In this study, combinations of layer, stiffness, and thickness that produce an optimal perpetual pavement are determined for implementation on New Mexico State highways. Using a number of trial designs in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), pavement performances are determined and analyzed for a 50-year design life. The required thickness of a perpetual pavement varies from 10 to 15 in. (0.254 to 0.381 m) for moderate to high truck traffic roads. One example is a pavement that has a 3 in. (76.2 mm) surface layer containing a fine asphalt mix and a 7 in. (177.8 mm) intermediate layer that uses a coarse asphalt mix. This perpetual pavement carries up to 180 million equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) over its 50-year design life. Low bottom-up fatigue cracking (<12%) and little or no top-down cracking [<0.2 ft/mi (37.88 mm/km)] are observed at the end of 50 years. Rutting in the intermediate layer is also low [<0.05 in. (1.27 mm)] at the end of the 10-year maintenance cycle. Overall, fatigue cracking is not a major concern in the design of perpetual pavements for New Mexico’s conditions, rather rutting is more of a concern. For implementation of the perpetual pavements, a resurfacing plan is recommended to remove rutting [if>0.1 in. (2.54 mm)] in the top surface every 10 years. Additionally, perpetual pavements with and without rich-binder layers (RBLs) are examined in this study. Recommendations are made for using a perpetual pavement that does not include a RBL on the basis of life-cycle cost analysis. Another factor that is investigated in this study is debonding of hot mix asphalt (HMA) layers. Analysis shows that 88% of the perpetual pavements may fail by top-down cracking if debonding occurs between two HMA layers. Bottom-up cracking also increases significantly in a debonded environment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tarefder et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: