Evaluation of IRC Method of Flexible Pavement
Design Using M-EPDG
Devi Ramachandran
M.tech Student
Dept. of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering Trivandrum
Email: deviramchandran@gmail.com
Abstract— The pavement design is a tedious task, though
its structure is so simple. The method which we use in India is
the IRC method of pavement design conforming to IRC 37-
2001 which is a mechanistic-empirical method. The empirical
AASHTO method is another accepted and used method which
is based on empirical relations from the AASHTO Road Test
conducted during 1950‘s. Since then the traffic level,
environmental conditions, construction methods etc. changed
tremendously. So there emerged a great need for new methods
to account for these variations which led to the development
of the new mechanistic–empirical AASHTO 2002 method and
shall be called by the names, NCHRP 1-37A design
procedure, Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
(M-E PDG) Procedure.
In this study an attempt is made to evaluate and compare
the IRC method of flexible pavement design using M-EPDG
in terms of its design concepts and structural adequacy. It was
seen that the IRC design over estimates the design
requirements for all the distress types except AC layer rutting.
A redesign was done to rectify this problem and the design
was optimized.
Keywords- pavement design; M-EPDG; mechanistic; empirical
I. INTRODUCTION
A. General
The pavement is subjected to many adverse environmental
and traffic conditions. Therefore it is necessary that the
roadway is provided with a suitably designed and constructed
pavement structure. The pavement structure so designed shall
be of 3 types – Flexible pavements, rigid pavements and
composite pavements. This work concentrates on the flexible
pavement design and its performance characteristics. The
pavement design methods shall be broadly classified into three
– mechanistic, empirical and mechanistic-empirical. The
mechanistic methods are those which use theories of
mechanics to calculate the pavement structural responses like
stresses, strains and deflections, based on which the pavement
design is carried out. The empirical methods, on the other
hand use empirical correlations / equations, which are derived
from extensive road tests or laboratory test data. The
mechanistic empirical methods are an intermediate between
the mechanistic and empirical methods. It mechanistically
Preethi.P
Lecturer
Dept. of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering Trivandrum
preethi_november@yahoo.co.in
calculates the pavement responses, using which the damage
accumulated over the design life is calculated. Then empirical
models are used to predict the pavement distresses from the
accumulated damage.
B. Need and Scope Of The Study
Pavements respond to the various site characteristics like
soil characteristics, heterogeneous traffic, climate,
environmental conditions etc. in complex ways. Therefore,
pavement design should be done very carefully and in a
scientific manner so that, the pavement serves its purpose with
least maintenance during the expected design life. The method
which we use in India is the Indian Roads Congress (IRC)
method of pavement design conforming to IRC 37-2001,
which is a mechanistic-empirical method.
Most of the roads in India do not meet the design life.
They are subjected to fast deterioration even at very early
stages leading to a huge loss in economy, in the form of repair
and rehabilitation costs. So there is a great need for adopting
and implementing an advanced pavement design method for
solving these problems. It is in this context that the present
study has been directed towards the Karamana- Kaliyikkavila
stretch of NH-47, which is presently a two lane stretch and is
going to be four/six lanned. An IRC design for this stretch is
done, which is used as the trial/base design for analysis using
the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide
Software,(M-EPDG, software incorporating the design
concepts of the AASHTO 2002 method) so that the
deficiencies in the IRC method and the dissimilarities of the
two methods shall be understood. The map showing the
location of study stretch is as shown in figure 1 and figure 2.
C. Objectives
The objectives of this study are,
1. To compare IRC method of pavement design and the
design procedure as per ‗The New Mechanistic
Empirical Pavement Design Guide (2002)‘, in terms
of the design concepts and input requirement.
2. To evaluate a pavement section, designed as per IRC
method, using M-EPDG, in terms of its structural
adequacy and performance.
 II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. An Overview Of The NCHRP 1-37A Design Procedure[6]
AASTHO method of pavement design which is an
empirical method which is a world widely accepted and used
method. This method was completely based on empirical
relations developed from the AASHTO Road Test which was
conducted at 1950‘s. Since then, there have been tremendous
changes in traffic, climate, materials, construction techniques
etc., for which there is no consideration in the AASHTO
method. This urged the need for a new design method, which
considered the periodical variations in traffic, climate,
environmental conditions and material properties, which led to
the development of a new mechanistic-empirical pavement
design method, which is the new AASHTO 2002 Method,
