Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.

8, 2010

Estimating Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for Rigid Pavement Design

Bagus Hario SETIADJI T.F. FWA

Lecturer Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Diponegoro University National University of Singapore
Jl. Prof. Soedarto, SH. 10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Semarang, Indonesia 50239 Singapore 119260
Fax: +62 24 7460060 Fax: +65 67791635
E-mail: bhsetiadji@yahoo.com E-mail: cvefwatf@nus.edu.sg

Abstract: The AASHTO Pavement Design Guide provides one of the most commonly used
methods of rigid pavement design. One of the drawbacks identified by researchers is, when k
(modulus of subgrade reaction) is unavailable and has to be estimated from E (modulus of
elasticity), the k-E relationship used in the design gives too high k. This could result in a thin
slab thickness in pavement design. This research evaluates five k-E relationships, together
with the one used in the AASHTO design guide, to asses their relative performance in
calculating slab thickness using the AASHTO thickness design equation. The results of this
study concluded that the k-E relationship by AASHTO method is not recommended because
of the large errors involved. Among the six k-E relationships evaluated, the equivalent k-E
models based on lk-lE relationship outperformed the other k-E relationships in its ability to
estimate k values that best approximate field measured values.

Key Words: modulus of subgrade reaction, rigid pavement design, AASHTO design equation

1. INTRODUCTION

The rigid pavement design procedure of the AASHTO Pavement Design Guide (1993) is one
of the most commonly used methods of rigid pavement design. The high patronage of this
pavement design is due to its ease in usage. However, several deficiencies were found in the
design guide, such as deficiencies on traffic loading, climatic effect, subgrade, drainage, and
so forth (ARA Consulting Group Inc., 2004).

One of the deficiencies found is the method to calculate the modulus of subgrade reaction (k)
from the relationship between modulus of subgrade reaction (k) and elastic modulus of
subgrade (E) or k-E relationship in short. AASHTO used this relationship because it is known
that the direct measurement of k using a plate loading test is impractical in practice. In
developing this relationship, AASHTO used an assumption that a pavement slab can be
represented by a finite circular plate of 30-in. (762-mm) diameter, regardless of the actual
dimensions of the real pavement slab. The validity of this assumption has been questioned.
Huang (2003) explained that by the use of a 30-in. circular plate, the relationship would give a
k value that is too large. And as consequence, the use of this k value in the calculation of
concrete slab thickness will underestimate the slab thickness and it cannot ensure an adequate
level of pavement performance throughout the design life of the pavement.

This paper presents a study conducted to evaluate the use of several other k-E relationships
developed by researchers for rigid pavement design. For this purpose, a total six k-E

1502
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

relationships, including the AASHTO k-E relationship were evaluated in this study. A
comparison was conducted to asses the relative performance of the six k-E relationships in
calculating concrete slab thickness using the AASHTO pavement thickness design equation.

2. k-E RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPED SO FAR

The following six k-E relationships are presented in this section: (a) the k-E relationship
adopted by AASHTO (1993), (b) the k-E relationship derived by Khazanovich et al. (2001),
(c) the k-E relationship derived by Vesic and Saxena (1974), (d) the k-E relationship derived
by Ullidtz (1987), (e) the equivalent k- and E-models based on lk-lE, and (f) the equivalent k-
and E-models based on k-E relationships. The last two k-E relationships were developed by
Setiadji and Fwa (2008). The details of the derivation of the k-E relationships could be
referred to the corresponding references.

2.1 k-E Relationship by AASHTO (1986, 1993)

AASHTO (1993) equated the volumes of soil displaced under the loading area for the
theoretical pavement systems, instead of matching the maximum surface deflections. This is
equivalent to equating the deflection of the rigid plate with the average surface deflection
calculated for the case of uniform loading on an elastic solid foundation. This leads to the
following relationship recommended by AASHTO (1993),

E
k= (1)
0.492

where k and E in MN/m3 and MPa, respectively.

