Abstract
Several in service pavements located in different regions of Idaho that have been designed according to the ITD design method were redesigned using the AASHTO 1993 as well as the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) procedures. All designs were conducted at a 50% reliability level. The nationally calibrated MEPDG (version 1.1) was used to predict the performance of the three design methods. Level 2 subgrade material characterization inputs were used in the MEPDG analysis. All other MEPDG inputs were level 3. Performance indicators predicted using MEPDG related to the three design methods were compared to each other. Results showed that, relative to AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG procedures, ITD design method significantly overestimates the thickness of the pavement structure, and particularly the thickness(s) of the unbound layer(s). On the other hand, the AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG guides show reasonable agreement on the resulting pavement structure.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
