Comparison of Brazilian and Austrian Low-Traffic Pavement Design Methods

Abstract

Comparison of pavement design methods is essential for developing a universal approach adaptable to different regions of the world. Brazil and Austria have adopted Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) methods: MeDiNa and RVS 03.08.68, respectively, for pavement design. This study compares these methods for low-traffic roads using Brazilian data. The analysis highlights key differences: MeDiNa provides customized designs, while RVS 03.08.68 simplifies low-traffic pavement design through pre-dimensioned solutions. RVS resulted in a wider pavement structure than MeDiNa, for the condition evaluated. Rutting analysis shows that the Austrian method results in lower deformation (1.57 mm after 120 months) than MeDiNa’s (2.27 mm after 120 months), as a consequence of the larger structure. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) is recommended to evaluate long-term economic and environmental impacts. This study contributes to the harmonization of international pavement design methodologies, aiming to promote more efficient and sustainable road infrastructure.