reliability-based pavement design model accounting for ... · reliability analysis techniques in a...
TRANSCRIPT
Kim & Buch
i
RELIABILITY-BASED PAVEMENT DESIGN MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR INHERENT VARIABILITY OF DESIGN
PARAMETERS
by
Hyung Bae Kim, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) Chief Researcher
Highway Research Institute Korea Highway Corporation
293-1 Kumto-dong Sujong-gu, Songnam-shi,
Kyungki-do, Korea Phone: (82-2) 2230-4851
Fax: (82-2) 2230-4184 E-Mail: [email protected]
and
Neeraj Buch, Ph.D. Associate Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University 3553 Engineering Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1226 Phone: (517) 432-0012 Fax: (517) 432-1827
E-Mail: [email protected]
Prepared for
82nd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting
Washington D.C.
January 12-16, 2003
Total Number of Words : 3,786 with 6 tables and 6 figures
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
ii
ABSTRACT
The basic premise of pavement design procedures employed in Mechanistic
Empirical (M-E) approaches are widely accepted. However, several issues need to be
resolved before implementing M-E pavement design procedure in practice. One of the
issues is that the design procedure should provide a consistent pavement performance
level considering inherent variability associated with design input parameters. For a
complete M-E pavement design procedure, the effects of the inherent variability of input
design parameters on predicted pavement performance must be addressed and quantified.
Some of the key principles for applying the reliability concept to M-E pavement
design are presented to account for the inherent variability of design parameters in this
paper. In particular, the selection of an appropriate reliability assessment technique and
careful characterization of design input variability were considered because of their
central role in calculating the reliability of pavement performance and determining the
reliability-based safety factor of the pavement design procedure.
In addition, a reliability analysis model for evaluating uncertainties in the M-E
flexible pavement design procedure and a reliability-based pavement design approach
using Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) format are introduced.
Key Word : Pavement Design, Reliability-Based Design, Reliability Index, LRFD
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
3
BACKGROUND
The basic premise of pavement design models and procedures employed in
Mechanistic Empirical (M-E) approaches are widely accepted. However, couples of
issues need to be resolved before implementation. One of the issues is that the design
procedure should provide a consistent pavement performance at a desired level of
reliability by considering various sources of uncertainties. Adequate reliability techniques
should be incorporated into the M-E pavement design procedure to allow the designer to
consider various uncertainties of pavement design and produce a consistent pavement
performance level. Presently, several M-E pavement design procedures are adopting the
reliability modules to account for the inherent variability within the design process (4, 14).
However, there are couples of drawbacks in utilizing these procedures in practice. They
provide only the reliability of design result from a set of design input parameters. It
means that the design procedure should be run a number of times to yield the pavement
thickness meeting a target reliability level that the design engineer expects. Furthermore,
in these design procedures the design engineer is required to use the Monte Carlo
Simulation method to determine reliability with a great deal of computing time.
Reliability analysis techniques in a pavement design procedures must provide a rational
framework for quickly addressing uncertainties in predicting performance of the
pavement and simply determining the optimum pavement cross-section for target
reliability. In this study, a reliability-based pavement design format assessing effects of
variability of pavement input parameters on performance and establishing appropriate
safety factors has been developed.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
4
RELIABILITY CONCEPTS
The pavement design reliability is defined as the probability that the pavement’s
traffic load capacity exceeds the cumulative traffic loading on the pavement or the
amount of pavement distress accumulated during desired service life does not exceed a
specified level. In terms of rut-depth, this definition can be presented as followings;
SM RD RDrut predict= −max [1]
where :
SMrut = safety margin between maximum allowable and predicted rut-depth, RDmax = maximum allowable rut depth in the design period, and RDpredict = predicted rut depth in the design.
Since there are uncertainties in the major input parameters of pavements such as moduli
of layers, thickness of layers, traffic volume, etc., it is reasonable to define each
parameter as a random variable with its mean and standard deviation or its complete
probability distribution. Once the statistical information for each random variable is
obtained, one can calculate mean and standard deviation of the pavement performance
function, which in this study, is taken as SMrut.
The probability of failure, Pr(f) can be determined by constructing a probability
density function (pdf) on the performance function (e.g. SMrut) and calculating the area
under the curve that is less than the value of the limit state. Alternatively, the reliability of
the performance function can be characterized by a reliability index βHL, which is the
shortest distance between the design point on the failure surface and the origin in a
standardized normal space (7). Figure 1 graphically illustrates how to obtain β from
design input parameters that are defined as random variables. For normal random
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
5
variables, the probability of failure, Pr(f), is estimated using the approximate relationship:
dzzgf HL ∫−
∞−=−Φ=
ββ )()()Pr( [2]
where :
( )HLβ−Φ = area under the pdf of standard normal variate from -∞ to -β, and g(z) = pdf of pavement performance.
The reliability of pavement performance can now be expressed as: 1-Pr(f).
The βHL can be obtained by an iteration method suggested by Rackwitz and
Fiessler (11).
SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTIES IN THE M-E FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
DESIGN
Uncertainties affecting pavement performance can be grouped into the following four
categories:
1. Spatial variability that includes a real difference in the basic properties of materials from one point to another in what are assumed to be homogeneous layers and a fluctuation in the material and cross-sectional properties due to construction quality.
2. Variability due to the imprecision in quantifying the parameters affecting
pavement performance (i.e. random measurement error in determining the strength of subgrade soil, and estimation of traffic volume in terms of average daily traffic and mean truck equivalency factor).
3. Model bias due to the assumption and idealization of a complex pavement analysis
model with a simple mathematical expression. 4. Statistical error due to the lack of fit of the regression equation.
The first and second sources can be combined into uncertainties of design parameters
representing the spatial variability and inconsistent estimation of the parameters. The
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
6
third and fourth sources can be combined into systematic errors consistently deviating
from predicted actual pavement performance. Uncertainties of design parameters cause
the variation within the probability distribution of the performance function, whereas
systematic errors cause the variation in possible location of the probability distribution of
the performance function (3). This concept is graphically presented in Figure 2.
DEVELOPMENT OF A RELIABILITY MODEL FOR EVALUATING THE
VARIABILITY OF PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE
The reliability model in this paper consists of two subsystems: an analytically
derived mechanistic subsystem for predicting pavement performance and a reliability
subsystem for analyzing the limit state function. An iterative loop including these
subsystems is established as is presented in Figure 3. In the mechanistic subsystem, the
structural analysis of a pavement section is conducted to obtain the relevant pavement
structural responses due to traffic loads and the prediction of pavement distress using the
transfer function as done in general M-E flexible pavement design procedure.
Considering the variability of design input parameters, the mechanistic subsystem
produces a set of predicted pavement distresses by varying the material and cross-
sectional properties. Using these predicted distresses, the reliability subsystem then
estimates the reliability of the pavement section in terms of the reliability index and
produces revised design points that are closer to the failure surface representing the limit
state condition (SMrut = 0 for example). Based on these revised design input parameters,
the subsystems are run in regular sequence. The iterative running of subsystems continues
until the revised design points reach to failure surface and βHL converges.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
7
In order to effectively quantify systematic errors of the design procedure, a
professional factor concept, defined as a representative ratio of the measured to predicted
pavement performance is introduced (12). The professional factor, P, reflects
uncertainties of the assumptions and simplifications used in design models. These
uncertainties could be the result of using approximations for theoretically exact formulas.
When this suggested reliability model is applied to design the pavement with rutting
failure criterion, the limit-state function of the model incorporating the professional factor
can be expressed as follows:
predictrut RDPRDSM ⋅−= max [3]
where :
predict
measure
RD
RDP = [4]
RDmeasure = Measured Rut-Depth
RDpredict = Predicted Rut Depth by the Transfer Function
In order to better explain how to execute the pavement reliability model
suggested in this study, an illustrative example is introduced. The eight pavement
sections were designed using the AASHTO 93 protocol. The parameter inputs include the
asphalt concrete (AC) modulus (2069 – 3103MPa) and subgrade resilient modulus (12-
76MPa). The thickness of the base and subbase are fixed at 203 and 406mm respectively.
