Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WINPAS - User Manual PDF
WINPAS - User Manual PDF
Analysis Software
(WinPAS) Guide
Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the
Design of Pavement Structures
WinPAS12 (SW03)
Windows Pavement Analysis
Software (WinPAS) Guide
Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the
Design of Pavement Structures
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without
permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief
passages in a review written for inclusion in a magazine or newspaper.
ii | P a g e
Pavement and Overlay Design Based on the 1993 AASHTO
"Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures"
This publication is to help familiarize
engineers on the basics of concrete
pavement design. It gives the
background information that is essential
to effectively design concrete
pavements and overlays using the
"AASHTO Guide for the Design of
Pavement Structures - 1993"1 design
procedure via the ACPA's WinPAS
software. Still, ACPA encourages every
pavement design engineer to purchase
a copy of the complete 93 AASHTO AASHTO Guide for the Design of
Design Guide for a complete reference. Pavement Structures - 1993
This publication is broken down into four The final chapter of this publication is
chapters. The first two describe the user’s guide for the WinPAS
concrete pavement thickness design software. The software is capable of
and overlay design according to Parts II conducting concrete and asphalt
and III (Chapter 5) of the 93 AASHTO pavement designs and analyses, traffic
Design Guide. Part II is entitled conversions, life cycle cost analyses,
"Pavement Design Procedures for New and overlay designs and analyses.
Construction or Reconstruction," and
Chapter 5 of Part III is entitled It is important to note that thickness
"Rehabilitation Methods with Overlays."1 design is only one aspect of good
concrete pavement design. Another is
The third chapter of this publication jointing. Proper jointing is essential to
describes life-cycle costing procedures ensure that a concrete pavement will
for a project level analysis. Life-cycle perform for its intended design life.
costing is a procedure that economically Unfortunately, it is often overlooked. For
compares two competing design more information on jointing of concrete
alternatives considering all significant pavements, please refer to other ACPA
costs over the economic life of each publications, including:
alternative, expressed in equivalent
dollars. It includes initial cost, • Design and Construction Joints
rehabilitation costs, maintenance and for Concrete Highways (TB010P)
operation costs, user costs and residual • Intersection Joint Layout
value. (IS006P)
P a g e | iii
• Design and Construction Joints
for Concrete Streets (IS061P)
• Concrete Pavement Field
Reference: Pre-Paving (EB237P)
• Concrete Pavement Field
Reference: Paving (EB238P)
• Concrete Intersections: A Guide
for Design and Construction
(TB019P)
iv | P a g e
Table of Contents
Page |v
Convert Resilient Modulus to k-Value ............................................................. 21
Adjust k-Value for Depth to Rigid Foundation ................................................. 23
Adjust k-Value for Loss of Support.................................................................. 23
Seasonal Adjustment to the k-Value ............................................................... 23
Problems with the AASHTO Procedure to Determine Subgrade Support .......... 24
Loss of Support ............................................................................................... 25
CBR and R-Value Relationships to Mr ............................................................ 25
Inconsistencies between Base and No Subbase Conditions .......................... 25
The Resulting k-Values are Unrealistic ........................................................... 26
Recommended Values for the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .......................... 26
........................................................................................................................... 27
Recommended k-Values for Subbases .............................................................. 28
AASHTO and the Benefits of Subbases ............................................................. 28
Coefficient of Drainage (Cd) ................................................................................... 29
Reliability ................................................................................................................ 30
Reliability (R) ...................................................................................................... 31
Standard Deviation (so)....................................................................................... 31
How Reliability Works ......................................................................................... 32
How ZR Relates to R ........................................................................................... 32
The Iterative Process ............................................................................................. 34
Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 34
Summary ................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 2 – Concrete Overlay Design........................................................................... 39
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 39
The AASHTO Overlay Design Steps ......................................................................... 41
Step 1. Determine Existing Pavement Information ................................................. 41
Step 2. Predict Future ESALs ................................................................................ 41
Step 3. Perform Condition Survey .......................................................................... 42
Step 4. Perform Deflection Testing ........................................................................ 42
Step 5. Perform Coring/Material Testing ................................................................ 43
Step 6. Determine the Required Structural Capacity for Future Traffic (SCf) ......... 43
vi | P a g e
Step 7. Determine the Existing Structural Capacity (SCeff)..................................... 43
Problems with Remaining Life ............................................................................ 44
Step 8. Determine Required Structural Capacity of the Overlay (SCOL) ................. 45
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ............................................................ 45
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ........................................................ 47
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite .................................... 48
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite ........................................ 50
Other Considerations ................................................................................................. 50
Other Concrete Overlay Design Procedures/Software .............................................. 51
Chapter 3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) ................................................................. 53
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53
Comparable Sections ................................................................................................ 53
Performing an LCCA.................................................................................................. 54
Step 1 – Select Analysis Period ................................................................................. 54
Step 2 – Select Discount Rate ................................................................................... 55
Selecting an Interest Rate ...................................................................................... 55
Selecting an Inflation Rate ..................................................................................... 56
Calculating the Real Discount Rate........................................................................ 56
Step 3 – Estimate Initial Agency Costs ...................................................................... 56
Step 4 – Estimate User Costs .................................................................................... 57
Step 5 – Estimate Future Agency Costs .................................................................... 58
Maintenance and Operation Costs ......................................................................... 58
Preservation and Rehabilitation Timing and Costs................................................. 58
Step 6 – Estimate Residual Value ............................................................................. 59
Residual Value through Recycling (Salvage Value) ............................................... 59
Residual Value through Remaining Service Life .................................................... 59
Residual Value as a Support Layer ........................................................................ 60
Step 7 – Compare Alternatives .................................................................................. 60
Cash Flow Diagrams .............................................................................................. 60
Present Worth Calculations .................................................................................... 61
Annual Worth Calculations ..................................................................................... 62
P a g e | vii
Analysis Methods ................................................................................................... 62
Accounting for Material Inflation ............................................................................. 63
Comparison of Results ........................................................................................... 64
More Information on LCCA ........................................................................................ 64
Chapter 4. WinPAS User’s Guide ................................................................................. 65
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 65
Menu Options ............................................................................................................ 65
File Menu ............................................................................................................... 66
Units Menu ............................................................................................................. 66
Help Menu .............................................................................................................. 66
Main Menu ................................................................................................................. 66
Project Tab ................................................................................................................ 67
Estimate ESALs Tab.................................................................................................. 67
Total ESALs by Axle Data ...................................................................................... 68
Total ESALs by Vehicle Type ................................................................................. 69
Total ESALs by Truck Factor ................................................................................. 71
Design/Evaluation Tab............................................................................................... 72
Concrete Pavement Design/Analysis ..................................................................... 72
Asphalt Pavement Design/Analysis........................................................................ 76
Asphalt Layer Determination .............................................................................. 78
Both Concrete and Asphalt Design/Analysis (Side-by-Side) .................................. 79
Overlays Tab ............................................................................................................. 80
Existing Pavement Information............................................................................... 81
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete................................................................ 82
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ........................................................... 84
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt (Conventional Whitetopping) ................ 85
Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Backcalculation .................................................... 86
NDT Backcalculation for Concrete Pavements ................................................... 87
NDT Backcalculation for Asphalt Pavements ..................................................... 88
NDT Backcalculation for Composite Pavements ................................................ 89
Life-Cycle Costs Tab ................................................................................................. 89
viii | P a g e
Economic Factors .................................................................................................. 90
Cost Graphs ........................................................................................................... 90
Pavement Cost Information .................................................................................... 91
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Results............................................................................ 93
Reports Tab ............................................................................................................... 94
Problems or Questions .............................................................................................. 94
References .................................................................................................................... 95
P a g e | ix
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
x|Page
Chapter 1 – New Concrete Pavement Design
Introduction
Over the last 100 years, the science of Concrete Pavement Basics
concrete pavement design has fallen There are three basic types of concrete
into two basic categories: mechanistic pavements built in the United States:
and empirical. jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP),
jointed reinforced concrete pavement
Mechanistic pavement design is based (JRCP), and continuously reinforced
upon a fundamental understanding of concrete pavement (CRCP). The
the materials (i.e., the concrete and primary design detail that distinguishes
soils). It is a true attempt to describe each concrete pavement type from each
how the pavement responds to loads. other is the jointing system used to
Unfortunately, until very recently, control natural crack development
mechanistic equations did not consider (Figure 1 on next page).
a number of practical factors relating to
pavement performance and have only Jointed plain concrete pavements
given an estimate of what could be contain enough joints so that the natural
expected in the field. cracks occur at the joints and not
elsewhere in the slab. The spacing
Empirical models are based on known between transverse joints for highways
field pavement performance. Empirical is typically about 15 ft (4.5 m). JPCP
models started being used in the 1920's typically has deformed steel tie bars at
when engineers began to examine the the longitudinal joints to hold the lanes
adequacy of their pavement design together, but they do not contain any
methods. The search for answers to other mesh-steel reinforcement.
many of their questions led to the
development of controlled experiments Depending on the slab thickness, JPCP
or "road tests" of actual in-place may contain smooth steel dowel bars at
pavements. The most complete road transverse joints to improve load
test to date is the AASHO (American transfer (load transfer is a slab's ability
Association of State Highway Officials) to share part of its load with its
Road Test.1 neighboring slab). For highways, dowels
should be used in pavements that are
In recent years, mechanistic and greater than 8.0 in. (200 mm) thick
empirical design methods have been because of the large amounts of truck
combined in various design methods, traffic such pavements typically carry.
including ACPA’s StreetPave software
and AASHTO’s DARWinMETM.
Page |1
dowels should be based on other
criteria, such as whether or not the road
will be in a residential or industrialized
area.
Page |3
In total, there were 368 concrete test
sections and 468 asphalt test sections.
The design variables for the concrete
and asphalt pavements are shown in
Table 1.
4|Page
The average speed on the test loops Association of Highway and
was 35 mph (56 km/hr). In total, there Transportation Officials] in the early
were 1,114,000 load applications during seventies.) It was this document which
the 25 months of testing with over 17 underwent the largest distribution and
million miles (27 million km) driven.2 use by highway engineers. In 1981, the
concrete pavement portion of the guide
Figure 5 summarizes the results for again received some minor revisions.
loops 3 through 6 at the Road Test.
These plots show the number of In 1986, the guide was extensively
sections remaining above a given revised into the "AASHTO Guide for the
present serviceability index (PSI) plotted Design of Pavement Structures." The
against load applications. The PSI is a 1986 version included many changes,
rating from 0 (very poor) to 5 (very such as the way subgrade support is
good) that describes the condition of the characterized. It also introduced many
pavement. At the Road Test, pavements new concepts, such as reliability, life-
were considered to have failed when the cycle cost analysis (LCCA), and
PSI dropped below 1.5. Sections with a pavement management.
PSI above 2.5 at the end of the test
were considered to have performed
"good.”3
Page |5
The 1986 guide was also the first guide po = Initial serviceability
to contain an overlay design procedure. pt = Terminal serviceability
Unfortunately, the overlay procedure
was deficient, complicated, and S'c = Concrete modulus of rupture,
incomplete. This made it difficult to psi (MPa)
understand and use. Cd = Drainage coefficient
In 1993, the overlay design procedure J = Load transfer coefficient
was completely revised. This revised Ec = Concrete modulus of elasticity,
procedure addressed the deficiencies in psi (MPa)
the 1986 overlay design procedure, is
more comprehensive and adaptable to k = Modulus of subgrade reaction,
local agency calibration, and is much psi/in. (MPa/m)
easier to use and understand. Though the equation looks long and
complicated, when it is broken down it is
AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design found that there are eight basic
Equation concepts that affect the concrete
The current AASHTO Rigid Design pavement design. They are:
Equation as published in the 1986 and
1993 guide is as follows: 1. Thickness
2. Serviceability
𝐋𝐨𝐠(𝐄𝐒𝐀𝐋) 3. Traffic
= ZR ∗ so + 7.35 ∗ Log(D + 1) − 0.06 4. Load transfer
∆PSI 5. Concrete properties
Log � �
+� 4.5 − 1.5 � + (4.22 − 0.32 ∗ p ) 6. Subgrade strength
t
1.624 ∗ 107
1+ 8.46 7. Drainage properties
(D + 1)
8. Reliability
Sc′ ∗ Cd ∗ (D0.75 − 1.132)
∗ Log � � Understanding the importance of each
0.75 18.42
215.63 ∗ J ∗ �D − � of these allows the engineer to properly
(Ec /k)0.25
design concrete pavements. The
where: remainder of this section will explain
each of the above concepts.
ESAL = Allowable number of
equivalent 18-kip (80 KN) single Thickness
axles The pavement thickness (D) is
ZR = Standard normal deviate expressed in in. (mm). At the Road Test,
concrete pavement thickness ranged
so = Overall standard deviation from 2.5 to 12.5 in. (63 to 320 mm) [see
D = Concrete thickness, in. (mm) Table 1]. Therefore, the AASHTO rigid
pavement design equation is only valid
∆PSI = po - pt
within this range. When the resulting
6|Page
pavement thickness is outside of this
range, it is important to check the design
with another procedure (i.e.,
StreetPave).5
Page |7
The AASHO Road Test pavements
were taken out of service when the PSI
reached 1.5. Table 2 provides the
recommended terminal PSI values for
interstates and major highways, primary
and secondary roads, and secondary
routes and rural residential roads.
Page |9
Table 3: Rigid and Flexible ESALs Generated by a Mixed Traffic Stream
10 | P a g e
Table 4: Typical Load Equivalency Essentially, this analysis illustrates that
Factors (Flexible Pavement with pt = cars do very little structural damage and
2.5) that pavements must be designed to
carry trucks. Furthermore, it illustrates
Axle Load, that over-loaded vehicles cause much
Axle Type LEF
kip (kN) more damage than an 18 kip (80 kN)
2 (8.9) 0.0003 SAL. This can greatly impact our
10 (44.5) 0.118 nation's infrastructure if axle load
14 (62.3) 0.399 limitations are raised.
Single
18 (80.9) 1.00
Determining Load Equivalency Factors
20 (89.0) 1.49
LEFs can be based on any response
30 (133) 7.90
that measures the difference between
2 (8.9) 0.0001
any two loading conditions. The
10 (44.5) 0.011
AASHTO design procedure bases its
18 (80.9) 0.042
LEFs on equivalent serviceability loss
Tandem 30 (133) 0.703
for a given pavement structure. Though
34 (151) 1.11
it is possible to explain LEFs using the
40 (178) 2.06
AASHTO procedure, it easier to
50 (222) 5.03
understand them when examined
mechanistically.
The first observation is that an 18 kip In a mechanistic procedure, load
(80 kN) SAL does about 3,333 times equivalency factors can be based on
more damage that the 2 kip (8.9 kN) equivalent stress, strain, or deflection at
SAL (e.g., 1.0 / 0.003 = 3,333). A similar a given location. Figures 8A and 8B
comparison shows that a 30 kip (133 show how LEFs are determined based
kN) SAL does about eight times more on given level of stress, strain or
damage than the 18 kip (80 kN) SAL. deflection for a concrete pavement and
Comparing tandem axle loads to the an asphalt pavement.
SAL, it can be seen that the tandem In Figure 8A, the concrete pavement is
axles spread out the load and minimize loaded with an 18 kip (80 kN) SAL. This
the damage to the pavement. A 30 kip produces a stress or strain at the bottom
(133 kN) tandem axle load does only of the concrete layer or a deflection at
about 0.7 times the damage of a 18 kip the top of the concrete. Loading the
(80 kN) single axle load. Compared to pavement with another load (X kip [kN]
the 30 kip (133 kN) SAL, the tandem load on axle type Y) produces a different
axle load does only about 0.1 the stress, strain, or deflection. Dividing the
amount of damage. stress, strain, or deflection of an X kip
[kN] load on axle type Y by the stress,
strain, or deflection of an 18 kip (80 kN)
P a g e | 11
Figure 8A and 8B. Load Equivalency Factor Determination for Concrete and Asphalt
Pavements
SAL produces a LEF for that load. Asphalt LEFs vs. Concrete LEFs
Doing the same thing with a flexible Because AASHTO bases its design and
pavement produces the comparable its LEFs on serviceability loss (Figure 7),
flexible LEF (Figure 8B). the LEFs can be used to compare the
amount of loads needed to cause the
When the asphalt pavement is loaded, it
same amount of damage on a concrete
produces different stresses, strains, or
or asphalt pavement. That is, the LEFs
deflections than does the concrete
tell how many loads are necessary to
pavement. The responses to the same
cause the same amount of serviceability
applied load are different because the
loss in the two pavement types.
different pavement types respond
differently to the load. Table 5 shows the LEF for two
approximately equivalent pavement
Consequently, the LEF values that are
sections: an asphalt pavement with a
calculated for the same vehicles on
structural number (SN) equal to 4.0 and
each pavement type are different. When
a concrete pavement that is 8 in. (200
the same traffic is multiplied by different
mm) thick. As shown, the concrete
LEFs, the ESALs calculated for each
pavement's LEFs are always higher
pavement type are different. The
than the asphalt pavement's LEFs for
AASHTO equations are based on the
axle loads greater than 18 kips (80 kN)
same principle, except that they use a
and always less for axle loads less than
given serviceability loss (ΔPSI) as the
18 kips (80 kN). It takes more trucks on
measure of damage. The equation to
a concrete pavement to cause the same
determine the LEF for concrete
damage or loss in serviceability than it
pavement or asphalt pavement is:
does on an asphalt pavement.
Number of repetitions of axle load X on
axle type Y needed to give the same
serviceability loss
LEF = Number of repetitions of an 18 kip (80 kN)
single axle load to cause a given
serviceability loss
12 | P a g e
Table 5: LEF for Two Equivalent This analytical look at the LEFs shows
Pavement Sections that each load does more damage to
asphalt pavement than it does to a
Axle Load, Asphalt Concrete concrete pavement. Real world
kip (kN) LEF LEF verification can be found by looking at
2 (8.9) 0.0002 0.0002 the performance curve of any two
6 (26.7) 0.013 0.010
similar designed and trafficked concrete
and asphalt pavements (Figure 9).
10 (44.5) 0.102 0.082
14 (62.3) 0.388 0.347
18 (80.9) 1.00 1.00
22 (97.9) 1.47 1.55
26 (116) 2.89 4.42
30 (133) 5.21 7.79
34 (151) 11.3 12.9
38 (169) 18.1 20.6
P a g e | 13
Figure 11. Diagram Showing How
Figure 10. Diagram Showing Slabs with Shoulders and Dowels Effect
Excellent and Poor Load Transfer Deflections in a Slab
Figure 11 illustrates how dowels and Load Transfer Coefficient (J)
edge support improve pavement In the AASHTO design procedure, load
performance. The pavement on the right transfer is accounted for with the load
has good load transfer (doweled and transfer coefficient, or J-factor. The J-
edge support) and the one on the left factor is based on how stress is
has poor load transfer (undoweled and transferred across the joint or crack. It
no edge support). Loading both these is used to minimize corner cracking and
slabs in the middle with a given load will it does not control or account for
produce nearly identical internal faulting. Faulting is not a failure criterion
deflections, δi. in the AASHTO design procedure; the
only failure criterion is serviceability
Loading the undoweled pavement with
loss. This means that the J-factor
the same load at the outside,
cannot be used to control faulting.
unsupported corner would produce a
deflection that is about five times greater Nevertheless, this does not mean that a
than the internal deflection (e.g., 5*δi). better J-factor does not affect faulting. It
At the inside supported corner (due to simply means that it was not taken into
the adjacent longitudinal lane), the account in the development of the
deflection would be 3*δi. In the doweled design equation. Better J-factors do
pavement, the deflection at the outside decrease deflections (Figure 11) and,
pavement edge would be about 3*δi and thus, minimize the potential for faulting.
at the inside, supported corner, it would
be about 2*δi.
14 | P a g e
The J-factor is dependent on the type of necessary for uniform application of the
pavement, edge support condition and J-factor in design of concrete
how load transfer is provided at the joint pavements. Both JPCP and JRCP
(or crack). Jointed pavements with designs were evaluated at the Road
dowels provide a higher level of load Test and produced roughly equivalent
transfer than those relying strictly on performance. The J-factor value for the
aggregate interlock. CRCPs generally Road Test conditions was 3.2.
provide the highest level of load
transfer. Concrete Properties
There are two concrete properties that
Table 6 shows recommended J-factors influence rigid pavement design in the
for typical concrete pavement designs AASHTO design procedure. They are:
(lower J-factors mean better load
transfer). The designer simply selects a S'c — Concrete flexural strength
J-factor that is consistent with the type determined at 28-days using
of pavement and edge support condition third-point loading
for the design. The J-factor also varies Ec — Concrete modulus of
slightly with the expected design traffic elasticity
and indirectly with pavement
classification (e.g., local streets and Flexural Strength, S'C
roads, arterials, and heavy highways). The concrete strength used in the
design of concrete pavements is based
The 93 AASHTO Design Guide actually on AASHTO Test Method T97 or ASTM
provides less specific guidance for C78, Flexural Strength of Concrete
selecting the J-factor than provided in using Simple Beam with Third-Point
Table 6. ACPA believes that the more Loading (Figure 12).11
specific guidance in Table 6 is
P a g e | 15
Figure 12. Flexural Strength of Concrete Figure 13. Flexural Strength of Concrete
using Third-Point Loading using Center-Point Loading
16 | P a g e
Table 7 shows typical value ranges for strength will cause the pavement to be
compressive strength, third point loading too overdesigned. Therefore, it is
flexural strength, and center point necessary to adjust the specified
loading flexural strengths for minimum strength to the design strength
conventional concrete paving mixtures. using the equation below:
A free strength converter app is
available at http://apps.acpa.org. Sc′ = Sc + z ∗ σ
P a g e | 17
Historically, the standard deviation for Example:
ready-mixed concrete is about 7 to 13
percent of the average strength. The Suppose that you want to design a
standard deviation for central-mixed small street project. You know that
concrete is from 5 to 12 percent of the several local operators supply most
average strength. Generally, records of of the concrete in your area using
the standard deviation from past plant ready-mixed concrete. You also know
operations are available. that you will specify concrete with a
minimum 28-day flexural strength of
Table 8: Values of the Standard 550 psi (3.79 MPa) and your
Normal Deviate (z) corresponding to specification will permit 10 percent of
the Percent of Tests below the tests to fall below that level. What
Specified Strength (Sc) strength do you use in the AASHTO
design equation?
Percent of Specimens
z Below the Specified Step 1: Estimate the strength σ as 9
Value percent of the flexible strength or call
0.841 20 several ready mix operators to
1.037 15 determine the value. Since you do
not know the actual average strength,
1.282 10
use the specified value for S'c (it will
1.645 5 be fairly close). The value for σ then
2.327 1 becomes:
σ = 0.09*550 psi
The example to the right demonstrates
the above procedure to account for the σ = 49.5 psi
average in-field 28-day flexural strength. Step 2: Estimate the design strength
Modulus of Elasticity to use in the equation. Apply the
The other concrete property in the correction for a 10 percent failure rate
AASHTO design procedure is the (z = 1.282 from Table 8):
modulus of elasticity, Ec. Ec indicates S’c = 550 + 1.282*49.5
how much the concrete will compress
under load. Concretes with a very high S’c =613 psi (4.22 MPa)
Ec are very rigid and do not compress
Thus, 613 psi (4.22 MPa) is used in
much. Concrete with a lower Ec
the design equations.
compresses more under load. In the
concrete pavement equation, Ec is the Note: The same principle applies if compressive
most insensitive parameter and has only strengths are used. The corrected compressive
strength would be converted to third-point flexural
a minor impact on thickness design or strength using the relationship previously shown.
projected performance.
18 | P a g e
Although Ec can be tested using ASTM Subgrade Support
Test Method C469,14 or an equivalent, it In all pavements, the load is eventually
is rarely done in practice. It is usually transmitted to the subgrade. Though
estimated from either the flexural or the bases, subbases, and soil modifications
compressive strength. The following two are used to increase the support
equations are from the American strength and protect the subgrade, it is
Concrete Institute (ACI) and provide the natural subgrade that must be used
reasonable estimates.15 as the starting point for support
characterization.
To get Ec from flexural strength:
For concrete pavements, the primary
Ec (𝑝𝑠𝑖) = 6,750 ∗ Sc′ (𝑝𝑠𝑖)
requirement of the subgrade is that it be
To get Ec from compressive strength: uniform. This is the fundamental reason
for specifications on subgrade
Ec (𝑝𝑠𝑖) = 57,000 ∗ �𝑓c′ (𝑝𝑠𝑖) compaction. A good quality subgrade
will improve the performance of the
The free strength converter app pavement.
available at http://apps.acpa.org also
can convert to modulus of elasticity in In the AASHTO design procedure for
both U.S. and metric units. concrete pavements, the strength of the
soil is described by two subgrade
As was the case with the previous properties:
correlation equations for strength, the
above correlation is not exact. It is a 1. Modulus of subgrade reaction,
close estimate and can be relied on to or k-value
evaluate projected performance within a 2. Loss of support factor (LOS)
reasonable margin of error.
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value)
The ranges of values for Ec that are The modulus of subgrade reaction is
reasonable depend largely on the determined by the plate load test
strength of the concrete. Typical values (AASHTO T235 or ASTM D1194).16
are from 3.5 to 5 million psi (21,400 to The plate load test models the subgrade
34,500 MPa). The average Ec obtained as a bed of springs and the k-value is
at the Road Test was 4.2 million psi analogous to a spring constant. In fact,
(29,000 MPa) and is an acceptable the k-value is sometimes referred to as
value for design. the subgrade "spring constant."
P a g e | 19
The test involves placing a 30 in. (762 Subbases can be made from either
mm) diameter plate on the subgrade unbound granular materials or stabilized
and loading it with a very heavy load. materials. Stabilized subbases include
The plate distributes the load to the lean concrete (econocrete) subbase,
subgrade via the pressure of the plate cement-treated subbase, asphalt-
(Figure 14). The k-value is found by treated subbase, and lime-fly ash
dividing the plate pressure by plate stabilized subbase. When a subbase is
deflection under the load. The units for used, the k-value for design is increased
k-value are psi/in. (MPa/m). to a "composite k" (kc) to account for the
additional support provided by the
subbase.
Loss of Support
The loss of support (LOS) accounts for
the expected erosion and differential
movements of the subbase or subgrade
over the life of the pavement.
20 | P a g e
The 93 AASHTO Design Guide subgrade reaction (k-value), Mr
recognized this and developed the indicates the stiffness of the layer
following multi-step procedure, detailed immediately under the pavement.
in Part II of the 93 Guide, to estimate k-
value. It is based on the soil resilient The Mr is determined from AASHTO
T294, Resilient Modulus of Unbound
modulus, Mr, used in the asphalt
pavement design. The procedure is: Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade
Soils. However, it is recognized that
1. Determine Mr many agencies do not have the
a. AASHTO T29417 equipment to perform this test.
b. Correlate to CBR18 or R- Therefore, AASHTO recommends the
value19 following correlation equations to relate
2. Convert Mr to k-value the resilient modulus to the California
3. Adjust for effects of a rigid Bearing Ratio (CBR) or the R-value.
foundation
4. Adjust for LOS Mr(psi) = 1,500*(CBR)
P a g e | 21
Figure 15. Chart for Estimating Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, Assuming
a Subgrade Depth Greater than 10 ft (3 m) [Figure 3.3, part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO
Pavement Design Guide]
22 | P a g e
Adjust k-Value for Depth to Rigid Adjust k-Value for Loss of Support
Foundation After the k-value is calculated, it is
This step accounts for the proximity of adjusted for LOS using Figure 3.6 from
the pavement to bedrock. When a part 2 of the AASHTO guide
pavement is within 10 ft (3 m) of the (reproduced here as Figure 17). A LOS
bedrock, the confining pressure of the of 0 represents Road Test conditions.
bedrock causes the subgrade support to
Seasonal Adjustment to the k-Value
increase. This step is disregarded when
the depth to the rigid foundation is AASHTO also recommends doing this
greater than 10 ft (3 m). procedure for each month of the year to
reflect seasonal changes. However,
To adjust for the depth to a rigid because the Road Test ran year round
foundation, Figure 3.4 from part 2 of the for several seasons, impacts of
AASHTO guide is used (reproduced seasonal changes of the k-value are
here as Figure 16) inherent in the AASHTO equations.
P a g e | 23
Furthermore, for concrete pavement, support values. The most glaring errors
these adjustments have very little effect deal with:
on the final results. For this reason,
seasonal adjustments have not been 1. The LOS factor,
included in WinPAS. For further 2. The accuracy of the CBR and
information, consult the AASHTO guide. R-value relationships to Mr,
3. Inconsistencies with the
Problems with the AASHTO Procedure relationships between k-value
to Determine Subgrade Support and Mr for base and no
As mentioned, there are several subbase that occur with high
problems with the current AASHTO in-situ Mr values, and
procedure to determine the subgrade 4. Unrealistic resulting k-values.
Figure 17. Correction of Effective k-Value for Potential Loss off Support [Figure 3.6,
part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide]
24 | P a g e
Loss of Support
This factor reduces the k-value for an
expected loss of support by subgrade
erosion. A LOS = 0 models the soil
conditions at the AASHO Road Test. A
closer look at the soils at the Road Test
show that it consisted of three feet of
embankment with these properties:
Loss of support was the primary failure Figure 18. Relationships between
mode of concrete pavements at the Resilient Modulus and CBR or R-value
AASHO road test. The pumping of [from ACPA’s MC016P, WinPAS
subbase fines from underneath the Pavement Analysis Software]
slabs preceded all cracking. Therefore,
the effects of LOS are inherent in the ACPA has developed two non-linear
equation that predicts concrete relationships, based on NCHRP Report
pavement performance or serviceability 128, Evaluation of the AASHO Interim
loss. As a result, this additional factor is Guide for the Design of Pavement
unnecessary. Structures,20 to more accurately
estimate Mr from CBR or R-value:
ACPA recommends setting the loss of
support factor to 0 for all designs. Mr (𝑝𝑠𝑖) = 1941.488 ∗ CBR0.6844709
Necessary improvements in subgrade or
subbase support should be made using Mr (𝑝𝑠𝑖) = 2165.935 ∗ e0.0343507∗R−value
an improved subbase material or As shown in Figure 18, these equations
improved drainage design. better follow the actual values, leading
CBR and R-Value Relationships to Mr to better prediction or correlation.
The AASHTO CBR and R-value to Mr Inconsistencies between Base and No
relationships are considered reasonable Subbase Conditions
only for fine-grained soils (e.g., CBR The relationships between k and Mr for
less than 10 or R-value less than 20). the base and no subbase can give
These two equations greatly over inconsistent values, especially with high
estimate Mr values at higher CBRs and in-situ Mr values.
R-values (Figure 18).
P a g e | 25
For example, assume that a soil has Table 9 shows a comparison of
been tested and has a Mr of 12,000 psi historical and AASHTO derived values
(82.7 MPa). In the case with no base, for different types of subgrades and
the subgrade k-value is calculated in the subbases. As can be inferred, this
AASHTO method by: disparity can affect designs greatly.
26 | P a g e
Figure 19. Approximate Interrelationships of Soil Classifications and Bearing Values
[from ACPA EB109P, Thickness Design for Concrete Highways and Street
Pavements]
P a g e | 27
Because Figure 19 does not contain Mr, Table 10: Approximate Composite k-
ACPA has developed a correlation Values (kc) for Various Subbase
equation for Mr to k-value that, when Types and Thickness
used in conjunction with the previously
mentioned ACPA correlations from CBR Unstabilized (Granular) Subbase
or R-value to Mr, will result in k-values Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)
that match those in Figure 19. The Mr to Subgrade
4 in. 6 in. 9 in. 12 in.
k-value correlation equation is: k-value,
(100 (150 (230 (305
pci/in.
mm) mm) mm) mm)
(MPa/m)
If Mr ≤ 15,089: 65.2 75.2 85.2 110
50 (14)
(17.6) (20.3) (23.0) (29.7)
k = Mr ÷ �0.0000001155 ∗ Mr 2 130 140 160 190
100 (27)
− 0.0004683533 ∗ Mr (35.1) (37.8) (43.2) (51.3)
28 | P a g e
Subbases and bases are primarily used 1. Subgrade soil that will go into
to prevent the pumping of fines from suspension.
underneath the slab. Secondarily, they 2. Free water between slab and
are used to help control frost heave and subgrade.
swelling soils, provide a drainage layer 3. Frequent heavy wheel loads with
when needed, and provide a working large deflections.
platform for construction. 4. Poor load transfer between slabs.
The current AASHTO design does not Controlling any one of these items will
model the contribution of subbases minimize pumping. Edge drains and
accurately. At the AASHO Road Test, it free-draining subbase layers help
was found that the concrete pavements minimize the free water between the
with any granular subbase could carry slab and subgrade and thus minimize
about 30% more traffic. the amount of pumping. Dowels and
edge support also minimize pumping by
The current design procedure allows controlling the deflections of heavy
concrete pavements built with granular wheel loads. The use of improved
bases to carry only about 5 to 8% more drainage, dowels, and edge support will
traffic. This indicates that concrete definitely lead to improved performance.
pavements built with granular subbases
should perform better than predicted by In the AASHTO design procedure,
the AASHTO design equations. drainage is accounted for by use of the
drainage coefficient (Cd). The drainage
Coefficient of Drainage (Cd) coefficient accounts for improved or
Trapped water within a pavement decreased quality of drainage over
structure is one of the primary those conditions at the Road Test. ‡
contributors to pavement distresses. It
can lead to: Table 11, taken from the AASHTO
guide, provides recommended Cd
1. Reduced strength of unbound values. The value of Cd depends on the
granular materials. quality of drainage and percent of time
2. Reduced strength of subgrade the pavement is exposed to moisture
soils. levels approaching saturation. Because
3. Pumping of fines. the Cd value depends on the saturation
4. Differential heaving/swelling of of the subgrade/subbase, it is possible
soils. for a pavement in a dry environment
5. Loss of structural support. with poor drainage to perform as well as
6. Pavement settlement and/or a pavement in a wet environment with
faulting. excellent drainage.
For concrete pavements, the major item ‡
that drainage control is the pumping of As mentioned, the subgrade soil at the
AASHTO Road Test was very poor (clay).
fines. The conditions that lead to pumping Though the pavement was designed with
are: elevated cross-sections and drainage ditches,
edge drains were not used. Thus, the subgrade
below the Road Test pavements was not well-
drained.
P a g e | 29
Table 11: Recommended Values of the Drainage Coefficient (Cd) for Concrete
Pavement Design
30 | P a g e
It is important to note that by treating Table 12 presents recommended levels
reliability and standard deviation as of reliability for different roadway
separate design factors, conservative classifications. When comparing two
estimates for all the other design inputs different pavement sections (e.g., a
should no longer be used. Rather, all new concrete section to a new asphalt
input values should be input as the best section, two different concrete sections,
estimate of the average in-place, in-field or two different asphalt sections), the
values. The selected level of reliability same level of reliability for each must
and overall standard deviation will be used. When an existing pavement is
account for the combined effect of the being analyzed, it must be evaluated
variation of all the other design with the reliability equal to 50%.
variables.
Table 12: Suggested Reliability
Reliability (R) Levels for Various Functional
Reliability is the statistical probability Roadway Classifications
that the pavement will meet its design
life. Essentially, reliability tells how Recommended
much of the pavement will be operative Classification Reliability (R), %
at the end of its design life. For Urban Rural
example, a pavement designed with Interstate & Other
85 – 99.9 80 – 99.9
90% reliability will have 90% of the Freeways
pavement in operational condition at the Principal Arterials 80 – 99 75 – 99
end of the design period, and only 10% Collectors 80 – 95 75 – 95
of the pavement will have "failed."
Local 50 – 80 50 – 80
Evaluating the acceptable level of risk
for the design is necessary when
Standard Deviation (so)
choosing an appropriate reliability. High
Standard deviation is the amount of
levels of reliability, or low risk, are
statistical error present in the design
appropriate for high traffic volume
equations due to the variability in the
pavements in urban areas where future
materials, construction, etc. It
repairs are difficult and undesirable.
represents the amount of scatter
Medium or low levels of reliability are
between predicted performance and
appropriate for lower levels of traffic or
actual performance. To determine the
rural areas where repairs pose little
true value of s0 requires knowledge of
difficulty and more risk is tolerable. The
the individual s0 values of each
lowest reliability level, 50%, corresponds
parameter (strength, elasticity, soil
to local roads.
support, etc.). Obtaining this information
is fairly difficult.
P a g e | 31
A typical range of s0 values for each
pavement type are published in the 93
AASHTO Design Guide:
Concrete Pavements:
Asphalt Pavements:
32 | P a g e
Table 13: Standard Normal Deviate
(ZR) Values Corresponding to
Selected Levels of Reliability
Standard Normal
Reliability (R), %
Deviate (ZR)
50 0.000
75 -0.674
80 -0.841
P a g e | 33
The Iterative Process If a change in a variable produces a
The AASHTO design procedure is an steep slope in the graph, the required
iterative process. It requires the thickness is sensitive to changes in that
designer to know the volume and types variable. If the slope is relatively flat, the
of axle loads, the desired terminal required thickness is not very sensitive
serviceability (pt), an estimate of the to the variable.
required pavement thickness, etc. If you
The baseline design for generation of
do not have a "feel" for the probable
the plots in Figure 22 was:
range of thicknesses for your design
traffic, start with a concrete surface • Design ESALs: 6,142,000
course thickness of 9 in. (230 mm). • Reliability (R): 80%
After determining the design pavement • Overall standard deviation (s0):
thickness using the estimated values, 0.34 §
the designer should check the results • Modulus of rupture (Sc’): 600 psi
against the ESAL calculations. If the (4.14 MPa)
assumed pavement thickness is within • Modulus of elasticity (Ec):
five percent of the design pavement 4,000,000 psi (27.6 MPa)
thickness, the results are reasonable. • Load transfer (J): 3.2 (e.g.,
However, if the computed pavement doweled w/o edge support)
thickness is greater than five percent, • Modulus of support (k-value): 200
the design ESALs should be psi/in. (54 MPa/m)
recalculated using the last design • Drainage Coefficient: 1.0
thickness, and the whole design re-run. • Initial Serviceability: 4
In practice, ESAL recalculation will • Terminal Serviceability: 2
probably not significantly affect the new
pavement thickness. However, the These basic inputs resulted in a
iterative process is technically correct. required concrete pavement thickness
of 9 in. (230 mm).
