TYPICAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURE

PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN

P = 40 kN N PSIo
COMPONENT ANALYSIS RF PSIt
METHOD
D1 Bituminous Surfacing MS a1
CV1
CBR a2
D2 Unb. Granular Base
CV2
Dr. Ir. Djunaedi Kosasih, MSc.
Highway Engineering Laboratory D3 CBR a3
Unb. Granular Subbase
Institute of Technology Bandung CV3

SubGrade CBR DDT

December, 1995

===========================================================
400
============ H1
***** HIGHWAY ENGINEERING LABORATORY - ITB *****
BATAM.DKL 350
===========================================================
============
PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN: (Maximising Surface Layer
300
DATA REQUIREMENT
250
%-umur

Thickness) H2
Structural Number ......... SN = 14.38 cm 200
Design Traffic ............ LER = 2275.01 SA/day
Regional Factor ........... RF = 1.50
PSI Values ...... PSIo and PSIt =
Subgrade Stability ........ CBR =
4.00 and 2.50
2.47 %
150
H3 z Traffic Loading N(mSA) or LER(ESA/day)
100
-------------------------------------
SURFACE LAYER AC
h1 = 24.0 cm
MS-744 kg
50
z Subgrade Stability CBR(%)
-------------------------------------(N=222.3 mSA --> 2677
%life)
BASE LAYER CR.STONE-A CBR-100 %
0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
z Regional Factor RF
Design Criteria PSIo and PSIt
h2 = 25 cm
-------------------------------------(N=905.5 mSA -->9999+ %-Perubahan Tebal Lapis Perkerasan z
%life)

Material Quality MS(kg), E(MPa), σc(kg/cm2), CBR(%)

SUBBASE LAYER GRAVEL-A CBR-70 %
z
5.00 4.50
h3 = 10 cm
-------------------------------------(N= 8.4 mSA --> 101 IPo
%life) Pemeliharaan Rutin & Berkala
SUBGRADE //\\//\\// DDT = 3.39 Peningkatan ITP awal = ITP desain
4.00 3.50
Press ENTER to continue . . .
Konstruksi Baru ITP sisa
Ž Layer Condition Value CV
IPt (kondisi kritis)
IP
IP

3.00
Rehabilitasi
2.50
Ž Lendutan d (mm)
ITP kritis ITP runtuh = 0

2.00 Batas Kritis 1.50

Penunjangan IPf (kondisi runtuh)
 Economics … unit cost (Rp)
1.00
1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07
0.50
1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08  Strategic Considerations …budget constraint (Rp)
N (SS) N (SS)

DESIGN PROCESS # 1 of 8

ABOUT PROGRAM MAK DESIGN APPROACHESS

Program MAK which is written in BASIC has 2 Nomograph 15

IPo ≥ 4.0
13 3
been developed by the Highway Engineering IPt = 2.5
10 11
Laboratory, ITB. It gives both numerical and 10
4
9
graphical results. 8 10000
9
5
5000 8
7
Program MAK is based on the Bina Marga ‘87 1000
500 7
0.5 6
6
method --- and hence on the AASHTO ‘72 100
6
2.0
7
5 50 5.0
method. 4 10 RF 8
5 5
9
3
With Program MAK, a design process could be 1
4 10
2 LER (ESA10/day)
carried out more easily, quickly, accurately, 1
11

3
rationally and comprehensively. DDT 13
15
ITP (cm) ITP(cm)
DESIGN PROCESS # 4 of 8 2. SUBGRADE STABILITY # 4 of 4

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE MODELS CBR VS DDT (Soil Support)

