TERM PROJECT

The A team
Eduardo Schaefer Sombrio
João Victor Oliveira de Albuquerque Malta
Weverton Marques da Silva

Civil 5810 – Pavements Design

Submitted to
Dr. David Timm

December 5th, 2014

.............................................................................2............................................................................... 10 Appendix A: Traffic characterization ............. 6 3.... B-1 Appendix C: Rigid Pavement Design ...................1...................................1...........................................................Table of contents 1........................................ 1 2......D-1 ............. Comparison with the Asphalt Institute Method ......................... Rigid Pavement Design ............ Flexible Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation .............................................................A-1 Appendix B: Flexible Pavement Design ........................................2..........................1. References ........................... 4 3... Introduction .......................................1........... 4 3........2................................................................................... The A team recommendation ................................................................1.................................................................2..1 AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design ................. 3 3............................................... AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design Method .................. 2 2............................... 4 3............................................................2.......................................................................................... 9 4......... 1 2... 6 3....... Rigid Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation ............. C-1 Appendix D: Drainage Calculation .......................................... 6 3.................................................................................................................................................. PCA Method Comparison ....................................................................... Flexible Pavement Design .... Traffic characterization ...2................ 9 5........................ Pavement design ....................

on the state of Alabama.CIVL 5810 1. July. Furthermore. and October). including our group recommendation as a final design. Term Project INTRODUCTION Our group was supposed to design a flexible and a rigid pavement for a two-lane highway (State Highway 280) that goes from Opelika to Alexander City. 2014) 2. On this report you will be able to see different methods on how to design the flexible and the rigid pavement. a jointed plain concrete pavement and the final design was compared with the Portland Cement Association (PCA) method. The study that we provide is given between mileposts 90 and 96. Figure 1: Location along State Highway 280 (ALDOT. TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION To make the calculations of the design traffic for the AASHTO flexible and rigid pavements we utilized the data about the weigh-in-motion (WIM) that was given to us from Highway 280 for three months of 2008 (March. The flexible pavement was designed according to the AASHTO flexible pavement design method and then compared with the Asphalt Institute method. 1 . Each pavement was designed for a 35-year period and a cost analysis was performed too.

Each A 18 was calculated by multiplying the number of axles by an equivalent axle load factor (EALF) and the EALF was calculated from the following equation: EALF = Wt18 /Wtx Wt18 = the number of standard (18-kips) axle load passes Wtx = the number of nonstandard axle load passes 2. D. Where: AADT = average annual daily traffic (vehicle/day) % Trucks = % of AADT consisting of trucks Growth Factor = (1+𝑔) 𝑛 −1 𝑔 Growth rate (𝑔) = rate of traffic growth for the pavement design life n = number of years for pavement design (35 in your case) ESAL Factor = average damage of a vehicle type relative to a single-axle 18-kip load L. gives us the highest ESALdesign number. As we needed to be the most conservative design as possible. the ESAL factor for the scenarios was determined with calculations using a single ESAL factor for each of the three months and selecting the highest value. = directional distribution During your calculations we faced four ALDOT stations on the assigned segment (stations 806. and 803). in the end of calculations.CIVL 5810 Term Project The following equation gives the equivalent single axle load value (ESAL) for each pavement: ESALdesign = AADT × %Trucks × Growth Factor × 365 × ESAL Factor × L. We decided to use a lane distribution correction factor equal to 90% and 50% for directional distribution (assuming that the traffic levels is equal in both directions). Rigid Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation To determine the EALF for each vehicle load we used the AASHTO equation for rigid pavements: 2 . D. 501.× D. 502. D. D. = lane distribution D.1. We decided to choose the station that.

The AADT > 10.2. Another 3 .5 and we decided to assumed pt as 3.5 − 𝑝𝑡 ) 4.912. 2.908 − 4.62 log( 𝐿𝑥 + 𝐿2 ) + 3. Flexible Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation To determine the EALF for each vehicle load we used the AASHTO equation for flexible pavements: log ( 𝑊𝑡𝑥 𝐺𝑡 𝐺𝑡 ) = 6.40 + (𝑆𝑁 + 1) 5.52 2 𝐿𝑥 = axle group weight for a nonstandard axle (kips) 𝐿2 = axle type number: 1 for single.0 + 4.0 to 3.11 ∗ 72.0 is assumed for economic purposes.5 0. your ESALdesign for rigid pavement is: 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = 13. 2 for tandem. so.5 − 1. 3 for tridem 𝑝𝑡 = terminal serviceability value 𝐷 = thickness of the concrete slab We assumed a slab thickness of 9 inches for EAFL calculations.1252 − 4.4 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿𝑆 For details see Table 5 in Appendix A: Traffic characterization.33𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐿2 + − 𝑊𝑡18 𝛽𝑥 𝛽18 − 𝐺𝑡 = log ( 4. as we did for the rigid pavement design. 3 for tridem) 𝑝𝑡 = terminal serviceability value 𝑆𝑁 = structural number of the flexible pavement system.50 = 19.23 − 𝛽𝑥 = 0.225 ∗ 0.081 ∗ ( 𝐿𝑥 + 𝐿2 )3.97 ∗ 365 ∗ 1.90 ∗ 0. For AADT > 10.037.5 3.0 for economic purposes.000 vehicles/day the range of terminal serviceabilities (p t) is from 3.46 ∗ 𝐿3.28𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐿2 + − 𝑊𝑡18 𝛽𝑥 𝛽18 𝐺𝑡 = log ( 𝛽𝑥 = 1. At the end.19 ∗ 𝐿3.CIVL 5810 Term Project log ( 𝑊𝑡𝑥 𝐺𝑡 𝐺𝑡 ) = 5. a terminal serviceability value equals to 3.2 − 1.2 − 𝑝𝑡 ) 4.63 ∗ (𝐿𝑥 + 𝐿2 )5.20 (𝐷 + 1) 8.79 log(𝐿𝑥 + 𝐿2 ) + 4.23 2 𝐿𝑥 = axle group weight for a nonstandard axle (kips) 𝐿2 = axle type number (1: single. 2: tandem.264 ∗ 0.000 vehicles/day.

51 N/A 4 - - 3.09 - - D85 3.15 0.11 0.0 for structural number.3 D15 0. base.90 ∗ 0.97 ∗ 365 ∗ 0.523 ∗ 0. AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design Method The following equations were used on the calculations of the thicknesses of the surface.728 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿𝑆 For details see Table 6 in Appendix A: Traffic characterization.CIVL 5810 Term Project assumption that we made is 5. and subbase layers: D1 ≥ D2 ≥ D3 ≥ SN1 a1 SN2 − a1 D1 a2 m2 SN3 − a1 D1 − a2 m2 D2 a3 m3 1: surface. 2: base. SN1 . your ESALdesign for flexible pavement is: 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = 13.500 30.54 - Permeability (ft/day) 2 100 16.000 - Structural Coefficient 0. Flexible Pavement Design The flexible pavement design was based on the AASHTO flexible pavement design method and compared with the Asphalt Institute method.264 ∗ 0. 3.11 ∗ 72.4 0.000 22. Construction materials properties Stockpile A Stockpile B Stockpile C Soil HMAC PCC Modulus (psi) 15. PAVEMENT DESIGN The table bellow shows the material proprieties considered in this report.33 0. SN3 = structural numbers a1 .1.65 4. 3.3 0.55 6.068 0.000 - 800.7 9.127. a2 . SN2 .000 2.1.50 = 8.2×10-3 - - Characterization Filter Filter Base Subgrade Surface Surface Unit Cost ($/yd2/in) 0.1. 3: subbase. At the end. a3 = structural coefficients 4 .141 - 0. Table 1.36 - 3.

36 log(SN + 1) − 0.0 for terminal serviceability (pt). this number give us a Z-statistic (ZR) of -1.4 + ( (SN + 1) 5.5 6.CIVL 5810 Term Project D1 .48 28. m3 = drainage coefficients We chose standard deviation (S0 ) of 0. As we selected 3.5 2 Layer 3 Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade A A B D3 (in) 0 0 0 0 19 19 16.2. To calculate those thicknesses we used the following equation: ∆PSI ) 4.19 log ( W18 = the number of ESALs for the flexible scenario ZR = Z-statistic at the design reliability S0 = standard deviation ∆PSI = (p0 − pt) p0 = initial serviceability pt = terminal serviceability MR = modulus of the underlying material (psi) For the calculations of the effective subgrade modulus (𝐌𝐑 .20 + + 2.07 1094 ) 0. An effective subgrade modulus of 6. The AASHTO method recommends reliabilities between 75% and 95%. See Table 7 in Appendix B: Flexible Pavement Design.35 according to AASHTO recommendations.290 psi was calculated based on preexisting data and the above assumptions. D3 = thicknesses m1 . The structural number (SN) affects the thickness of each layer. and gives us a drainage coefficient 𝑚𝑖 = 1.76 26.5 7. All combinations of stockpiles and asphalts were done (and the filter and clogging criteria were checked).2. Table 2.5 6.5 5. After the cost analysis we chose the cheapest combination. so we decided to choose 90% to balance other calculations on the traffic part. our ΔPSI is 1.5 5.5 Total Cost ($/yd2) 38.24 5 .48 30. instead of using a single one and then they were subjected to the AASHTO equations above. We also assumed a drainage quality as ‘Excellent’ for each material.5 log(W18 ) = ZR S0 + 9.32 log(MR ) − 8.5 5.2 − 1. D2 .5 Layer 2 Subgrade A B C B C C D2 (in) 0 17 15 15 3 5. m2 . which means that 95% of water is removed in 2 hours or less. Cost analysis for flexible pavement Layer 1 AC AC AC AC AC AC AC D1 (in) 10.42 27.𝐄𝐅𝐅 ) (this number governs the final SN) we considered a wet season that corresponds 30% of the year.68 25.282.33 32.

