design Criteria: Reliability factors and Servicability Indices
Road Class Reliability Standard Terminal Decrease
Deviation PSI in PSI
International 90 0.49 2.7 1.5

Primary 90 0.49 2.2 2.0
Secondary 85 0.49 2.0 2.2
Local 50 0.49 1.7 2.5
Table 6.13: Design SNP

Future Traffic (Million ESA)
Road Class <0.5 0.5–1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 20-50
A - - - 5.68 6.25 6.84 7.67
B - - - 5.22 5.76 6.28 -
C 3.54 3.93 4.32 4.90 5.40 -
Local 2.93 3.25 3.57 4.05 4.45
To use the AASHTO design equation when the Adjusted Structural Number (SNP) is used
rather than SN and subgrade strength separately, the subgrade resilient modulus value must
be assumed at 4325 psi in the equation. This was the subgrade resilient modulus used in the
Road Test and therefore at this value the subgrade contribution is zero. Thus SN is then the
same as SNP. In using either method, the difference between SN and SNP needs to be
understood. In the normal AASHTO design method SN is used rather than SNP. The overlay
procedure described in this Manual uses SNP.
This results in the principle that if any two pavements have the same value of Adjusted
Structural Number (SNP) then they should carry the same level of traffic.
In the following paragraphs that describe the overlay procedure it has been assumed that the
road under investigation is a Category A road with a design traffic loading of between 5-10
million ESA. Therefore, from Table 6.5, the SNPDesign is 5.76.
6.4.2 STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY
It is necessary to plot the ‘Structural Deficiency’, that is the difference between the required
design Structural Number of the road (SNPDesign) and the existing Structural Number at each
FWD test (SNPExisting), for each FWD test. This is simply :
Equation 9: Definition of Structural Deficiency

Structural Deficiency = SNP design − SNP existing
After calculation the Structural Deficiency is plotted as a bar chart, which allows the engineer to
identify the following actions for the homogeneous sections based on the criteria given in Table
6.6:

2009
Table 6.14: Structural Deficiency Criteria
Mean Structural Action Notes
Deficiency
Zero or negative Maintain A thin overlay may be
required to
correct other defects
0 to 0.6 Thin overlay Remedial works possible
0.6 to 1.5 Thick overlay Remedial works probable
(40/50mm)
> 1.5 Reconstruction
probable
Fig 6.2, the results of an actual FWD survey, illustrates these principles:
Figure 6.8: Structural Deficiency

2009
4.00
No strengthening overlay Patching
3.00 Mean Structural

Deficiency = -0.92
2.00
Structural Deficiency
No strengthening is required if the Structural Number Deficiency is either zero or

predominantly1.00
negative. Any occasional positive values should be investigated and deep
patched where necessary. If the road has been identified as having a poor profile (ie high
IRI value) a thin overlay can be constructed as periodic maintenance. The minimum
thickness of these thin overlays is governed by the aggregate grading of the overlay
material. Where the mix has a Maximum Stone Size of 25mm the overlay will need to be
50mm thick.0.00
Where the Maximum Stone Size is 19mm the material can be laid with a
minimum thickness of 40mm.
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
If the mean structural deficiency lies in the range ranges from 0 to 0.6 a thin overlay should
be constructed. Points with high structural deficiency should be investigated and deep
-1.00
patched where necessary.
If the mean structural deficiency ranges from 0.6 to 1.5 then a thick overlay is necessary.
The need for some deep patching is also very likely to be required. The thickness design
procedure is described in Section 6.4.3.
-2.00
The need for partial or full reconstruction is less easy to define, but becomes probable if the
structural deficiency is greater than 1.5. Under such circumstances the visual condition
data, DCP and test pit data needs to be re-assessed.
-3.00
The design of roads that require reconstruction should be done in accordance with design
recommendations set out in the Design of New Bituminous, Gravel and Concrete Roads. In
general, roads with good foundations can be partially reconstructed by making use of much
of the existing material in the form of enhanced sub-base or even lower base course layers.
Roads which have a very weak or non uniform pavement structure and or sub-grade
require more-4.00
elaborate remedial works and full reconstruction is possibly required.
6.4.3 DESIGNING THICK OVERLAYS

The final step in the process is to calculate the thickness of overlay for those homogeneous
section where a thick strengthening overlay (>50mm) is required.

2009
The overlay at each FWD test is calculated using the equation below. Where no overlay is
required at an FWD test, a value of zero is assigned.
Equation 10: Calculation of Overlay Thickness

Overlaythi cknessatFW Dtestmm = ( ( SNPdesign − SNPexisting ) / a1 ) * 25 .4
Where a1 = layer coefficient for the asphalt overlay.
The overlay thickness for each homogeneous section is then calculated as follows:
Equation 11: Calculation of Overlay Thickness for Homogeneous Section

Designover laythickne ssmm = Meanoverla ythickness + CF * SD
Where:
SD = Standard deviation of the overlay thickness in the homogeneous section
CF = Probability of achieving design life.
Values of CF that should be used for different levels of probability are given below:
Table 6.15: Values of 'CF'

Probability of Achieving Design Life CF Factor
90% 1.282
85% 1.037
80% 0.841
75% 0.674
50% 0.0
A value of 85% is usually recommended. The use of a higher level of probability can result in
overlays being too thick if the road construction is highly variable. In Fig 6.3 a value of 1.037
has been used:
Figure 6.9: Design of Overlay Thickness from FWD data
180
160
140
Deep pa
120
thickness (mm)
100
80
2009
6.5 Overlay Design Procedure using the DCP
This procedure should only be used on Secondary and Local roads where FWD data is
unavailable and where the road structure allows the DCP to penetrate the road structure to
a depth of 800mm. The required overlay thickness is calculated based on a comparison of
the strength of the road required for the future traffic and the existing strength of the road,
as assessed by DCP measurements. The following steps should be followed:
1. Establish the value of Structural Number (SNPDesign) that is required for each
homogeneous section of road for future traffic loading. This is done using the AASHTO
(1993) equation in the same way as described in Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3. The
resultant values of SNPDesign are given in Table 6.5 for different levels of traffic for
Category B roads and Local roads.
2. Calculate the adjusted Structural Number of the existing road (SNPExisting) from DCP
tests. On Secondary and Local roads, the DCP tests should be carried out at 100 metre
intervals. The location of the tests should be ‘staggered’ by 50 metres to result in a DCP
test every 50 metres along the road. The DCP data shall be analysed in purpose
designed software called UKDCP. This software enables the user to analyse each DCP
test and then calculate the SNPExisting for each test.
3. Identify homogeneous sections of road for strengthening. Each length is treated as a

separate overlay design exercise. This procedure is best carried out by using the
Cumulative Sum Method (CUSUM) on the value SNPExisting calculated from each DCP
test. The homogenous sections are identified in the same way as is shown in Section
5.4. The UKDCP software allows the designer to identify the homogeneous sections
automatically and this process is described in the User for the software.
4. Calculate the ‘Structural Deficiency’ for each DCP test. The value of Structural
Deficiency is simply the difference between the required design Structural Number of
the road (SNPDesign) and the existing Adjusted Structural Number at each DCP test
(SNPExisting). After calculation the Structural Deficiency should be plotted as a bar chart
and the required actions are described above.
5. Calculate the thickness of overlay for those homogeneous section where a thick
strengthening overlay (>40/50mm) is required. The overlay at each DCP test is
calculated using the equation below. Where no overlay is required at a DCP test, a
value of zero is assigned.
Equation 12: Calculation of Overlay Thickness from DCP data

Overlaythi cknessatDC Ptestmm = ( ( SNPdesign − SNPexisting ) / a1) * 25.4
Where a1 = layer coefficient for the asphalt overlay (See Section 6.1.1).
The overlay thickness for each homogeneous section is then calculated using the
following.
Equation 13: Overlay Thickness for Homogeneous Section

2009
Designover laythickne ssmm = Meanoverla ythickness + CF * SD
Where:
SD = Standard deviation of the overlay thickness in the homogeneous section
CF = Probability of achieving design life
Values of CF that should be used for different levels of probability are given in Table 6.7.
Under most circumstances a value of 80% is recommended for Secondary roads and 75%
for Local roads. The use of a higher level of probability can result in overlays being too thick
if the road construction is highly variable.

2009
7 REMEDIAL WORKS PRIOR TO OVERLAY

A bituminous overlay will only perform as designed if the correct remedial works are carried out
before overlay. Otherwise defects in the existing road will cause the new overlay to deteriorate
and premature failure will occur.
The type of remedial work will depend on the type of road defect and these are recorded during
the Detailed Visual Condition Survey. The remedial works are summarised in Table 7.1.
Table 7.16: Remedial Works prior to Overlay

Defect Remedial Works
Wide single cracks Crack Sealing2

Wide connected cracks
Alligator cracks with depressions Deep patch affected area
Deep potholes
Base course shoving
Trench/Patch failure
Alligator cracking without depressions Shallow patch affected area
Shallow potholes
Asphalt shoving Mill and patch affected areas prior to overlay
Slippage cracks
Polished surface1
Note 1. Where the existing surface has a poor texture and polished stone, the top
surface should be lightly milled to ensure the new overlay does not ‘slip’ on the
old surface and fail prematurely.
2. Wide cracks should be sealed prior to overlay to prevent water entering the granular base
course if reflection cracking occurs.
When deep patching is needed the required minimum thickness of base course and sub-base
materials are given in Table 11. For low levels of traffic, granular base course materials should
be used. However, for higher levels of traffic on Category A and Category B roads a bituminous
base course material can also be used.
Table 7.17: Minimum layer thickness for patching prior to overlay

Future Traffic Base course (mm) Sub-base (mm)
Road Class
Million ESAL Granular Bituminous Granular
> 20 250 200 200
International
< 20 225 175 200
>5 200 150 200
Primary
<5 175 - 200
>1 175 - 200
Secondary
<1 150 150
>2 175 200
Local
<2 150 - 150
Where the high deflections are related to lengths of road with poor or poorly maintained
drainage then these shortcomings should be rectified prior to overlay construction. Details on
the construction and maintenance of road drainage are described in Design for New
Bituminous, Gravel and Concrete Roads.

2009
8 REFERENCES
AASHTO (1993). Guide for the design of pavement structures. AASHTO, Washington DC, USA
HODGES J W, J ROLT and T E JONES (1975). The Kenya road transport cost study: research
on road deterioration. TRL Report 673, TRL, UK.
ROLT J and C PARKMAN (2000). The characterisation of pavement strength in HDM-III and
improvements adopted for HDM-4. 10th REAAA Conference, Tokyo, 2000.
ROLT J (2000). Pavement structural number from FWD measurements for network analysis.
TRL Unpublished Report PR\INT\664\00
SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CO. (1978). Shell Pavement Design , London.