2.2 k-E Relationship by Khazanovich et al. (2001)

Khazanovich et al. (2001) analyzed the deflection data of falling weight deflectometer tests
from the LTPP (Long Term Pavement Performance) database. In the estimation of k and E
values, Khazanovich et al. (2001) adopted a best-fit backcalculation approach by trial-and-
error to match the theoretical and measured surface deflections. The following relationship
was obtained:

k = 0.296 E (2)

2.3 k-E Relationship by Vesic and Saxena (1974)

Vesic and Saxena (1974) derived an expression for the relationship between k and E of
pavement subgrade by equating the radii of relative stiffness of two different foundation
models, namely the k-model (model for dense liquid foundation) and the E-model (model for
elastic solid foundation). An adjustment factor was added to the relationship to match the
actual conditions in the field. The final form of k-E relationship developed by Vesic and
Saxena (1974) is as follows.

E   
k = 0.42    
1/ 3

 (1 − µ 2 )hc 
E
 Ec   
(3)

where Ec is the elastic modulus of pavement slab (GPa), hc the thickness of pavement slab
(m), and µ the Poisson’s ratio of subgrade.

1503
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

2.4 k-E Relationship by Ullidtz (1987)

Based on the equation for k given in Eq. (3), Ullidtz (1987) made a further modification by
introducing the concept of equivalent thickness of the concrete slab with respect to the
subgrade. The revised approximate relationship proposed by Ullidtz (1987) is given by,

E 
k = 0.54  
 he 
(4)

where he is the equivalent thickness in m.

2.5 Equivalent k- and E-Models Based on lk-lE and k-E Relationships by Setiadji and
Fwa (2008)
Setiadji and Fwa (2008) proposed two comparisons between an equivalent k- and an
equivalent E-model, namely the NUS k-E model and the NUS lk-lE model, to assess their
respective suitability for use in deriving the relationship between k and E as described in the
following subsections.

2.5.1 Direct Regression Equation of k and E (NUS k-E model)

Based on the concept of equivalent k-model and E-model, the following regression equation is
obtained by using the computed k and E values from 2,238 jointed concrete pavement (JCP)
and 4,236 continuous reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) sections.

k = 0.259 E - 6.512 (5)

2.5.2 Relationship Between lk and lE (US lk-lE model)

Setiadji and Fwa (2008) observed that there exists a well defined relationship between the
radii of relative stiffness of the k-model and the E-model (lk and lE, respectively) obtained by
using the computed values of lk and lE from 2,238 JCP and 4,236 CRCP sections. The
relationship is nonlinear. It can be closely described by the following second-order
polynomial regression equation with a statistical coefficient of multiple determination R2
value close to unity,

lk = 0.183 lE2 + 0.887 lE + 0.4008 (6)

where lk and lE are in m.

3. APPROACH OF THE STUDY

An appropriate k-E relationship has high practical significance in determining k values from
either laboratory or field determined E values, particularly from nondestructive evaluation of
E values by means by falling weight deflectometer. The appropriate selection of k-E
relationship in calculating k values using measured value was demonstrated by Setiadji and
Fwa (2008). In this study, the application of k-E relationships evaluated in Setiadji and Fwa
(2008) in determining concrete slab thickness was carried out by using the following steps.
(i) Generate elastic modulus of subgrade (E).
Thirty hypothetical elastic moduli of subgrade were generated based on a wide range of
E values, varying from 3,000 psi (20.7 MPa) for cohesive clay soil to 30,000 psi (206.9
MPa) for fine-grained sandy soils (Yoder and Witczak, 1975).

1504
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

(ii) Calculate modulus of subgrade reaction (k) and concrete slab thickness (d)
For direct k-E relationships (as proposed by AASHTO, Khazanovich et al. and NUS k-
E), k and d can be obtained as follows.
a. Calculate k directly from the equation of k and E as given by Eqs. (1), (2), and (5).
b. Use k from the previous step in the 1993 AASHTO design equation, as given by.

log[∆PSI / (4.5 − 1.5)]

log W18 = Z R S o +7.35 log(d + 1) − 0.06 +
1 + 1.624 x10 7 / (d + 1)
8.46


+ (4.22 − 0.32 pt ) log 
(
S c C d d 0.75 − 1.132 ) 

[
 215.63 J d 0.75 − 18.42 / (E c / k )0.25 ]
(7)

where W18 is the number of 18-kip (80 kN) single axle load applications (ESAL or
equivalent single axle load), ZR the normal deviate for a given reliability R, So the
standard deviation, d the concrete slab thickness (inch), ∆PSI the design serviceability
loss, pt the terminal serviceability level, Sc the modulus of rupture, Cd the drainage
coefficient and J the load transfer coefficient.
By varying the slab thickness in Eq. (7), the correct slab thickness which satisfies the
equality in Eqs. (7) can be found.
For indirect k-E relationships (proposed by Vesic and Saxena, Ullidtz, and NUS lk-lE), k
and d can be obtained in two steps. Similar to the previous procedure, various thickness
values are required to calculate Eqs. (7) and Eqs. (3), (4) or (6) iteratively until the
correct thickness that satisfies the equality above is met. Once the correct slab thickness
is obtained, the k value could be easily calculated using Eqs. (3), (4) or (6).
For illustration purpose, a design traffic loading (W18) of 107 ESAL is assumed. The
other design parameters assumed are as follows: R = 95%, So = 0.29, ∆PSI = 1.7, pt =
2.5, Cd = 1, J = 3.2 and Sc = 650 psi (4.5 MPa). Two elastic moduli of concrete slab (Ec),
6 x 106 psi (41.4 GPa) and 3 x 106 psi (20.7 GPa), are employed in this study.
(iii) Evaluate the relative performance of the six k-E relationships by means of comparing
the trend of the computed concrete slab thickness based on k values produced by the k-E
relationships. Further comparison of the concrete slab thickness was also conducted by
comparing the thickness of the slab on pavement system having different elastic moduli
of concrete slab (Ec). A brief statistical analysis was also presented in this paper to
examine the dispersion of the k value and the corresponding d against E.

4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Fig. 1 and Table 1 present the k values obtained from six k-E relationships evaluated in this
study, by using the corresponding E values. As we can see in Fig. 1 and Table 1, the modulus
of subgrade reaction, k, produced by AASHTO increases sharply with the increase of E. This
is because, referred to Eq. (1), the k value doubled the E values. Therefore, the use of the E of
fine-grained soil in k-E relationship proposed by AASHTO will exceed the typical range of k,
which is between 4.8 – 128 MN/m3 (Bowles, 1988). In Table 1, the first one third of the table
of some k values computed by the NUS lk-lE model seems very low in magnitude, although
they are still within the range of the moduli. This is due to the first 10 E values in Table 1
which are categorized as weak subgrade. In addition, it was shown by Setiadji and Fwa (2008)
that the predicted k values produced by the NUS lk-lE model showed a good agreement with

1505
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

the measured ones. Therefore the low k values produced by this k-E relationship are still
acceptable.

In Fig. 1, one can also examine how steep the trend of increasing k by calculating roughly the
gradient using the values of k at the beginning and end point of the series, as shown in the
figure. Based on this, the AASHTO 1993 k-E relationship is the approach with the highest
gradient, followed by the k-E relationships proposed by Ullidtz, Vesic and Saxena,
Khazanovich et al., and the two k-E relationships proposed by Setiadji and Fwa, NUS k-E and
NUS lk-lE models.

Further analysis was conducted in this study by the use of two different concrete slab moduli
in pavement design. In this analysis, the elastic modulus of subgrade (E) remained the same,
only the elastic modulus of concrete slab (Ec) was changed, from 41.4 GPa to 20.7 GPa. Since
only three approaches whose relationship is a function of Ec, only three k-E relationships were
compared, as shown in Fig. 1 (c), (d) and (f). The result showed that the k values from the two
k-E relationships by Vesic and Saxena, and Ullidtz increased in similar amount of about 30%,
with decreasing of Ec while the k values from the NUS lk-lE model seemed relatively
unchanged. In theory, the change in Ec without any change in E should only cause an increase
or decrease of the concrete slab thickness and not change the magnitude of k. This showed
one of the deficiencies of the k-E relationships by Vesic and Saxena, and Ullidtz.

Table 2 and Fig. 2 exhibit the concrete slab thickness (d) determined using the 1993
AASHTO design equation (Eq. 7). The d in this table is obtained based on the k values in
Table 1. Two sets of concrete slab thicknesses are listed in Table 2 as there are two Ec used in
the calculation. As seen in Table 2 and more clearly in Fig. 2, concrete slab thickness based
on the AASHTO 1993 k-E relationship decreases significantly with an increase in E. It is a
consequence of the steep trend of k-E relationship as shown in Fig. 1 (a). By the end of the
range of E, it can be predicted that the thickness of the concrete slab produced by the
AASHTO method will be too thin to support the traffic load imposed on pavement surface.