following, The Guide for Design of New and Rehabilitated
Pavement Structures. Many countries and state department of
transportation (DOT) have started adopting this method and
are on the way of implementation.
The NCHRP 1-37A procedure is a mechanistic-empirical
method for designing and evaluating pavement structures.
Structural responses like stresses, strains and deflections are
mechanistically calculated based on material properties,
environmental conditions and loading characteristics. Thus the
damage accumulated over time is found out which is then
converted to distress performance predictions using empirical
models.
The most important feature of the method is its ability to
account for the variations in material properties with the
variations in climatic conditions over different seasons and
cumulative traffic loading during these seasons. In otherwords,
it simulates the behavior of the pavement structure under
different traffic and climatic conditions. Another important
feature of this method is that it uses the concept of axle load
spectra for characterizing traffic instead of the Equivalent
Single Axle Load Concept (ESAL) used in older methods. The
use of load spectra allows mixed traffic to be analyzed
directly, without using load equivalency factors. Some
additional advantages of load spectra approach include: the
possibility of special vehicle analyses, analysis of impact on
Figure 1. Location Of Trivandrum
Figure 2. Location of Study Stretch
performance by overloaded trucks and analysis of weight
limits during critical climate conditions [1]. A description of
the design process, inputs required and the models used is
provided in the following sections.
a. Design Process
Design approach
The NCHRP 1-37A design process involves an iterative
procedure instead of a process which involves the computation
of pavement layer thicknesses from the design equation. In
this method, the traffic, climate, materials and construction
conditions at the site are first considered, based on which a
trial design is worked out. The trial design is then evaluated
for adequacy against some failure criteria and reliability levels
specified prior to the analysis. The distresses and smoothness
are predicted from the computed structural responses due to
traffic and environmental loads. This design is revised until
the reliability requirements are satisfied. This approach helps
in getting the optimum design and ensures that the distresses
will not develop during its design life span.
Design principle
The NCHRP 1-37A methodology uses the Multi-Layer
Linear Elastic Theory (MLET) to predict mechanistic
responses in the pavement structure and hence the assumed
failure or distress parameter.
a. Inputs
Hierarchical design inputs
The NCHRP 1-37A has a hierarchical approach for design
inputs, which helps to obtain design inputs based on the
criticality of the project and availability of resources
There are three levels; Level 1 – offers the highest level of
accuracy by using the site specific and laboratory test result
data. Level 2 – offers intermediate level of accuracy where in,
inputs are obtained from agency database or through
correlations with other parameters (e.g. resilient modulus from
CBR values). Level 3 – level of inputs having lowest level of
accuracy which uses user selected data or typical averages or
default values according to the functional class of the road.
When compared to other design procedures a large number
of input parameters are required by the MEPDG design. This
in one way adds to the advantage of the method, but in other
way poses serious implementation issues. The inputs needed
are
 The Design criteria
 Foundation inputs
 Traffic inputs
 Environmental inputs
 Material inputs
b. Pavement Response Models
The NCHRP 1-37A procedure has three models to predict
the pavement responses. Multi-Layer Elastic Theory (MLET)
and the Finite Element Model (FEM) are used to compute the
responses due to traffic loading and Enhanced Integrated
Climatic Model (EICM) is used to predict seasonal
temperature and moisture variations throughout the pavement
structure.
c. Empirical Performance Models
There are five empirical performance models for the five
different distresses – alligator or bottom-up fatigue cracking,
longitudinal or top down fatigue cracking, thermal cracking,
rutting and roughness.
d. Reliability
Pavement design inputs have large uncertainties, like those
associated with axle load estimation, materials, construction
and variations in conditions along length. Practical method to
consider such uncertainties and variations is to design for a
desired level of reliability. Reliability shall be defined as the
probability that each of the key distress types and smoothness
will be less than a selected critical level over the design
period. Greater reliability levels will be taken for more
important projects and more traffic volumes.
B. Review Of Previous Works
Sadasivam and Morian (2005) conducted a sensitivity
analysis to study the effect of water table depth on pavement
performance, as predicted by MEPDG. They found that as
Water table depth increases, predicted top-down cracking at
surface decreases, fatigue cracking at the bottom of asphalt
concrete layer increases, there was no significant effect on
rutting on asphalt concrete layer and water table depth has
influence on subgrade rutting. Mulandi et al (2006) compared
the pavement design using 1993 AASHTO and the new
