IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt0x08g456.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

CAL/APT Program--Comparison of Caltrans and AASHTO Pavement Design Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Harvey, John
  • Long, Fenella

Abstract

This report compares the Caltrans and AASHTO pavement thickness design procedures. The design comparisons include pavement structures subjected to a range in traffic, as represented by Traffic Indexes of 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15, and a range in subgrade strengths, as measured by subgrade R-values of 5, 20, and 40. This report has four objectives: 1. Quantify the differences in pavement thickness resulting from use of the two methods. 2. Examine differences in predicted pavement performance for pavement designs considered equal within the Caltrans method. Related to this objective is the examination of the Gravel Factors for aggregate base and asphalt concrete. 3. Evaluate the effect of assumed drainage conditions on the pavement structures designed using the AASHTO method and relate this effect to the Caltrans method. 4. Demonstrate the flexibility of the mechanistic-empirical design procedure developed as part of the CAL/APT program to quantitatively, systematically, and rationally permit pavement designers to evaluate the performance of different pavement structures and different materials. This report illustrates that the AASHTO and Caltrans pavement thickness design procedures do not produce the same pavement structures for the same given inputs. The design procedures are based on different material properties determined in the laboratory: The Caltrans procedure uses the R-value test and AASHTO uses the resilient modulus test (MR). Generally, the pavement structures designed by the Caltrans procedure are thicker than those designed by the AASHTO procedure. This increase in thickness results in improved fatigue performance for the pavement designed according to the Caltrans procedure. The fatigue performance of the 2 pavements is extremely sensitive to the asphalt concrete thickness. In this report, it is shown that due to the differences between the design procedures they should not be used interchangeably. It is also shown that for the subbase, the procedures are sensitive to the conversion from one type of laboratory test to another.

Suggested Citation

  • Harvey, John & Long, Fenella, 1999. "CAL/APT Program--Comparison of Caltrans and AASHTO Pavement Design Methods," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0x08g456, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt0x08g456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0x08g456.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deacon, John A. & Monismith, Carl L. & Harvey, John T., 1997. "Pay Factors for Asphalt-Concrete Construction: Effect of Construction Quality on Agency Costs," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt9877p9q7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Popescu, L. & Monismith, C.L., 2006. "Performance-Based Pay Factors for Asphalt Concrete Construction: Comparison with a Currently Used Experience-Based Approach," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt7kq2r8vb, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Filippo Giammaria Pratico, 2007. "Quality and timeliness in highway construction contracts: a new acceptance model based on both mechanical and surface performance of flexible pavements," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 305-313.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engineering;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt0x08g456. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.