This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
• Highway Pavements
AASHTO The Asphalt Institute Portland Cement Association
• Airfield Pavements
FAA The Asphalt Institute Portland Cement Association U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Objectives of Pavement Design
To provide a surface that is:
Surface strength Moisture control
• Smooth • Safe
Initial construction cost Recurring maintenance cost
Pavements are Designed to Fail !!
Pavement Design Methodologies
• Experience • Empirical
Statistical models from road tests
Calculation of pavement stresses/strains/deformations Empirical pavement performance models
Calculation of pavement stresses/strains/deformations Mechanics-based pavement performance models
Empirical vs. Mechanistic Design P d Wood Floor Joist
Empirical “Rule of 2”: d in inches= (L in feet / 2) + 2
Mechanistic: σbending =
PL ≤ σ allowable 4S
AASHTO Pavement Design Guide
• Empirical design methodology • Several versions:
1961 (Interim Guide) 1972 1986
Refined material characterization Version included in Huang (1993)
More on rehabilitation More consistency between flexible, rigid designs Current version
Under development Will be based on mechanistic-empirical approach
AASHO Road Test (late 1950’s)
One Rainfall Zone...
One Temperature Zone...
A-6 / A-7-6 (Clay) Poor Drainage (AASHO.One Subgrade... 1961) Limited Set of Materials.. • One asphalt concrete 3/4” surface course 1” binder course • One Portland cement concrete (3500 psi @ 14 days) • Four base materials Well-graded crushed limestone (main experiment) Well-graded uncrushed gravel (special studies) Bituminous-treated base (special studies) Cement-treated base (special studies) • One uniform sand/gravel subbase ..
. 1961) 1950’s Vehicle Loads... . 1961) (AASHO. (AASHO..1950’s Construction Methods.
1961) . (AASHO.Limited Traffic Volumes.. 1961) 1950’s Data Analysis.1M Axles 1... 1.1M Axles Axle Loads (Thousands) 2 Years 2 Years Time (Months) (AASHO..
(Some pavements too!) (AASHO. 1993) .Some Failures... 1961) AASHTO Design Based on Serviceability Decrease (AASHTO.
What is Serviceability? • Based upon Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) • Subjective rating by individual/panel Initial/post-construction Various times after construction • 0 < PSR < 5 • PSR < ~2. 1961) Present Serviceability Index (PSI) • PSR correlated to physical pavement measures via Present Serviceability Index (PSI): PSI = 5.5: Unacceptable (AASHO.91log(1 + SV ) − 1.01(C + P)1/ 2 SV = slope variance (measure of roughness) RD = average rut depth (inches) C + P = area of cracking and patching per 1000 ft 2 PSI ≈ PSR 2 Empirical! .38 RD − 0.03 − 1.
AASHTO Design Guide (1993) Part I: Pavement Design and Management Principles • Introduction and Background • Design Related to Project Level Pavement Management • Economic Evaluation of Alternative Design Strategies • Reliability AASHTO Design Guide (1993) Part II: Pavement Design Procedures for New Construction or Reconstruction • Design Requirements • Highway Pavement Structural Design • Low-Volume Road Design .
1993) .AASHTO Design Guide (1993) Part III: Pavement Design Procedures for Rehabilitation of Existing Pavements • Rehabilitation Concepts • Guides for Field Data Collection • Rehabilitation Methods Other Than Overlay • Rehabilitation Methods With Overlays Design Scenarios Included in AASHTO Guide (AASHTO.
AASHTO Design Based on Serviceability Decrease (AASHTO. 1993) Flexible Pavements .
07 + 10 ( R) 1094 0. 1993) .5 + 2.2 − 1.32 log M − 8.36 log10 ( SN + 1) − 0.20 ∆PSI log10 4.Design Equation log10 (W18 ) = Z R So + 9.19 ( SN + 1) W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs) ZR = standard normal deviate So = combined standard error of traffic and performance prediction ∆PSI = difference between initial and terminal serviceability index MR = resilient modulus (psi) SN = structural number Structural Number (AASHTO.40 + 5.
1993) Analysis Period (Also basis for life-cycle cost analysis) (AASHTO. Analysis Period (AASHTO. 1993) .Traffic vs.
Design Traffic (18K ESALs) (AASHTO. 1993) Design Traffic (18K ESALs) • DD = 0.5 typically • DL: (AASHTO. 1993) .
50 .30 .0.40 .Reliability (AASHTO. 1993) Recommended Values for Standard Error So • Rigid Pavements: 0.40 • Flexible Pavements: 0.0.
Standard Normal Deviate ZR (AASHTO. 1993) . 1993) Recommended Reliability Levels (AASHTO.
1 < PSI < 5 • po = Initial Serviceability Index Rigid pavements: 4.5 Flexible pavements: 4. 1993) .Serviceability ∆PSI = po − pt • PSI = Pavement Serviceability Index. 1993) Adjustment of Roadbed (Subgrade) MR for Seasonal Variations (AASHTO.2 • pt = Terminal Serviceability Index (AASHTO.
typically) No Unique Solution! (AASHTO. 1993) .Structural Number SN = a1 D1 + ∑ ai Di mi i =2 n SN = structural number = f (structural capacity) ai = ith layer coefficient Di = ith layer thickness (inches) mi = ith layer drainage coefficient n = number of layers (3.
1993) Layer Coefficient a2: Granular Base a2 ≅ 0. 1993) .977 Ebase in psi (AASHTO.249 ( log10 Ebase ) − 0.Layer Coefficient a1: Asphalt Concrete (AASHTO.
1993) Layer Coefficient a2: Bituminous Treated Base (AASHTO. 1993) .Layer Coefficient a2: Cement Treated Base (AASHTO.
1993) Quality of Drainage (AASHTO. 1993) .227(log10 Esubbase ) − 0.Layer Coefficient a3: Granular Subbase a3 = 0.839 Esubbase in psi (AASHTO.
1993) . 1993) Next Slide (AASHTO.Drainage Coefficient mi mi increases/decreases the effective value for ai (AASHTO.
Traffic vs. 1993) . Analysis Period (AASHTO. 1993) (AASHTO.
Effect of Frost on Performance PSI = Pavement Servicability Index 1 < PSI < 5 “Failure”: PSI < 2+ (AASHTO.02mm) (AASHTO. 1993) . 1993) Frost Heave Rate φ φ = f (-0.
Maximum Serviceability Loss ∆PSImax = f (frost depth. 1993) Effect of Swelling on Performance PSI = Pavement Servicability Index 1 < PSI < 5 “Failure”: PSI < 2+ (AASHTO. 1993) . drainage) (AASHTO.
1993) . 1993) Maximum Potential Heave VR VR = f (PI. soil fabric) (AASHTO.Swell Rate Constant θ θ = f (moisture supply. compaction. thickness) (AASHTO.
32 p log + ( t) 10 1.63 J D − 0.25 ( D + 1) ( Ec / k ) W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs) ZR = standard normal deviate So = combined standard error of traffic and performance prediction D = thickness (inches) of pavement slab Sc’ = modulus of rupture (psi) for Portland cement concrete J = load transfer coefficient Cd = drainage coefficient Ec = modulus of elasticity (psi) for Portland cement concrete k = modulus of subgrade reaction (pci) PCC Thickness ∆PSI = difference between initial and terminal serviceability indices pt = terminal serviceability value .46 215.64x107 0.132 ) 4.35log10 ( D + 1) − 0.5 − 1.75 S c Cd ( D − 1.Rigid Pavements Design Equation log10 (W18 ) = Z R So + 7.5 + 4.42 1+ 8.22 − 0.75 18.06 ∆PSI log10 ' 0.
(AASHTO. 1993) . 1993) (AASHTO.
.Design Inputs W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs) ZR = standard normal deviate So = combined standard error of traffic and performance prediction ∆PSI = difference between initial and terminal serviceability indices pt = terminal serviceability index (implicit in flexible design) All consistent with flexible pavements! Additional Design Inputs • S′c = modulus of rupture for concrete • J = joint load transfer coefficient • Cd = drainage coefficient (similar in concept to flexible pavement terms) • Ec = modulus of elasticity for concrete • k = modulus of subgrade reaction Additional inputs reflect differences in materials and structural behavior.
1993) Joint Load Transfer Coefficient J Pavement Type (no tied shoulders) JCP/JRCP w/ load transfer devices JCP/JRCP w/out load transfer devices CRCP J 3.4 2.8-4.9 .Modulus of Rupture Sc’ (AASHTO.2 3.