MEPDG. They studied five in-service pavements. Their study
observed that MEPDG yielded thinner AC sections and the
AC pavement sections obtained from the AASHTO method
failed in the reliability criterion associated with longitudinal
cracking. Regis L.Carvalho (2006) compared the AASHTO
1993 and NCHRP 1-37A flexible pavement design
procedures. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted.
Existing AASHTO designs at three locations were also
evaluated using M-EPDG. His findings arrived at the
conclusion that NCHRP 1-37A yielded reliable estimates of
distresses.
III. METHODOLOGY
A pavement section for the study stretch is designed based
on IRC 37-2001 procedure. This design is evaluated using
MEPDG software. The steps to be followed to achieve the
objectives are as follows: The study stretch was identified to
be Karamana-Kaliyikkavila stretch of NH-47 which is
proposed to be widened to four/six lanes. The soil data
obtained for the stretch was used to draw gradation curves
from which various parameters like, D60, D10, D30 and D90
were found out. Also a representative CBR value was selected,
which is the 75th percentile value of the given set of CBR
values. Traffic data was analyzed to find out the AADTT, the
site specific V.D.F for IRC design and the traffic volume
adjustment factors for MEPDG. Axle load data was analyzed
to get the axle load spectra/distribution. After completing the
data analysis, an IRC design for the section was done. Using
this IRC design as the trial design, M-EPDG analysis was
carried out. The results obtained from the analysis were used
for evaluating the IRC design.
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
A. Soil Data Analysis
From the sieve analysis results gradation curves were
drawn for some representative samples and the parameters like
D60, D10, D30 and D90 were found out, which are required
for the MEPDG analysis.CBR values for the 60 soil samples
were available from which a representative values has to be
selected. Design Subgrade modulus corresponding to million
standard axles is taken as 75th percentile value [2].
Mr = 1500 *CBR
Thus representative CBR value = 14%.
B. Traffic Count Data Analysis
Only LCV, buses, trucks and multi-axle vehicles were
considered in the analysis. LCV counts were not used in M-
EPDG analysis. They were used only in IRC analysis. M-
EPDG considers only trucks from class 4 to class 13 in which
LCVs are not included. The FHWA classification of trucks is
as given below.
 TABLE 1. PROJECTION OF VEHICLE COUNTS OVER DESIGN TABLE .2. HOURLY DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
LIFE
LCV Bus 3 Axle >3 Axle Time 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2
+Truck
1 Day 346 2124 16 87
H.D.F 6.43 6.16 4.32 6.06 6.3 6.06 6.3
1 Year
1,26,290 7,75,260 5840 31,755
 Class 6 = 0.7%
For 15 Years, 1,
(0.5% Growth  Class 8 = 3.91%
Rate/Month 3,0,60,576 87,88,343 1,41,629 7,69,506
and 6% 3. Hourly Distribution Factors (HDF): This indicates the
Growth number of trucks in each hour of the day expressed as a
rate/annum) percentage of average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT).
 Vehicle Class 4 – Buses
A sample of HDFs thus obtained is tabulated in table 2.
 Vehicle Classes 5 to 7 -- Single Unit Trucks
4. Axle load distribution factors
 Vehicle Classes 8 to 10 -- Tractor-Trailer Trucks
Axle load distribution factors represent the number of
 Vehicle Classes 11 to 13 -- Multi-Trailer Trucks axles in each load group (3000-4000) of each axle type
a. Traffic Data Analysis for IRC Design (single) of each vehicle class (class 5) expressed as a
percentage of total number of axles of that axle type and
AADTT calculation vehicle class. The load ranges considered for different axle
Traffic data consisted of 7 day 24 hour classified vehicle types are as given below.
counts in both directions at half an hour interval. For the  Single axles – 3,000 lb to 40,000 lb at 1,000-lb
calculation of AADTT the truck traffic in the direction having intervals.
more vehicle count was selected.
 Tandem axles – 6,000 lb to 80,000 lb at 2,000-lb
AADTT = (Sum of the daily count of all intervals.
vehicle class for 7 days) / 7
 Tridem and Quad axles – 12,000 lb to 102,000 lb at
AADTT thus obtained = 4954 CVPD 3,000-lb intervals.
V.D.F Calculation A sample calculation is given below:
From the traffic data the following values were obtained as The number of class 5 single axles in the load range
shown in table 1. The maximum permissible gross weight for 3000-4000 lbs = 48
each axle type was taken from IRC 3-1983. Now, number of
axle applications of each axle type by each vehicle class was The total number of class 5 single axles = 862
found out for 15 years. Single axle single tyre and single axle
Axle load distribution factor for the load range 3000-
dual tyre applications were accounted for separately. Load
4000 = [48/862]*100 = 5.6%.
Equivalency Factors (L.E.F) for each axle type were
interpolated from IRC 37-2001, Annexure -2.
V. IRC DESIGN OF THE STUDY STRETCH
Vehicle damage factor = Σ (Number of axles X Load
equivalency factor)/number of vehicles The study stretch which is presently a two lane two way
road, is proposed to be widened to dual 2 lane carriage way.
Site specific VDF thus obtained = 2.44 The design inputs are as given below.
b. Traffic Data Analysis for M-EPDG  Commercial vehicles per day = 2572 CVPD (each
1. Initial two way AADTT= 4216 direction)

