Journal - Road Construction Material

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp.
1313 - 1328, 2005
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

SELECTION SYSTEM (RC-MSS)
Kian Teck TEH Salihuddin HASSIM

Research Assistant Lecturer
Civil Engineering Department Civil Engineering Department
Universiti Putra Malaysia Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Serdang, Selangor D.E., 43400 Serdang, Selangor D.E.,
Malaysia. Malaysia.
E-mail: tehkianteck@yahoo.com E-mail: hsalih@eng.upm.edu.my
Ratnasamy MUNIANDY Husaini OMAR

Lecturer Lecturer
Civil Engineering Department Civil Engineering Department
Universiti Putra Malaysia Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Serdang, Selangor D.E., 43400 Serdang, Selangor D.E.,
Malaysia. Malaysia.
E-mail: ratnas1@eng.upm.edu.my E-mail: husaini@eng.upm.edu.my
Azmi HASSAN
Director
Kelantan Public Work Department
15990 Kota Bharu, Kelantan.
Malaysia
E-mail: azmihassan@jkr.gov.my
Abstract: This paper looks into the development of a prototype Road Construction Material
Selection System (RC-MSS) which based on the outcome through interviewed to the
pavement experts to obtain the appropriate material for each pavement layer under particular
design conditions. Data collected from the experts would be analysis using nonparametric
statistical method to determine the ranking of each pavement material alternative prior to the
development of RC-MSS. RC-MSS is developed with a prototype of an expert system using
written using programming tool Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 according the framework from the
system. With this tool, better road design can also be achieved and save more time in the
initial stage of on material selection, before scrutiny to laboratory test. This software would be
the pioneer and provide guidance to engineers and consultants.
Key Words: Material Selection, Expert System, Pavement, Road Construction
1. INTRODUCTION
Pavement design is aimed to achieving a pavement structure which is economical,

comfortable and yet safe to travel by motorist; and which minimizes development of
pavement distress features during the design life of the pavement. However, inappropriate
selection of road materials for construction may have caused premature pavement failure. In
view of these problems, a study was undertaken with the aid of Intensification of Research in
Priority Areas (IRPA) funding to develop a prototype expert system of pavement material
selection in order to assist the pavement designer in selecting pavement material alternative.
The system incorporates the properties of soil along the selected road alignments where
1313
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1313 - 1328, 2005
pavement materials are severely over stressed. The type and soil conditions, and expected
load repetitions are other parameters found to be indispensable in the formulation of material
selection system for road construction. The material performance and the selection of the
appropriate construction materials for the various layers under certain traffic-loading under
the type of terrains such as flat, rolling and mountainous was incorporated as important
parameters. Such conditions govern the duration of axle loading on the pavement.
Pavement material selection should be based on road user-oriented, not only based on
industry-oriented process. There is a drive towards the development of more appropriate
material selection approaches as these will allow alternative solutions to be readily compared
and, thus, evaluated. A prerequisite for any successful analytical design methodology is the
reliable measurement of representative material properties.
The objective of this study is to develop a first expert system that could be used as a tool in
pavement material selection to help engineers in better decision making.
2. FACTORS THAT CONSIDERED IN RC-MSS
The system has look into the anticipated traffic loading, soil condition, type of terrain and
geometric features as aspects which should not be neglected in pavement material selection.
2.1 Anticipated Traffic Loading Condition
Commercial traffic loading is the main factor to any pavement design problem. It heavy axle
loads which cause pavement to damage and fail if poor pavement material is chosen.
Typically, the traffic magnitudes and configurations are expressed in terms of the number of
equivalent standard axles load (ESAL) (Lay 1990; JKR 1985) and equal to the number of
passes of the local standard axle load carried on a pair of dual tires which would cause the
same pavement damage as a single pass of axle load equivalent to 8.16 Tonne (Harold, 2003;
JKR, 1985). The system will incorporated the anticipated ESAL as another input factor which
classified it into three categories (high, moderate and low anticipated ESAL) as illustrated in
Table 1.
Table 1. Classification of Anticipated ESAL for 10 years Design Life
Traffic Loading Low Moderate High

Anticipated ESAL < 300,000 300,000 – 10,000,000 > 10,000,000
Denoted Symbol E1 E2 E3
2.2 Soil Condition
Soil condition is also another main factor to be considered in pavement design and material
selection. The properties of the soil are important not only as the foundation of pavement
structure but also crucial factor of cost in construction project. Poor material such as peat, clay
soil, highly organic soils and soils contaminated with hazardous chemicals would caused
serious damage to the pavement in the initial stage and extremely costly to reconstruction
(Harold, 2000). The strength of road subgrade is commonly assessed in terms of the
1314
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and this is dependent on the type of soil, its density, and its
moisture content (Huang 1993; Lay 1990). Higher value of CBR would be suitable to use as
subgrade, CBR value which is less than 5 should considered as poor subgrade soil, due to
poor sustainable to heavy load. The system will use the CBR value input data to the system.
The CBR value is classified into three categories (good, moderate and poor) and each
category range is shows in Table 2.
Table 2. Soil CBR value Divided into Three Categories
Soil Condition Good Fair Poor

CBR, % > 10 5 – 10 ≤5
Denoted Symbol S1 S2 S3
2.3 Geometric Feature
Climbing lane and sharp horizontal curve where multiple heavily loaded vehicles firmly brake,
travel at slow speeds or remain standing for periods of time have caused the pavement to
deteriorate due to highly stresses on the pavement. Consequently, pavement exhibited rutting
and premature distresses due to the combination of truck traffic patterns, counts and weights
before the reaching the predicted design period (Harun, 1992). However, these factors are
only considered in safety purpose on geometric design and less concern in pavement material
by road designer. Hence, geometric feature on vertical gradient and degree of horizontal
curvature the system had been considered in the system and classified into two categories of
critical area and non-critical area as presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Geometric Features Classification
Geometric Feature Non-Critical Critical

Vertical Gradient <5% ≥5%
Denoted Symbol (Vertical Gradient) V1 V2
Degree of Horizontal Curve ≤ 7º > 7º
Denoted Symbol (Horizontal Curve) H1 H2
Topography profile of road such as type of terrain is crucial in pavement design and it is
generally divided into three group, that are flat, rolling and mountainous which determine by
the percentage of cross slope as shown in Table 4 (JKR, 1986). The terrain types incorporated
in the system as determine type of material selection.
Table 4. Terrain Type
Type of Terrain
Flat Rolling Mountainous
Cross Slope ≤3% 3 – 25 % ≥ 25 %
Denoted Symbol T1 T2 T3
1315
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two stages of questionnaires had been carried out to obtain the opinions from the pavement
experts who specialize in road design or evaluation and familiar in pavement materials’
characteristics. Material suitable to use for nine site conditions (presented in Table 5) which
were the combination of anticipated traffic loading, soil, geometric feature and terrain type
were obtained. These factors were verified again from the experts. While, for poor soil CBR
value (2.5 – 5%) and very poor soil CBR (less than 2.5%), adopted measure to the condition
were selected and suggested by the experts. The suggested materials by the experts were then
rearranged and gather together prior to the second interview conducted. Second stage of
questionnaire, experts were required to rate the materials suggested for each site conditions
based on the material durability, performance and ease of construction using Likert scale
(very suitable=10 to less suitable=1). Adopted measure to poor soil condition was designated
as site condition 10th.
The non-numeric data were ranked as in ordinal type data using Friedman statistical test due
to several related materials were suitable to use (Conover 1999; Daniel 1978). This method
was used to determine the hypothesis test of identical performance of the materials under
particular design condition. was used as the hypothesis analysis tool in second stage. The
knowledge derived from outcome of the statistical method was then stored in the system
database. The material selected and ranking will be used as “knowledge base” and particular
design site condition will be use as the “inference engine” in the system. If-then will
incorporated in the rule-bases of the expert system, the materials and ranking database could
be determine from the design conditions matrix. The results generated by these rule-bases are
used to assist in decision making.
Table 5. Designed Site Condition and Assigned Symbol
Site Soil Anticipated ESAL Geometric

Condition Condition Symbol Condition Symbol Condition Symbol
1 Good S1 High E3 Non-critical area C1
2 Fair S2 Moderate E2 Non-critical area C1
3 Fair S2 High E3 Non-critical area C1
4 Good S1 Low E1 Critical area C2
5 Good S1 Moderate E2 Critical area C2
6 Good S1 High E3 Critical area C2
7 Fair S2 Low E1 Critical area C2
8 Fair S2 Moderate E2 Critical area C2
9 Fair S2 High E3 Critical area C2
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results from the first questionnaire is illustrated in Table 6.
1316
Table 6. Domain Experts Results from First Stage of Questionnaire
No. Statement A B C D E
Pavement material selection should
1 considered geometric factor of vertical √ √ √ √ √
gradient.
2 considered geometric factor of horizontal √ √ √ √ √
curvature.
3 √ √ √ √ √
considered soil condition of CBR.
4 considered traffic loading of designed √ √ √ √ √
ESAL.
5 √ √ √ √ √
considered type of terrain.
Vertical gradient considered as critical area
6 √ √ √ √ √
when ≥ 5 %.
Horizontal curvature considered as critical
7 √ √ √ √ √
area when > 7°.
8 Low if designed ESAL when < 300,000. √ √ √ √ √
Moderate if designed ESAL when 300,000
9 √ √ √ √ √
– 10,000,000.
High if designed ESAL when >
10 √ √ √ √ √
10,000,000.
11 Good if soil CBR when > 10 %. √ √ √ √ √
12 Fair if soil CBR when 5 % – 10 %. √ √ √ √ √
13 Poor if soil CBR when 2 % – 5 %. X X X X √
14 Very poor if soil CBR when < 2 %. X X X X √
Note: √ : Pavement experts agree with the statement.
X: Pavement experts disagree with the statement.
From Table 6, all the five domain experts agree the statements 1 to 12. Only one expert agree
to the statements 13 and 14, however, four experts who did not agree with the statement
mentioned that the soil is considered poor whenever CBR value is less than 5 %, and
treatment must be done to that particular soil, no compromise to let the soil untreated. The
treatment selected and suggested by the experts were as followed.
• Chemically stabilized;
• Geosynthetics stabilized;
• Excavated and replaced stronger soil material;
• Dynamic compaction;
• Preloading or vertical drain cohesive.
The second stage of questionnaire results adopted Friedman statistical test method was
tabulated as shows in Table 7. The Table shows that null hypothesis at 95% significant level
for site condition 1st (rolling and mountainous terrain), 2nd (mountainous terrain), 6th (rolling
and mountainous terrain), 8th (mountainous terrain), 9th (rolling and mountainous terrain) and
10th (any terrain) were rejected. It may be concluded that there were a tendency for some
1317
types of pavement materials to be provide better durability, performance and ease of

construction over the others. For the rejected null hypothesis site conditions, sum of the ranks
of each pavement material were ranked within each block. The results illustrated that the
some pavement material at critical condition such as high anticipated ESAL, highly stress
area from rolling to mountainous terrain might not durable and caused premature distresses to
the road such as rutting and cracking ultimately elongated to structural failure.
Table 7. Friedman’s Test Result for Site Conditions
Referred to F-
Site distribution Friedman
Terrain Type K k1 k2 Result
Condition Table at 0.95 Test
Quantiles
Flat 14 13 52 1.92 1.72 Accept Ho
1 Rolling 14 13 52 1.92 2.20 Reject Ho
Mountainous 14 13 52 1.92 2.20 Reject Ho
Flat 7 6 24 2.51 0.73 Accept Ho
2 Rolling 8 7 28 2.36 1.32 Accept Ho
Flat 14 13 52 1.92 1.91 Accept Ho
Mountainous 14 13 52 1.92 1.06 Accept Ho
Flat 6 5 20 2.71 1.89 Accept Ho
Flat 6 5 20 2.71 2.04 Accept Ho
Flat 7 6 24 2.51 1.65 Accept Ho
Flat 8 7 28 2.36 0.89 Accept Ho
Flat 7 6 24 2.51 1.08 Accept Ho
Flat 7 6 24 2.51 1.14 Accept Ho
Flat 5 4 16 3.01 8.02 Reject Ho
Tables 8 and 9 represented the ranking for each material at each pavement layer under site
condition 1st to 9th and site condition 10 respectively.
1318
Table 8. Materials Ranked at Each Site Condition and Type of Terrain
Pavement Layer Ranked

Terrain
Site Condition / Denoted Symbol (vertical texts)

No SG SB BC SC
M10
M11
M12
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC1 S S S S S S S S S

2 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC2 S S S S S S S S
4 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC4 S S S
6 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC2 S S S S S S S S
8 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC4 S S S
9 SG1 SB1 BC3 SC1 S S
Flat
13 SG1 SB1 BC4 SC2 S

1 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC1 12 S S S S 7 S S 7
2 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC2 9 S S S 6 S S 6
3 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC3 10 S S S S 5 S S 5
4 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC4 14 S S
5 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC1 11 S S S S 4 S S 3
6 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC2 4 S S S 1 S S 2
7 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC3 5 S S S S 3 S S 3
Rolling

12 SG1 SB1 BC3 SC4 6 S
13 SG1 SB1 BC4 SC2 3
1319

21 SG1 SB2 BC4 SC3 S 1
1 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC1 12 6 S S S 7 S 7 7
2 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC2 5 5 S S S 5 S 6 6
3 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC3 8 8 S S S 6 S 4 5
4 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC4 14 S 4
5 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC1 11 7 S S S 4 S 2 3
6 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC2 3 4 S S S 1 S 1 1
7 SG1 SB1 BC2 SC3 3 1 S S S 2 S 2
Mountainous

Note: 1. Referred to appendix to obtain the symbol descriptions for pavement material.
2. Symbol ‘S’ represent the materials in the particular site condition is equally likely in
performance, durability and ease of construction.
3. Shaded cell indicated the particular material not used at the particular site condition.
Table 9. Material Ranked for Site Condition 10th (denoted symbol for ‘TSG’)
Terrain Type/
No Adopted measured to the existing soil Ranked
Denoted Symbol
1 Chemically stabilized 3
2 Geosynthetics stabilized 4
Flat, T1 3 Excavated and replaced stronger soil material 1
4 Dynamic compaction 5
5 Preloading/ vertical drain 2
Rolling, T2 3 Excavated and replaced stronger soil material 1
1320
Mountainous, T3 3 Excavated and replaced stronger soil material 1
5. RC-MSS FRAMEWORK
In the pavement material selection system (RC-MSS) the factors that considered in
developing RC-MSS is shown previous from Tables 1 to 4. In order to adopt RC-MSS, user
should provide the information of existing soil CBR value done by surveyor, anticipated
ESAL, geometric design feature for vertical gradient, degree of curvature and type of terrain.
Geometric features of horizontal curvature group and vertical gradient group were regrouped
to divide to non-critical area (assigned symbol as C1) and critical area (assigned symbol as C2)
as presented in Figure 1.
Horizontal curvature Vertical gradient
H1 H2 V1 V2
C1 C2
C
Note: Symbol ‘C’ Denoted as Critical Condition
Figure 1. Regrouping of Horizontal Curvature and Vertical Gradient Groups to Critical and
Non-Critical Group
Design conditions consisted of anticipated ESAL group (denoted as ‘E’), soil CBR group
(denoted as ‘S’) and critical area group (denoted as ‘C’) as shows in Figure 2. These design
conditions would then followed the path sorted from denoted symbol ‘E’, ‘S’, ‘C’ to ‘M’.
However, if design condition consisted of symbol ‘S3’ that is poor soil group. Then, the block
‘TSG’ that is adopted measure to poor soil would be the next station. The ‘modify’ design
condition after ‘TSG’ would considered equivalent to good soil group as denoted by symbol
‘S1’ before proceed to the ‘C’ group to reach Materials Suggested Database denoted as ‘M’, if
the previous design condition of symbol enter block ‘TSG’, the database to reach is Material
Suggested Database with asterisk (denoted symbol ‘M*’). Block symbol ‘TSG’ was extracted
from the result from Table 9. Since it was not significant to conclude that the adopted
measured for poor soil are more likely to perform better than others, hence the adopted
measured were not ranked. The database of ‘M*’ have the same suggested pavement material
1321
for subbase, base course and surface course as database of ‘M’ except the subgrade where
‘M*’ adopted the subgrade from block symbol ‘TSG’.
RC-MSS Framework
E1 E2 E3
S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
TSG
C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2
C1 C2
C1 C2 C1 C2
M8, M8*
M1, M1*
M1, M1*
M7, M7*
M4, M4*
M9, M9*
M10
M11
M12
M1
M5
M6
Note: Symbol ‘M’ Denoted as Materials Suggested Database, and * Represented Material
Suggested Database Directed from the Path from Denoted Symbol ‘TSG’.
Figure 2. Direction Path from Design Condition to Materials Suggested Database
6. PROBLEM EXAMPLE
A simple example has been run to illustrate the framework of RC-MSS. The design conditions
are as followed.
Example problem:
• Anticipated ESAL = 500,000
• Soil CBR value, % =3
• Vertical gradient, % =3
• Horizontal curvature, ° =8
• Type of terrain = Flat
Every particular from the design condition has been classified to each group as shows in
Table 10. The geometric feature of vertical gradient was non-critical but horizontal curvature
was critical. As mentioned earlier in Figure 1, once either one of the geometric features of
vertical gradient or horizontal curvature is in critical that is ‘V2’ or ‘C2’, it would be
considered as critical region. So, the example has been classified as symbol ‘C2’ of critical
area. However, the soil condition was classification as poor which denoted as symbol ‘S3’. As
1322
discussed in the previous section RC-MSS framework, the design would enter the station
denoted symbol ‘TSG’ then exit to station ‘S1’ before reaching the 8th Asterisk Material
Suggested Database denoted as symbol ‘M8*’. The whole flow diagram is illustrated in
Figure 2 which given the ticker plotted line. In the Asterisk Material Suggestion Database,
database of pavement materials suggested for each layer would then referred to the flat terrain
section denoted as symbol ‘T1’ except subgrade material would referred to station denoted
from symbol ‘TSG’. The flow path can be illustrated in Figure 3 and materials suggested is
summarizes as presented in Table 11. No ranked is assigned to the database ‘M8*’ at ‘T1’ as
discussed in the previous section 4 referred to Table 8 except adopted measured to subgrade.
Referred to Table 11 of denoted symbol ‘TSG’ at ‘T1’ shown method of adopted measured
were ranked.
Table 10. Classification of Design Condition in Example Problem
Design Condition Classification Denoted Symbol

Anticipated ESAL Moderate E2
Soil condition Poor S3
Vertical gradient Non-critical V1
Horizontal curvature Non-critical H1
Type of Terrain Flat T1
E2 S3 TSG S1 C2
M8*
M8* referred to T1
with sugrade
referred to TSG.
Figure 3. Whole Flow Path Diagram in Example Problem
Table 11. Problem Example Summary using Database ‘M8*’ and ‘TSG’ at ‘T1’
Subgrade, SG Subbase, SB Base, BC Surface, SC

Adopted Measured Type of Material Type of Material Type of Material
Denoted Symbol Denoted Symbol Denoted Symbol Denoted Symbol
(ranked)
SB1 BC1 SC1
TSG3 (1); SB1 BC1 SC2
TSG5 (2);
SB1 BC1 SC3
TSG1 (3);
SB1 BC2 SC1
TSG2 (4), and
SB1 BC2 SC2
TSG4 (5)
SB1 BC2 SC3
SB1 BC1 SC2
Note: Referred to appendix for description of denoted symbol.
1323
7. PROTOTYPE EXPERRT SYSTEM FOR RC-MSS
RC-MSS is developed with Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 (VB6) as the expert system tool due to
the simplicity of this program and save time by providing an easy developing of interface with
capabilities of toolbox facilities (Deitel, et al, 1999). While conventional programming
language may need to type pages of instruction to create the similar visual elements.
The first component is the knowledge base, which contains all relevant, domain-specific,
problem-solving knowledge. It contains rules and facts and it represents this knowledge in a
very simple form that could be understood by human beings. The second component is the
inference engine, which drives the knowledge stored in the knowledge base through reasoning
processes, which are similar to those of a human expert. The third component is user interface
which serves as screen with a friendly means and the keyboard to communicating with the
system (Gonzalez, et al 1993; Omar 2001). It allows the expert system to answer the
questions from user.
The flow diagram RC-MSS’ expert system is shown in Figure 4 and the main diagrams of
expert system applied for RC-MSS are presented from Figures 5 to 8.
Project Input Input Data

