.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Comparison of three flexible pavement structural design methodologies for four Arkansas roadways
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
A
J
T
A
T
S
C
A
DOI：10.1080/10298436.2026.2696964.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
The functionality of flexible structural design methods such as 1993 AASHTO, MEPDG and PerRoad is well-documented individually. However, a comparative analysis of these three methods is lacking, and comparisons between different design methods have rarely been explored. This study aims to compare pavement designs using the 1993 AASHTO, MEPDG and PerRoad methods, highlighting their similarities, differences, advancements and drawbacks. This study used preliminary design data from ARDOT for four project locations with varying functional classifications, ADT and truck percentages. The structural designs of these locations under two soil types were compared based on cost and thickness, with sensitivity analyses conducted on key design parameters. The use of MEPDG resulted in higher thicknesses under high traffic repetitions. However, PerRoad resulted in higher thickness under lower traffic repetitions. MEPDG objectively provides a realistic model of pavement behaviour using distress progression modelling. A sensitivity analysis shows that higher reliability increases the thickness in AASHTO 1993 and PerRoad methods, while subgrade support decreases it. PerRoad is traffic-insensitive, unlike AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG, which require greater thickness for higher traffic. The selection of pavement design method can be chosen considering the pavement functional classification, traffic level and governing agencies resource availability.
Keywords:
Flexible pavement
pavement design
1993 AASHTO
MEPDG
PerRoad
sensitivity analysis
Journal
IF:
3.3
Papers:
2.8K
Citations:
8.0K
Organization
Cited Papers