9 APPENDICES
9.1 Appendix 1 : DCP Test
The DCP is an instrument which can be used for the rapid measurement of the in situ strength
of existing pavements constructed with unbound materials. Measurements can be made down
to a depth of approximately 800mm and where the pavement layers have different strengths,
the boundaries between them can be identified and the thickness of each layer estimated.
9.1.1 DESCRIPTION
The DCP uses an 8 Kg hammer dropping through a height of 575mm and a 60° cone having a
maximum diameter of 20mm. The instrument is assembled as shown in Figure 3.1. The
instrument is usually split at the joint between the standard shaft and the coupling for carriage
and storage and it is important that when in operation the joints do not become loose.
Operating the DCP with any loose joints will significantly reduce the life of the instrument.
1
Key:-
1 Handle
2 Hammer (8kg)
3 Hammer shaft 2
4 Coupling
5 Handguard
6 Clamp ring
7 Standard shaft
8 1 metre rule 3
9 60° cone
Ø 20mm
7
9
9
· 60° INC
9.1.2 OPERATION
After assembly, the first task is to record the zero reading of the instrument. This is done by
standing the DCP on a hard flat surface, such as concrete, checking that it is vertical and then
entering the zero reading in the appropriate place on DCP Test Data Sheet shown in Figure
3.2.
The DCP needs three operators, one to hold the instrument, one to raise and drop the weight
and a technician to record the readings. The instrument is held vertical and the weight raised to
the handle. Care should be taken to ensure that the weight is touching the handle, but not lifting
the instrument, before it is allowed to drop. The operator must let it fall freely and not partially
lower it with his hands.
Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 36 Draft Document – September 2009

It is recommended that a reading should be taken at increments of penetration of about 10mm.
However it is usually easier to take a reading after a set number of blows. It is therefore
necessary to change the number of blows between readings, according to the strength of the
layer being penetrated. For good quality granular bases readings every 5 or 10 blows are
usually satisfactory but for weaker sub-base layers and subgrades readings every 1 or 2 blows
may be appropriate. There is no disadvantage in taking too many readings, but if readings are
taken too infrequently, weak spots may be missed and it will be more difficult to identify layer
boundaries accurately, hence important information will be lost.
After completing the test the DCP is removed by tapping the weight upwards against the
handle. Care should be taken when doing this; if it is done too vigorously the life of the
instrument will be reduced.
The DCP can be driven through surface dressings but it is recommended that thick bituminous
surfacings are cored prior to testing the lower layers. Little difficulty is normally experienced
with the penetration of most types of granular or lightly stabilised materials. It is more difficult to
penetrate strongly stabilised layers, granular materials with large particles and very dense, high
quality crushed stone. Penetration rates as low as 0.5mm/blow are acceptable but if there is no
measurable penetration after 20 consecutive blows it can be assumed that the DCP will not
penetrate the material. Under these circumstances a hole can be drilled through the layer using
an electric or pneumatic drill, or by coring. The lower pavement layers can then be tested in the
normal way. If only occasional difficulties are experienced in penetrating granular materials, it is
worthwhile repeating any failed tests a short distance away from the original test point.
If, during the test, the DCP leans away from the vertical no attempt should be made to correct it
because contact between the shaft and the sides of the hole can give rise to erroneous results.
If the lean becomes too severe and the weight slides down the hammer shaft, rather than
dropping freely, the test should be abandoned and the tests repeated approximately one metre
away from the first test. DCP is used extensively for hard materials, wear on the cone itself will
be accelerated. The cone is a replaceable part and it is recommended that it should be
replaced when its diameter is reduced by 10 per cent. However, other causes of wear can also
occur hence the cone should be inspected before every test.
9.1.3 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The correlation between DCP readings and CBR value has been determined by a number of
authorities and a selection of these are given in Figure 3.3. Agreement is generally good over
most of the range but differences are apparent at low values of CBR in fine grained materials. It
is expected that for such materials the relationship between DCP and CBR will depend on
material state and therefore, if more precise values are needed it is advisable to calibrate the
DCP for the material being evaluated.

Until local calibration is carried the following relationship given should be used
Log10 (CBR) = 2.48 - 1.057 Log10 (mm/blow)
The results can be either be plotted by hand, as shown in Figure 3.3, or processed in a
spreadsheet.

