17 Comparative Analysis of Flexible Pavement Design Methods …
181
Table 17.3 Complete ranking of flexible pavement design methods
Ranking Methods
Net flow Positive outflow ranking Negative outflow ranking
1
Road note 29
0.3059 0.3583
0.0523
2
HD 26/01
0.1267 0.3008
0.1742
3
CBR
0.0984 0.2685
0.1701
4
AASHTO
−0.0361 0.1748
0.2109
5
Asphalt Institute −0.0851 0.1764
0.2616
6
Hveem method
−0.1673 0.1063
0.2736
7
Group index
−0.2424 0.1412
0.3836
Fig. 17.1 Evaluation of flexible pavement design methods
References
AASHTO (2001) AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures. AASHTO, Washington, DC
Allen DH, Little DN, Soares RF, Berthelot C (2015) Multi-scale computational model for design
of flexible pavement–part I: expanding multi-scaling. Int J Pavement Eng 18:1–12
Chidozie NM, Joshua CC (2016) Traffic assessment for pavement structural design using RN29,
LR1132, and HD26/01 methods. 1:47–52. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtte.20160104.12
Ekwulo EO, Eme DB (2009) Fatigue and rutting strain analysis of flexible pavements designed
using CBR methods. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 3:412–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.
2007.9690094
El-Badawy S, Bayomy MF, Santi M, Clawson CW (2011) Comparison of idaho pavement design
procedure with AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG methods. In: ASCE Proceedings of T & DI Congress.
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Gill S, Maharaj DK (2015) Comparative study of design charts for flexible pavement. Int Res J Eng
Technol 2:339–348