Sensitivity Analysis
One of the frequent pieces of It is important to note that, while the
information missing in a pavement general trends will remain true, the
design is which variables will most magnitude in change of required
influence the required thickness. Figure thickness shown in these sensitivity
22 shows the change in thickness over plots is unique to this set of inputs.
the typical range of each design
variable. These graphs illustrate the §
Note: If a reliability of 50% had instead been
relative importance of each variable and used, ZR would have been zero and the ZR*s0
how a change in each design input will term will drop from the AASHTO concrete
pavement design equation. In such cases, as is
affect the final design for this set of the case with analysis of an existing pavement,
inputs. the thickness is completely unchanged by
changes in the overall standard deviation.
34 | P a g e
Figure 22. Charts Illustrating the Sensitivity of each Variable in the AASHTO Design
Equation on Design Thickness (in inches)
P a g e | 35
As shown, the variables with the largest Modulus of rupture (flexural strength)
effect on the required thickness are and modulus of elasticity go hand-in-
reliability, load transfer, drainage hand. If the designer chooses to
coefficient, and flexural strength. It is increase the flexural strength to see if
critical that proper thought be given to the required thickness can be
each of these variables in the design. decreased, the modulus of elasticity
Under- or over-estimating their actual must also be increased because
value can impact the design greatly. stronger concrete mixtures generally
also are more rigid. Regardless, the
The least sensitive variables are the designer should consider ancillary
standard deviation and concrete effects of increased strength (e.g.,
modulus of elasticity. fracture toughness typically is
While the designer might investigate the decreased [and, thus, crack propagation
sensitivity of the design on variables occurs more quickly] in stronger, stiffer
such as load transfer, drainage concrete mixtures).
coefficient, standard deviation and For most designers, the k-value is the
initial/final serviceability, many of these design element in concrete pavement
variables typically are standardized design that tends to garner the most
based on local practice and experience. focus when the goal is to optimize the
Thus, the remaining design variables pavement structure. However, as can be
oftentimes are the focus of a designer seen on the chart, composite k-value
who is looking to optimize the design. has relatively little impact on the
Most of the effects shown in the required thickness.
reliability sensitivity chart do occur over From a design perspective **, an
a small range of very high reliability engineer really only needs to know if the
levels (e.g., 95% to 99.9%); at levels pavement is going to be built on the
below 95%, the impact of reliability natural subgrade (k-value ≈ 100 psi/in.
drops considerably. For this reason,
caution is recommended when deciding
**
what reliability factor to use. When This does not mean the condition of the
subgrade is unimportant. For concrete
choosing a high reliability, all the design
pavements, the most important objective of the
procedure does is increase the subgrade support is that it be uniform throughout
thickness. However, most concrete the pavement's life. Proper subgrade design
and construction are absolutely necessary if the
pavements do not fail because of pavement is to perform. Likewise, poor
inadequate thickness; rather, they subgrade/subbase preparation cannot be
typically fail because of poor jointing or overcome with thickness increases. Any
concrete pavement, of any thickness, will have
material problems. Therefore, using a problems on a poorly designed and constructed
high reliability can cause the design to subgrade or subbase. For more information on
subgrades and subbases, see ACPA’s EB204P,
be overly conservative. “Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete
Pavements.”
36 | P a g e
[25 MPa/m]), an unstabilized/granular Seasonal Variation of Subgrade Support
subbase (k-value ≈ 150 psi/in. [40 are also inherent in the equation that
MPa/m]), an asphalt-treated subbase (k- predicts concrete pavement
value ≈ 200 psi/in. [54 MPa/m]), a performance because the Road Test ran
cement-treated subbase (k-value ≈ 250 year round for several seasons. The
psi/in. [68 MPa/m]), or a lean concrete pavements and subgrade materials
subbase (k ≈ 500 psi/in. [125 MPa/m]). underwent seasonal variations during
the testing time. Therefore, the 93
Any changes in thickness that may AASHTO Design Guide's recommended
result from a better estimate of the procedure to the adjust subgrade
actual k-value, due to better support for seasonal variation in the
information, are most likely not worth concrete pavement design is
the effort/cost. It is better to unnecessary.
concentrate on other design inputs.
Traffic Equivalency Factors used in the
Summary design of concrete pavements are not
There have been many welcome appropriate for modern pavements.
additions in the 1993 Design Guide, These factors were established only for
such as the improved overlay and low- unstabilized subbases. No adjustment
volume road design. However, items is provided for the now more-common
that the concrete industry feels are still stabilized support layers. This biases
in question include: the results of the ESAL determination in
Loss of Support Factor was the primary favor of other pavement types.
failure mode of rigid pavement sections For these reasons, the industry heartily
in the Road Test. Many of the failed endorses the efforts by AASHTO to
sections were the result of the migration move in the direction of improved
and pumping of subbase fines from mechanistic methods, such as the
underneath the pavement. Therefore, recently released mechanistic- and
loss of support is inherent in the empirical-based AASHTO
equation that predicts concrete DARWinMETM.
pavement performance.
P a g e | 37
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
38 | P a g e
Chapter 2 – Concrete Overlay Design
Introduction
The 1986 AASHTO "Guide for Design of This revised procedure uses the
Pavement Structures" added a new concept of structural deficiency and
section on concrete overlay design. required future structural capacity, as
Unfortunately, this procedure was determined from the AASHTO design
incomplete, hard to understand, and equations, to calculate the required
difficult to calibrate to local conditions. overlay thicknesses. This maintains
The 93 AASHTO Design Guide adopted compatibility between the new and
a revised concrete overlay design overlay portions of the Guide.
procedure that facilitates rational and
The structural deficiency approach
sound overlay designs.
determines the structural capacity (SC)
The revised AASHTO concrete overlay of the overlay by subtracting the
design procedures are used to design effective structural capacity (SCeff) of the
structural overlays. Structural overlays existing pavement from the future
address conditions that adversely affect structural capacity (SCf) required by the
the load carrying capacity of the AASHTO design equations. Figure 23
pavement structure (i.e., inadequate illustrates the concept of structural
thickness, cracking, distortion, and deficiency and effective structural
disintegration). Functional overlays capacity. For concrete pavements,
address conditions such as surface structural capacity is equal to the
polishing, hydroplaning, rutting, faulting, thickness of the pavement, D. For
settlements and heaves, etc. These flexible pavements, the structural
conditions adversely affect the highway number expresses structural capacity.
user and may cause unsafe operating
In Figure 23, SC0 denotes the
conditions, but do not affect the
pavement's initial structural capacity. As
pavement structure. The WinPAS
traffic and time act upon the pavement,
program and this manual only include
the structural capacity declines until it is
structural overlays. For more information
evaluated for an overlay. The capacity
on functional overlays, see Chapter 4,
at this point is the SCeff. If the structural
Part II, of the 93 AASHTO Design
capacity required for the future traffic is
Guide.
SCf, the overlay structural capacity,
SCOL is the difference between the two
(e.g., SCOL = SCf - SCeff).
P a g e | 39
Figure 23. Illustration of Structural Capacity Loss with Traffic and over Time
40 | P a g e
The AASHTO Overlay Design Steps Table 15: AASHTO ESAL Loadings
for Overlay Design
Step 1. Determine Existing Pavement
Information Existing Overlay ESALs to
The existing pavement information tells Pavement Type Use
the engineer exactly with what he or she Concrete Concrete Rigid
is working. The design data includes Asphalt Concrete Rigid
the pavement type (materials, strengths,
Composite Concrete Rigid
and thickness), joint design and load
transfer, shoulder design, base and Concrete Asphalt Rigid
subbase information, soils information, Asphalt Asphalt Flexible
drainage system design, etc. It should Composite Asphalt Rigid
also include any previous overlay or Fractured
Asphalt Flexible
maintenance and rehabilitation work Concrete
performed on the pavement, as well as
any that will be performed before the
Essentially, if there is intact concrete
overlay is placed. Construction data, if
anywhere in the pavement structure,
available, is particularly useful in
rigid ESALs are used in the design. The
determining how the as-built pavement
only times flexible ESALs are used is
might vary in strength, thickness, etc.
when an asphalt pavement is overlaid
from the design; construction data also
with asphalt or when an existing
can provide insight into potential causes
concrete pavement is fractured (break
of pavement distress.
or crack and seat, or rubblized) and
Step 2. Predict Future ESALs overlaid with asphalt.
The predicted future 18 kip (80 kN)
In the overlay design procedure,
ESALs is the design traffic for the
AASHTO states that rigid ESALs can be
design lane expected over the life of the
converted to flexible ESALs by
overlay. It is the same basic input that
multiplying rigid ESALs by 0.67. For
is used in the design of new concrete or
example, 15 million rigid ESALs would
asphalt pavements.
equal 10 million flexible ESALs and 5
There is one slight difference in the million flexible ESALs would equal 7.5
ESALs for overlay design as compared million rigid ESALs. As can be inferred,
to new pavement design. In the overlay large errors in the final overlay design
design, the type of ESALs used can occur if the correct ESALs are not
depends on the pavement performance used.
model used in the development of the
design procedure; Table 15 shows
which ESALs to use.
P a g e | 41
Step 3. Perform Condition Survey Step 4. Perform Deflection Testing
The visual condition survey examines Non-destructive testing (NDT) data, in
the type, amount, and severity of the form of falling weight deflectometer
distresses in the pavement. The (FWD) testing, can provide a vast
specific distress types evaluated will amount of information at a reasonable
change depending on pavement type amount of time and money. However,
(Table 16). The examination should the analysis can be quite sensitive to
begin with obtaining and reviewing unknown conditions and therefore must
original design and construction be performed by knowledgeable and
documents, and when possible, experienced personnel.
maintenance records.
For concrete pavements, FWD data is
Table 16: Key Distress Types used for three purposes:
42 | P a g e
Step 5. Perform Coring/Material Step 6. Determine the Required
Testing Structural Capacity for Future Traffic
Ideally, the materials testing program is (SCf)
used in concert with the visual distress The structural capacity for future traffic
survey and non-destructive deflection is the structural capacity needed to carry
testing to verify layer thickness, obtain the future traffic loadings. Essentially, it
material properties, and investigate the is the design thickness for a new
causes of observed distresses. pavement. It takes into account all the
same factors used in a new design
For asphalt pavements, coring/material
(serviceability, traffic, load transfer,
testing is used to determine the resilient
concrete properties, subgrade strength,
modulus of the subgrade (Mr) and to
drainage, and reliability).
examine the asphalt layers for stripping,
degradation, erosion, and The only change in determining the
contamination. required structural capacity that
AASHTO recommends is increasing the
For concrete pavements, coring/
standard deviation (s0). AASHTO
materials testing is mainly used to
recommends using an s0 of 0.39 for any
determine the in-place concrete
type of overlay where concrete is in the
modulus of rupture, S'c. For this,
pavement structure and 0.49 for an
AASHTO recommends cutting 6 in.
asphalt overlay of an asphalt pavement
(15.2 mm) diameter cores from the
or fractured concrete slabs.
middle of the slab and testing them in
indirect tension (AASHTO T198 or Step 7. Determine the Existing
ASTM C49621). From the indirect Structural Capacity (SCeff)
tension results, the S'c is estimated The most difficult part of the overlay
using the following equation: design procedure is determining SCeff.
AASHTO uses three approaches to
Sc′ = 210 + 1.02 ∗ IT
characterize the SCeff:
where:
1. Visual condition survey and
S'c = concrete modulus of rupture materials testing.
(psi) 2. Non-destructive deflection
testing and backcalculation
IT = Indirect tensile strength of 6 procedures.
in. diameter cores (psi) 3. Remaining life.
The free strength converter app
available at http://apps.acpa.org also
can conduct this conversion.
P a g e | 43
Because of the uncertainties associated To use remaining life, the designer must
with determining SCeff, each approach be able to determine the actual amount
will give different results. Furthermore, of traffic the pavement has carried to
because all of the overlays are affected date and the total amount of traffic the
differently by the underlying pavement, pavement is expected to carry to
the effective structural capacity of an "failure". The following equation
existing pavement is calculated determines remaining life:
differently for each overlay type. More
detailed information on determining No 10
RL = 100 ∗ �1 − � ��
SCeff for each overlay type will be Nf
described in next section.
where:
AASHTO recommends that the designer
RL = Remaining life
uses all three approaches and choose
the best "estimate" based on his or her N0 = Total traffic to date
judgment. However, ACPA does not Nf = Total traffic to failure
recommend using the remaining life
Once the remaining life has been
approach because of some deficiencies
determined, a condition factor (CF) is
associated with its use (see below).
established from the remaining life. The
Because of these problems, ACPA has
SCeff is calculated by multiplying the
not included the remaining life approach
original structural capacity (SC0) by the
in the WinPAS program. Still, ACPA
CF (e.g., SCeff = SC0*CF).
recommends that the designer use both
Unfortunately, the remaining life
approaches 1 and 2 and choose the
approach has some serious deficiencies
best "estimate" from these values based
associated with it such that it may give
on his or her judgment.
erroneous results. The major
Problems with Remaining Life deficiencies of this procedure are:
The remaining life approach follows the
1. The predictive capability of the
fatigue damage concept that repeated
AASHTO equations.
loads gradually damage the pavement
2. The large variation in observed
and reduce the remaining number of
performance, even among
loads that the pavement can carry
pavements of seemingly identical
before failure occurs. At any time, there
designs.
may be little or no visible damage, but
3. Estimation of past ESALs.
there is a reduction in structural capacity
4. Inability to account for the
based on the remaining, future load-
amount of pre-overlay repair.
carrying capability.