The buses and trucks together are assumed to constitute  Design life =15 yrs (according to IRC 37:2001 page
class 5 vehicles 11)

The tandem axle vehicles are assumed to constitute class 6
The 4 axle vehicles are assumed to constitute class 8
2. Site specific Vehicle Class Distribution Factors (level 1)
from traffic data: This indicates the number of each class of
truck expressed as percentage of AADT
 Class 5 = 95.4 %
 Design CBR of Subgrade soil = 14% (75th percentile
CBR value)
 Traffic growth rate = 6%
 Vehicle damage factor = 2.44 (site specific value
calculated from axle load data)
 L.D.F =0.75 (IRC 37:2001, paragraph 3.3.5)
  Cumulative number of standard axles (8160 kg) to be
carried during the design life of 15 years is calculated
as, N = 40 msa.
Design charts are available for CBR values only upto 10%,
CBR value is assumed to be 10 %.
From design plates of IRC 37-2001,
 Total pavement thickness =590 mm
 Bituminous surfacing
o Bituminous concrete = 40 mm
o Dense bituminous macadam = 100 mm
 Base =250 mm
 Subbase =200 mm
The section is as shown in figure.3
This section is used as the trial design in the MEPDG
analysis.
VI. ANALYSIS IN M-EPDG
The section designed as per IRC method was evaluated
using MEPDG software.
A. Entering the Inputs
The inputs needed for MEPDG software were entered as
explained below:
Figure. 3. Pavement Section as Per IRC Design
The first set is the General Inputs which includes type of
pavement, construction and opening months and design life.
Then comes the Site/Project Identification Details, which
consists of the location, direction of traffic and the starting and
end points of the study stretch. Next is the Analysis
Parameters or the Design Criteria which are entered against a
level of reliability of 90% for each specific distress type.
Next comes the Traffic Inputs which consists of the
following parameters
a. Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors
Monthly adjustment factors: Since the traffic distribution
remains the same throughout the year, i.e. does not change
between the different months of the year, the default monthly
adjustment factors are used. Vehicle Class Distribution: Site-
specific vehicle class distribution data is available for this
design project which is calculated as mentioned in the data
analysis section and is entered. Hourly distribution factors:
site specific hourly distribution factors are calculated as
explained in data analysis section and entered. Traffic growth
factor is assumed to be 6% for all the classes of trucks.
General traffic inputs: the default values are assumed.
b. Climatic inputs
The project location is at the geographic location, latitude
8.48N and longitude 76.97E. The approximate elevation of the
place is 52.493ft. As the site specific data is not available, the
database of MEPDG is used which consists of climatic data
for states in U.S. So for getting the data, a place of similar
latitude and different longitude as that of the study location is
selected, assuming that places at same latitude have almost
same climate. Thus the latitude and longitudinal inputs were
entered as 8.48N and 76.97W. The so created climatic file will
be saved into the project directory as ‗.icm‘ file.
c. Structural inputs
At this stage the section obtained from the trial design is
entered into the MEPDG software. The structural inputs are of
three categories, Drainage and Surface Properties, Layer
Properties, and Thermal Cracking.
Default values were given for drainage and surface
properties. In the Layer Properties menu, the different layers
of the trial design section are entered into the software. The
thickness and type of material used in each layer is entered
here as explained below.
 TABLE.3. RELIABILITY SUMMARY