100
10 80

2 Special Case 9
60

40
PSIo - PSIt 8 DDT = 4.3 log (CBR) + 1.7
log (-----------------)
ITP 4.2 - 1.5 1 20
7
log (N) = 9.36 log ( ------ + 1) - 0.20 + ---------------------------- + log (------) +
2.54 1094 RF 6
0.4 + -------------------- 10
8 For example :
ITP
( ------ + 1) 5.19
2.54
5 6
5 CBR = 5 % ⎯→ DDT = 4.73
+ 0.372 (DDT - 3) 4
4
3
where :
3 2
N = cumulative number of standard axles over a design life (ESA)
ITP = Structural Number, SN (cm) 2
PSIo & PSIt = initial and terminal Present Serviceability Index 1
RF = Regional Factor 1 CBR
DDT = Soil Support, S DDT

1. TRAFFIC LOADING # 10 of 30 3. REGIONAL FACTOR # 1 of 1

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REGIONAL FACTOR

2 Initial Traffic Loading

Gradient <6% 6-10% >10%

LEo = Σ LHRi * Ci * Di * TFi Heavy Vehicles <30% >30% <30% >30% <30% >30%
i
where :
Rainfall <900 mm/yr 0.5 1.0-1.5 1.0 1.5-2.0 1.5 2.0-2.5
i = vehicle types
LEo = initial traffic loading (ESA/day) Rainfall >900 mm/yr 1.5 2.0-2.5 2.0 2.5-3.0 2.5 3.0-3.5
LHR = average daily traffic (veh/day)
D = directional split Notes: - add 0.5 to the RF -value for the pavements at intersections,
C = lane distribution factor stopping places, sharp curves (radius <30m), or
TF = truck factor (ESA/veh) - add 1.0 at swampy areas

1. TRAFFIC LOADING # 14 of 30 4. DESIGN CRITERIA # 1 of 4

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PRESENT SERVICEABILITY INDEX

2 Cumulative Traffic Loading - General Equation 2 Terminal PSI

(1+r)n - 1 Design Traffic Road Classification

N = LEo ∗ (1+r) ∗ ⎯⎯⎯⎯ ∗ 365 LER (SA/day) Local Collector Arterial Toll
r <10 10-1
1.0 1.5
5 15
1.5 15-2
1.5 2.0
0 -
where : 10-100 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 -
N = cumulative traffic loading (ESA) 100-1000 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 -
LEo = initial traffic loading (ESA/day) >1000 - 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 2.5
r = average growth rate (%)
n = design life (years) Notes : PSI =
PSI =
1.0:
1.5:
pavement surface in bad conditions & obstructing traffic flow
minimum level of service for roads to be still accessible to traffic
PSI = 2.0: minimum level of service for roads to be still in good conditions
PSI = 2.5: pavement surface still in good conditions and stable
4. DESIGN CRITERIA # 2 of 4 1. Full-Depth Pavement Structure # 4 of 17

PRESENT SERVICEABILITY INDEX DESIGN DATA

2 Initial PSI 2 Typical Design Data

=============================================================================
***** HIGHWAY ENGINEERING LABORATORY - ITB ***** BATAM.DKL
Types of Surface Code PSIo NAASRA Roughness =============================================================================

Asphaltic Concrete AC ≥4 ≤ 1000 (mm/km) EDIT DATA ENTRY :

3.9 - 3.5 > 1000 Subgrade CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . (%) ? 2.47

LER D i
LER-Design T
Traffic
ffi . . . . . . . (SA/d
(SA/day)
) ? 2275
2275.01
01
LASBUTAG or HRA HRA 3.9 - 3.5 ≤ 2000 Regional Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 1.50
Terminal PSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 2.50
3.4 - 3.0 > 2000 Initial PSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 4.00
a1 value = 0.40 Type : AC Stab.Index : MS-744 kg
Double Surface Treat. DBST 3.9 - 3.5 < 2000 a2 value = 0.14 Type : CR.STONE-A Stab.Index : CBR-100 %
a3 value = 0.13 Type : GRAVEL-A Stab.Index : CBR-70 %
Single Surface Treat. SBST 3.4 - 3.0 < 2000 Thickness h1 min . . . . . . . . . . .(cm) ? 10.00
Thickness h2 min . . . . . . . . . . .(cm) ? 25.00
Penetration Macadam PENMAC 3.4 - 3.0 ≤ 3000 Thickness h3 min . . . . . . . . . . .(cm) ? 10.00
Stability value (& code) for the surfacing ? 744.00 (11)
2.9 - 2.5 > 3000 Stability value (& code) for the base . . ? 100.00 (21)
Stability value (& code) for the subbase . ? 70.00 (31)
Surface Dressing SD 2.9 - 2.5 - SN(bc) SN(sbc) SN(sg) . . . . . .(cm) ? 5.45 6.01 14.38

Earth/Gravel Roads EA/GR ≤ 2.4 - Any Change (Y/N) . . . ?

1. Full-Depth Pavement Structure # 2 of 17 1. Full-Depth Pavement Structure # 5 of 17

BASIC PRINCIPLES DESIGN RESULTS

2 A Typical Design - Max. Surface Layer Thickness
2 Calculation of Layer Thicknesses =============================================================================
***** HIGHWAY ENGINEERING LABORATORY - ITB ***** BATAM.DKL

ITP2 = a1 D1 =============================================================================

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN: (Maximising Surface Layer Thickness)

ITP3 = a1 D1 + a2 D2 Structural Number ......... SN = 14.38 cm
Design Traffic ............ LER = 2275
2275.01
01 SA/day
ITP4 = a1 D1 + a2 D2 + a3 D3 Regional Factor ........... RF =
PSI Values ...... PSIo and PSIt =
1.50
4.00 and 2.50
Subgrade Stability ........ CBR = 2.47 %
----------------------------------------------
where: SURFACE LAYER AC MS-744 kg
h1 = 24.0 cm
ITP = Structural Number, SN (cm) ----------------------------------------------(N= 222.3 mSA --> 2677 %life)
BASE LAYER CR.STONE-A CBR-100 %
D = layer thickness (cm) h2 = 25 cm
----------------------------------------------(N= 905.5 mSA --> 9999+ %life)
a = relative layer coefficient SUBBASE LAYER GRAVEL-A CBR-70 %
h3 = 10 cm
1,2,3,4 = layer number for surfacing, base, subbase ----------------------------------------------(N=
SUBGRADE //\\//\\// DDT = 3.39
8.4 mSA --> 101 %life)

and subgrade respectively

Press ENTER to continue !

DESIGN PROCESS # 7 of 8

STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS OF A DESIGNn

2 Minimum Layer Thickness Requirements
IT P (c m ) T e b a l M in im u m (c m ) Bahan
2 Points to ask before the design is chosen
1. L a p is P e rm u k a a n
< 3 ,0 0 5 ,0 L a p is a n p e lin d u n g (B u ra s /B u rtu /B u r d a ) are the design data used representative ?
3 ,0 0 ÷ 6 ,7 0 5 ,0 L a p e n /A s p a l M a c a d a m , H R A , L a s b u ta g , L a s to n
6 ,7 1 ÷ 7 ,4 9 7 ,5 L a p e n /A s p a l M a c a d a m , H R A , L a s b u ta g , L a s to n
7 ,5 0 ÷ 9 ,9 9 7 ,5 L a s b u ta g , L a s to n what is the safety margin of the design ?
1 0 ,,0 L a s to n
≥ 1 0 ,00 0
2. L a p is P o n d a s i
< 3 ,0 0 15 B a tu p e c a h , s ta b ilis a s i ta n a h d e n g a n s e m e n a ta u k a p u r
how does the pavement deteriorate ?
3 ,0 0 ÷ 7 ,4 9 2 0 *) B a tu p e c a h , s ta b ilis a s i ta n a h d e n g a n s e m e n a ta u k a p u r

7 ,5 0 ÷ 9 ,9 9
10
20
L a s to n A ta s
B a tu p e c a h , s ta b ilis a s i ta n a h d e n g a n s e m e n a ta u k a p u r,
is it possible to measure the structural integrity
15
pondasi M acadam
L a s to n A ta s
of an existing pavement ?
1 0 ,0 0 ÷ 1 2 ,2 4 20 B a tu p e c a h , s ta b ilis a s i ta n a h d e n g a n s e m e n a ta u k a p u r,

25
p o n d a s i M a c a d a m , L a p e n , L a s to n A ta s
B a tu p e c a h , s ta b ilis a s i ta n a h d e n g a n s e m e n a ta u k a p u r,
what is the consequence of errors in design on
≥ 1 2 ,2 5

3. L a p is P o n d a s i B a w a h
p o n d a s i M a c a d a m , L a p e n , L a s to n A ta s
the total tranportation costs ?
U n tu k s e tia p n ila i IT P , b ila d ig u n a k a n la p is p o n d a s i b a w a h , te b a l m in im u m a d a la h 1 0 c m .

C a ta t a n : * ) b a t a s 2 0 c m te r s e b u t d a p a t d itu r u n k a n m e n ja d i 1 5 c m b ila u n tu k la p is p o n d a s i
how can the road damage due to an axle load
b a w a h d i g u n a k a n m a te r ia l b e r b u t ir k a s a r .
be measured ?
 6. LAYER CONDITION VALUE # 2 of 3

REQUIREMENTS OF A DESIGN o PAVEMENT CONDITION

2 Points to do when the design is to be implemented 2 Base Layer

Condition CV 2 (% )
determine an optimum asphalt mix design (to
fulfil the requirement for a minimum Marshall a) Asphaltic Concrete or Pen. M acadam
• Generally y not crack, 90 - 100
stability) • Fine cracks, but still stable 70 - 90
find suitable pavement materials • M oderate cracking, and still stable 50 - 70
• Severe cracking, and showing sign of 30 - 50
apply stringent quality control procedures instability
during construction b) Portland Cement or Lime Stabilised Soils
• Plasticity Index, PI ≤ 10 70 - 100
provide a consistent and sufficient maintenance c) M acadam Base or Crushed Stoned
• Plasticity Index, PI ≤ 6 80 - 100
control vehicle/axle loadings

4. DESIGN CRITERIA # 3 of 4 6. LAYER CONDITION VALUE # 3 of 3

PRESENT SERVICEABILITY INDEX PAVEMENT CONDITION

2 Field Measurement 2 Sub Base Layer

___ Condition CV 3 (% )
PSI = 5.03 - 1.9 log(1+SV) - 0.01√C+P - 1.38 RD 2
• Plasticity Index, PI ≤ 6 90 - 100
where: PSI = Present Serviceability Index
• Plasticity Index, PI > 6 70 - 90
SV = Slope Variance
C = lineal feet of major cracking per 1000 ft2 area
P = bituminous patching in ft2 per 1000 ft2 area
RD = Rut Depth measured with a 4-ft straightedge (in)

6. LAYER CONDITION VALUE # 1 of 3

PAVEMENT CONDITION CLOSURE

2 Surface Layer 2 Aplikasi program MAK

Condition CV 1 (% ) Alat bantu dalam pekerjaan desain jalan, yang meliputi
desain konstruksi langsung, konstruksi bertahap dan lapis
• Generally not crack, slight deformation 90 - 100 tambahan.
on the wheel track
Model
M d l struktur
t kt perkerasan
k jalan
j l dan
d model
d l penanganan
• Fine cracks, slight deformation on the 70 - 90
struktur perkerasan jalan (pemeliharaan rutin,
wheel track, but still stable
pemeliharaan berkala dan peningkatan) dalam Sistem
• M oderate cracking, moderate 50 - 70 Manajemen Jalan.
deformation on the wheel track, and in
general still stable Sarana pendidikan dan penelitian untuk pemahaman
• Severe cracking, severe deformation on 30 - 50 tentang proses desain struktur perkerasan secara
the wheel track, and showing sign of menyeluruh, untuk mensimulasi penentuan desain struktur
perkerasan optimum dan untuk mengevaluasi model
instability
struktur perkerasan jalan.