5. Cannot be applied to previously
overlaid pavements or
pavements that will have pre-
overlay repairs.
44 | P a g e
These deficiencies can produce two Bonded concrete overlays on concrete
extreme errors. The first is that a are not recommended when:
pavement with little load-related distress
may be perceived to have a very low 1. The amount of deteriorated slab
remaining life because it has carried a cracking and joint spalling is so
very large amount of traffic; in actuality, great that a substantial amount
such a pavement section might have a of removal and replacement of
considerably longer remaining life. Any the existing surface is required
pavement without cracking has before overlaying.
substantial remaining life, regardless of 2. Significant deterioration of
past traffic. The other extreme error concrete slabs has occurred
occurs when a pavement is severely due to durability problems (e.g.,
distressed but is rated to have a high "D" cracking or reactive
remaining life because it has carried aggregates).
only a small amount of traffic. Because For more information on the feasibility of
it is severely distressed, it really has a bonded overlay on concrete, see
little remaining life. As shown by these ACPA’s TB007P, "Guidelines for
two extremes, the remaining life Bonded Concrete Overlays,"8 and the
computed from past traffic may not CP Tech Center’s, “Guide to Concrete
reflect a pavement's true condition. Overlays.”22
Step 8. Determine Required Structural The required bonded overlay thickness
Capacity of the Overlay (SCOL) (DOL) is the difference of the required
For concrete overlays, the structural future thickness (Df) and the effective
capacity of the overlay is equal to the thickness of the existing pavement (Deff):
overlay thickness (e.g., SCOL = DOL).
However, because of the interactions DOL = Df - Deff
between the existing pavement and the
The effective thickness is the actual in-
overlay, the exact equation to determine
place concrete pavement thickness
the SCOL is dependent on the type of
reduced by adjustment factors to
overlay. The following sections will
account for joint and crack condition,
describe the procedure for unbonded
durability, and fatigue:
and bonded concrete overlays on
concrete or asphalt/composite. Deff = Fjc*Fdur*Ffat*D
P a g e | 45
Fdur = adjustment factor based Using the information from the condition
on durability condition of the survey, the Fdur is determined as follows:
existing pavement
• 1.00: No durability problems
Ffat = adjustment factor based on • 0.96-0.99: Durability cracking
the fatigue characteristics of the exists, no spalling
existing pavement • 0.80-0.95: Both cracking and
spalling exist
D = existing pavement thckness
Note: Bonded concrete overlays are
Fjc adjusts for extra loss in serviceability
not recommended when Fdur is less
caused by deteriorated reflective cracks
than 0.95.
in the overlay that could result from any
unrepaired deteriorated joints and Ffat adjusts for past fatigue damage that
cracks in the existing slab. It is may exist in the slab. It is based on the
recommended all deteriorated joints and amount of transverse cracking (JPCP
cracks be repaired so that Fjc = 1.0. and JRCP) or punchouts (CRCP) due to
repeated loadings in the design lane.
If it is not possible to repair all the
AASHTO recommends the following
deteriorated areas, Figure 24 (Figure
guidelines to determine Ffat:
5.12 from the 93 AASHTO Guide) is
used to determine Fjc. The information • 0.97-1.00: Few cracks/punchouts
needed to use this chart is: JPCP: < 5% slabs cracked
JRCP: < 25% working cracks/mi
• Number of deteriorated
CRCP: < 4 punchouts/mi
transverse joints per mile.
• Number of deteriorated
• 0.94-0.96: Significant cracking/
transverse cracks per mile.
punchouts
• Number of existing expansion
JPCP: 5-15% slabs cracked
joints, exceptionally wide
JRCP: 26-75% working cracks/mi
joints (>1 in.), or full-depth
CRCP: 4-12 punchouts/mi
asphalt patches.
46 | P a g e
Figure 24. Chart to Estimate Fjc for Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete [Figure
5.12 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired
deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width
asphalt patches per mile
P a g e | 47
For more information the feasibility of • Number of existing expansion
unbonded overlays, see ACPA’s joints, exceptionally wide
TB005P, "Guidelines for Unbonded joints (>1 in.), or full-depth
Concrete Overlays,"7 and the CP Tech asphalt patches.
Center’s, “Guide to Concrete
Overlays.”22 The Fjcu adjustment factor is different
than the Fjc adjustment factor used in a
The required unbonded overlay bonded concrete overlay on concrete
thickness (DOL) is the square root of design. The Fjcu factor makes a smaller
difference of the required future adjustment to the existing slab thickness
thickness (Df) squared and the effective because an unbonded overlay is less
thickness (Deff) squared: sensitive to the condition of the
underlying slab than is a bonded
DOL = �Df 2 − Deff 2 overlay.
48 | P a g e
Figure 25. Chart to Estimate Fjcu for Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete
[Figure 5.13 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired
deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width
asphalt patches per mile
For more information on the feasibility of The most difficult item to determine in
whitetopping of asphalt or composite the design of a conventional
pavements, see ACPA’s EB210P, whitetopping is the k-value of the
"Whitetopping — The State of the asphalt or composite pavement. There
Practice,"9 and the CP Tech Center’s, are two possible methods to estimate k-
“Guide to Concrete Overlays.”22 value:
The design for a whitetopping overlay of 1. Base the k-value on soils data
an existing asphalt or composite and pavement layers type, such
pavement is the same as designing a as is done with stabilized bases
new concrete pavement on an asphalt in new designs. For more
stabilized base. The overlay thickness information, see the Subgrade
(DOL) is the thickness for a new Support section and Part II,
pavement (Df): Section 3.2 of the 93 AASHTO
Design Guide.
DOL = Df
P a g e | 49
2. Estimate the dynamic k-value Other Considerations
using a backcalculated Mr and In the design of an overlay, many
effective pavement modulus important items, besides thickness,
(obtained through FWD testing), need to be considered. Some of the
the existing asphalt thickness items that should be considered are
(Dac), and Figure 15 (Figure 3.3 outlined in Table 17. The Guide gives
of the Guide). Static k-value is general and detailed guidelines for each
the dynamic k-value divided by 2. of these in the overlay design
procedures and the CP Tech Center’s
For more information, see step 4 and 6
“Guide to Concrete Overlays”22 contains
in section 5.10.5 of the Design Guide.
more up-to-date guidance on such
For practical purposes, the k-value can considerations.
be estimated from Table 10, the k-value
Table 17: Other Important
calculator built into WinPAS or the k-
Considerations in Overlay Design
value calculator at http://apps.acpa.org.
Any change in thickness that may result Overlay design
from a better estimate of the actual k- Structural versus
reliability and overall
functional overlay
value due to better information is most standard deviation
likely not worth the effort/cost to collect it Shoulders and edge
Overlay feasibility
(see Figure 22 and referencing text). support
Traffic loadings Pavement widening
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or
Concrete overlay
Composite Subdrainage
reinforcement
AASHTO does not have a procedure to
Concrete overlay Reflection crack
design bonded concrete overlays on
joints control
asphalt or composite pavements, also
Milling of asphalt
known as ultra-thin whitetopping (UTW). Pre-overlay repairs
pavement
For more information, see ACPA’s
Existing concrete Rutting in asphalt
EB210P, "Whitetopping - The State of
durability pavement
the Practice,"9 the CP Tech Center’s,
Concrete overlay
“Guide to Concrete Overlays,”22 and the Recycling of the
bonding and
existing pavement
free bonded concrete overlay on asphalt separation layers
(BCOA) calculator at
http://apps.acpa.org.
50 | P a g e
Other Concrete Overlay Design
Procedures/Software
The CP Tech Center’s, “Design of
Concrete Overlays Using Existing
Methodologies,”23 details the use of the
93 AASHTO Design Guide, the
DARWinMETM, and the ACPA’s BCOA.
Since the CP Tech Center publication
was published, ACPA’s StreetPave
software has been updated to also
include overlay design for each overlay
type.
P a g e | 51
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
52 | P a g e
Chapter 3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
P a g e | 53
Currently, the only three national design The FHWA’s Report No. FHWA-SA-98-
procedures that allow for quick and easy 079, “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in
design of comparable designs are: Pavement Design – In Search of Better
Investment Decisions,” identifies the
1. AASHTO Guide for Design of following procedural steps involved in
Pavement Structures – conducting an LCCA:
WinPAS is based on the 1993
version of this guide. 1. Establish alternative
2. AASHTO’s DARWin-METM pavement design strategies
3. ACPA’s StreetPave for the analysis period.
2. Determine performance
Performing an LCCA periods and activity timing.
The actual mechanics of performing an 3. Estimate agency costs.
LCCA are not too complicated. It is 4. Estimate user costs.
simply a mathematical calculation of the 5. Develop expenditure stream
present worth or equivalent uniform diagrams.
annual cost of anticipated expenditure 6. Compute net present value.
flows over time. Though a computer 7. Analyze results.
program or spreadsheet is helpful in 8. Reevaluate design strategies.
performing the calculations, LCCA does
not require a computer program. While ACPA agrees with the FHWA’s
suggested procedural steps (and, in
There is no such thing as a concrete fact, each of the ACPA’s seven steps
LCCA or asphalt LCCA. The procedure can be rolled up into just a few of these
cannot tell whether the calculated FHWA steps), the intent of this chapter
values are for a concrete pavement, an is to focus on the individual inputs of an
asphalt pavement, or something else. LCCA more than the LCCA process
This chapter focuses on the inputs to an itself. The ACPA seven steps also
LCCA and presents the following steps assume that equivalent alternate
in a typical LCCA of pavement design or pavement designs are selected as a
rehabilitation alternatives: prerequisite to conducting an LCCA of
the alternates.
1. Select the analysis period.
2. Select a discount rate. Step 1 – Select Analysis Period
3. Estimate initial agency costs. The analysis period is the timeframe
4. Estimate user costs. over which the alternative strategies/
5. Estimate future agency costs. treatments are compared. This
6. Estimate residual value. timeframe must be long enough to
7. Compare alternatives. reflect significant differences in
performance among the alternatives
being compared. This is best
54 | P a g e
accomplished by selecting an analysis The real discount rate is given by the
period that encompasses the initial following equation25:
performance period and at least one
1 + 𝑖𝑖𝑛𝑡
major follow-up preservation/ d = − 1
1 + 𝑖𝑖𝑛𝑓
rehabilitation activity for each strategy.
Where:
For this reason, the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA’s) policy d = the real discount rate, %
statement on LCCA24 recommends an iint = the interest rate, %
analysis period of at least 35 years for iinf = the inflation rate, %
all pavement projects. ACPA
recommends an analysis period of 45- The appropriate interest and inflation
50+ years so that at least one major rates to use in calculating the real
rehabilitation effort is captured for each discount rate for the evaluation of
alternate because common practice in public-sector investments, such as road
many states is to design the concrete projects, are the subject of much
pavement alternate for 30+ years. debate. Oftentimes, a single “standard”
real discount rate might be used to
Step 2 – Select Discount Rate
avoid the complexities in calculating a
The term real discount rate, also known
local or material-specific real discount
as the real interest rate, is commonly
rate, but this practice can lead to the
used in engineering economics to refer
selection of an alternate that is not the
to the rate of change over time in the
most cost-effective.26
true value of money, taking into account
fluctuations in both investment interest Selecting an Interest Rate
rates and the rate of inflation. This An abundance of conflicting opinion and
value differs from a nominal discount guidance exists on the subject of
rate, which reflects expected inflation choosing an interest rate for use in
and is used to discount inflated dollars LCCA of pavement alternatives. Funds
or nominal benefits and costs (e.g., real for paving projects are obtained by 1)
discount rate ≈ nominal discount rate – levying taxes, 2) borrowing money (i.e.,
inflation rate). That is to say, today’s selling bonds), and/or 3) charging users
costs can be used as proxies for future for services (e.g., toll revenue). The
costs only if the real discount rate is interest rate assumed for the LCCA of a
used in the LCCA. All state highway project should reflect the type of entity
agencies currently use today’s costs raising the money and the method(s)
(e.g., non-inflated dollars) and real used to raise it.
discount rates in their LCCAs.
P a g e | 55
Selecting an Inflation Rate Step 3 – Estimate Initial Agency
The inflation rate chosen for use in a Costs
life-cycle cost analysis of pavement Agency costs are all the costs incurred
alternatives may be 1) a single value if it by the agency over the analysis period.
is assumed that all components of future These costs include:
costs inflate at a uniform rate or 2)
several different values for various cost • Initial design and
components when there are significant construction/inspection costs,
differences in inflation among the cost • Preservation/rehabilitation costs
components. (including engineering and traffic
control),
Several general inflation indices are • Operation and maintenance costs
compiled regularly by the Bureau of (including staffing),
Labor Statistics (BLS) in the U.S. • Either demolition/removal costs
Department of Labor, including the or the residual value of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the pavement structure,
Highway and Street Construction • Costs associated with material
(BHWY) Producer Price Index (PPI). price escalators, and
The BHWY PPI was, however, • Direct savings associated with
discontinued in 2010. The PPI for all sustainable benefits of a
commodities also can be used as a particular pavement type.
general inflation index or combined with
the BHWY PPI to extend the BHWY PPI Only those initial agency costs that are
from 2010 to present. different among the various alternatives
need to be considered for reasonably
Calculating the Real Discount Rate similar alternates. Engineering and
To avoid all of the complexities in administrative costs (public hearings,
calculating a real discount rate for informational meetings, permits, real
general use in LCCAs, many state estate and land development, legal fees,
agencies elect to use real discount rates etc.) may be excluded from the initial
published annually by the United State’s agency cost if they are the same for all
Office of Management and Budget alternatives.