Joint Load Transfer Coefficient J Additional benefits of tied shoulders: (AASHTO. 1993) . 1993) Drainage Coefficient Cd • Two effects: Subbase and subgrade strength/stiffness Joint load transfer effectiveness (AASHTO.
or ASTM C39 Effective Subgrade Modulus k • Depends on: Roadbed (subgrade) resilient modulus. T140. ESB • Both vary by season .PCC Modulus of Elasticity Ec • Measure directly per ASTM C469 • Correlation w/ compressive strength: Ec = 57.000 (fc’)0.5 Ec = elastic modulus (psi) fc’ = compressive strength (psi) per AASHTO T22. MR Subbase resilient modulus.
2) • Identify: Subbase types Subbase thicknesses Loss of support.000 psi (spring thaw) < ESB < 50. 1993) .000 psi (winter freeze) ESB < 4(MR) (AASHTO.Determining Effective k (See Table 3. LS (erosion potential of subbase) Depth to rigid foundation (feet) • Assign roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) for each season • Assign subbase resilient modulus (ESB) for each season 15.
6) Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction k = f (MR .3 • If depth to rigid foundation < 10 feet. correct k for effect of rigid foundation near the surface (Figure 3. ESB . DSB ) (AASHTO.4) • Estimate required thickness of slab (Figure 3.5) • Correct k for potential loss of support LS (Figure 3.4 For DSB > 0: Use Figure 3.5) and determine relative damage ur for each season • Use average ur to determine effective k (Figure 3. 1993) .Determining Effective k (cont’d) • Determine composite k for each season For DSB = 0: k = MR/19.
1993) Relative Damage ur = f ( k. 1993) . D) (AASHTO.Rigid Foundation Correction (AASHTO.
(AASHTO. 1993) . 1993) Loss of Support. LS Subbase/subgrade erosion at joints causes Loss of Support.(AASHTO. impairs load transfer.
1993) (AASHTO. 1993) .Loss of Support (AASHTO.
1993) . 1993) Traffic vs. 1993) (AASHTO. Analysis Period (AASHTO.Next Slide Consistent with flexible pavement approach! (AASHTO.
bridge) • Construction • Longitudinal For relief of curling and warping stresses . skewed.. randomized) Dimensions • Joint Sealant Dimensions Types of Joints • Contraction Transverse For relief of tensile stresses • Expansion Transverse For relief of compressive stresses Used primarily between pavement and structures (e..g. regular.g.Joint Design • Joint Types Contraction Expansion Construction Longitudinal • Joint Geometry Spacing Layout (e.
Typical Contraction Joint Details (Huang. 1993) Typical Expansion Joint Detail (Huang. 1993) .
1993) .Typical Construction Joint Detail (Huang. 1993) Typical Longitudinal Joint Detail Full Width Construction (Huang.
1993) Joint Spacing • Local experience is best guide • Rules of thumb: JCP joint spacing (feet) < 2D (inches) W/L < 1.Typical Longitudinal Joint Detail Lane-at-a-Time Construction (Huang.25 .
1993) . sealant resilience (AASHTO.Joint Dimensions • Width controlled by joint sealant extension • Depths: Contraction joints: D/4 Longitudinal joints: D/3 • Joints may be formed by: Sawing Inserts Forming Joint Sealant Dimension Governed by expected joint movement.
1993) Reinforcement Design (JRCP) • Purpose of reinforcement is not to prevent cracking.Design Inputs Z αc (AASHTO. but to hold tightly closed any cracks that may form • Physical mechanisms: Thermal/moisture contraction Friction resistance from underlying material • Design based on friction stress analysis (Huang. 1993) .
1993) .Dowel Bars: Transverse Joint Load Transfer • “…size and spacing should be determined by the local agency’s procedures and/or experience.” • Guidelines: Dowel bar diameter = D/8 (inches) Dowel spacing: 12 inches Dowel length: 18 inches Friction Stresses Induces tensile stresses in concrete Causes opening of transverse joints (Huang.
1993) . 1993) Friction Factor (AASHTO. Ps=0 for L< ~15 feet) (AASHTO.Applies to both longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement (Generally.
(AASHTO. 1993) Transverse Tie Bars (AASHTO. 1993) .Steel Working Stress Based on preventing fracture and limiting permanent deformation.
1993) .Transverse Tie Bars (AASHTO.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.