114 Transportation Research Record 1699

Paper No. 00 -1148

Mechanistic Roughness Model Based on

Vehicle-Pavement Interaction
Mofreh F. Saleh, Michael S. Mamlouk, and Emmanuel B. Owusu-Antwi

A mechanistic roughness performance model that takes into account dling of vehicles. Thus, road roughness has an appreciable impact
vehicle dynamics was developed for use in flexible pavement design and on vehicle operating costs and on the safety, comfort, and speed of
evaluation. The model was developed in the form of a relation between travel. It also increases the dynamic loading imposed by vehicles on
roughness and number of load repetitions, axle load, and asphalt layer the surface, accelerating the deterioration of the pavement structure.
thickness. The model is completely mechanistic and uses vehicle dynam- Moreover, roughness can have adverse effects on surface drainage,
ics analysis to estimate the dynamic force profile and finite element causing water to pond on the surface, with consequent adverse
structural analysis to estimate the change of pavement surface rough- impacts on both the performance of the pavement and vehicle safety.
ness for each load repetition. The model makes use of the fact that pave- A number of studies have investigated the interaction between
ment roughness changes the magnitude of the vehicle dynamic forces vehicles and pavement and how it is affected by axle load, suspen-
applied on the pavement and that the dynamic forces change the road sion type, and pavement stiffness (3–7). The concept was suggested
roughness. The developed mechanistic roughness performance model of a pavement performance model in which relations between pres-
can be used to estimate the 80-kN (18-kip) equivalent single-axle load ent serviceability index and number of load repetitions were intro-
for mixed traffic. The model can also be used to design pavement so that duced (8). Currently, there is no mechanistic model that predicts
it will last for a certain number of load repetitions before reaching a pre- pavement roughness as a function of axle load repetitions.
determined roughness level. Performance-based specifications can be The main objective of this study is to develop a mechanistic rough-
developed using the methodology presented in this study. The model has ness model for use in the design of flexible pavements that takes into
been calibrated and verified with field data elsewhere. account vehicle dynamics. The model estimates the roughness in the
wheelpath as a function of initial pavement roughness, pavement
thickness, static axle load, and number of load repetitions. The model
Unlike other structural systems, pavements deteriorate at a fast rate considers the elastic viscoplastic behavior of the asphalt concrete and
because of repeated traffic loads and environmental effects, although the plasticity and nonlinearity of granular and subgrade materials.
the stresses caused by traffic loads are typically far below the ultimate The model can augment current mechanistic-empirical pavement
strength of the material. Therefore, the approach used in designing design methods that are based on fatigue and rutting criteria.
pavements is different from traditional approaches used in other struc-
tures. Typical pavement design methods are based on estimation of
the number of load repetitions to failure, a process that is currently VEHICLE-PAVEMENT INTERACTION
being performed mostly empirically. Although empirical relations are
Vehicles bounce as they move on the pavement, resulting in variable
easy to use, they are not valid for conditions other than those used
dynamic forces on the pavement surface. Figure 1 shows typical
during their development. dynamic forces measured on an in-service pavement section (9). A
A number of mechanistic-empirical pavement design approaches number of vehicle dynamics models are available to predict the truck
are available and have been used with a certain degree of accuracy. dynamic forces produced by different axle and wheel configurations
These mechanistic-empirical approaches are based on either fatigue at different locations on the pavement surface. Vehicle dynamics
or rutting failure criteria (1). In many cases, pavements may fail models represent the truck with a number of masses, springs, and
because of roughness before they develop excessive fatigue or rut- dashpots. The models are typically implemented in time-domain com-
ting distresses. Current roughness models are typically associated puter simulation programs. Among the vehicle dynamics computer
with empirical relations based on previous observations such as models is the Florida Comprehensive Pavement Analysis System
those obtained in the Road Test sponsored by the American Asso- (COMPAS) (10), which was used in the present study. The COMPAS
ciation of State Highway Officials (AASHO). At present, there is no model is capable of generating the dynamic force profile of wheel
pavement design method that uses a mechanistic roughness model. loads for different combinations of vehicle type, suspension type,
Road roughness is defined as the irregularities in the pavement vehicle speed, and level of pavement roughness. The results of COM-
profile that cause uncomfortable, unsafe, and uneconomical riding. PAS were verified by comparing the output of the program with field
Studies made at the AASHO Road Test showed that about 95 per- experimental data and with the output of other vehicle dynamics
cent of the information about serviceability of a pavement is con- programs. Close agreement was obtained (11).
tributed by roughness (2). Roughness affects the dynamics of The subject of vehicle-pavement interaction considers the effect
moving vehicles, increasing the wear on vehicle parts and the han- of pavement roughness on vehicle dynamic forces and the effect of
these forces on the pavement response and performance, as demon-
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, strated in Figure 2. The roughness of the pavement surface excites
Tempe, AZ 85287-5306. Current affiliation for M. F. Saleh: California Department and bounces traveling vehicles. Increasing surface roughness or
of Transportation, District 3, 703 B Street, P.O. Box 911, Marysville, CA 95901. vehicle speed increases the bouncing of vehicles and consequently
Saleh et al. Paper No. 00 -1148 115

