Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Book Contents Publication List
Book Contents Publication List
P
CONTENTS
Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... ...3 Aggregate Interlock or Doweled Joints . . . . . ...30
Applications of Design Procedures. . . .... . . ... ...3 User-Developed Design Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...30
Computer Programs Available . . . . . . .... . . ... ...4
Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... ...4 Appendix A. Development of Design
Metric Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... ...4 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...32
Analysis of Concrete Pavements . . . . . ..... . . . ...32
Chapter 2. Design Factora . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...5 Jointed Pavements .............. ..... . . . ...32
Flexural Strength of Concrete . . . .... . . .... . . . ...5 Continuously Reinforced Pavements .... . . . ...33
Subgrade and Subbase Support . .... . . .... . . . ...6 Truck-Load Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...33
Design Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...6 Variation in Concrete Strength . . . . . . ..... . . . ...34
Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...8 Concrete Strength Gain with Age . . . . . .. .. . . . ...34
Projection ................. .... . . .... . . .. . .8 Warping and Curling of Concrete . . . . ..... . . . ...34
Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...8 Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...34
ADTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...8 Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...35
Truck Dkectional Dktribution .... . . .... . . ...10
Axle-Load Dktribution ...... .... . . .... . . ...10 Appendix B. Daaign of Concrete Pavements
Load Safety Factors . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . ...10 with Lean Concrete Lower Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
fsan Ccmcrete Subbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
Chapter 3. Design Procedure Monolithic Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
(Axle-Load Data Available) . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...11
Fatigue Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...11 Appendix C. Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads . . . . ...39
Erosion Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...11
Sample Problems . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...13 Appendix D. Estimating Traffic Volume
by Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...42
Chapter 4. Simplified Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Not Available) . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...23 Appendix E. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...44
Sample Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...30
Comments on Simplified Procedure . . .... . . . . ...30 Daaign Worksheet for Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . ...47
Modulus of Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...30
Design Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...30
3
A3. Fatigue relationships. customary Metric Conversion
unit unit coefficient
BI. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (lean
concrete subbase), in. mm 25.40
ft m 0.305
B2. Design chart for composite concrete pavement
lb kg 0.454
(monolithic with lean concrete lower layer).
lbf N 4.45
B3. Modulus of rupture versus compressive strength. kip kN 4.45
Cl. Analysis of tridems, lb/in.x kPa 6.89
lb/ in.x (k value) MPa/m 0.271
Tables
1. Effect of Untreated Subbase on k Values
2. Design k Values for Cement-Treated Subbase
3. Yearly Rates of Traffic Growth and Corresponding
Projection Factors
4. Percentages of Four-Tke Single Units and Trucks
(ADTT) on Various Highway Systems
5. Axle-Load Data
6a. Equivalent Stress-No Concrete Shoulder
6b. Equivalent Stress-Concrete Shoulder
7a. Erosion Factors—Doweled Joints, No Concrete
Shoulder
7b. Erosion Factors—Aggregate-Interlock Joints, No
Concrete Shoulder
8a. Erosion Factom—Doweled Joints, Concrete
Shoulder
8b. Erosion Factors—Aggregate-Interlock Joints,
Concrete Shoulder
9. Axle-Load Categories
10. Subgrade Soil Types and Approximate k Values
11. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 1—Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
12a. Allowable AD’IT, Axle-Load Category 2—Pave-
ments with Doweled Joints
12b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2—Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
13a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3—Pave- L-J
ments with Doweled Joints
Introduction
This bulletin deals with methods of determining slab Applications of Design Procedures
thicknesses adequate to carry traffic loads on concrete
streets, roads, and highways, The design procedures given in this text apply to the fol-
The design purpose is the same as for other engineered lowing types of concrete pavements: doweled,
plain, plain
structures—to find the minimum thickness that will re- reinforced, and continuously reinforced.
sult in the lowest annual cost as shown by both first cost Plain pavements are constructed without reinforcing
and maintenance costs. If the thickness is greater than steel or doweled joints. Load transfer at the joints is ob-
needed, tbe pavement will give good service with low tained by aggregate interlock between the cracked faces
maintenance costs, but first cost will be high. If the thick- below the joint saw cut or groove. For load transfer to be
ness is not adequate, premature and costly maintenance effective, it is necessary that short joint spacings be used.