Distress Reliability Distress Reliability

Performance Criteria Target Target Predicted Predicted Acceptable

1 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 90 97.8 99.6 Pass

2
2 AC Surface Down Cracking
(Long. Cracking) (ft/mile): 2000 90 2.9 99.99 Pass
3
3 AC Bottom Up Cracking
(Alligator Cracking) (%): 25 90 2.5 96.92 Pass
4
4 AC Thermal Fracture
(Transverse Cracking) (ft/mi): 1000 90 1 99.999 Pass
5
5 Permanent Deformation (AC
Only) (in): 0.25 90 0.19 80.79 Fail
7
6 Permanent Deformation (Total
Pavement) (in): 0.75 90 0.43 99.99 Pass

Layer 1- Asphalt concrete: The IRC design has two AC
layers – BC and DBM. But MEPDG considers only one
asphalt layer for a conventional flexible pavement structure.
So the thickness of both asphalt layers in IRC design is added
up and is entered as a single layer in MEPDG. Default values
were used for gradation of aggregates used; mix design
parameters, grade of bitumen used and the volumetric
properties of the mix. The default gradation and binder grade
matched with those specified by MORTH Specifications
section 500 for the BC layer. Layer 2 Unbound layer
properties: the soil classification (A-1-a), thickness, Poisson‘s
ratio, coefficient of lateral earth pressure and the layer
modulus is entered. The index properties and gradation
requirements were kept the same as default values in the ICM
tab. Unbound layer 3: the properties of this layer are also
entered as that of the layer. This is representative of the
subbase layer in IRC section. The gradation was kept the same
as default values. Unbound layer 4- Subgrade properties: the
site specific inputs are entered for the Subgrade layer. The soil
is of type silty clay (SC). A typical soil gradation and index
TABLE 4. RELIABILITY SUMMARY FOR THE SAFE AND OPTIMUM DESIGN
Performance Criteria Distress Reliability Distress Reliability
Target
properties are selected from the 60 samples. Even for level 3
analysis, the gradation and index properties should necessarily
be entered by the user for the Subgrade.
Thermal cracking: The inputs needed by the software
program to predict the thermal cracking are tensile strength,
creep compliance, coefficient of thermal contraction, surface
shortwave absorptivity, thermal capacity and heat capacity.
Here the default inputs are used that are calculated from the
asphalt material properties entered for the asphalt layer.
After the completion of the input entry, the analysis stage
is entered into.
B. Analysis Stage
In this stage the analysis is run and the output summary
will be provided in an excel format.
C. Results from Analysis
The summary of the analysis results is shown in table 3.
Acceptable
Target Predicted Predicted

Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 90 93 99.86 Pass

AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. 2000 90 0.1 99.999 Pass
Cracking) (ft/mile):

AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator 25 90 0.5 99.999 Pass

Cracking) (%):

AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) 1000 90 1 99.999 Pass

(ft/mi):

Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): 0.25 90 0.16 94.67 Pass

Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) 0.75 90 0.34 99.999 Pass
(in):
 From the table .3, we can understand the following
 The IRC section is safe for all the distresses except that
for the AC layer rutting. The design limit is 0.25 in.
The predicted distress is within the limit. But it failed
in the reliability criteria. The desired reliability level is
90% and the predicted reliability level is 80.79%,
which means there is only 80.79% confidence to say
that the AC rutting will be within the specified limits.
The predicted 90% curve exceeds the preselected
critical value of AC rutting (0.25). There is an under
design in this case as the reliability criteria is not met
with. So the design should be revised for AC layer
rutting
 All other distresses are within the specified limits.
 The AC surface down cracking, thermal fracture and
permanent deformation for total pavement has a
predicted reliability level of 99.99 %, 99.999% and
99.99% respectively. The reliability level desired was
90% only. There is an over design in this case.
D. Redesign of IRC Section
The pavement section designed as per IRC method failed
for the AC permanent deformation. So a redesign of the
section had to be done. The factors influencing the AC layer
rutting are:
 The quality of HMA layer used which can be
enhanced by using higher grade binder, less binder
content etc.
 The HMA layer thickness
The asphalt layer rutting takes place at the top 3 to 5
inches of the layer. So, if the HMA layer is of poor quality,
there will be no use in increasing the HMA layer thickness
alone, without increasing the quality of the layer. But once if it
is sure that the layer quality is adequate, the HMA layer
thickness shall be increased to improve the permanent
deformation behaviour of the layer. Also, an increase in HMA
layer thickness helps in reducing the rutting magnitudes in
base, subbase and Subgrade layers. [10]
The IRC section was designed with an asphalt concrete
layer thickness of 5.5 in. Now, as a trial and assuming that the
HMA layer quality is adequate; the HMA layer thickness was
increased to 10 in. The HMA layer rutting passed the design
criteria.
The next step was to optimize the HMA layer thickness.
Trials were done with HMA layer thicknesses ranging from 7
to 10 inches at an interval of 0.5 inch. The optimum thickness
was obtained to be 8.5 inches. The reliability summary
obtained for the optimum design is as shown in Table 3
It can also be inferred from the reliability summary that, an
increase in HMA layer thickness improved the performance of
the pavement in terms of IRI, AC bottom up cracking and total
permanent deformation.
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An IRC design for the study stretch was done. Using that
as the trial design, analysis was done in M-EPDG software for
evaluating the IRC design. It was found that the IRC section is
safe for all the distresses except that for the AC layer rutting.
Even though it passed the design AC rutting limit of 0.25 in, it
failed for the reliability criteria. The desired reliability level of
90% could not be met with. The reliability attained was only
80.79%. There is an under design in this case. So the IRC
section should be redesigned. All other distresses are within
the specified limits. The AC surface down cracking, thermal
fracture and permanent deformation for total pavement has a
predicted reliability level of 99.99 %, 99.999% and 99.99%
respectively. The reliability level desired was 90% only. There
is an over design in this case.
The IRC section was redesigned by increasing the layer
thickness to 10 in. The design so obtained passed the
reliability criteria for AC layer rutting. Optimum thickness for
asphalt layer was obtained through trial runs with thicknesses
ranging from 7 to 10 inches, and the optimum thickness was
obtained to be 8.5 in. An increase in AC layer thickness, made
the design more reliable in terms of IRI, AC bottom up
cracking and total permanent deformation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to specially thank Prof. Rajib.B.Mallick of Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, U.S.A and Prof.J.Murali Krishnan of IIT
Madras, for their constant support and advice during the
course of completion of this work. I would also wish to thank
Mr.Anjankumar,Ph.D student of IIT Madras, for providing me
with the necessary data.
REFERENCES
[1] IRC 3-1983. Dimensions and weights of road design vehicles, first
revision, Indian Roads Congress,1983.
[2] IRC 37-2001.Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements, Indian
Roads Congress, 2001.
[3] J.Mulandi, T.Khanum, G.Schieber and Hossain,M, ‖ Comparison Of
Pavement Design Using AASHTO 1993 and NCHRP Mechanistical-
Empirical Pavement Design Guides‖, ASCE Pp:912-923, 2006.
[4] MORTH Specification for Roads and Bridges, Section 400.
[5] MORTH Specification for Roads and Bridges, Section 500
[6] National cooperative highway research program (NCHRP),‖Guide for
Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement
Structures‖, Final report for project 1-37A, 2004.
[7] N.Jain, ‖Vehicle Axle Loading Pattern On State Roads Of
Uttarpradesh‖, Highway Research Journal, Indian Highways, 2009.
[8] R.B.Mallick, S.Fowler and B.Marquis,‖Use of Mechanistic Empirical
Pavement Design Software For Proper Design and Construction of
Reclaimed Pavements‖, ACRC 2006.
[9] R.L.Carvalho,‖Mechanistic Empirical Design Of Flexible Pavements‖,
M.S.Thesis Report, University Of Maryland, College Park, United
States, 2006.
[10] S.Kim, H.Ceylan, K.Gopalakrishnan, and M.Heitzman, ‖ Sensitivity
Study of Iowa Flexible Pavements Using The Mechanistic Empirical
Pavement Design Guide‖,TRB CD ROM ,paper no: 2139, 2006.
[11] S.Sadasivam and D.Morian, ―Effects Of Ground Water table Depths On
Predicted Performance Of Pavements‖, TRB CD ROM , paper no: 2162,
2006.
[12] Y.H.Huang, Pavement Analysis and Design. 2nd edition. Upper saddle
river, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. (2004)