(OMB). If local interest and inflation
rates are not readily available to develop Initial agency costs can be divided into
a local real discount rate, ACPA pavement and non pavement costs:
supports the use of this OMB real
• Pavement costs include items
discount rate. If there is concern with
such as subgrade preparation
the variability in the OMB real discount
costs; base, subbase, and
rates, a moving average of the value
surface material costs;
can be considered.
associated labor and equipment
costs; etc.
56 | P a g e
• Non pavement costs are costs Step 4 – Estimate User Costs
that affect the overall cost of the User costs are intentionally separated
project but are not directly from other bidding components because
related to the pavement user costs are not agency costs and
structure, such as extra fill or cut should not be treated as such (e.g., user
due to different grade elevations, costs have a discount rate based on
traffic control, median and fill user interest and inflation rates). User
slopes, utilities, guardrail and costs tell a different story than the other
sign adjustments, lighting components and oftentimes are
requirements, overhead weighted differently than agency costs
structures, at-grade structures, in the pavement type selection process.
culvert extensions, associated If user costs are significantly larger than
labor and equipment costs, etc. other cost components, the agency
should investigate why this is the case.
When historical bid prices are used to
estimate the initial agency cost of User costs are all those costs
current designs, it is important to associated with the alternative that are
consider the impact of material price incurred by users of the roadway over
escalators, payment practices (e.g., the analysis period. The users to be
payment for concrete in fixed considered are both the actual users
quantities, such as square yards, and the would-be users; that is, those
versus payment for asphalt by the ton, who cannot use the roadway because of
which may result in overages), and either a detour imposed by the highway
bidding practices (e.g., bid shifting to agency or the user’s self-imposed
lower costs of some items [pavement selection of an alternate route.
items] while artificially increasing other
costs [non-pavement items] to cover Any user costs that differ significantly
the difference). Past bid prices may not among the alternatives being compared
accurately represent final project costs should be considered alongside the
if escalators significantly increased the agency costs in an LCCA. However,
actual construction cost of the project each agency must decide which user
or if material quantity estimates were cost components it expects to differ
low. Thus, all project costs (pavement among different alternatives, and which
and non-pavement) from past projects it is able to estimate reasonably well.
must be examined to include any cost Even if the user costs are considered
overruns when using past projects for equivalent between alternates, the time
current initial agency cost estimates. value of money and frequency of future
activities cause the net result of work
zone user costs to be different between
alternates.
P a g e | 57
Failure to consider user costs may lead Future activities are dependent on the
in some cases to the selection of initial pavement design. Thus, both
undesirably short-lived alternatives. (and their cost impact on each other)
For example, it is not good practice to must be considered when designing the
recommend major rehabilitation of a pavement structure.
busy urban freeway every seven years;
traffic handling and delays in the future Maintenance and Operation Costs
might be a significantly greater cost than The daily costs associated with keeping
constructing a long-lived alternative the pavement at a given level of service
now. Without quantitative consideration are termed maintenance and operating
of work zone user costs, however, it costs. These include contracts,
may be difficult to determine that a long- materials and equipment, deicing, staff
lived solution is best in such a scenario. salaries, etc. for the maintenance of the
pavement surface, shoulders, striping,
WinPAS’s LCCA procedure does not drainage, etc.
include user costs at this time.
Separate software are available, Several billion dollars are spent each
however, to calculate the user costs, year on pavement maintenance by
such as the Construction Analysis for highway agencies in the U.S. As such,
Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies most state highway agencies include
(CA4PRS) software. maintenance costs in their life-cycle cost
analyses for pavements.
Step 5 – Estimate Future Agency
Preservation and Rehabilitation
Costs
Timing and Costs
While the initial agency costs can
Preservation/rehabilitation costs are
exclude cost components that are
large future agency costs associated
similar for each alternate being
with improving the condition of the
considered, all cost components must
pavement or extending its service life.
be considered in future agency costs
because the present value of costs Preservation and rehabilitation activities
associated with engineering, and their timing should be based on the
administrative, and traffic control distresses that are predicted to develop
(detours, lane closures, work hours, in the pavement. That is, in the design
etc.) in the future are impacted by when phase, the engineer should estimate the
the costs are projected to take place rates of distress development in the
and by the selected discount rate (which pavement, determine the years in which
may vary with paving material type). critical level of distress are reached, and
assign the appropriate preservation or
rehabilitation activities for those
distresses at the appropriate times.
58 | P a g e
The best approach to developing Residual Value through Recycling
pavement performance predictions is to (Salvage Value)
rely on local performance history data to If it is assumed that the pavement is to
the maximum extent possible; pavement be recycled at the end of the analysis
feedback loops are an ideal means of period, the salvage value is the
updating such predictions as better monetary value of the recycled materials
designs are created. minus the costs of removal and
recycling. The salvage value of the
Predicting the performance of
pavement structure as recycled
preservation or rehabilitation activities
materials may be different for the
involves, at a minimum, predicting the
different alternates.
time (either in years or accumulated
axle loadings) at which each strategy It is important to not double-count the
will reach a level of condition requiring salvage value; that is to say, it should
follow-up preservation or rehabilitation. not be included as both a residual value
credit at the end of the LCCA of a
Typical expected performance period
pavement section and then as a
ranges for new construction and various
reduction in cost at the beginning of the
preservation/rehabilitation activities are
next LCCA on the same section. Thus,
summarized in ACPA’s EB011.
if the pavement is to be recycled,
Step 6 – Estimate Residual Value salvage value oftentimes is not
The residual value typically is defined in considered at the end of the analysis
one of three ways: 1) the net value that period (where the value is extremely
the pavement would have in the discounted) but rather is considered as
marketplace if it is recycled at the end of a reduction in cost for a new pavement
its life (also known as salvage value), 2) (where the value of the reduction is
the value of the remaining service life better known and fully appreciated) in
(RSL) at the end of the analysis, and 3) the next LCCA of the section.
the value of the existing pavement as a Residual Value through Remaining
support layer for an overlay at the end of Service Life
the analysis period. The residual value of a pavement that is
Whichever way residual value is defined likely to be rehabilitated rather than
for rehabilitation strategy alternatives, it demolished at the end of the analysis
must be defined the same way for all period can be based on its contribution
alternatives, and should reflect what the to the structural capacity of the
agency realistically expects to do with rehabilitated pavement structure.
the pavement structure at the end of the The FHWA currently recommends that
analysis period. the residual value be determined as the
portion of the cost of the last
P a g e | 59
rehabilitation equal to the portion of the discounted cost of the same type of
remaining life of the last rehabilitation.27 rehabilitation if it is deferred some years
However, this method of defining into the future. Thus, an alternative with
residual value attributes worth only to more remaining structural capacity at
the last rehabilitation application, rather the end of the analysis period would
than to the pavement structure as a yield a larger difference between
whole. It may also have the undesired immediate and deferred rehabilitation
consequence of attributing greater worth costs, and therefore a higher residual
to a pavement design or rehabilitation value.
strategy alternative that costs more,
performs poorly and requires frequent Step 7 – Compare Alternatives
follow-up rehabilitation than to an Alternatives considered in an LCCA
alternative with better long-term must be compared using a common
performance that requires less frequent measure of economic worth. The
rehabilitation. economic worth of an investment may
be measured in a number of ways.
Residual Value as a Support Layer Investment alternatives such as
When all alternatives are predicted to pavement strategies are most
reach minimum acceptable condition at commonly compared on the basis of
the end of the analysis period and present worth (also called net present
require rehabilitation at that time, value [NPV]) or annual worth (also
another option is to determine what called equivalent uniform annual cost
contribution the existing pavement [EUAC]).
structure will make to the structural
capacity of the rehabilitated pavement Cash Flow Diagrams
structure. The residual value of each A cash flow diagram (Figure 26) helps in
alternative could be quantified as the the development and visualization of
portion of the future rehabilitation cost strategies. A cash flow diagram shows
that will be reduced by the contribution the inflow and outflow of cash due to
of the existing pavement structure. construction, maintenance, and
preservation/ rehabilitation, expressed in
When one or more alternatives are terms of either present worth or annual
predicted to reach minimum acceptable costs. Up arrows indicate major cash
condition beyond the end of the analysis expenditures (e.g., construction,
period, the residual values could be preservation, etc.) and down arrows
defined in terms of how long each show cash inflows (e.g., residual or
alternative delays the next required salvage value). The length of the arrow
rehabilitation. The residual value could indicates the magnitude of the
be quantified as the difference between expenditure.
the cost of rehabilitation if it is performed
at the end of the analysis period and the
60 | P a g e
d = the real discount rate (e.g.,
0.03 for 3 percent)
where:
P a g e | 61
For example, suppose a uniform annual Annual costs that are uniform
maintenance cost is expected to be throughout the analysis period require
incurred starting in year 16 of a 25-year no conversion before being added to
analysis. The present worth incurred other equivalent uniform annual costs.
between years 16 and 25 would be
calculated by first converting the annual Annual costs that are not uniform over
maintenance costs in years 16 to 25 (N the analysis period (e.g., annual
= 10) to an equivalent present worth at maintenance costs forecasted for some
the beginning of year 16, which is also subperiod within the analysis period)
the end of year 15, and then must be:
discounting this equivalent present 1. Converted to present worth at the
worth back 15 years to time zero. beginning of the first year of the
subperiod,
Annual Worth Calculations
2. Converted to a present worth at
For an annual worth style analysis, all
the beginning of the analysis
costs and benefits in a given analysis
period (e.g., t = 0), and
period can also be expressed in terms
3. Converted to equivalent uniform
of an equivalent series of annual cash
annual cost over the entire
flows of uniform value over every year of
analysis period.
the analysis period in an annual worth or
equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) Analysis Methods
analysis. The present and annual worth
The formula for the equivalent uniform calculations discussed thus far describe
annual value ($A) of a cost ($P) incurred a deterministic approach to LCCA
at the beginning of the analysis period (t comparisons because a single defined
= 0): value is assumed and used for each
activity (e.g., initial construction cost,
𝑑 (1 + d)𝑛 preservation/rehabilitation cost and
$𝐴 = $𝑃 × � �
(1 + d)𝑛 − 1 timing, etc.).
To express a one-time future cost (e.g., There is, of course, inherent variability
follow-up preservation/rehabilitation) or (and, thus, risk) in each and every input
benefit (e.g., salvage value) in terms of used in an LCCA (e.g., forecasted future
its equivalent uniform annual cost over material costs, forecasted activity timing,
the analysis period, it must first be expected service life of preservation
converted to its equivalent present worth techniques, etc.) that is not accounted
at t = 0, and then converted to its for in a deterministic analysis. Such
equivalent uniform annual cost. variability can, however, be accounted
for through a probabilistic analysis.
62 | P a g e
The FHWA’s probabilistic LCCA Other methods of accounting for
procedure, as used in their RealCost differences in material inflation are 1) by
LCCA software, relies on Monte Carlo escalating the future value of an item
simulations to select a random value for before calculating its present or annual
each input variable from its probability worth or 2) adjusting the present or
distribution and then compute the NPV annual worth of the item.
or EUAC for the selected values. This
process is repeated many times in order For example, the Pennsylvania
to generate a probability distribution of Department of Transportation recently
LCCAs for each alternative being began applying an Asphalt Adjustment
considered. Multiplier (AAM)28 to adjust asphalt bid
prices to better reflect the price paid for
WinPAS conducts a deterministic asphalt over a life cycle; their current
analysis, so the remainder of this AAM factor is 1.7419, which effectively
chapter will focus on this analysis inflates all future agency asphalt costs
method. ACPA does, however, by almost 75% before the costs are
recommend the use of FHWA’s discounted.
RealCost software to account for the
variability in the LCCA inputs. Another method of escalating future
costs has recently been suggested by
Accounting for Material Inflation researchers at MIT.29 Through
Although asphalt cement makes up only stochastic simulation using the BLS’s
about 5-8% of the weight of a typical PPIs for steel, lumber, concrete, and
asphalt paving mixture and cement asphalt and the CPI, they have
comprises about 8 percent of a typical proposed “real price” escalation factors
concrete paving mixture, the binders that are dependent on the year in the
typically are the most expensive LCCA in which the activity is conducted.
components of paving mixtures. Thus, a These factors account for just the
comprehensive LCCA comparing these difference between the material inflation
two pavement types should consider and general inflation so that the
any significant differences in inflation standard (e.g., not material-specific) real
between these two materials. discount rate can still be used, making
this process very easy to apply to
Material-specific real discount rates are individual expenditures.
one method of accounting for situations
when one or more materials are
expected to inflate at a rate significantly
greater (or less) than that of the inflation
rate used in the calculation of the
general real discount rate.