9.1.4 CALCULATION OF STRUCTURAL NUMBER
If required the Structural Number of the pavement can then be calculated from the DCP results
using the following general equation.
SN = 0.0394 Σ I aI dI
where aI = Layer coefficient of layer I

dI = Thickness of layer I (mm)

DCP TEST DATA FORM
Date: Wheelpath
Road No: Started test at:
Test No: (Surfacing / Base/ Sub-base / Subgrade)
Chainage: Operator:
Direction: Zero reading of the DCP (mm):
No of Σ mm No of Σ mm No of Σ mm
Blows Blows Blows Blows Blows Blows

9.2 Test Pit
Test pits should only be necessary on roads requiring rehabilitation. Roads requiring
maintenance with thin overlays (periodic maintenance) will only have test pits dug where FWD
or DCP measurements indicate short lengths of weak pavement.
The purpose of carrying out a test pit investigation is to confirm the information obtained from
surface condition survey, and FWD and DCP surveys. Pit digging is a time consuming and
expensive operation and for this reason the location of each test pit should be carefully
selected to maximise the benefit of any data collected.
The responsible engineer will select the number and position of the test pits to establish:
• the thickness and material properties of the road pavement in each homogeneous section
• the thickness and material properties of any lengths of road pavement, within any
homogeneous length, which have been shown to be significantly weaker by either FWD or
DCP testing.
The minimum number of test pits dug in any one homogeneous length of road should not be
less than one every 2 kms. In general the test pits will be dug in the near-side wheelpath. ie the
wheelpath adjacent to the shoulder of the road.
9.2.1 LABOUR, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
Test pits can be excavated by hand or by machine, depending on the availability of plant and
the test pit programme required. Machine operations are usually more productive but more
costly than methods.
The following personnel are required:
• traffic controllers - a minimum of one at each end of the site (but see above);
• 2 (if machine excavation) or 3 (if excavation) labourers;
• 1 machine operator if applicable;
• 1 driver for vehicle; and
• 1 supervising technician.
The following equipment and materials are required:
• 1 backhoe (for machine excavation);

• 1 jack hammer with generator (to assist with excavation);
• 1 pick;
• 1 or 2 spades (a fence post hole digger can also be useful);
• 1 tamper or plate compactor for backfilling test pit;
• material to backfill and seal test pit : gravel, cement for stabilising gravel, water and cold
mix for resurfacing;
• 1 broom to tidy area on completion;
• 1 chisel is often useful to assist with inspecting the wall of the test pit;
• equipment necessary to complete any required on-site testing;
• 1 tape measure and thin steel bar to span pit (to assist with depth measurements);
• sample bags and containers, with some means of labelling each;
• test pit log forms and clipboard; and
• sample log book.
9.2.2 SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURE

9.2.2.1 Field Procedure
Before commencing the survey in the field, the responsible engineer should be clear as to the
information required from each test pit. This will depend on the results of previous surveys, the
materials specifications in use and an understanding of the pavement behaviour. Some field
testing might be necessary as well as subsequent laboratory testing of samples extracted from
the pit. Table 9. summarises the various tests that may be required and references the relevant
standards. Not all these tests may be necessary , depending on the situation found.
A safe working environment should be maintained at all times. Reference should be made to
the appropriate regulations in this regard.
Once it has been decided what testing is to be carried out and the location of the trial pits has
been confirmed, the following procedure should be adopted:
1. Set up traffic control.
2. Accurately locate position of test pit and record this on the Pavement Test Pit Log (see
Figure G1). Usually, the position of a pit will be apparent after completion due to the
patched surface. However, if long term monitoring is required, a permanent location marker
should be placed at the roadside. Record any relevant details such as surrounding
drainage features, road condition and weather.
3. Define the edge of the test pit and remove surfacing. The required size of pit will depend on
the sample sizes necessary for the selected tests, but it can be increased later if found to
be too small. Usually an area of about 0.8m by 0.8m will be sufficient for excavation, and
the minimum working area required for a backhoe operation will be sufficient for machine
excavations. The edge of the pit can be cut with a jack hammer or pick and the surfacing
‘peeled’ off, taking care not to disturb the surface of the aggregate roadbase. The average
thickness of surfacing should be recorded.
4. If density tests are to be performed, a smooth, clean and even surface is required. It is
important for the accuracy of the test that the layer is homogeneous. For the sand
replacement method, no prior knowledge is required of the layer thickness since this
becomes obvious as the hole is excavated. If a nuclear density meter is used, the thickness
of the layer can either be estimated from previous DCP results or construction details to
determine the depth of testing.
5. On completion of any required density testing, the layer can be removed over the extent of
the trial pit, a visual assessment made of the material and samples taken for laboratory
testing. Care should be taken not to disturb the adjacent lower layer. The thickness of the
layer and the depth at which samples are taken should be measured. All information should
be recorded on the Pavement Test Pit Log.
6. Continue to sample, test and excavate each pavement layer following the procedure above.
Once it has been decided that there is no need to excavate further, the total depth of pit
should be recorded along with any other information such as appearance of water in any of
the layers.
7. All samples should be clearly labelled and proposed tests for the pit materials should be
logged in a sample log book to avoid later confusion in the laboratory.
8. The pit should be backfilled in layers with suitable material which should be properly
compacted. It is often good practice to stabilise the upper layer with cement accepting that