It can be seen in Fig. 2 that among all the six k-E relationships, the NUS lk-lE model could
produce the largest concrete slab thickness with the same values of E and Ec. This indicated
that the NUS lk-lE model would not underestimate concrete slab thickness to maintain the
level of pavement performance throughout the design life of the pavement. The sensitivity of
the k values produced by the six k-E relationships in determining concrete slab thickness was
conducted by examining the gradient of the curve in Fig. 2. Again, the AASHTO k-E
relationship showed the highest gradient of d-E curve. The best three k-E relationships that
could show relatively insensitive changes of d with a change of E were the NUS lk-lE, NUS
k-E and k-E relationship by Khazanovich et al., in the order listed.

A simple statistical analysis was performed in this study to examine how the k and d are
distributed. It also serves to measure the variability of k or d against E. Table 3 presents the
results of the statistical analysis. It appears in Table 3 that k and d from the NUS lk-lE model
vary the least against E. This supports the previous finding that the NUS lk-lE model was less
sensitive in producing k and the corresponding d with varying E values.

1506
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper evaluated the relative merits of different k-E relationships in rigid pavement
design. Six k-E relationships were compared. They were the equivalent k-E models based on
the lk-lE and k-E relationships (NUS lk-lE and NUS k-E models) by Setiadji and Fwa, the k-E
relationship by Khazanovich et al., the k-E relationship by Vesic and Saxena, the k-E
relationship by Ullidtz, and the k-E relationship by AASHTO. The calculation of concrete
slab thickness was conducted using the AASHTO pavement design procedure.

The analysis showed that the k-E relationship by AASHTO produced the worst results among
the methods evaluated. Therefore this relationship is not recommended to be used in rigid
pavement design. Among all the k-E relationships evaluated, the NUS lk-lE model produced
the largest concrete slab thickness (d) for a given value of elastic modulus of subgrade (E). In
addition, the NUS lk-lE model was also the most reliable in estimating k and the
corresponding pavement thickness design for different E values. The k-E relationship based
on the NUS lk-lE model is recommended for the purpose of rigid pavement design.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (1993) AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
ARA Consulting Group Inc. (2004) Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Final Report, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Bowles, J.E. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Huang, Y.H. (2003) Pavement Analysis Design, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Khazanovich, L., Tayabji, S. D. and Darter, M. I. (2001) Backcalculation of Layer Parameters
for LTPP Test Sections, Volume I: Slab on Elastic Solid and Slab on Dense-Liquid
Foundation Analysis of Rigid Pavements, Technical Report FHWA-RD-00-086, Federal
Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia.
Setiadji, B.H. and Fwa, T.F. (2009). Examining k-E Relationship of Pavement Subgrade
Based On Load-Deflection Consideration, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.
135, No. 3, American Society of Civil Engineers, 140-148.
Ullidtz, P. (1987). Pavement Analysis, Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Vesic, A.S. and K. Saxena (1974). Analysis of Structural Behavior of AASHO Road Test
Rigid Pavements, NCHRP Report No. 97, Highway Research Board, Washington D.C.
Yoder, E.J. and Witczak, M.W. (1975). Principles of Pavement Design, 2nd Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