P a g e | 63
For example, and because inflation has of competing alternatives using only
outpaced the cost of concrete, a deterministic analysis techniques is to
concrete overlay in year 30 of an LCCA take the ratio of initial costs to the net
would be escalated by a “real price” present value (of EUAC) for each
adjustment of 87%, such that alternate . Higher values of this ratio
$1,000,000 of concrete overlay indicate that more of the LCCA is due to
pavement today would have a real price initial costs, which are relatively better
of $870,000 30 years from now; this known, so the reliability of the LCCA
$870,000 at year 30 would then be used estimate is higher than for alternatives
to calculate the present or annual worth with lower values of this ratio.
of that activity using the standard real
discount rate. When two alternatives have very similar
net present values over the analysis
Comparison of Results period, it is advisable to choose the less
After the LCCA has been conducted for risky alternative (i.e., the one with the
each alternate, it is necessary to higher proportion of the net present
analyze and compare the results. value attributable to initial costs).
Because different components of the Depending on the level of cost
total life-cycle cost indicate different estimation risk considered acceptable, it
things about the alternates (e.g., the may even be preferable to select the
relative impacts of initial and future alternative with the somewhat higher
agency costs or user costs), the present worth of costs.
components typically are viewed both
separately and together to aid in More Information on LCCA
interpretation and evaluation of the ACPA’s recently published EB011, “Life-
results.30 Cycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better
Pavement Investment and Engineering
Probabilistic analyses provide a means Decision,” provides detailed discussion
of evaluating the relative economic on all aspects of a comprehensive
(cost) risk of competing alternatives, but LCCA. This document is readily
the process can be complex. A simple available in the ACPA online bookstore
way to examine the cost estimation risk at:
(i.e., variability in the estimated LCCA)
http://acpa.org/bookstore/
64 | P a g e
Chapter 4. WinPAS User’s Guide
Introduction
WinPAS is a menu-driven computer program for designing and analyzing pavement
systems using the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. It is a
stand-alone program consisting of the following modules:
1. Project identification,
2. Traffic analysis,
3. Pavement design and evaluation,
4. Overlay design and evaluation,
5. Life-cycle cost analysis, and
6. Reporting.
WinPAS contains many help screens that explain input variables and suggested,
reasonable ranges for input values. To access help, place the cursor on the input
variable about which help information is desired and click on the help button in
the active window.
Menu Options
The menu at the top-left of the WinPAS window has three options:
• File
• Units
• Help
P a g e | 65
File Menu
The File menu has four options:
Units Menu
The Units menu has two options, permitting you to select the
units (English or Metric) in which you wish to work. This
selection should be made before inputting project details
because switching the units may cause input values to reset to
default levels.
Help Menu
The Help menu has two options. About WinPAS
identifies the version of WinPAS that you are using.
WinPAS 12 Guide links to this document, which
provides additional help and discussion for many of the
design inputs, overlays, and LCCA. In addition to this document, to access input specific
help details from within the software, place the cursor on the input variable about which
help information is desired and click on the help button in the active window.
Main Menu
The Main Menu is the strip of tabs that allow you to access each module included in the
software. To select one of the modules, click on its tab using the mouse. The Project
tab is the default tab selected when the program is opened. To open an existing project,
go to the File menu and select Open Project.
66 | P a g e
Project Tab
The Project tab allows you to input general information for your project. It is not
necessary for you to provide information for every field. WinPAS displays the general
information from this screen at the top of all printed reports.
A preliminary estimate of the required concrete slab thickness and/or asphalt pavement
Structural Number, as well as the terminal serviceability, is needed to select the
appropriate rigid and flexible pavement load equivalency factors (LEFs) for use in
P a g e | 67
calculating ESALs. The design life and ESAL growth rate are needed to calculate the
total ESALs over the design life. Note that the AASHTO design procedure is based on
vehicles in the design lane. WinPAS allows you to either input traffic as design lane, or
as total traffic.
If total traffic is chosen, you must also indicate whether it is 1 or 2 way traffic, and also
give the design lane and directional distributions.
WinPAS calculates the total rigid and flexible ESALs over the design life for each
combination of axle type and weight entered, and sums them at the bottom of the
screen.
68 | P a g e
Total ESALs by Vehicle Type
This screen requires the following inputs:
• Vehicle types.
• Type and weight of each axle of each vehicle.
• Number of each vehicle (in the first day, month, or year, depending on the initial
time interval indicated on the General ESAL Calculation Inputs screen).
Place the information next to the diagram corresponding to the appropriate vehicle.
WinPAS automatically displays typical maximum legal values for axle types and weights
for several different types of vehicles. You may modify these axle types and weight
values. (Note: On average, vehicles are not fully loaded. ESALs calculated with these
values will be conservative.) The total rigid and flexible ESALs for the life of the
pavement are summed at the bottom.
P a g e | 69
Note: The pictures of vehicles above are for graphical purposes only. Changing
Axle Loads & Axle Type will not change the picture.
For special vehicles and design problems we suggest that you check your design with
another design procedure, such as ACPA's AirPave software or some other design
procedures.
70 | P a g e
Total ESALs by Truck Factor
This screen requires the following inputs:
For traffic input using truck factors, knowledge of the average ESALs/truck must be
known. Many state agencies have calculated this factor based on the average vehicle
types and weights in use in the state, and by roadway classification. For more
information contact your state Department of Transportation (DOT).
For more information on ESALs, see the appropriate help screens in WinPAS, the
appropriate sections earlier in this document, or the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures.
P a g e | 71
Design/Evaluation Tab
WinPAS's pavement design and evaluation
module can design new pavements or
analyze existing pavements. Concrete and
asphalt pavements can be designed
separately, or side-by-side.
Upon first loading the WinPAS software, all inputs are blank. You may notice that the
Solve For button does not state to solve specifically for thickness like many pavement
thickness design software might. This is because the closed-form AASHTO solutions
allow you to quickly solve for any of the various design variables after all other variables
have been entered. When you press the Solve For button, WinPAS will solve for the
variable highlighted by your cursor.
To use Solve For, you must first input a value for all variables except the variable you
are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). After pressing Solve For,
WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in the
Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell. You can change the value for any
variable(s), reposition your cursor, and press Solve For again. The Solve For box will
again display the answer.
By allowing the flexibility to solve for any input, you can quickly calculate thickness or
Structural Number, ESALs, reliability, flexural strength, or any of the other design
variables. If you receive an 'ERROR,' it means one or more of your inputs are outside
the equation bounds. Check each input to make sure it is a reasonable value.
The concrete pavement slabs at the AASHO Road Test were between 2.5 and 12.5 in.
(64 and 318 mm) thick. ACPA recommends a minimum concrete slab thickness of 5 in.
(127 mm) for streets and 4 in. (102 mm) for parking lots not subject to truck traffic. The
minimum and maximum allowable input for thickness in this program is 4 in. and 20 in.
(102 mm and 508 mm), respectively. The Total Rigid ESALs input comes from the
Estimate ESALs tab in WinPAS, although you may overwrite this value and solve for
the allowable ESALs for a given slab thickness and other inputs.
72 | P a g e
The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor for which a pavement is
designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to
accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher
safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this
margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative
values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations.
P a g e | 73
The overall standard deviation reflects:
The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For
concrete pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.30 and 0.40.
Typically, 0.35 is used.
The required flexural strength input is the average 28-day in-place flexural strength of
the concrete in third-point loading. In design, AASHTO recommends you increase the
minimum specified flexural strength (Sc) by a ‘z' factor multiplied by the standard
deviation (SD) of the flexural strength to get a design flexural strength (Sc’).
Sc’(design) = Sc + z(SD)
The 'z' factor is a function of the percentage of tests allowed below the minimum
specified value. For more information on this, see the appropriate section earlier in this
document or section 2.3.4 of Part II of the AASHTO Design Guide.
The required modulus of elasticity input is the average 28-day in-place modulus of
elasticity. This may be difficult to determine directly, but can be estimated from
correlations with flexural or compressive strength. Some correlations from the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) are provided on the help screen for this input and others are
available in a free online strength converter app at http://apps.acpa.org.
The load transfer coefficient (J factor) is intended to reflect the effects of transverse
joint load transfer (e.g., aggregate interlock versus dowels) and longitudinal edge
support (e.g., asphalt shoulder versus tied concrete shoulder) on slab corner deflection.
A J factor of 3.2 reflects the corner support conditions at the AASHO Road Test
(doweled joints, asphalt shoulders). J factors less than 3.2 indicate even better support
conditions (e.g., concrete shoulder and/or continuously reinforced concrete pavement).
J factors greater than 3.2 reflect worse corner support conditions (e.g., asphalt
shoulders and undoweled joints). The J factor help screen displays the ACPA's J factor
recommendations. The recommended ranges fall within the ranges recommended in
the AASHTO Design Guide.
74 | P a g e
The required subgrade/subbase input is the average static modulus of subgrade
reaction (k-value). The modulus of subgrade reaction help screen provides a
procedure, from the AASHTO Design Guide and ACPA-developed correlations, for
estimating the design composite k-value as a function of the resilient modulus of the
subgrade and subbase, the thickness of the subbase, and the depth below the
subgrade to a rigid foundation. An additional help screen provides correlations between
subgrade resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and R-value. It should be
noted that the correlations are intended to estimate resilient modulus from either CBR or
R value, not to relate CBR to R value.
The drainage coefficient (Cd) is intended to reflect the quality of drainage to the
pavement structure. The baseline value of 1.00 corresponds to AASHO Road Test
conditions, which were extremely poor. Pavement structures with better drainage would
have a Cd value greater than 1.00, while pavement structures with worse drainage
would have a Cd value less than 1.00. Note: because these values are based on soil
conditions found at the AASHO Road Test, care must be taken when assigning Cd
values less than 1.0.
The required initial serviceability input is the expected PSI of the pavement when
opened to traffic, which depends on the initial smoothness of the pavement. The
average initial PSI values at the AASHO Road Test were 4.5 and 4.2 for concrete and
asphalt pavements, respectively However, with modern construction equipment and
practices, initial smoothness levels corresponding to PSI values of 4.5 are easily
achievable for both concrete and asphalt pavements. The required terminal
serviceability input is the PSI at which the pavement is expected to need replacement
or major preservation/rehabilitation. The appropriate terminal serviceability level for a
given design situation depends on the functional class and the location (urban or rural)
of the roadway.
P a g e | 75
For AASHTO recommended values on any of these inputs, see the help screen for any
input in WinPAS, see the appropriate section earlier in this document, or consult the
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.
• Structural number.
• Total flexible ESALs.
• Reliability.
• Overall standard deviation.
• Subgrade resilient modulus.
• Initial and terminal serviceability.
76 | P a g e
The Asphalt Structural Number reflects the required structural capacity of all asphalt
pavement structure layers above the subgrade (i.e., the asphalt concrete surface
course, base(s), and subbase(s)).
The Total Flexible ESAL input comes from the Estimate ESALs tab in WinPAS,
although you may overwrite this value and solve for the allowable ESALs for a given
Structural Number and other inputs.
The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor, for which a pavement is
designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to
accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher
safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this
margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative
values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations.
The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For asphalt
pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.40 and 0.50. Typically,
0.45 is used.
The subgrade resilient modulus is used to describe the subgrade strength for asphalt
pavements. Typical values range from about 1,000 psi (6.9 MPa) for soft, marshy soils
to about 40,000 psi (276 MPa) for granular soils. The resilient modulus help screen
provides correlations between subgrade resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio
(CBR), and R-value. It should be noted that the correlations are intended to estimate
resilient modulus from either CBR or R-value, not to relate CBR to R value.
P a g e | 77
The required initial serviceability input is the expected PSI of the pavement when
opened to traffic, which depends on the initial smoothness of the pavement. The
average initial PSI values at the AASHO Road Test were 4.5 and 4.2 for concrete
pavements and asphalt pavements, respectively. However, with modern construction
equipment and practices, initial smoothness levels corresponding to PSI values of 4.5
are easily achievable for both concrete and asphalt pavements. The required terminal
serviceability input is the PSI at which the pavement is expected to need replacement
or major preservation/rehabilitation. The appropriate terminal serviceability level for a
given design situation depends on the functional class and the location (urban or rural)
of the roadway.
The contributions of the individual layers to the total pavement Structural Number are
expressed by the following formula:
78 | P a g e
Where ai are the layer coefficients corresponding to the surface, base, subbase, and
other layers above the subgrade and ti are their respective thicknesses. Drainage
coefficients (mi) may be applied only to granular base and subbase layers. Typical layer
coefficient values for several types of materials can be found in the help screen. For
more information, see section 2.3.5 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. Guidelines for
selection of drainage coefficient values for asphalt pavement base and subbase
materials can be found in the help screen and in section 2.4.2 of the 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide.