The moduli of the based and subbase are also fixed at 276 and 103 MPa respectively. All
sections were designed to carry the traffic volume of 5, 10, 13, and 18.5 million ESALs
with a reliability of 90% and an overall standard deviation So of 0.42 while the design
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
8
∆PSI was fixed at 1.7. The design summary is presented in Table 1. The rut prediction
model used for this illustrative example is summarized in equation 5 (5). The model is
shown as ;
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )
−+++−
⋅−++−=
SG
ACSGvbasev
annualAC
E
EN
KVTSDHRD
ln034.0ln258.0271.0657.0703.2
ln01.0011.0ln033.0016.0
883.0,
097.0, εε
[5]
where: RD : Average rut-depth along a specified wheel path segment (inch) SD : Pavement surface deflection (in.), KV : Kinematic viscosity (centistroke), Tannual : Annual ambient temperature (oF), HAC : Thickness of asphalt concrete (in.), N : Cumulative traffic volume (ESAL), εv,base : Vertical compressive strain at the top of base layer (10-3), εv,SG : Vertical compressive strain at the top of subgrade (10-3), EAC : Resilient modulus of asphalt concrete (psi) corrected at the reference temperature of 20oC , and ESG : Resilient modulus of subgrade (psi).
The statistical information for this rut prediction model is summarized in Table 2. A rut-
depth of 12.7mm was considered as a limit state in this study. The strains and deflections
induced in the pavement were computed using MICHPAVE (6). It is very important to
estimate the variability of material properties involved in producing design outputs.
When sufficient data from in-situ and laboratory tests are not available, a possible
approach to characterize realistic statistical properties of design input parameters is to use
estimates based on published values, which are most conveniently expressed in terms of
the coefficient of variation (COV) :
x
x
mCOV
σ==
valueavaerage
deviationstandard [6].
General ranges of COV for common design input parameters are summarized in Table 3.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
9
It should be noted that the values shown in Table 3 provide only a rough guide for
estimating values of COV for any given case and the engineer’s judgment must be
primarily used in determining appropriate values of COV from published sources. Table 3
also shows the values used in this study.
The reliability indices computed for the 13 pavement sections using the FORM
(Rackwitz and Fiessler’s algorithm) are summarized in Table 4. The difference in the
reliability indices between 13 sections indicates that, in general, the AASHTO design
method does not yield cross sections with uniform reliability even though same reliability
level and serviceability index are assigned to all sections. It means that the existing
AASHTO method, which is based on empirical relationship between key elements of the
pavement performance, does not properly account for inherent variability of design
parameters in terms of mechanistic failure criterion such as pavement rutting. This
motivates the development of a design approach that tries to achieve uniform reliability
for all mechanistic-empirical pavement designs with failure modes such as fatigue
cracking, rutting or low-temperature cracking.
DEVELOPMENT OF PRACTICAL RELIABILITY-BASED PAVEMENT DESIGN
FORMAT
Basic Concept in Reliability-Based Design (RBD)
The reliability associated with an appropriate design equation should equal a
target value representing a certain degree of structural safety. The reliability-based design
of the pavement should guarantee that the probability of failure of a pavement lies below
an intended target level. Employing a design criterion of the pavement performance such
as pavement rut depth, this concept can simply be expressed as follows;
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
10
Pr (SMrut < 0) ≤ pT [7]
where pT is the acceptable target probability of failure.
Reliability-based design in form of equation 7 involves the repeated use of
reliability assessment routines, such as the FORM to evaluate the probabilities of failure
of trial designs until computed probability of failure is extremely close to pT. This
approach is not suitable for designs that are carried out on a routine basis such as
pavement thickness design. In this study, a practical reliability-based M-E flexible
pavement design procedure was established involving the use of Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) format that is a worldwide prevalent form of the limit-state design
philosophy. The basic concept of the reliability-based approach applied to mechanistic-
empirical pavement designs can be expressed as follows:
),.......,( 21 nRoverallthreshold qqqfD γ≥ [8]
where:
Dthreshold = Threshold amount of pavement distress, γoverall = Overall safety factor reflecting a specified target reliability, fR = Procedure for predicting pavement performance in terms of pavement distress, and qi = Parameters in a pavement design procedure.