1507
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

Table 1 Elastic modulus of subgrade (E) and its corresponding modulus of subgrade reaction
(k) calculated using 6 different k-E relationships
k (MN/m3)
E
Case AASHTO 1993 Khazanovich et al. Vesic & Saxena Ullidtz NUS k-E NUS lk-lE
(MPa)
Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2
1 55.98 113.78 113.78 16.57 16.57 10.60 13.74 12.40 16.06 7.99 7.99 5.58 6.63
2 58.17 118.24 118.24 17.22 17.22 11.16 14.46 13.05 16.91 8.55 8.55 5.87 6.96
3 49.76 101.14 101.14 14.73 14.73 8.98 11.63 10.60 13.73 6.38 6.38 4.79 5.77
4 38.64 78.53 78.53 11.44 11.44 6.41 8.22 7.50 9.71 3.49 3.49 3.39 4.23
5 64.15 130.39 130.39 18.99 18.99 12.72 16.47 15.01 19.45 10.10 10.10 6.70 7.79
6 78.39 159.33 159.33 23.20 23.20 16.77 21.72 19.79 25.65 13.79 13.79 8.60 9.79
7 40.70 82.72 82.72 12.05 12.05 6.87 8.81 8.04 10.40 4.03 4.03 3.67 4.50
8 48.23 98.03 98.03 14.28 14.28 8.62 11.16 10.17 13.05 5.98 5.98 4.60 5.56
9 79.93 162.46 162.46 23.66 23.66 17.21 22.29 20.31 26.32 14.19 14.19 8.81 10.00
10 55.64 113.08 113.08 16.47 16.47 10.52 13.62 12.30 15.93 7.90 7.90 5.54 6.58
11 88.68 180.24 180.24 26.25 26.25 19.95 25.85 23.33 30.52 16.46 16.46 10.06 11.20
12 108.54 220.61 220.61 32.13 32.13 26.12 34.17 30.83 40.35 21.60 21.60 12.79 13.90
13 89.68 182.28 182.28 26.55 26.55 20.25 26.24 23.68 30.98 16.72 16.72 10.19 11.33
14 90.06 183.05 183.05 26.66 26.66 20.36 26.39 23.81 31.16 16.81 16.81 10.25 11.38
15 97.13 197.41 197.41 28.75 28.75 22.52 29.46 26.58 34.46 18.64 18.64 11.21 12.35
16 87.25 177.33 177.33 25.82 25.82 19.52 25.29 22.83 29.86 16.08 16.08 9.86 11.00
17 119.75 243.39 243.39 35.45 35.45 30.05 39.33 35.47 46.45 24.50 24.50 14.40 15.39
18 103.71 210.79 210.79 30.70 30.70 24.58 32.15 29.01 37.97 20.35 20.35 12.12 13.25
19 113.49 230.67 230.67 33.59 33.59 27.97 36.61 32.72 43.24 22.88 22.88 13.47 14.56
20 120.39 244.70 244.70 35.64 35.64 30.26 39.61 35.73 46.78 24.67 24.67 14.49 15.47
21 194.69 395.72 395.72 57.63 57.63 59.10 78.22 69.12 92.42 43.91 43.91 24.75 24.79
22 176.65 359.05 359.05 52.29 52.29 51.42 68.02 60.72 80.36 39.24 39.24 22.30 22.61
23 163.70 332.72 332.72 48.45 48.45 46.46 61.46 54.33 72.60 35.89 35.89 20.52 21.03
24 203.89 414.42 414.42 60.35 60.35 62.86 84.04 74.23 99.30 46.30 46.30 25.99 25.89
25 160.98 327.20 327.20 47.65 47.65 45.43 59.50 53.13 70.29 35.18 35.18 20.15 20.69
26 189.98 386.15 386.15 56.24 56.24 57.21 75.71 66.90 89.45 42.69 42.69 24.11 24.23
27 198.61 403.68 403.68 58.79 58.79 60.69 80.33 71.67 95.88 44.93 44.93 25.28 25.26
28 182.66 371.26 371.26 54.07 54.07 53.77 71.85 63.49 84.88 40.80 40.80 23.12 23.34
29 145.99 296.73 296.73 43.21 43.21 39.50 52.23 46.64 61.70 31.30 31.30 18.03 18.80
30 152.98 310.93 310.93 45.28 45.28 42.04 55.59 49.64 65.67 33.11 33.11 18.99 19.69
Remarks:
Ec-1: calculation of k value based on concrete slab elastic modulus (Ec) 41.4 GPa
Ec-2: calculation of k value based on concrete slab elastic modulus (Ec) 20.7 Gpa

