Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG considering the Egyptian climatic conditions

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current flexible pavement design system in Egypt was adopted primarily from the AASHTO 1993 Design Guide. It is an empirical design method based on the results of the late 1950s AASHO Road test with many limitations. Thus, the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) which is now called Pavement ME Design was developed to overcome those limitations. Unlike the AASHTO 1993 method, MEPDG considers the variation in moisture and temperature on the mechanical properties of the pavement layers. The main objective of this paper is to compare the AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG methods based on a recently developed Egyptian climatic data. The AASHTO 1993 method was used to design the thickness of a typical flexible pavement structure, using two different levels of traffic (low and high) and two different types of subgrade strength (weak and strong). Then, the AASHTO 1993 designed structures were simulated with MEPDG to predict performance over 20 years of service life. The comparative analysis of AASHTO 1993 design guide and MEPDG revealed that although all pavement sections in this study were designed with the AASHTO 1993 method for the same serviceability loss, they exhibited different performance as predicted by MEPDG. The variation of the MEPDG-predicted performance of the AASHTO 1993 designed pavement structures increased with the increase in traffic level and decrease in the subgrade strength. This variation was different for different climatic conditions. For the Egyptian conditions, the predominant distress was rutting. Finally, the climatic conditions showed a significant effect on distress occurrence and time to failure, especially the AC rutting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elfino M, Harikrishnan N, Gudimetta J, Crawford G (2010) Design comparison between 1993 AASTO and MEPDG level 1 input for continuously reinforced concrete pavement, “a case study in Virginia”. Washington DC, Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting

  2. Bayomy F, Khedr S (2014) Dynamic characterization of Egyptian Hot mix asphalt concrete for highway pavement design and evaluation, “NIATT Project No KLK478 2014”. University of Idaho, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pavement interactive. What is mechanistic-empirical design?—the MEPDG and you. http://www.pavementinteractive.org/2012/10/02/what-is-mechanistic-empirical-design-the-mepdg-and-you. Accessed Dec 2016

  4. Boone J (2013) Comparison of Ontario pavement designs using the AASHTO 1993 empirical method and the mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide method. Master Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario

  5. El-Badawy S, Bayomy F, Santi M, Clawson C (2011) Comparison of Idaho pavement design procedure with AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG methods. In: Al-Qadi I, Murrell S (eds). Proceedings of the First Integrated Transportation and Development Institute Congress. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Chicago, p 586–595

  6. El-Badawy S (2011) ITD, AASHTO, and MEPDG pavement design methods—a comparison presented at the 51st Idaho Asphalt Conference, Moscow

  7. Saha J, Nassiri S, Bayat A, Soleymani H (2014) Evaluation of the effects of Canadian climate conditions on the MEPDG predictions for flexible pavement performance. Int J Pavement Eng 15(5):392–401. doi:10.1080/10298436.2012.752488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwartz C, Regis LC (2006) Comparisons of flexible pavement designs AASHTO empirical versus NCHRP project 1–37A mechanistic-empirical. Trans Res Rec J Trans Res Board 1947(1):167–174

    Google Scholar 

  9. Aguib A (2013) Flexible pavement design AASHTO 1993 versus mechanistic-empirical pavement design. M.Sc. Thesis. The American University in Cairo, Cairo

  10. Mashayekhi M, Amini A, Behbahani H, Nobakht S (2011) Comparison of mechanistic-empirical and empirical flexible pavement design procedures of AASHTO: A Case Study. In: Conference: 5th international conference bituminous mixtures and pavements, Thessaloniki

  11. American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2008) Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide, a manual of practice. Interim dition, AASHTO, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  12. El-Shaib M (2015) Climatic characterization and its influence upon flexible pavement performance in Egypt using MEPDG, M.Sc. Thesis, Mansoura University, Mansoura

  13. Elshayeb M, El-Badawy S, Shawaly A (2014) Development and impact of the Egyptian climatic conditions on flexible pavement performance. Am J Civil Archit Eng. 2(3):15–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Maha A. El-shaib, Sherif M. El-Badawy & El-Sayed A. Shawaly

Authors
  1. Maha A. El-shaib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sherif M. El-Badawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. El-Sayed A. Shawaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sherif M. El-Badawy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El-shaib, M.A., El-Badawy, S.M. & Shawaly, ES.A. Comparison of AASHTO 1993 and MEPDG considering the Egyptian climatic conditions. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2, 18 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-017-0067-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-017-0067-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation