Mahdi Moustapha Al-Naem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20710998

Pavement design software plays a crucial role in modern road engineering by allowing engineers to model structural responses under traffic and environmental loads. Different design tools rely on distinct theoretical assumptions and calibration methods, which can lead to different structural solutions for the same project conditions. This study compares three widely used rigid pavement design programs representing different engineering traditions: Aliz-LCPC (France), developed by the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC) and SETRA; StreetPave (USA), developed by the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA); and KENPAVE (USA), developed by Professor Yang H. Huang at the University of Kentucky. A standardized highway case study was defined using identical traffic, climate, and soil parameters and simulated on all three platforms. Aliz-LCPC produced a required concrete slab thickness of 32 cm, StreetPave recommended 30.5 cm (12 inches), and KENPAVE highlighted strong sensitivity to subgrade modeling assumptions. The approximately 4.7% difference in slab thickness between tools carries significant economic implications for large-scale infrastructure projects. This study provides comparative insights and practical guidance for engineers selecting appropriate pavement design tools based on regional conditions, available calibration data, and regulatory frameworks.

Aliz-LCPC, concrete slab thickness, KENPAVE, mechanistic-empirical design, pavement design, rigid pavements, StreetPave

This study conducted a systematic comparative evaluation of Aliz-LCPC, StreetPave, and KENPAVE applied to an identical reference highway case. Key conclusions are: (1) Aliz-LCPC produced the most conservative design (32 cm), consistent with the conservative calibration of the French mechanistic-rational method and the allowable tensile stress criterion embedded in LCPC-SETRA and AFNOR standards. (2) StreetPave yielded an optimized design (30.5 cm) based on M-E fatigue damage principles and empirical calibration derived from AASHO and LTPP data, with a cracking-controlled failure mode appropriate for rigid pavement design in the American engineering tradition. (3) KENPAVE confirmed structural insufficiency at 20 cm but highlighted high sensitivity to the subgrade conversion coefficient; the absence of an integrated empirical performance module means KENPAVE requires user-supplied calibration. (4) The 4.7% difference in slab thickness carries significant economic implications in concrete volume, material cost, and construction time for large-scale projects. (5) No tool is universally superior; each is most reliable within the engineering tradition from which it was calibrated. Tool selection should be guided by the available calibration dataset, applicable regulatory framework, and regional performance history. Future work should: (i) extend comparisons to flexible pavements; (ii) conduct formal sensitivity analysis of α in KENPAVE; (iii) validate outputs against field performance data; and (iv) examine the influence of extreme climate conditions

[1] AASHTO, 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
[2] ACPA, 2025. StreetPave 12. American Concrete Pavement Association, Rosemont, IL. Available: https://www.acpa.org/streetpave
[3] AFNOR, 2019. NF P 98-086: Dimensionnement structurel des chaussées routières. Association Française de Normalisation, Saint-Denis.
[4] Al-Qadi, I.L., Loulizi, A., Janajreh, I., Freeman, T.E., 2008. Dynamic analysis and in situ validation of perpetual pavement response to vehicular loading. Transportation Research Record 2087(1), 29–39.
[5] Ali, H.A., Tayabji, S.D., 1998. Evaluation of mechanistic-empirical performance prediction models for flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record 1629(1), 169–180.
[6] Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[7] Cerema, 2021. Conception et dimensionnement des structures de chaussée: Guide technique. Cerema, Bron.
[8] Daodu, O.F., Babatunde, D.E., Oduola, M., 2025. Pavement construction: A review of current advancements and challenges. Construction and Building Materials (in press).
[9] FHWA, 2006. Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements Reference Manual. FHWA-NHI-05-037. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
[10] Hafidi, A., 2019. Catalogue des structures types de chaussées neuves. LCPC-SETRA.
[11] Huang, Y.H., 2004. Pavement Analysis and Design, 2nd ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[12] LCPC-SETRA, 1994. Conception et dimensionnement des structures de chaussée: Guide technique. LCPC-SETRA, Paris.
[13] Losa, M., Leandri, P., Bacci, R., 2008. Statistical assessment of empirical and mechanistic-empirical rutting models. Transportation Research Record 2057(1), 24–31.
[14] Overseas Road Note 31, 1993. A Guide to the Structural Design of Bitumen-Surfaced Roads in Tropical and Sub-Tropical Countries. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.
[15] Sarang, G., 2017. KENPAVE software documentation.
[16] Styer, J., Vandenbossche, J.M., Sherwood, J.A., 2024. Innovations in pavement design and engineering: A 2023 sustainability review. Heliyon 10(13), e33602.
[17] Tian, Y., Luo, X., Lytton, R.L., 2018. Calibrating the mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide rutting models. Transportation Research Record 2672(40), 304–314.
[18] Yoder, E.J., Witczak, M.W., 1975. Principles of Pavement Design, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Mahdi Moustapha Al-Naem (2026). Influence of Design Methodologies on Rigid Pavement Structures: Comparative Analysis Using Aliz-LCPC, StreetPave, and KENPAVE. International Journal of Engineering and Techniques, 12(3), 521–525. ISSN: 2395-1303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20710998