FIGURE 1 Typical instantaneous dynamic wheel force measured at 80 km /h

for medium road roughness (10).

increases the dynamic forces applied to the pavement. The forces file. This process is repeated iteratively every 50 load repetitions until
applied by vehicles vary instantaneously above and below the static the required number of load repetitions is achieved. It is also repeated
weight because of the interaction effect between vehicles and pave- for different asphalt layer thicknesses, initial pavement roughness
ment. Several factors contribute to this load variation, such as road levels, and static axle loads. Statistical analysis was used to relate
roughness, vehicle configuration, suspension type, tire type, and pavement roughness to load repetitions under different conditions.
vehicle speed. Increasing dynamic forces increases the damage rate In this paper dynamic analysis was used to determine the forces
of pavement and shortens its service life. applied by the vehicle, but a quasi-static analysis was used to deter-
Nearly all roughness measurement systems measure a slope statis- mine the pavement response. In other words, the inertia of the vehi-
tic. However, they do not obtain identical measurements because each cle was considered, but the pavement inertia was ignored. This
device has unique sensitivities to different wavelengths in the road. method is justified since the vehicle bouncing is much larger than the
One of the road roughness indicators is the international roughness pavement bouncing. The quasi-static analysis of pavement was used
index (IRI), which is a scale for roughness based on the response of a to analyze time-dependent material response such as viscoelasticity
generic motor vehicle to the roughness of the road surface. Its true and plasticity. This approach was used to reduce the computational
value is determined by obtaining a suitably accurate measurement of effort, especially because of the many load repetitions used (up to
the profile of the road, processing it through an algorithm that simu- 500 repetitions in many cases).
lates the way a reference vehicle would respond to the roughness
inputs, and accumulating the suspension travel. Thus, it mathemati-
cally duplicates a roadmeter (12). For a perfectly smooth surface, the DEVELOPMENT OF ROUGHNESS MODEL
IRI value is zero. Typical IRI values range from about 1 m/km for a
smooth pavement to 4 m/km and above for a rough pavement. Estimation of Dynamic Wheel Force Profile

Pavement surface profile is characterized by the IRI value, which is

RESEARCH APPROACH a mathematically defined summary statistic of the longitudinal pro-
file in the wheelpath. For a specific IRI value, the Florida COMPAS
In order to estimate the change in roughness caused by traffic load program (10) was used to estimate the dynamic tire forces at 0.3-m
applications of a specific pavement section with a certain initial sur- (1-ft) intervals when the tire moves along the pavement at a certain
face profile, the dynamic wheel force profile developed by a truck, speed. The Florida COMPAS program simulates the truck with a
speed, and axle load are obtained using the Florida COMPAS vehi- number of masses, springs, and dashpots as shown in Figure 3. A
cle dynamics model. Pavement structure is simulated using the three-axle tractor with a two-axle trailer (3-S2) (18-wheeler) truck
ABAQUS finite element software and subjected to the dynamic type was used in this study. In addition, since the dynamic wheel
wheel force profile, which moves at the same speed from one end of load of the same truck type varies depending on pavement profile, dif-
the pavement to the other 50 times. The permanent deformations due ferent pavement roughness levels were considered. Figure 4 shows an
to creep and plasticity of materials at different locations in the wheel- example of pavement profile and the corresponding dynamic wheel
path are then computed. Subtracting the permanent deformations force profile obtained by the Florida COMPAS program for a 3-S2
from the initial surface profile produces a new pavement profile, truck traveling at a speed of 100 km/h on a rough road profile with an
which is used in the COMPAS model to estimate the new load pro- IRI value of 5.33.

FIGURE 2 Effect of pavement roughness on vehicle dynamic forces and

consequent increase in pavement roughness.
116 Paper No. 00 -1148 Transportation Research Record 1699

aspect ratios of the elements and to achieve the desired degree of

accuracy. The results of the selected finite element mesh were com-
pared with those of a three-dimensional finite element mesh and with
the KENLAYER program using static analysis to verify its accuracy.
Very close agreement was found.
The asphalt concrete was modeled as an elastic viscoplastic ma-
terial. In this case, permanent deformation is developed because of
the creep and plasticity of the material. On the other hand, granular
and subgrade materials were modeled as elastic-plastic with strain
hardening using the Drucker-Prager model (Figure 6). If a stress
below the yield value is applied, an elastic strain will result and will
be completely removed upon unloading. If a stress larger than the
yield value is applied (e.g., σ1) and removed, a permanent strain (1)
is developed, as demonstrated in Figure 6. When the pavement sur-
face gets rougher because of continuous load applications, a higher
stress (σ2) is applied because of the larger bouncing of vehicles, and
FIGURE 3 Truck dynamics model used to estimate vehicle
consequently a new permanent strain (2) will be developed. Typical
dynamic forces.
material parameters were obtained from the literature and used in
this study (Table 1).
The load in the ABAQUS input file was simulated using a step
Development of New Pavement Profile function. The duration of the step function load was calculated by
dividing the length of the element by the vehicle speed. The load is
The pavement sections used in the study were assumed to consist of
moved from one element to the next up to the last element in the
three layers—asphalt concrete surface, granular base, and cohesive
mesh, whereas the value of the load changes from one element to
subgrade. A two-dimensional plain-strain finite element model
another depending on the dynamic wheel force profile computed by
using the ABAQUS program (13) was developed to represent the
Florida COMPAS. The end stress state of the pavement after the first
pavement structure, as shown in Figure 5. A 12.2-m (40-ft) long
load repetition is taken as the starting case for the second load repe-
wheelpath was used with two 4-m (13.1-ft) unloaded zones before
tition, and so on. A FORTRAN program was designed to automate
and after the wheelpath to reduce the end effect.
the load repetition procedure in ABAQUS.
To minimize the effect of the boundary conditions, continuum infi-
The ABAQUS program was used to compute the permanent
nite elements were used on both sides and at the bottom of the sub-
deformation at 0.3-m (1-ft) intervals after 50 load repetitions. The
grade. The mesh dimensions were selected to obtain appropriate
permanent deformation at each node was subtracted from the initial
elevation of the node to estimate the new pavement profile, which
was then used in the COMPAS vehicle dynamics model to obtain a
new dynamic load profile. The ABAQUS program was used again to
generate the new pavement profile. This process is repeated many
times until the required number of load repetitions is reached. In each
step, the pavement roughness was estimated by calculating the IRI
value using the RoadRuf program (14).

Development of Mechanistic Roughness Model

In order to develop a roughness model that is applicable to a variety

of load and pavement conditions, the process discussed earlier was
performed many times for the following variables:

• Axle load: 67 and 80 kN (15 and 18 kips),

• Asphalt concrete layer thickness: 100 and 150 mm (4 and
6 in.), and
• IRI: 0.38 m/km (smooth) and 5.33 m/km (rough) (24 and
336 in./mi).

A 3-S2 truck type with a speed of 100 km/h (62 mph) was used. The
second axle of the truck was used in the analysis. In addition, the pave-
ment section was assumed to have a granular base 200 mm (8 in.)
thick and a silty clay subgrade.
Statistical analysis was used to evaluate the effect of axle load,
FIGURE 4 Pavement profile and corresponding dynamic load asphalt layer thickness, and initial surface roughness on pavement
profile (3-S2 truck, 80-kN axle load, 100-km /h speed). roughness. A half-fractional factorial statistical design was carried out
Saleh et al. Paper No. 00 -1148 117

FIGURE 5 Finite element mesh used to estimate new pavement profile after many axle repetitions.

using the statistical package Design-Expert 5 (15). Figure 7 shows the 1 m/km) for different asphalt layer thicknesses and axle loads. Fig-
eight different combinations considered in this statistical design. ure 9 shows the same relations except for an initially rough pave-
The statistical analysis showed that initial roughness is the most ment (IRI0 = 4 m/km). A general look at Figures 8 and 9 indicates
significant factor that affects roughness at later ages. The other impor- that roughness increases with increasing number of load repetitions
tant factors in order of importance are axle load, the interaction in all cases. As expected, larger axle loads result in greater rough-
between axle load and thickness, asphalt thickness, and the number of ness. Also, thicker asphalt concrete layers result in less development
load repetitions. The roughness was very highly correlated with these of roughness.
factors, with an R2 value of 1.0. Statistical analysis showed that initial Figure 10 shows the relation between the IRI value and number of
roughness is the dominating factor that affects final roughness, which load repetitions of a 50-mm asphalt concrete layer for different axle
explains the high R2 value. loads and initial roughness values. Figure 11 is similar to Figure 10,
The Design-Expert 5 package was used to develop a roughness except for an asphalt concrete layer of 100 mm. An important con-
performance model in the form of a relation between roughness and clusion can be drawn from Figures 10 and 11: when the pavement
number of load repetitions, axle load, and asphalt layer thickness as is initially smooth, roughness does not greatly increase with load
follows: repetitions because of the smaller dynamic effect of vehicle loads.
However, when the pavement is initially rough, a large amount of
IRI = −1.415 + 2.923 IRI 0 + 0.00129 N + 0.000113T roughness is developed because of the large interaction between vehi-
cles and pavement and consequently larger dynamic vehicle loads.
−5.485 ∗ 10 −10 P 4 − 10 −5 T N + 5.777 ∗ 10 −12 P 4 N (1) This conclusion shows the importance of having a smooth pavement
surface during construction so that the pavement will stay smooth for
where a long time. This trend was observed in the sections developed for
IRI = international roughness index (m/km), the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program and empha-
N = number of load repetitions, sizes the importance of proper quality control during construction
P = axle load (kN), (16). Performance-based specifications can be developed using the
T = asphalt concrete layer thickness (mm), and methodology developed in this study. An incentive-penalty table
IRI0 = initial IRI value (m/km). can be obtained to deal with contractors on the basis of the effect of
initial roughness on pavement performance.
In order to evaluate how roughness is affected by various factors,
Equation 1 was used for different values of axle loads, asphalt layer
thicknesses, and initial IRI values. Figure 8 shows IRI versus num-
TABLE 1 Material Properties Used in Developing
ber of load repetitions for an initially smooth pavement (IRI0 =
Roughness Model

FIGURE 6 Elastic-plastic base and subgrade

materials with strain hardening properties.
118 Paper No. 00 -1148 Transportation Research Record 1699

FIGURE 9 IRI versus number of load repetitions for

different asphalt layer thicknesses and axle loads
FIGURE 7 Fractional factorial statistical design.
(IRI 0 = 4 m/km).

CALCULATING EQUIVALENCY FACTORS American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
FROM ROUGHNESS MODEL cials (AASHTO) load equivalency factor using a structural number
of 3 and terminal pavement serviceability index (PSI) of 2.5 is 2.4,
Using the roughness model developed in this study, equivalency which is slightly less than that obtained in this study. In this exam-
factors based on roughness can be mechanistically determined. In ple, it was assumed that an IRI value of 4 m/km is equivalent to a
this case, a mixed traffic spectrum can be converted into an 80-kN PSI value of 2.5 using the following relation, which was developed
(18-kip) mechanistic equivalent single-axle load (mechanistic by Gillespie (12):
ESAL) value based on roughness by developing equivalency factors
for different axle loads. In this case, Equation 1 can be rewritten as
IRI( m km ) = 1.5875(5 − PSI ) (3)
2
 IRI failure − 2.923 IRI 0 + 1.415  Figure 12 shows a comparison between the load equivalency fac-
 
 − 0.000113T + 5.485 ∗ 10 −10 P 4  tors obtained in this study by Arizona State University (ASU)
N =   (2) (T = 100 mm, IRI0 = 2 m/km, IRIfailure = 4) and the AASHTO load
 0.00129 − 10 −5 T + 5.777 ∗ 10 −12 P 4 
equivalency factors (single axle, structural number = 3, terminal
serviceability = 2.5). By definition, both curves agree at a standard
Equation 2 can be used once to estimate the number of load repeti-
axle load of 80 kN and an equivalency factor of 1. For axle loads
tions of an 80-kN standard axle load to reach failure (e.g., IRI of
either less than or larger than 80 kN, the ASU study produced larger
4 m/km). The same equation can be solved another time to estimate
equivalency factors than those obtained by AASHTO.
the number of load repetitions of any other axle load to reach fail-
ure. The ratio between these two values is the equivalency factor for If the load spectrum of a mixed traffic fleet is known, a cumulative
that axle load. For example, for an axle load of 80 kN, asphalt layer mechanistic ESAL can be estimated by multiplying the number of
of 100 mm, IRI0 of 2 m/km, and IRIfailure of 4, the number of load rep- load repetitions of each axle load by the corresponding equivalency
etitions to failure is 22.941  106. The corresponding 100-kN axle factor and adding the results. This mechanistic ESAL is more ratio-
load repetitions to failure is 8.619  106. Thus, the mechanistic nal than the ESAL determined using the AASHTO equation since the
ESAL is (22.941  106)/(8.619  106), or 2.662. The corresponding latter is limited to the conditions that prevailed during the AASHO
Road Test in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This process can be
computerized and used in the mechanistic design of pavement.

USE OF ROUGHNESS MODEL

IN PAVEMENT DESIGN

The model developed can also be used for the mechanistic design of
flexible pavement based on roughness. If a pavement is required to
carry a certain number of ESAL repetitions before an IRIfailure value is
reached, Equation 1 can be used to design the asphalt concrete layer
thickness. For example, for an ESAL of 6 million, IRI0 of 2 m/km,
and IRIfailure of 4, the required asphalt layer thickness is 150 mm.
It should be noted, however, that the model developed in this study
is preliminary and limited by the material properties and conditions
assumed. Other equations can be developed to cover other conditions.
This limitation, however, should not be viewed as empirical since
the procedure can be computerized and repeated to produce results
FIGURE 8 IRI versus number of load repetitions for different for other conditions. The effort needed for repeating the procedure for
asphalt layer thicknesses and axle loads (IRI 0 = 1 m / km). other conditions is much less than that required to conduct a major
FIGURE 10 IRI versus number of load repetitions for different axle loads and
initial roughness values (50-mm asphalt concrete layer).

FIGURE 11 IRI versus number of load repetitions for different axle loads and
initial roughness values (100-mm asphalt concrete layer).

FIGURE 12 Comparison of AASHTO and ASU study load equivalency factors.