The Additional Thickness needed column on the right-hand side of the Layer Thickness
Determination screen provides a check to see if the Structural Number of the layer
materials and thicknesses selected satisfies the required Structural Number. The
column displays how much additional thickness is needed to meet the total SN for the
layer/material on which the cursor rests. You may use the value WinPAS displays to
adjust the layer thicknesses and optimize your design.
Note that when using this screen for side-by-side concrete and asphalt pavement
designs, you must press the Solve For buttons on either sides of the screen to
determine the required concrete pavement slab thickness or asphalt pavement
Structural Number.
P a g e | 79
Overlays Tab
The overlay design and evaluation module is based on Chapter 5 of Part III of the 1993
AASHTO Design Guide. It consists of three concrete overlay design procedures. For
more information on the theory used in these procedures, see Chapter 5 of the Guide
and the appropriate sections earlier in this document.
To use the overlay design module, you must first provide information about the existing
pavement and then some information for the type of overlay you wish to design. The
overlay design module also provides screens for backcalculation of some of the overlay
design inputs from nondestructive testing (NDT) deflection (e.g., FWD) measurements.
80 | P a g e
Similar to the new pavement design section, the overlay design modules employ the
Solve For button to solve for any design input. To use Solve For, input all variables
except the variable you are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). Next
place the cursor in the variable you would like to solve, and click on the Solve For
button. WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in
the Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell.
• Concrete thickness,
• Flexural strength,
• Modulus of elasticity,
• Load transfer coefficient,
• Modulus of subgrade reaction, and
• Drainage coefficient.
P a g e | 81
For an existing asphalt pavement, the following information is necessary to perform
an overlay design:
The Ep is a composite elastic modulus of the existing pavement structure (all layers
above the subgrade), as if it were all composed of one material. Ep may be determined
from nondestructive deflection testing with a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) or
similar device. The in-situ (field) resilient modulus of the subgrade soil (Mr) may also be
determined from nondestructive deflection testing, and then used to estimate the design
(laboratory) resilient modulus. More information on determining Ep and Mr is given in
the appropriate section of this document and in Part III, Chapter 5, of the 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide.
When FWD testing is not possible, the effective Structural Number of the existing
pavement must be estimated using the existing layer thicknesses and assigning layer
coefficients that reflect the degree of deterioration in the existing pavement.
82 | P a g e
The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a
function of the future total rigid ESALs and other AASHTO concrete pavement design
equation inputs. The values for flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, load
transfer, and modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen (they
are transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen). Because
the original pavement properties do not change with an overlay, these values have been
locked to prevent accidental changes.
The effective existing concrete slab thickness (Deff) is generally less than the actual slab
thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the
actual existing slab thickness and three adjustment factors that reflect the extent of
deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation
of Deff.
P a g e | 83
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete
Unbonded concrete overlays on concrete are generally most cost effective when the
existing concrete pavement is badly deteriorated and would require extensive pre-
overlay repair for a bonded concrete or asphalt overlay. For more information on the
feasibility of such overlays and the design equations used by WinPAS, see Chapter 2 of
this document.
The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a
function of the design ESALs and other AASHTO rigid pavement design equation
inputs. On this screen, other input values cannot be determined with the Solve For key.
The value for the modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen
because it is transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen
and cannot be changed with an overlay. The values entered on this screen for the other
inputs (including the flexural strength, elastic modulus, and load transfer
coefficient) apply to the unbonded overlay, not the existing pavement.
84 | P a g e
The effective existing slab thickness (Deff) is generally less than the actual slab
thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the
actual existing slab thickness and one adjustment factor that reflects the extent of
deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation
of Deff.
P a g e | 85
The most difficult input to determine in the design of conventional whitetopping is the
appropriate k-value to use to represent the existing asphalt pavement structure and
foundation. There are two methods to estimate the k-vale:
1) Compute a composite k-value from the soil and pavement layer strengths. This is
a similar procedure as that used for stabilized subbase materials in new concrete
pavement designs. See Part II, Section 3.2 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide for
more details.
2) Determine the dynamic k-value from FWD testing and backcalculation. This
requires backcalculating the subgrade modulus (Mr) and the effective pavement
modulus (Ep), and determining the existing asphalt layer thickness (Dac), which can
be done using WinPAS's NDT backcalculation procedure).
For more information on conventional whitetopping for asphalt pavements, see Section
5.10 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide, ACPA’s EB210P, "Whitetopping - The State of
the Practice," or the CP Tech Center’s, “Guide to Concrete Overlays,”22
For concrete pavements, NDT is useful for examining load transfer at joints and cracks,
estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), and estimating the concrete
modulus of elasticity. For asphalt pavements, NDT provides data for estimating the soil
resilient modulus and the effective Structural Number of the pavement. NDT cannot be
used to estimate moduli values of individual layers of a flexible pavement system. For
composite pavements, NDT can be used to determine load transfer efficiency at joints
and cracks, estimate effective k-value, estimate concrete strength, and examine
resilient modulus of asphalt layers. Still for all three pavement types, one of the most
important things NDT can do is quantify variability along the project.
86 | P a g e
NDT Backcalculation for Concrete Pavements
To determine the subgrade k-value and the elastic modulus of the concrete slab,
WinPAS requires inputs for the existing concrete slab thickness, the Poisson's ratio
of the concrete (typically 0.15 to 0.20), the radius of the FWD load plate (5.9 in. [150
mm]), and load and deflection data. WinPAS uses the existing concrete slab thickness
from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen in the NDT module.
The load input is the measured load magnitude that corresponds to the deflections
measured at the pavement surface. The deflections d0, d12, d24, and d36 are measured
directly under the load (e.g., 0 in.) and at 12, 24, and 36 in. (305, 610, and 914 mm)
from the center of the load plate. WinPAS provides more information on these inputs on
the help screen. WinPAS calculates the deflection basin (AREA), radius of relative
stiffness (l), dynamic and static modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), and
concrete modulus (Ec) from the load and deflection data and the slab thickness. The
static k-values are estimated by dividing the dynamic k-values by 2. The mean static k-
value is the appropriate input for inclusion in the appropriate overlay design procedures.
P a g e | 87
NDT Backcalculation for Asphalt Pavements
To determine the in-situ (field) subgrade resilient modulus and the effective Structural
Number of an existing flexible pavement, WinPAS requires inputs for existing asphalt
pavement thickness (all layers above the subgrade), the radius of the FWD load
plate (5.9 in. [150 mm]), and load and deflection data.
A correction factor (C) is required to estimate the design (laboratory) resilient modulus
of the subgrade from the in-situ resilient modulus. For design of asphalt overlays on
asphalt pavements, a C value no greater than 0.33 is recommended. For design of
asphalt overlays on fractured slabs, a C value of 0.25 is suggested. The distance (r)
from the center of the load plate to the deflection (dr) used in calculation of the subgrade
resilient modulus is typically at least 24 in. (610 mm).
The effective modulus of the existing pavement is calculated from the backcalculated
(unadjusted) subgrade resilient modulus, the deflection d0 at the center of the
load plate, and the total thickness of the existing pavement above the subgrade.
88 | P a g e
NDT Backcalculation for Composite Pavements
WinPAS will estimate the subgrade k-value and approximate concrete elastic
modulus from deflections measured on a composite pavement by essentially the same
backcalculation method used in NDT backcalculation for concrete pavements. To
account for the presence of the existing asphalt layer, you must also enter the asphalt
thickness, an estimate of the asphalt elastic modulus at the time of deflection testing,
and assume whether the asphalt and concrete layers are bonded or unbonded.
Examination of cores may be helpful in making the bonded versus unbonded
determination.
P a g e | 89
Any pavement cross-section can be assigned for the life-cycle cost analysis. WinPAS
calculates both the present worth and the equivalent uniform annual cost of the
cross-section. For more information on life-cycle cost analysis, see Chapter 3 of this
publication and ACPA’s EB011, “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better Pavement
Investment and Engineering Decisions.”
Economic Factors
The economic factors account for the effects of interest and inflation over a defined
period of time (e.g., the analysis period). WinPAS requires input for the analysis
period for each pavement, the interest rate, and the inflation rate. The discount rate,
which is used to characterize the effects of fluctuating interest and inflation rates, is
calculated as a function of the interest and inflation rates.
Cost Graphs
A graphical output is available to show the economic analysis results, comparing the
pavements in the life-cycle cost module. You may display plots in terms of initial costs,
maintenance costs, rehabilitation costs, present worth value, or equivalent
uniform annual cost (EUAC) for each pavement type.
90 | P a g e
Pavement Cost Information
Cost information for Pavement A and B is entered on three subtabs (each pavement
type's cost information screens are exactly alike). The subtab is for general pavement
information, while the second and third subtabs are cost calculation screens. The
second subtab provides lines for up to 35 initial cost items. The third subtab is for entry
of maintenance and rehabilitation cost items.
On the first subtab, enter general details of the project: layer types, widths, thicknesses,
material unit weights, shoulders or curb and gutter, project length, joint spacing, etc.
When activate, the drop down menu buttons that appear when the cursor is in a specific
column give a list of possible items.
The second subtab calculates the initial cost for the pavement, considering up to 35
initial cost items. Any project details initially entered on the previous subtab are
automatically transferred to the second subtab. You must make adjustments to the
information on the second subtab manually. Again, the drop down menu identifies
possible items for the columns. Furthermore, in the quantity column, the drop down
menu can be used to calculate quantities and establish units based on the information
from the first subtab. Item cost is the initial cost per item and automatically calculated
from the Unit Cost and Quantity.
P a g e | 91
The third subtab calculates maintenance and rehabilitation costs for the pavement.
Once more, maintenance items and quantities are capable of being tied to the general
info on the first subtab. Item cost is the maintenance cost per item in today's dollars.
The total item cost is summed at the bottom of the page. The year input is the year the
maintenance will be performed. Present worth is calculated for each item based on the
year of the maintenance to account for the time value of money and all present worths
are totaled at the bottom of the page.
92 | P a g e
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Results
This screen has no inputs. It displays a summary of the results of the economic
analysis. Initial Cost and Maintenance and Rehabilitation Costs are the total
amounts spent on each activity for each pavement type. Total Expenditures is the sum
of initial costs and maintenance and rehabilitation costs. It is the actual dollar outlay of
the life of the project.
Present Worth is the sum of initial cost and future cost, discounted to account for both
inflation and interest. Annual Cost is the total expenditures amortized over the analysis
period; this is the same as EUAC.
Note: Pavements with different analysis periods should be compared using equivalent
uniform annual cost (EUAC) only. Comparisons in terms of present worth are not
appropriate for comparison of pavements with different analysis periods.
P a g e | 93
Reports Tab
The Reports tab permits you to print or save the results of analyses conducted with
WinPAS. Customized reports on new pavement designs, overlay designs, rigid and
flexible ESAL calculations, or life-cycle cost analysis can be printed. In these reports,
all pertinent information will be printed. To print a report, select the reports you would
like to print on the Reports tab and hit Load. WinPAS will display the reports. Within
that new window, you can toggle between reports and print the reports. You can also
export the reports so that they can be used in other formats (e.g., MS Word).
Problems or Questions
If you are having problems with the operation of this program, please contact ACPA at
847.966.2272. If you have general questions about concrete pavements and concrete
pavement design, please contact your local ACPA Chapter or State Paving Association
(see the My Locator on the ACPA homepage) or visit ACPA online at www.acpa.org.
94 | P a g e
References
P a g e | 95
20. "Evaluation of the AASHO Interim Guide 26. “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Revisited: The
for the Design of Pavement Structures," Discount Rate,” Concrete Conveyer,
NCHRP Project 128, Washington, D.C. Volume 8, Issue 4, Concrete Paving
21. "Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Association of Minnesota, 2008.
Concrete Specimens," AASHTO Test 27. “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement
Method T198, Washington, D.C. or Design – In Search of Better Investment
ASTM C496, American Society of Decisions,” Federal Highway
Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Administration, Interim Technical
22. “Guide to Concrete Overlays,” National Bulletin, Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079,
Concrete Pavement Technology Center, 1998.
Ames, IA, 2008. 28. “Asphalt Adjustment Multiplier Memo,”
23. “Design of Concrete Overlays Using July 8, 2011, Pennsylvania Department
Existing Methodologies,” National of Transportation, 2011.
Concrete Pavement Technology Center, 29. “The Effects of Inflation and Its Volatility
Ames, IA, 2011. on the Choice of Construction
24. “LCC Final Policy Statement,” Federal Alternatives,” Concrete Sustainability
Register, Vol. 61, No. 182, September Hub, Massachusetts Institute of
18, 1996, p. 35404. Technology, Lindsey, L., Schmalensee,
25. “Engineering Economy,” Thuesen, G. J. R., and Sacher, A., 2011.
and Fabrycky, W. J., sixth edition, 30. “Guide for Pavement-Type Selection,”
copyright by Prentice-Hall, Inc., National Cooperative Highway
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984. Research Program, Report 703, 2011.
96 | P a g e
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
P a g e | 97
Windows Pavement Analysis Software (WinPAS) Guide
Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures
WinPAS12 (SW03)