full compaction will not be achieved. A bituminous cold mix can be used to patch the
backfilled pit.
9. The site should be cleared and left in a tidy and safe condition for traffic.
9.2.2.2 Laboratory procedure
Table 18: Tests to be carried out
Property Possible Tests Field Procedure Remarks

or Lab
Particle size Sieve analysis Lab KS 999:Part 2:2001 Initial visual

distribution assessment on site.
Plasticity Plastic and Liquid Lab KS 999:Part 2:2001 Initial visual

Limits, Plasticity Index assessment on site.
Linear Shrinkage Lab KS 999:Part 2:2001 Correlated to PI

KS 1238 Part 6
Particle Shape4 Elongation Index Lab 2003
KS 1238 Part 6
Flakiness Index Lab 2003
KS1238 Part 11
Particle Strength4 Aggregate Crushing Lab 2003 Los Angeles
Value Abrasion Value
KS1238 Part 12 given in ASTM
10% Fines Value Lab 2003 C 131-96 and C 535-
KS1238 Part 13 96
Aggregate Impact Lab
Value
KS 1238
Particle Aggregate Abrasion Lab Los Angeles
Durability4 Abrasion Value
Accelerated Polishing Lab ASTM D 3319-90 given in ASTM
C 131-96 and C 535-
96
KS 1238
Particle Sulphate test Lab
Soundness
KS 1238
Particle Density Particle density Lab For soils
KS 1238
Particle density Lab For aggregates
KS 1238
Moisture Content Oven dry7 Lab Recommended
method
‘Speedy’ Field Suppliers

instructions
Nuclear Density Meter Field Suppliers Hazardous

instructions radioactive material
KS 999
Moisture Density Tests at various levels Lab
Relationship of compaction
KS 999
Layer5 Density Sand Replacement Field

Method
KS 999
Core Cutter Method Lab
Nuclear Density Meter Field Suppliers Hazardous

instructions radioactive material
Bearing Capacity DCP Field See Appendix 9.1

KS 999
California Bearing Lab or
Ratio Field
KS 999
Shear Strength6 Vane test Field
KS 999
Various load tests Lab
In some cases, the possible tests listed for a given property are alternatives. In other cases all
the tests listed for a given property might be required. The engineer must decide for which
properties information is required and then design a suitable testing programme.
Field tests require testing at the site and possibly further analysis in the laboratory. Laboratory
tests require only sampling in the field. All sampling should be carried out in accordance with
the general guidance of KS 999 or KS 1238, whichever is applicable, as well as any specific
requirements for each test.
Kenya Standards (KS) are quoted where available. Where no Kenya Standard is available, an
alternative is quoted.
These tests will only be required for surfacing or base materials.
The layer must consist of homogeneous material for these tests.
These tests will only be required where a slope stability or settlement problem is being
evaluated and will only apply to subgrade materials.
For moisture content determination, the oven-drying method is recommended since it provides
a fundamental measure of the moisture content. Both the `Speedy' and the Nuclear Density
Meter methods require accurate calibration and validation, since they derive the moisture
content by indirect analysis, but they have the advantage of providing instant results. Validation
should always be made with reference to the oven-dry method.