120 Paper No. 00 -1148 Transportation Research Record 1699

road test. The model presented in this paper was calibrated and veri- 3. Mamlouk, M. S. Rational Look at Truck Axle Weight. In Transportation
fied with LTPP data and the results were submitted for publication Research Record 1307, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1991, pp. 8–19.
elsewhere (17). 4. Cebon, D., and C. B. Winkler. A Study of Road Damage Due to Dynamic
Wheel Loads Using a Load Measuring Mat. Report SHRP-ID/UFR-91-
518. Strategic Highway Research Program, TRB, National Research
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Council, Washington, D.C., 1991.
5. Gillespie, T. D., S. M. Karamihas, M. W. Sayers, M. A. Nasim,
A completely mechanistic roughness performance model for use in W. Hanson, N. Ehsan, and D. Cebon. NCHRP Report 353: Effects of
flexible pavement design and evaluation under certain conditions Heavy Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Performance.
that takes into account vehicle dynamics was developed. The model TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993.
6. Mikhail, M. Y., and M. S. Mamlouk. Effect of Vehicle-Pavement Inter-
was developed in the form of a relation between roughness and action on Pavement Response. In Transportation Research Record 1570,
number of load repetitions, axle load, and asphalt layer thickness. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 78–88.
The model uses vehicle dynamics analysis to estimate the dynamic 7. Mikhail, M. Y., and M. S. Mamlouk. Effect of Traffic Loads on Pave-
wheel force profile and finite element structural analysis to estimate ment Serviceability. STP 1348. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1998.
the change of pavement surface roughness for each load repetition. 8. Mamlouk, M. S., and M. Y. Mikhail. Concept for Mechanistic-Based
Performance Model for Flexible Pavements. In Transportation
The model makes use of the fact that pavement roughness changes Research Record 1629, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
the magnitude of the vehicle dynamic force applied on the pavement D.C., 1998, pp. 149–158.
and dynamic forces change the road roughness. 9. Sweatman, P. F. A Study of Dynamic Wheel Forces in Axle Group Sus-
The developed mechanistic roughness performance model can be pensions of Heavy Vehicles. Special Report 27. Australian Road Research
used to estimate the 80-kN ESAL for mixed traffic. It can also be used Board, June 1983.
10. Fernando, E. G., et al. The Florida Comprehensive Pavement Analysis
to design pavement so that it will last for a certain number of load rep- System (COMPAS), Vol. 1. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
etitions before it reaches a predetermined roughness level. Although University, 1991.
the model developed in this study is limited, it can be expanded to 11. Fernando, E. G., and R. L. Lytton. A System for Evaluation of the Impact
cover other conditions. The model was calibrated and verified with of Truck Characteristics and Use on Flexible Pavement Performance and
field data and the research was submitted for publication elsewhere. Life-Cycle Costs. Proc., Seventh International Conference on Asphalt
Pavements, Nottingham, U.K., 1992.
It was concluded that when pavement is initially smooth, the rate
12. Gillespie, T. D. Everything You Always Wanted to Know about the IRI,
of increase of roughness with load repetitions is smaller because of But Were Afraid to Ask. Presented at Road Profile Users Group Meeting,
the smaller dynamic effect of vehicle loads. However, when pave- Lincoln, Nebraska, Sept. 1992.
ment is initially rough, a greater amount of roughness is developed 13. ABAQUS, Finite Element Computer Program. Theory Manual, Version
because of the larger interaction between vehicles and pavement and 5.4. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, R.I., 1995.
14. RoadRuf Software for Analyzing Road Profiles. Transportation Research
consequently larger dynamic vehicle loads. Performance-based spec-
Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1996.
ifications can be developed using the methodology developed in 15. Design-Expert 5. Stat-Ease Corporation, Minneapolis, Minn., 1996.
this study. 16. Ali, H. A., and S. D. Tayabji. Mechanistic Evaluation of Test Data from
LTPP Flexible Pavement Test Sections. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, May 1997.
REFERENCES 17. Saleh, M. F., and M. S. Mamlouk. Calibration and Verification of a
Pavement Roughness Performance Model. Journal of Transportation
1. Huang, Y. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Engineering, ASCE (to be published).
Cliffs, N.J., 1993.
2. Haas, R., W. R. Hudson, and J. P. Zaniewski. Modern Pavement Man- Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pavement Monitoring,
agement. Krieger Publishing Company, Melbourne, Fla., 1994. Evaluation, and Data Storage.