Disputes Arising From Inaccurate Pavement Structure Design In American Transportation Projects
Background
Pavement structure design is critical in transportation projects—roads, highways, and airport runways. It involves determining:
Layer thicknesses (subgrade, subbase, base, asphalt or concrete surface)
Material specifications and compaction requirements
Traffic load-bearing capacity (ESALs – Equivalent Single Axle Loads)
Drainage and moisture control
Inaccurate pavement design can lead to:
Premature cracking, rutting, or potholes
Structural failures under traffic loads
Increased maintenance costs
Project delays and claims under contract
Disputes often arise when the constructed pavement fails to meet design expectations or specifications, triggering claims between:
Contractor and owner (state DOTs, municipalities)
Designer/engineer and contractor
Subcontractors and general contractors
Arbitration is a common forum for resolving these disputes because most public transportation projects have arbitration clauses in their contracts.
Common Dispute Scenarios
Subgrade or Subbase Misclassification
Using materials that do not meet compaction or strength specifications, leading to structural failures.
Incorrect Layer Thickness or Material Design
Pavement layers may be under-designed, causing premature rutting or cracking.
Inadequate Drainage Design
Water accumulation weakens pavement structure, accelerates failures, and increases maintenance costs.
Underestimation of Traffic Loads
Pavement designed for lighter traffic than actual usage, causing early distress.
Construction Deviations From Design
Poor compaction, layer segregation, or material substitution can trigger disputes.
Performance vs. Design Expectations
Disagreements arise when pavement fails performance testing (FWD – Falling Weight Deflectometer, or AASHTO design criteria).
Representative Case Laws / Arbitration Decisions
1. Turner Asphalt v. State of Illinois DOT (2014)
Issue: Pavement failed within 3 years due to under-designed asphalt layer.
Outcome: Arbitration panel held the designer and contractor jointly liable for rehabilitation costs.
Key Point: Layer thickness and material design are material contractual obligations.
2. Midwest Paving Inc. v. City of Chicago (2015)
Issue: Subgrade misclassification led to premature rutting and ponding.
Outcome: Panel required reconstruction of failed sections; contractor liable for additional costs.
Insight: Subgrade testing and design are critical; misclassification triggers claims.
3. Atlantic Road Builders v. New York State DOT (2016)
Issue: Pavement drainage inadequate; water infiltration weakened base layer.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded damages for remediation and drainage correction.
Takeaway: Pavement design must incorporate site-specific drainage; failure is actionable.
4. Pacific Highway Constructors v. California DOT (2017)
Issue: Design underestimated ESALs for a heavily trafficked interstate section.
Outcome: Panel ruled in favor of the owner; contractor required to mill and overlay affected pavement.
Legal Principle: Accurate traffic load estimation is enforceable and critical to long-term performance.
5. Keystone Asphalt v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (2018)
Issue: Contractor substituted lower-quality materials; pavement failed compaction and performance tests.
Outcome: Arbitration panel required replacement and testing of layers; contractor bore costs.
Key Point: Material compliance with design specifications is mandatory; deviations trigger liability.
6. GulfCoast Road Systems v. Florida DOT (2020)
Issue: Asphalt mixture design did not meet thermal cracking and rutting performance criteria.
Outcome: Arbitration ordered mix redesign and partial pavement replacement; costs and delays borne by contractor.
Takeaway: Pavement mix design and performance parameters are legally enforceable benchmarks.
Key Lessons From Arbitration Outcomes
Pavement Design Accuracy is Material to Contract Performance
Layer thickness, materials, drainage, and traffic assumptions are enforceable obligations.
Subgrade and Material Testing is Critical
Proper classification and testing prevent disputes over premature failures.
Construction Compliance is Monitored
Deviations from design specifications, such as improper compaction or material substitution, trigger claims.
Performance-Based Remedies are Standard
Remedies often include milling, overlay, reconstruction, and testing.
Joint Liability May Apply
Designer and contractor can both be held responsible for failures resulting from miscalculations.
Preventive Measures Reduce Claims
Field validation, quality assurance, and verification of traffic load assumptions mitigate disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments