You are on page 1of 22

Review of Concrete Pavement

Design

Steve Waalkes
Director of Engineering & Rehabilitation
American Concrete Pavement Association
swaalkes@pavement.com

AASHTO Design Procedure

AASHTO Guide for


Design of Pavement
Structures - 1993

1
1986-93 Rigid Pavement
Design Equation
Change in Serviceability
Overall
Standard ⎡ ⎡ ∆ PSI ⎤ ⎤
Standard Deviation
Normal Deviate Depth
⎢ Log ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎣ 4.5 - 1.5 ⎥⎦ ⎥
Log(ESALs) = Z R * s o+7.35 * Log(D+1)- 0.06+
⎢ 1.624 * 10 7 ⎥
⎢1+ 8.46 ⎥
Modulus of
Rupture
Drainage ⎢ ⎣ (D + 1) ⎥⎦
Terminal Coefficient
Serviceability
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
+(4.22- 0.32pt )*Log ⎢
⎢ [
S'c * C d * D 0.75 − 1.132 ] ⎥

⎢ ⎡ 0.75 18.42 ⎤ ⎥
⎢215.63* J * ⎢D - 0.25 ⎥ ⎥
⎣ Load ⎢
⎣ (E c / k) ⎥⎦ ⎦
Transfer Modulus Modulus of
of Elasticity Subgrade Reaction

1986-93 Rigid Pavement


Design
Factors Affecting Rigid Pavements
Thickness
Serviceability (po, pt)
Traffic (ESALs, E-18s)
Load Transfer (J)
Concrete Properties (S’c, Ec)
Subgrade Strength (k, LS)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)

2
Serviceability
Initial Serviceability Present Serviceability Index
4.5 concrete (PSI)
4.2 asphalt 5.0
Very Good
4.0
Terminal Serviceability Good
3.0
2.5 Interstates, Arterials Fair
2.25 Collectors 2.0
Poor
2.0 Residential Streets 1.0
1.5 Failure Very Poor
0.0

Traffic - ESALs

Equivalent Number of 18k (80kN) Single Axle Loads

3
Load Transfer (J)
L= x
• A slab’s ability to share its
load with neighboring U= 0
slabs
Poor Load Transfer
– Dowels
– Aggregate Interlock
– Concrete Shoulders L= x/2 U = x/2
• Tied Concrete, curb &
gutter, and extended lane
have same effect
Good Load Transfer

Load Transfer (J)

Doweled Undoweled

Edge No Edge Edge No Edge


Support Support Support Support

2.7 3.2 2.8 – 3.6 3.2 – 4.3

4
Concrete Properties

• Flexural Strength (Modulus of Rupture), S’c


– Average 28-day strength
– 3rd-Point Loading
– Generally 550 to 650 psi (3.8 to 4.5 MPa)
• Modulus of Elasticity, Ec
– Ec ≈ 6750 x S’c

Subgrade and Subbases


• Subbase
– Layer of material Concrete Section
directly below the
concrete pavement.
• Subgrade Subbase
– Natural ground, Subgrade
graded, and
compacted on which
the pavement is built.

5
Subgrade / Subbase Strength
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k

Reaction

Hydraulic Jack Pressure Gauge

Stacked Plates

Deflection Dial at 1/3 Points

k (psi/in) = unit load on plate / plate deflection

Subgrade / Subbase Strength


Typical Soil Relationships
Soil Type Strength k-value Mr (psi) CBR
(psi / in.)
Silts / Clays Very Low 50-100 1000-1900 <3

Fine grained Low 100-150 1900-2900 3-5.5

Sands Medium 150-220 2900-4300 5.5-12

Gravely soils High 220-250 4300-4850 >12

Bitumin.Treat. High 350-450 100,000+ >12

Cement.Treat./LCB High 400-600 500,000+ >12

6
Loss of Support
Accounts for the expected loss of support by subbase
/ subgrade erosion and differential movements.
Decreases the effective or composite k-value for a
subbase / subgrade based on the size of void that
may develop beneath the slab.
LOS Values = 0, 1, 2, 3
LOS = 0 models the conditions at the AASHO road test.

Subgrade Strength
The current procedure
increases the k-value to
unreasonably high values,
and then reduces k back
using Loss of Support
(LOS).

This produces unrealistic


results.

7
k-Value Determination
The current design procedure uses the k-value
for design, but basis the soils characterization
on the Resilient Modulus, MR.
1. Determine MR
AASHTO Test Method TP 46-94
Correlation to CBR or R-values

2. Convert MR to K-value

3. Adjust for Depth to Rigid Foundation

4. Adjust for Loss of Support

Subgrade Soil Relationships

Be careful when using MR = 1,500 * CBR


the AASHTO Subgrade MR = 1,000 + 500 * R
Soil Relationships
These relationships given in
the guide between MR and
CBR and R-values over
estimates actual MR values.

8
Subgrade Soil Relationships
Resilient M odulus, M R (psi)
160,000
140,000 AASHTO
120,000 Actual
100,000 ACPA
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CBR (%)
Data: NCHRP Report 128.

Subgrade Soil Relationships


60,000
R esilient M odulus, R M (psi)

AASHTO
50,000
Actual
40,000 ACPA

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
R-Value
Data: NCHRP Report 128.

9
k-Value Determination

After determining the Resilient Modulus,


MR, convert MR to k-value for design.

No subbase
K (psi/in) = MR/19.4
Subbase
Fig. 3.3 from Part II

k-Value Determination
3,000
AASHTO Mr/19.4
2,500
Backcalculated
k-value (psi/in.)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, Mr (ksi)
Data: NCHRP Report 1-30.

10
k-Value Determination
The relationships For Example,
between k and MR Assume MR = 12,000 psi
(base - no base) give with no-base
k = MR /19.4 = 619 psi/in
inconsistent results with with 6” granular base
high in-situ MR Values. k = 574 psi/in (from Fig
3.3)
As the MR value increases, the
difference becomes greater.
Neither value is very realistic.
Historical values are 150-250
psi/in.

Loss of Support

Reduces k-value due to expected


erosion of subgrade.
LOS = 0 models conditions at the
AASHO road test.
Upper 3 feet were required to be:
AASHO A-6 (clay)
Group Index = 9-13
Plastic Index = 11-15
Liquid Limit 27-32
80-85% passed the #200 Sieve

11
Loss of Support

Historical AASHTOk-value
TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0 LOS=1 LOS=2 LOS=3
Silts & 3,000 100 -- -- 22 11
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 -- 79 29 13

Bituminous 100,000 350-450 300 93 -- --


Treated
Cement 1,000,000 400-500 445 128 -- --
Treated

Loss of Support

Use Loss of Support = 0 All cracking of rigid


(otherwise your using a pavements at the AASHO road
huge fudge factor) test were preceded by the
pumping of material from
underneath the slab.
The primary mode of failure at
the road test was loss of
support in the poor clay soil.
Therefore, AASHTO design
equations already account for
support loss.

12
Loss of Support

Historical AASHTO
TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0
Silts & 3,000 100 155
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 244

Bituminous 100,000 350-450 300


Treated
Cement 1,000,000 400-500 445
Treated

Subgrade Strength
Typical Soil Relationships

Soil Type Strength k-value Mr (psi) CBR


(psi / in.)
Silts / Clays Very Low 50-100 1000-1900 <3

Fine grained Low 100-150 1900-2900 3-5.5

Sands Medium 150-220 2900-4300 5.5-12

Gravely soils High 220-250+ 4300-4850 >12

13
Subgrade Strength
If designing a roadway on a clay
soil that you intend to lime stabilize
Start with the in- 6 inches deep:
situ subgrade soil FIRST: Determine k and Mr for in-
(not a stabilized situ clay:
-typical clay; k = 100 psi/in
soil) -Mr = k * 19.4 = 1940 psi

For PCC: determine k composite starting


with k = 100 & add 6-inch layer w/
typical E for lime soil (30,000 psi).
k composite = 131 psi/in

For AC: start w/ Mr = 1940 psi & add


the layer w/ structural coeff. of 0.14

AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage , Cd
Recommended Values for Drainage Coefficient
Percent of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed to
Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation
Quality of Less than Greater than
Drainage 1% 1 - 5% 5 - 25% 25%
Excellent 1.25 - 1.20 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10
Good 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00
Fair 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90
Poor 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80
Very Poor 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80 - 0.70 0.70

14
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage , Cd
Use Drainage Coeff >
The subgrade soil at the
1.0 (otherwise using a AASHO road test was a
huge fudge factor) very poorly draining clay
soil.

Therefore the AASHTO


design equations already
account for a poor
drainage condition.

Modern open-graded
bases and more free-
draining soils are design
options which can be
modeled with Cd > 1.0

AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended Reliability Values for Design
Recommended Level
of Reliability
Functional Classification Urban Rural
Interstate / Freeways 85-99.9 80-99.9
Principal Arteials 80-99 75-99
Collectors 80-95 75-95
Local 50-80 50-80

15
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
ZR
Reliability standard normal
(R) deviate
50 -0.000
75 -0.674
90 -1.282
95 -1.645
99 -2.327

AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended so Values for Design

Concrete Asphalt
Ranges 0.30 − 0.40 0.40 − 0.50
Use
New Construction 0.35 0.45
Overlays 0.39 0.49

16
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Never compare designs Another way to think about
at different reliabilities reliability is to consider that at
90% reliability, only 10% of the
(reliability = factor of pavement will have “failed” by
safety) the end of the design period.

If you are comparing a new


concrete section to a new
asphalt section use the same
reliability for each.

Make design evaluations at


50% reliability.

WinPAS

Sensitivity Analysis
• Purpose: To identify those inputs that
have a significant effect on the slab
thickness
• These are the inputs that must be
carefully derived and selected

17
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change

Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change 320
ESALs

30,000,000 280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
50 60 70 80 90 100

Reliability, R

Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)

40,000,000 Thickness Change


320
ESALs

30,000,000
280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4

Edge Support, J

18
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change

Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change
320
ESALs

30,000,000 280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Drainage Coefficient, Cd

Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness Change
Thickness (mm)

40,000,000 320
ESALs

30,000,000 280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Concrete Flexural Strength, S'c (MPa)

19
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
ESAL Change 360

Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change
320
ESALs

30,000,000
280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
10 30 50 70 90 110 130

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k-value (MPa/m)

Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)

40,000,000 Thickness Change 320


ESALs

30,000,000 280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75

Change in PSI (pi-pt)

20
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change

Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change 320
ESALs

30,000,000 280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42

Standard Deviation, So (for 90% reliability)

Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)

40,000,000 Thickness Change 320


ESALs

30,000,000 280

20,000,000 240

10,000,000 200

0 160
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Concrete Modulus, Ec (MPa)

21
www.pavement.com
swaalkes@pavement.com

QUESTIONS??

22