2.291 ∗ −0.5 ) + (4. so that is the value that we adopted. we can conclude that according to the Asphalt Institute Method the pavement is underestimated. Since there is no melt water condition.42 ) 𝐸 0.1.365 ∗ 10−9 ( ) 𝜖𝑣 − 𝑁𝑓 = number of standard axle loads until fatigue failure − 𝑁𝑟 = number of standard axle loads until rutting failure Damage for both failure modes: 𝐷𝑓 = 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿 𝑁𝑓 𝐷𝑟 = 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿 𝑁𝑟 As the damage ratio for fatigue is higher than 1.35 log (𝐷 + 1) − 0. 3.854 |𝐸 | 𝑁𝑓 = 0.0796 ( ) 𝜖𝑡 1 4. See Appendix D: Drainage Calculation. Rigid Pavement Design The rigid pavement design was based on the AASHTO rigid pavement design method and compared with the Asphalt Institute method.32𝑝𝑡 ) 107 1 + 1. 1 3.2. 3.5 − 1.43 in.477 𝑁𝑟 = 1.63𝐽 ( 𝐷 0.2.1 AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design The thickness of the concrete pavement slab (𝐷) was calculated from the AASHTO rigid pavement design equation: 𝑆𝑐 𝐶𝑑 (𝐷 0. The minimum size available in the market is 4 in.22 − 0. Comparison with the Asphalt Institute Method WESLEA software was used to determine the maximum horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer and the maximum vertical compressive strain at the top of the subgrade with the following equations.75 − ( 18.CIVL 5810 Term Project The highlighted combination was the one that we chose for our design. The discharge capacity of the drainage layer was calculated and was acceptable.75 − 1. Our pipe size was estimated as 1. See Table 8 in 3.25 ( 𝑐) ) 𝑘 + 7.06 + ( ∆𝑃𝑆𝐼 ) log ( 4.46 𝐷 + 1) 6 .624 ∗ ( 8.132) log( 𝑊18 ) = 𝑍𝑅 𝑆0 log 215. the water inflow was estimated as the surface infiltration only.0.

which corresponds to the stockpile C. after the correction for loss of support. Using AASHTO design equations to calculate the elastic modulus (𝐸𝑐 ) and the modulus of rupture (𝑆𝑐 ) of the concrete material we have: 𝐸𝑐 = 57.002. Also. a loss of support correction factor of 2.𝐸𝐹𝐹 = effective modulus of subgrade reaction (pci) 𝐽 = load transfer coefficient We chose standard deviation (S0 ) of 0. For the calculations of the effective modulus of subgrade reaction ( 𝑘.196 psi 𝑆𝑐 = 9√𝑓𝑐′ = 632 psi A loss of support correction factor of 2.0 was selected to account for uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the material in stockpile C.CIVL 5810 Term Project 𝑊18 = number of ESALs for the rigid scenario 𝑆0 = standard deviation 𝑍𝑅 = Z-statistic (at the design reliability) ∆PSI = (p0 − pt) p0 = initial serviceability pt = terminal serviceability 𝐸𝑐 = elastic modulus of concrete (psi) 𝑆𝑐 = modulus of rupture (psi) 𝐶𝑑 = drainage coefficient (base material) 𝑘. so we decided to choose 90% to balance other calculations on the traffic part. As we selected 3. See Table 9 in Appendix C: Rigid Pavement Design. we decided to use the drainage coefficient equals to 1.2. The AASHTO method recommends reliabilities between 75% and 95%.20.𝐸𝐹𝐹 ).000√𝑓𝑐 ′ = 4. As the % Time Saturated > 25% and our drainage quality is considered as ‘Excellent’.282. Three effective modulus of subgrade reaction were calculated based on preexisting data and the above assumptions and we decided to use the highest one (𝑘 = 55 psi).0 for terminal serviceability ( pt). our ΔPSI is 1.35 according to AASHTO recommendations.0 was selected to account for uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the material in stockpile C. this number give us a Z-statistic (ZR) of -1. % 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑆+𝑅 ∗ 100% 365 7 . (this number govern the slab thickness) we considered a wet season that corresponds 30% of the year.

As there is no melt water condition the water inflow was estimated as the surface infiltr ation only.2. 25 inches diameter was used and 12-inch center-to-center spacing. Table 4: Design Options and Cost Analysis Design Option PCC Thickness (in) Total PCC Cost ($/yd2) Total Steel Cost ($/yd2) Total Cost ($/yd2) Non-tied 11.5 to be more conservative on our assumption. Y. A 20 feet joint spacing was used.2 C 11. The dowel size was selected according to Friberg (1940) (See Huang. we assumed a drainage quality of ‘Excellent’ for each material.45 0.78 Tied 10.6% 365 AASHTO recommends for tied configuration a load transfer ranging between 2.58 As the tied option is the cheapest one. and gives us a drainage coefficient of 1.15 0.2.5 10.CIVL 5810 Term Project 𝑆 = days of spring thaw 𝑅 = remaining days with rain if pavement will drain to 85% in 24 hours % 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 0 + 108 ∗ 100% = 29. which means that 95% of water is removed in 2 hours or less.1 and for non-tied configuration it recommends 3. With the objective of assist on the load transfers between the lanes. 8 . We decided to use 2. page 194).. Also.5 and 3. 24 18-inch long dowels bars of 1.5 A 11.5 10.2 2.5 49.33 48.5 10. The discharge capacity of the drainage layer was calculated and was acceptable.43 43. with 6 tie bars and 40 inches center-to-center spacing.2 B 11.1 A steel design was then performed for each configuration and a subsequent cost analysis was performed to determine the cheapest option.5 45. Table 3: Design Options and Cost Analysis Load Transfer Coefficient Stockpile 3. Our group opted to use a pavement with 12 ft lanes with 9 ft outer shoulders and 2 ft inner shoulders. H. we decided to choose it.

2. On this analysis we utilized the same traffic data from March. we decided to choose it for our design. 9 . See Appendix C: Rigid Pavement Design. 2008 used in the AASHTO procedure. A load factor equals to 1.5 for the slickness the total expected axle repetitions for each axle load was calculated for your design period (35 year).2. The next table shows the most economical way to design it: Design Option Total Cost ($/yd2) Flexible 25. shoulders and dowels were used on the pavement concrete design. THE A TEAM RECOMMENDATION This report has the objective to show the best alternative when designed a pavement for Highway 280 according to different methods.CIVL 5810 Term Project 3. PCA Method Comparison We compared the final AASHTO design for the rigid pavement with the Portland Cement Association (PCA) method. After all your calculations. 4.58 As the flexible pavement is more economical than the rigid. we can conclude that PCA method showed that this pavement configuration satisfies the fatigue and erosion requirements.48 Rigid 43.1. Using the value of 10. whether flexible or rigid.

Pavement Analysis and Design (2nd ed.com/climate/opelika/alabama/united-states/usal0413 10 . 2014.dot. Huang. 2014. AL.CIVL 5810 5. Auburn. http://www. Climate Data. Retrieved December 2. Y. Alabama Traffic Monitoring Division.al. Term Project REFERENCES Timm.us/atd/default.state.S.usclimatedata. http://algis. H. Alabama Department of Transportation. (2014). (2014.). (2004).” Auburn University: Department of Civil Engineering. David (2014) “CIVL 5810: Notes.aspx U. Retrieved December 1. November 28).

027.64% 11937 56.319.728.13% 11020 51.412.035.5 502 10790 11% 2.95% 13264 72.897.1 501 12760 11% 3.912. ESAL calculation for flexible pavement Station Last Measured AADT (2013) TADT g Current Traffic (2014) Growth factor ESALi 806 10790 12% 2.64% 11937 56.38 15.441.101.594.95% 13264 72.1 Maximum 20.4 Table 6.0 A-1 .1 803 11630 12% 2.320.2 Maximum 47.1 803 11630 12% 2.23 12.1 ESALDESIGN = 8.781.0 501 12760 11% 3.319.929.13% 11020 51.781.213.50 27.127.38 36.CIVL 5810 Term Project APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION Table 5.037.346. ESAL calculation for rigid pavement Station Last Measured AADT (2013) TADT g Current Traffic (2014) Growth factor ESALi 806 10790 12% 2.23 30.50 11.196.320.05% 11012 50.97 20.05% 11012 50.594.8 502 10790 11% 2.1 ESALDESIGN = 19.284.97 47.675.

28 εv (10-6in/in) = 388.eff (psi) 0.54×107 3.29 E* (psi) = 800000 Nf (ESALs) = Df = Nr (ESALs) = Dr = 1.1816 6290 Table 8. Effective resilient modulus calculation Season MR (psi) Duration (days) μf Dry 7850 (Average) 257 0.65 2. Asphalt Institute comparison εt (10-6in/in) = 183.40%) 108 0.20 B-1 .3552 Weighted average MR.1086 Wet 4710 (Average .44×106 5.CIVL 5810 Term Project APPENDIX B: FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN Table 7.

2 22 19.657.18 Weighted Average Relative Damage.5 k-value (pci) = 55 LSF = 1. ur 86.0% 0.433 26.7% 0. Single Axles Axle Load (kips) 34 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 Axle Load*LSF 37.822 13.0% 0.0% 0.440.509.648 2660 448.131 5.0% 0.6 26.CIVL 5810 Term Project APPENDIX C: RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN Table 9.197 10641 3.032.335.3 410 260 445 275 480 290 k-value on rigid foundation Fig.77 79.364 29642 Unlimited 112202 Unlimited 365201 Unlimited 795862 Unlimited Subtotal .4 24.048 95 46.0% 0. Performance evaluation according to PCA method for single axles.6% 0.4 33 30.3% 0.563 224.852.35 97.0% 3.6 Fatigue Expected Reps Allowable Reps 95 6.544.63 77. psi 15000 15000 22500 22500 30000 30000 composite k-value (pci) figure 3. Input information for performance evaluation according to PCA method Thickness of slab (in) = 10.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.57 95.3% 2.2% 0.664 11.2% C-1 .14 74.1 Concrete Shoulders? no Dowels? yes Sc (psi) = 632 Table 11.Singles Erosion % Consumed Allowable Reps % Consumed 1.8 17.87 82.852 Unlimited 0.0% 0. psi 7850 4710 7850 4710 7850 4710 Subbase Modulus.261.27 93.8 28. Effective modulus of subgrade reaction calculation Material A B C Season Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Roadbed Soil Modulus.4 680 460 770 490 840 515 Relative Damage.0% 0.197 855 128.808 8.014. 3.709.86 Composite k-value (pci) 605 673 725 keff 50 52 55 Table 10.5 82. ur Fig.6% 0. 3.862 62.0% 0.0% 0.

00% 0.20% 0.600.00% 0.931.2 33 30.981 478.340 1.CIVL 5810 Term Project Table 12. Performance evaluation according to PCA method for tandem axles.677 3.066.830.223.136 16.30% 0.525.238 40.061.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.70% C-2 .8 28.00% 0.90% 1.2 44 41.6 2.00% 3.510 11.10% 0.00% 0.4 46.669 1.00% 0.20% 0.50% 4.200 2.499 27.912 4.8 39.10% 0.446.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.2 0 1443 2309 4619 9239 37822 71313 148401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Allowable Reps 232.8 50.207.258 Unlimited 0.818 291.6 37.709 2.848 48.00% 0.777 5.70% 0.796.929 Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Subtotal-Tandem Total Life Consumed Erosion % Consumed Allowable Reps % Consumed 0.355. Fatigue Axle Load (kips) 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 Axle Load*LSF Expected Reps 57.149.614 4.570 7.00% 0.134.231.348.00% 0.00% 0.2 55 52.6 48.00% 0.00% 0.171.439.719.20% 0.00% 0.60% 1.00% 0.586 101.4 35.00% 3.00% 0.

250.43 in D-1 .ft2) = 2.5 0. Drainage parameters Surface Infiltration Steady-State Inflow Ic (ft3/day.02 Wp (ft) = 24 Hd (ft) = 0.01 × (0.36 Criteria (q > qdL) -> OK In this case qd = qi 𝑛𝑞𝑝 𝐿0 0.ft2) q = 250.5 53𝑆 53 × 0.5 Wc (ft) = 24 L (ft) = 22 Cs (ft) = 40 qi (ft3/day.4 Kd (ft/day) = 16000 Nc = 3 S = 0.9 = 0.375 ⇒ 𝐷 = 1.CIVL 5810 Term Project APPENDIX D: DRAINAGE CALCULATION Table 13.375 0.36 × 12) × 500 𝐷=[ ] =[ ] 0.