Knowledge Base Where
Company Terrain Input Material Database and
Name Rule Facts
ESAL Input
Project Name Implement Inference
Horizontal Engine Rule to determine
Number of the matching matrix from
and Vertical
Section the Knowledge Base
Input
Load existing
project Soil Input
Suggested materials
and ranked
Select Pavement
Material
Section (i+1)
Ultimate output
Selected material
output
Print
Material cost
calculation
Figure 4. Hierarchy of Expert System in Pavement Material Selection System
1324
Figure 5. RC-MSS Data Input Diagram (Geometric Design and Traffic Estimation)
Figure 6. RC-MSS Data Input Diagram (Soil Classification and CBR)
1325
Figure 7. RC-MSS Suggested Pavement Materials
Figure 8. RC-MSS Selected Pavement Material
1326
8. CONCLUSION
With this prototype development of pavement material selection system, the road designer is
more likely to view more proper pavement materials alternatives in the initial stage of
material selection prior to the scrutiny laboratory work is carry out. Better road design can
also be achieved and save more time on material selection process by engineer, before they
carry out the laboratory test on the selected material. The system will also be an excellent
device for novice engineers to make better pavement design decisions. However, further
investigation such as weather influential, material property in the future to make the database
of the system more effective, valid, precise and reliable database are needed to be more
comprehensive and suitable to our climate. Since this is a prototype material selection system,
the materials suggested are more general. Hence, to make the system more efficient, further
development of mechanistic analysis should be incorporate to the system. Furthermore,
thickness design, specific material performance and life cycle cost analysis should integrate to
make a comprehensive pavement material selection system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment,

Malaysia in funding the project. We would also like to show appreciation to those road design
engineers and pavement’s experts who helped in data collection sessions.
REFERENCE
Gonzalez, A.J. and Dankel, D.D. (1993) The Engineering of Knowledge-Based Systems:
Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Deitel, H. M., Deitel, P.J. and Nieto, T.R. (1999) Visual Basic 6: How to Program. Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Atkins, H.N. (2003) Highway Materials, Soils, and Concrete, 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey.
Omar, H (2001) Development of Expert Systems, Qualifying Exam. Universiti Putra

Malaysia.
JKR (1985) Manual on Pavement Design. Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 5/85. Public Work
Department, Kuala Lumpur.
JKR (1986) A Guide On Geometric Design of Roads. Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 8/86. Public
Work Department, Kuala Lumpur.
Lay, M.G. (1990) Transportation Studies Volume 8, Handbook of Road Technology, 2nd
Edition, Vol. 1, Planning and Pavements.
Harun, M. H. (1992) The Performance of Various Bitumen Modifiers On Climbing Lanes.

JKR, Mesyuarat Penolong Pengarah Jalan 3/92. Public Work Department, Kuala Lumpur.
1327
Conover. W.J. (1999) Practical Nonparametric Statistics: Third Edition, Wiley Series in
Probability and Statistics: Applied Probability and Statistics Section, John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane.
Daniel, W.W. (1978) Applied Nonparametric Statistics, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Boston.
Huang, Y.H. (1993) Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
APPENDIX
Notations
SG1 Compacted existing soil: Compaction of the natural soil to strengthen the soil
property by increasing dry density without remove or replaced the existing soil.
SG2, TSG2 Geosynthetic stabilize: Prevent migration of weak soil and provide a working
platform. It can be goetextiles, geogrids, geonets or geomembranes.
SG3 Remove and replace existing soil: Substitute with stronger soil and compact.
TSG1 Chemically stabilized: To strengthen the soil, remove soil sensitivity to water.
Stabilizer can be lime, cement or asphalt depend on each criteria and suitability
of particular soil.
TSG Excavated and replaced stronger soil material.
TSG4 Dynamic compaction: Free fall up to 20m of heavy weight in a pattern
designed to remedy poor soil conditions.
TSG5 Preloading/ vertical drain: Suitable applied to areas with compressible water
satured soil such as clay and silty clays.
SB1 Untreated subbase material: Generally consists of lower quality materials than
the base course. Act as filter and drainage system.
SB2 Treated subbase material: Strengthen subbase using lime, cement or aspalt.
BC1 Untreated base course material: Consists of quarried rock crushed or natural
gravel. Provide the structural functions.
BC2 Treated base course material: Strengthen base course using lime, cement or
asphalt.
BC3 Dense bitumen macadam base course: Suitable to use in heavily trafficked road
and less susceptible to environmental moisture effect.
BC4 Dense bitumen macadam base with crusher run underneath: Same as function
BC3 but provide better working platform.
BC5 Untreated but thicker base course: Same as function BC1 but provide more
strength and hence reduce the thickness of surface layer.
SC1 Dense graded asphalt mixture: Asphalt Concrete is of this type. Able to
provides resilient, waterproof, resistance to deformation. But susceptible to
heat and to fuel spillage.
SC2 Dense graded asphalt mixture with modified binder: Same as SC1, but provide
extra durability to asphalt.
SC3 Gap graded asphalt mixture: Stone Mastic/ Matrix Asphalt is of this type.
Suitable to use in highly stress areas, increase skid resistance, lower noise level.
SC4 Open graded asphalt mixture: Porous Asphalt is of this type. Able to drain
water, reduce splash, prevent skidding, lower noise level, but low structural
strength, not suitable to build in steep terrain and shorter life span.
1328

Journal - Road Construction Material

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal - Road Construction Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp.

1313 - 1328, 2005

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

Kian Teck TEH Salihuddin HASSIM

Ratnasamy MUNIANDY Husaini OMAR

Key Words: Material Selection, Expert System, Pavement, Road Construction

Pavement design is aimed to achieving a pavement structure which is economical,

2. FACTORS THAT CONSIDERED IN RC-MSS

2.1 Anticipated Traffic Loading Condition

Table 1. Classification of Anticipated ESAL for 10 years Design Life

Traffic Loading Low Moderate High

2.2 Soil Condition

Table 2. Soil CBR value Divided into Three Categories

Soil Condition Good Fair Poor

2.3 Geometric Feature

Table 3. Geometric Features Classification

Geometric Feature Non-Critical Critical

Table 4. Terrain Type

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Table 5. Designed Site Condition and Assigned Symbol

Site Soil Anticipated ESAL Geometric

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results from the first questionnaire is illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6. Domain Experts Results from First Stage of Questionnaire

types of pavement materials to be provide better durability, performance and ease of

Table 7. Friedman’s Test Result for Site Conditions

Table 8. Materials Ranked at Each Site Condition and Type of Terrain

Pavement Layer Ranked

Site Condition / Denoted Symbol (vertical texts)

1 SG1 SB1 BC1 SC1 S S S S S S S S S

13 SG1 SB1 BC4 SC2 S

9 SG1 SB1 BC3 SC1 7 S S

18 SG3 SB1 BC5 SC2 S

11 SG1 SB1 BC3 SC3 2 S

Horizontal curvature Vertical gradient

Figure 2. Direction Path from Design Condition to Materials Suggested Database

Table 10. Classification of Design Condition in Example Problem

Design Condition Classification Denoted Symbol

Figure 3. Whole Flow Path Diagram in Example Problem

Subgrade, SG Subbase, SB Base, BC Surface, SC

7. PROTOTYPE EXPERRT SYSTEM FOR RC-MSS

Project Input Input Data

Figure 4. Hierarchy of Expert System in Pavement Material Selection System

Figure 6. RC-MSS Data Input Diagram (Soil Classification and CBR)

Figure 7. RC-MSS Suggested Pavement Materials

Figure 8. RC-MSS Selected Pavement Material

We would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment,

Omar, H (2001) Development of Expert Systems, Qualifying Exam. Universiti Putra

Harun, M. H. (1992) The Performance of Various Bitumen Modifiers On Climbing Lanes.

Daniel, W.W. (1978) Applied Nonparametric Statistics, Houghton Mifflin Company.

You might also like