TEST PIT LOG
Location Data Date: Done by: Weather:
Road Num ber: From : To: Section:
Chainage : Position: Pit Num ber:
P avement Conditi on:
P urpose of Investigation:
Test Pit Data Method of Pitting:
D epth Layer M aterial Descri ption Samp le Tests Remarks

(m m) Functi on Depth (mm) Required
500
1000
1500
Notes for Co mp leting Test Pit Data
Layer Functio n: S -Surfacing, R -Roadbase , SB -Sub -b ase, SF -Select Fil l, SGR -Subgrade
Material Description: Subjective assessment of material type and p roperti es
Sa mp le Depth: Depth (range) at which any samples t aken
Tests Requ ired: Note any laborat ory tests required
Remarks: Note any particula r points o f i nterest such as pavement or drain age condition, on si te
t est s (m oisture, de nsit y), evidence of groundwater e tc.

Overlay and Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overlay and Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN for ROADS and BRIDGES PART 4 – Overlay Design

DESIGN for ROADS and BRIDGES

MATERIALS & PAVEMENT DESIGN

b) –Overlay Design and Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation

The Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads Draft Document – September 2009

The Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads Draft Document – September 2009

• design asphalt overlays; and

Overlay design thickness is based on the equation:

SNPDesign values are determined by the AASHTO (1993) design equation.

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 1

Equivalent Standard Axle This is the standard unit of measurement of the

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 2

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 3

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 4

The design process envisages the following two levels of survey:

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 5

Identify homogeneous sections of road

Plan and carry out destructive tests

Establish Adjusted Structural Number

Correct Adjusted Structural Number

Establish required Design Structural Number

Calculate Structural Deficiency from Existing

Design thickness of strengthening overlay

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 6

• those where only minimal routine or periodic maintenance needed

4.1 Visual Inspection

Table 4.1: Assessment criteria for Visual Condition Survey

Depressions with cracks 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 7

Rutting (Visible, >10mm) 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on

Edge failures 0, 1 or 2 depending on number of

Shallow potholes - No base Number per sampling interval

(Include shallow local failures on

Deep Potholes - Base exposed Number per sampling interval

(Include shallow local failures on

“Shiny” Surface 0, 1 or 2 depending on number of

General Condition 1 Routine: No depressions, only a

4.2 Roughness Condition Data

Table 4.2: Roughness criteria

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 8

Lower than 6 very good

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 9

Table 4.3: Proposed Analysis of Network Visual Condition Survey Data

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 10 Draft Document – September

Treatment Routine Thin Overlays ≤ 40mm (or Thick overlays Reconstruction

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 11 Draft Document – September

Region:…………………………………. Road Name:……………………………. Road ID:…………… Sampling Interval:……..

…m Direction:………………………. Single / Dual Width:…………. m Date:……………….. Form Start Time:

Roughness (IRI Ex database

Depressions with 01234

Edge Failures 012

Shallow Potholes Number

Remaining interval Worse = 0

Surveyed by – Name:…………………………….. Signed:…………..………………..

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 12 Draft Document – September

Table 5.1: Explanation of Defects

Republic of Kenya - Ministry of Roads 13

:‫رقمالطرينق‬ :‫إسمالطرينق‬ :‫ل مننطقة‬

:‫المساف ة العينننينة‬ ‫عرضالطرينق‬ :‫التنجاه‬

Wide Single cracks l.m 0 0

Base Shoving sq.m 0 0

Deep Potholes sq.m 0 0

Structural Rutting sq.m 0 0

Edge Failure sq.m 0 0