1508
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

Table 2 Elastic modulus of subgrade (E) and its corresponding concrete slab thickness (d)
calculated using 6 different k-E relationships
d (cm)
E
Case AASHTO 1993 Khazanovich et al. Vesic & Saxena Ullidtz NUS k-E NUS lk-lE
(MPa)
Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2
1 55.98 25.527 24.282 27.559 27.000 27.940 27.178 27.940 27.178 28.042 27.584 28.448 27.940
2 58.17 25.451 24.206 27.534 26.949 27.940 27.178 27.940 27.178 27.991 27.534 28.448 27.686
3 49.76 25.705 24.511 27.661 27.102 28.194 27.432 27.940 27.178 28.169 27.737 28.448 27.940
4 38.64 26.035 24.994 27.813 27.305 28.194 27.686 28.194 27.432 28.473 28.118 28.702 28.194
5 64.15 25.298 23.978 27.457 26.848 27.940 27.178 27.686 26.924 27.889 27.407 28.194 27.686
6 78.39 24.968 23.495 27.305 26.645 27.686 26.924 27.432 26.670 27.686 27.153 28.194 27.432
7 40.70 25.984 24.892 27.788 27.280 28.194 27.686 28.194 27.432 28.397 28.042 28.448 28.194
8 48.23 25.730 24.587 27.661 27.127 28.194 27.432 27.940 27.432 28.194 27.788 28.448 27.940
9 79.93 24.943 23.444 27.280 26.645 27.686 26.924 27.432 26.670 27.686 27.127 28.194 27.432
10 55.64 25.527 24.282 27.559 27.000 27.940 27.178 27.940 27.178 28.042 27.610 28.448 27.940
11 88.68 24.740 23.139 27.203 26.518 27.432 26.670 27.432 26.416 27.559 27.000 27.940 27.432
12 108.54 24.359 22.530 27.026 26.289 27.432 26.416 27.178 26.162 27.356 26.721 27.940 27.178
13 89.68 24.714 23.114 27.178 26.518 27.432 26.670 27.432 26.416 27.559 26.975 27.940 27.432
14 90.06 24.714 23.114 27.178 26.492 27.432 26.670 27.432 26.416 27.559 26.975 27.940 27.432
15 97.13 24.562 22.885 27.127 26.416 27.432 26.416 27.178 26.416 27.483 26.873 27.940 27.432
16 87.25 24.765 23.190 27.203 26.543 27.432 26.670 27.432 26.416 27.584 27.026 27.940 27.432
17 119.75 24.130 22.174 26.924 26.162 27.178 26.162 26.924 25.908 27.254 26.594 27.686 27.178
18 103.71 24.435 22.682 27.051 26.340 27.432 26.416 27.178 26.162 27.407 26.797 27.940 27.178
19 113.49 24.257 22.377 26.975 26.238 27.178 26.162 27.178 25.908 27.305 26.670 27.940 27.178
20 120.39 24.130 22.174 26.924 26.162 27.178 26.162 26.924 25.908 27.254 26.594 27.686 27.178
21 194.69 22.885 19.710 26.416 25.502 26.416 25.146 26.416 24.892 26.721 25.883 27.432 26.670
22 176.65 23.165 20.371 26.518 25.654 26.670 25.400 26.416 25.146 26.822 26.035 27.432 26.670
23 163.70 23.368 20.828 26.619 25.756 26.670 25.400 26.670 25.146 26.924 26.162 27.432 26.924
24 203.89 22.733 12.800 26.365 25.425 26.416 24.892 26.162 24.638 26.645 25.832 27.432 26.670
25 160.98 23.419 20.904 26.619 25.781 26.670 25.654 26.670 25.400 26.924 26.187 27.432 26.924
26 189.98 22.962 19.888 26.441 25.527 26.416 25.146 26.416 24.892 26.746 25.933 27.432 26.670
27 198.61 22.809 19.558 26.391 25.476 26.416 25.146 26.162 24.638 26.695 25.857 27.432 26.670
28 182.66 23.063 20.168 26.492 25.603 26.670 25.146 26.416 24.892 26.797 25.984 27.432 26.670
29 145.99 23.673 21.387 26.721 25.908 26.924 25.654 26.670 25.400 27.051 26.314 27.686 26.924
30 152.98 23.546 21.158 26.670 25.857 26.924 25.654 26.670 25.400 27.000 26.264 27.686 26.924
Remarks:
Ec-1: calculation of k value based on concrete slab elastic modulus (Ec) 41.4 GPa
Ec-2: calculation of k value based on concrete slab elastic modulus (Ec) 20.7 GPa

1509
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

Table 3 Statistical analysis to examine the dispersion of k and d

a. Statistical analysis on k (MN/m3)

AASHTO 1993 Khazanovich et al. Vesic & Saxena Ullidtz NUS k-E NUS lk-lE
Properties
Ec-1 / Ec-2 Ec-1 / Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 / Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2
No. of cases 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Minimum value (MN/m3) 78.53 11.44 6.41 8.22 7.50 9.71 3.49 3.38 4.22
Maximum value (MN/m3) 414.42 60.35 62.86 84.04 74.23 99.30 46.30 25.97 25.87
Mean (MN/m3) 227.53 33.14 29.00 38.14 34.10 45.05 22.48 13.31 14.12
Standard deviation (MN/m3) 107.14 15.60 18.18 24.28 21.40 28.78 13.65 7.27 6.93

b. Statistical analysis on d (cm)

AASHTO 1993 Khazanovich et al. Vesic & Saxena Ullidtz NUS k-E NUS lk-lE
Properties
Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2 Ec-1 Ec-2
No. of cases 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Minimum value (cm) 22.73 12.80 26.37 25.43 26.42 24.89 26.16 24.64 26.64 25.83 27.43 26.67
Maximum value (cm) 26.04 24.99 27.81 27.31 28.19 27.69 28.19 27.43 28.47 28.12 28.70 28.19
Mean (cm) 24.39 22.23 27.06 26.34 27.32 26.35 27.19 26.13 27.44 26.83 27.92 27.31
Standard deviation (cm) 1.03 2.42 0.45 0.59 0.60 0.85 0.62 0.91 0.54 0.69 0.40 0.48

1510
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

120 120
(a) 118.24 MN/m3 AASHTO 1993 (Ec1/Ec2)
(Ec-1/Ec-2) (b) Khazanovich
Khazanovich et al. (Ec1/Ec2)
(Ec-1/Ec-2)
100 100

80 80
k (MN/m3)

k (MN/m3)
78.53 MN/m3

60 60
60.35 MN/m3
40 40

11.44 MN/m3
20 20

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
E (MPa) E (MPa)
120 120
(c) Vesic &
Vesic & Saxena
Saxena(Ec1)
(Ec-1) Vesic &
Vesic & Saxena
Saxena(Ec2)
(Ec-2) Ullidtz (Ec1)
Ullidtz (Ec-1) Ullidtz(E
Ullidtz (Ec-2c-2) )
(Ec2) (d)
100 100
84.04 MN/m3 99.30 MN/m3
80 80
k (MN/m3)

k (MN/m3)
60 60 74.23 MN/m3
62.86 MN/m3
40 40

8.22 MN/m3 9.71 MN/m3

20 20

6.41 MN/m3 7.50 MN/m3

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
E (MPa) E (MPa)
120 120
(e) NUS k-E
NUS k-E (Ec1/Ec2)
(Ec-1/Ec-2) NUS
NUSlk-lE
lk-l(Ec1)
E (Ec-1)
NUS
NUSlk-lE
lk-l(Ec2)
E (Ec-2)
(f)
100 100

80 80
k (MN/m3)

k (MN/m3)

60 60

40 40 25.99 MN/m3
46.30 MN/m3

20 20 4.23 MN/m3
3.49 MN/m3
25.89 MN/m3
3.39 MN/m3
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
E (MPa) E (MPa)

Figure 1 Estimating k from E by different methods

1511
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, 2010

30

(3) (a)

(4)
28
(2)
(6)

(5)
d (cm)

26

24

(1) AASHTO 1993 (4) Ullidtz

(2) Khazanovich et al. (5) NUS k-E (1)
(3) Vesic & Saxena (6) NUS lk-lE
22
0 50 100 150 200 250
E (MPa)
30
(b) (1) AASHTO 1993 (4) Ullidtz
(2) Khazanovich et al. (5) NUS k-E
(3) Vesic & Saxena (6) NUS lk-lE

28

(6)
d (cm)

26 (5)
(2)
(3)
(1) (4)
24

22
0 50 100 150 200 250
E (MPa)
Figure 2 Estimating d by different methods
(calculation of d based on (a) Ec = 41.4 GPa; and (b) Ec = 20.7 GPa)

1512