The γoverall to obtain a target reliability index, βtarget, can be determined as follows;
),......,(
),,,.........,(
121
112211
nnR
nnnnRoverall qqqqf
qqqqf
−
−−=γγφφγ [9]
where φι or γj is a partial safety factor of each variable for reduction or amplification of its
amount. For a specified βtarget, φι and γj can be computed through
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
11
+==
i
iii
i X
NXettX
NX
X
ii n
m
n
X σβαφ arg
**
[10]
+==
j
jjj
j X
NXettX
NX
X
jj n
m
n
X σβαγ arg
**
[11]
where:
NX i
m = Equivalent normal mean values of design variable Xi, NX i
σ = Equivalent normal standard deviation of design variable Xi,
iXn = Nominal values of design variable Xi, and *
iXα = Direction cosine associated with the failure point of design variable Xi.
In order to have a constant of γoverall for all design situations, φι and γj must depend on the
particular variability of all basic variables in the design model. If a constant set of φι, γj,
and γoverall are prescribed, the associated reliability indices will deviate from a target
reliability index for certain design situations. However, it is possible to select a value of
γoverall that minimizes these deviations when considered over all likely combinations of
design features presented in the practice.
Illustrative Example of RBD
A RBD format employing a rut prediction model, which was introduced in the
previous section, as the major limit-state function can be written as follows:
[ ]),,,,( NEEEHfPRD SGBaseACACRoverallthreshold ⋅⋅≥ γ [12] where :
),,,,,(
),,,,,(
NEEEEHfP
NEEEEHfP
SGSBBaseACACR
NSGESBEBaseEACEACHRPoverall
SGSBBaseACAC
⋅
⋅=
γφφφφφγγ [13]
),,,,,( NEEEETf
RD
RD
RDP
SGSBBaseACACR
measured
predicted
measured == [14]
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
12
The partial safety factors for all variables can be computed using equation 10 through 11.
The nominal values of design variables were assumed the mean values of them. In order
to determine rational constant values of overall safety factors corresponding to target
reliability indices, a factorial experiment matrix was established as summarized in Table
5. Each cell represents a specific design feature. The factorial matrix provides a simple
but effective way to relate design features to site conditions. Three major design variables
of traffic volume, AC thickness, and resilient modulus of subgrade that were examined
factors mostly affecting reliability for predicting pavement rut depth were selected and
included in the matrix (8). High, moderate, and low values for each variable were
determined based on the findings reported in NCHRP 1-32 project and Michigan DOT
pavement design practice (15). In Table 5, eighteen cells shaded in the matrix were
selected regarding most likely combinations of design features presented in the practice.
The reliability indices, failure points of design variables, and direction cosines associated
with the design points in 18 shaded cells were determined by the FORM with 12.7 mm of
rut depth as the limit state. Then, partial safety factors and overall safety factors
corresponding to specified target reliability indices were calculated. In the next step, the
constant set of partial and overall safety factors for various target reliabilities of 75 to
99% were determined and summarized in Table 6.
A flowchart showing a M-E flexible pavement design procedure based on
equation 12 is illustrated in Figure 4. In this design procedure, the cross-section of a
pavement is optimally determined by following steps :
1. Input design parameters including expected traffic volume during pavement service life, a desired target reliability level, a threshold rut-depth as failure criterion (RDthreshold), ambient annual temperature around the site, and effective resilient modulus of the subgrade soil of the site.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
13
2. Set up trial pavement cross-section and material properties. 3. Determine a certain degree of uncertainty accompanied with the design procedure in
terms of an overall safety factor ( overallγ ) of the design model: From Table 6, select a value in accordance with the desired reliability level set up in step 1.
4. Compute the surface deflection and compressive vertical strains at the top of the base layer and subgrade using the pavement analysis computer program.
5. Compute the predictive pavement rut-depth (RDpredicted). 6. Modify the pavement cross-section if the difference between RDthreshold and
overallγ *P*RDpredicted is higher than a specified tolerance level and repeat step 3
through 5 until the difference will be less than the tolerance level.
In order to compare design results using the AASHTO and RBD procedures
suggested in this study, the thirteen pavement sections shown in Table 1 were re-designed
by the RBD procedure where the AC thickness was changed so that the revised section
would accommodate the design traffic and satisfy the threshold rut-depth at a given target
reliability. The target reliability of 90% (βtarget = 1.28) was assigned to both design
procedures. Figure 5 shows the difference of design results obtained by the AASHTO and
RBD methods in terms of AC thickness. The reliability indices for the pavement sections
determined by both methods were computed using the FORM in which equation 3 is
employed as the limit state function. Figure 6 presents the comparison of reliability
indices indicating that the RBD procedure does successfully yield cross-sections whose
reliability indices are close to the target reliability index while the AASHTO method does
not generally produce designs of uniform reliability for actual mechanistic failure
criterion.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A reliability analysis model for quantifying uncertainties in common M-E
flexible pavement design procedures and identifying the design parameters that the most
significantly affect the variability of pavement performance was presented. A M-E
flexible pavement design procedure using the RBD format was illustrated in an effort to
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
14
design a pavement cross-section satisfying performance threshold with a target reliability
during its intended design life.
Based on the findings presented here, the following conclusions and
recommendations are made;
1. The performance reliability in a given pavement section can be reasonably expressed
as the reliability index, βHL, the invariant minimum distance between the origin and
the failure surface.
2. Uncertainties affecting pavement performance consist of two portions: uncertainties of
design parameters and systematic errors. Uncertainties of design parameters reflect the
spatial variation and random measurement error of the pavement material properties
and systematic errors are associated with the model bias in predicting pavement
performance.
3. The effects of systematic errors can be quantified by employing the professional factor
that is defined as a representative ratio of the measured to predicted pavement
performance.
4. Based on the proposed reliability analysis procedure, partial and overall safety factors
accounting for inherent variability of pavement design parameters can be developed
and classified to different functional road classes such as interstate, principal arterials,
and residential streets for each performance measure.
5. The AASHTO design method, which is being used in practice, does not properly
account for inherent variability of design parameters in terms of mechanistic failure
criterion.
6. The suggested RBD format employing the actual mechanistic failure criterion is
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
15
capable of yielding the design results with the uniform reliability.
7. The suggested RBD format, appropriately calibrated using considerably more data
than used in this illustrative example, could be implemented in future pavement design
guides.
8. It is recommended that the target reliabilities that can be varied with traffic levels and
pavement serviceabilities should be calibrated to inherent past practices associated
with pavement design.
Acknowledgement
The Authors would like to thank the Advanced Highway Research Center in Hanyang
University and the Pavement Research Center of Excellence in Michigan State University
for providing financial support for this study.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
16
REFERENCES
1. 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1993.
2. Ang, A. and Tang, W. Probability Concept in Engineering Planning and Design
Volume- I and II, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1975 and 1984.
3. Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C., and Baecher, G.B. Reliability Applied to Slope Stability
Analysis, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 120, Dec. 1994,
pp.2180-2207.
4. Hallin, J.P, Darter, M.I., and Witzack, M.W., Development of the 2002 Guide for the
Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, presented in the Workshop for
2002 Guide for Mechanistic Pavement Design: Issues in Development and
Implementation, 80th Annual Meeting of TRB, Washington, D.C., 2001.
5. Harichandran, R. S., Buch, N., and Baladi, G. Y. Flexible Pavement Design in
Michigan : Transition from Empirical to Mechanistic Methods, Presented in 80th
Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
6. Harichandran, R.S., Yeh, M.S., and Baladi, G.Y., MICHPAVE: a Nonlinear Finite
Element Program for Analysis of Flexible Pavements, Transportation Research
Record 1286, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 123-132.
7. Hasofer, A.M., and Lind, N.C., Exact and Invariant Second-Moment Code Format,
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics, (ASCE), Vol. 100, 1974, pp 111-121.
8. Kim, H.B., Framework for Incorporating Rutting Prediction Model in the Reliability-
Based Design of Flexible Pavements, Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University,
1999.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
17
9. Noureldin, S. A., Sharaf, E., Arafah, A., and Al-Sugair, F., Estimation of Standard
Deviation of Predicted Performance of Flexible Pavements using AASHTO Model,
Transportation Research Record 1449, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 46-56.
10. Proposed AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, NCHRP Project 20-
7/24, Vol. 2, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
11. Rackwitz, R., and Fiessler, B., Structural Reliability under Combined Random Load
Sequences, Computers & Structures, Vol. 9, 1978, pp. 489-494.
12. Ravindra, M.K., and Galambos, T., Load and Resistance Factor Design for Steel,
Journal of Structural Division (ASCE), Vol. 104, Sept. 1978, pp.1337-1353.
13. Timm, D., Birgisson, B., and Newcomb, D., Variability of Mechanistic-Empirical
Flexible Pavement Design Parameters, Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Vol. 1, Norway, 1998,
pp.629-638.
14. Timm, D.H., Newcomb, D.E., Birgisson, B., and Galambos, T.V., Incorporation of
Reliability into the Minnesota Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Method, Final
Report Prepared to Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Univ.,
Department of Civil Engineering, Minneapolis, July, 1999.
15. Von Quintus, H., Killingsworth, B.M., Darter, M.I., Owusu-Antwi, E., and Jiang, J.,
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features, Final Report, NCHRP 1-32,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
18
List of Tables and Figures Table 1 Summary of Pavement Cross-Section and Statistical Information
Table 2 Statistical Information of the Rut Prediction Model
Table 3 Summary of Variability of Design Input Parameters
Table 4 Summary of the Computations of Reliability Indices
Table 5 Factorial Experiment Matrix with Major Design Variables
Table 6 Summary of Partial and Overall Safety Factors with Various Target Reliabilities
Figure 1 Graphical Illustration of Reliability Index
Figure 2 Integrated Presentation of Types of Uncertainties Associated with M-E Flexible
Pavement Design
Figure 3 Flow Diagram for Pavement Reliability Analysis
Figure 4 Flowchart for M-E Flexible Pavement Design Procedure using RBD Format
Figure 5 AC Thickness Determined by RBD and AASHTO (1993) Methods
Figure 6 Comparison of Reliabilities for Pavement Sections Designed by RBD and
AASHTO (1993) Methods
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
1
Table 1 Summary of Pavement Cross-Section and Statistical Information
Section No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
AC Thickness
(mm) 241 140 102 152 127 178 229 203 73 69 102 152 127
AC Modulus (MPa)
2758 2758 2758 2069 3103 2758 2069 3103 2758 3103 3103 3103 3103
Subgrade Modulus (MPa)
21 52 76 52 52 34 34 34 55 55 55 34 55
Traffic (KESAL)
18,522 18,522 18,522 18,522 18,522 18,522 18,522 18,522 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 13,000
* The thickness of the base and subbase are fixed at 203 and 406mm. **Moduli of the base and subbase are fixed at 276 and 103 MPa
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
1
Table 2 Statistical Information of the Rut Prediction Model DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS RD
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES
DF MEAN-SQUARE
F P-value
REGRESSION 2.336 9 0.260 43.333 2.044E-18
RESIDUAL 0.188 42 0.004
TOTAL 2.583 51
CORRECTED 0.477 50
RAW R-SQUARED (1-RESIDUAL/TOTAL) = 0.905
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (95%) PARAMETER ESTIMATE A.S.E.
LOWER BOUND UPPER BOUND
a1 -0.016 0.036 -0.089 0.058
a2 0.033 0.094 -0.157 0.223
a3 0.011 0.023 -0.037 0.058
a4* -0.010
a5 -2.703 0.181 -3.708 -1.698
a6 0.657 3.300 -6.002 7.317
a7 0.097 0.670 -1.255 1.448
a8 0.271 0.912 -1.569 2.111
a9 0.883 1.601 -2.348 4.114
a10 0.258 0.587 -0.926 1.443
a11 0.034 0.114 -0.196 0.264
*A4 is assumed to be a constant value before running statistical analysis due to the difficulty of convergence in the regression model
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
2
Table 3 Summary of Variability of Design Input Parameters
Previous Investigation This Study
Property Range of COV
(%) Type of
Distribution Reference COV
Type of Distribution
3 – 12 Normal (13) AC Thickness
(TAC) 3 – 12 Normal (9)
10 Normal
10 – 40 Lognormal (13) AC Modulus
(EAC) 10 –20 Normal (9)
25 Lognormal
10 – 30 Normal (9) Base Modulus
(EBase) 5 – 60 Lognormal (14)
15 Lognormal
10 – 30 Normal (9) Subbase Modulus (ESubbase) 5 – 60 Lognormal (14)
15 Lognormal
10 – 30 Normal (13) Subgrade Modulus
(ESG) 20 – 45 Lognormal (9) 35 Lognormal
42 Lognormal (10) 42 Traffic
(N) -
Extreme Value Type I
(14) -
Extreme Value Type I
Professional Factor
(P) 20 Normal (8) 20 Normal
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
3
Table 4 Summary of the Computations of Reliability Indices
Section No. Reliability Index
1 2.151
2 0.574
3 0.007
4 0.718
5 0.379
6 1.149
7 2.037
8 1.694
9 0.295
10 0.323
11 0.318
12 1.102
13 0.615
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
4
Table 5 Factorial Experiment Matrix with Major Design Variables
Traffic Volume (ESAL) 1,000,000 5,000,000 15,000,000
Subgrade Modulus (MPa) 28 55 97 28 55 97 28 55 97
AC Thickness (mm) 76
127
178
254
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
5
Table 6 Summary of Partial and Overall Safety Factors with Various Target Reliabilities
Target Reliability Level (%) 75 80 90 95 99
βtarget (Normal Variate)
0.68 0.84 1.28 1.65 2.33
Overallγ 1.155 1.191 1.295 1.385 1.557
Pγ 1.120 1.148 1.225 1.293 1.410
Nγ 1.070 1.087 1.133 1.170 1.241
ACEφ 0.986 0.982 0.973 0.966 0.951
BaseEφ 0.996 0.996 0.993 0.991 0.988
SubbaseEφ 0.997 0.997 0.995 0.994 0.991
SGEφ 0.969 0.962 0.942 0.927 0.894
ACTφ 0.976 0.971 0.956 0.946 0.919
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
6
Figure 1 Graphical Illustration of Reliability Index
Safe Region
Failure Region
t Hyperplane
Failure Surface g(z1,z2)=0
Design Point
βΗL
z2
z1
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
7
Figure 2 Integrated Presentation of Types of Uncertainties Associated with M-E Flexible Pavement Design
Prediction Range Associated with Parameter Uncertainties
Prediction Range Associated with Parameter Uncertainties
Prediction Range Associated with Systematic Uncertainties
( )[ ]xmgE( )[ ]xmgE − ( )[ ]xmgE +
Possible Prediction Range
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
8
Figure 3 Flow Diagram for Pavement Reliability Analysis
Material andCross-sectionalProperties
Traffic andEnvironmentalFactor
PavementStructureModel
StructuralResponses
PavementPerformance
Model
PredictedPavementDistress
Failure Criteria(= Threshold Amountof Distress)
Limit StateFunction, g(x)
ReliabilityIndex (βHL) atg(xi)
Revised InputPoints (xi+1)
βHL atg(xi+n) = 0
Initial Input Points (x1)
Mechanistic Subsystem Reliability Subsystem
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
9
Figure 4 An Iterative Loop for M-E Flexible Pavement Design Procedure using RBD Format
• Characterization of Surface, Base, and Subbase MaterialsProperties
• Characterization of Subgrade Soils
� Cross-Sectional Properties
Structural Analysis of Pavement Section
Primary Response of Pavement (stress, strain, and deflection)
Calculation of Rut Depth (RDpredicted) with Predictive Model
• Traffic Information • Environmental Condition
Final Design
Yes Change Cross-Sectional Properties
No
RDthreshold –γoverall*P*RDpredicted ≤ Tolerance Level
• Threshold Rut Depth (RDthreshold)
• Professional Factor (P) • Overall Safety Factor
(γoverall) based on βtarget
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Kim & Buch
10
Figure 5 AC Thickness Determined by RBD and AASHTO (1993) Methods
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.