and interruptions in traffic will more than offset the lower Plain-doweled pavements are built without reinforcing
P
first cost. Sound engineering requires thickness designs steeb however, smooth steel dowel bars are installed as
that properly balance first cost and maintenance costs. load transfer devices at each contraction joint and rela-
While this bulletin is confined to the topic of thickness tively short joint spacings are used to control cracking.
design, other design aspects are equally important to en- Reinforced pavements contain reinforcing steel and
sure the performance and long life of concrete pavements. dowel bars for load transfer at the contraction joints. The
These include— pavements are constructed with longer joint spacings
● Provision for reasonably uniform support. (See Sub- than used for unreinforced pavements. Between the joints,
grades ond Subbases for Concrete Pavements,*) one or more transverse cracks will usually develop; these
● Prevention of mud-pumping with a relatively thin are held tightly together by the reinforcing steel and good
untreated or cement-treated subbase on projects load transfer is provided.
where the expected truck traffic will be great enough Commonly used joint spacings that perform well are 15
to cause pumping. (The need for and requirements of ft for plain pavements,tt not more than 20 ft for plain-
subbase are also given in the booklet cited above. ) doweled pavements, and not more than about 40 ft for
reinforced pavements. Joint spacings greater than these
● Use of a joint design that will afford adequate load
have been used but sometimes greater spacing causes
transfeq enable joint sealants, if required, to be effec-
pavement distress at joints and intermediate cracks be-
tive; and prevent joint distress due to infiltration.
tween joints.
(See Joint Design for Concrete Highway and Street
Continuously reinforced pavements are built without
Pavements.** )
contraction joints, Due to the relatively heavy, continu-
● Use of a concrete mix design and aggregates that will ous-steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direction,
provide quality concrete with the strength and dura- these pavements develop transverse cracks at close inter-
bility needed for long fife under the actual exposure vals. A high degree of load transfer is developed at these
conditions. (See Design and Control of Concrete crack faces held tightly together by steel reinforcement.
Mixrf4re$.T) The design procedures given here cover design condi-
The thickness design criteria suggested are based on tions that have not been directly addressed before by
general pavement performance experience. If regional or
local specific performance experience becomes available
for more favorable or adverse conditions, the design cri- ‘Portland Cement As$o.iation publication 1S029F’
**portl..d @nent Association publication 1S059P.
P teria can be appropriately modified. This could be the tPortle.”d Cement Aswwiaticm publication EBOOIT.
case for particular climate, soil, or drainage conditions TtFor very thin pavements, a 15-ft joint spacing may beexcessive–sw
and future design innovations. the afor.sme”tioned PCA publication . . joint desigm
Design Factors
After selection of the type of concrete pavement (plain The modulus of rupture can be found by cantilever,
pavement with or without dowels, reinforced jointed center-point, or third-point loading. An important dif-
pavement with dowels, or continuously reinforced pave- ference in these test methods is that the third-point test
ment), type of subbase if needed, and type of shoulder shows the minimum strength of the middle third of the
(with or without concrete shoulder, curb and gutter or test beam, while the other two methods show strength at
integral curb), thickness design is determined hased on only one point. The value determined by the more con-
four design factors: servative thkd-point method (American Society for Test-
1. Flexural strength of the concrete (modulus of rup- ing and Materials, ASTM C78)isused fordesign in this
ture, MR) procedure.*
Modulus of rupture tests are commonly made at 7, 14,
2. Strength of the subgrade, or subgrade and subbase
combination (k) 28, and90days. The 7-and 14daytest results arecom-
P
pared with specification requirements for job control and
3. The weights, frequencies, and types of truck axle
for determining when pavements can be opened to traffic.
loads that the pavement will carry
The 28-day test results have been commonly used for
4. D&ign period, which in this and other pavement de- thickness design of highway sand streets and are recom-
sign procedures is usually taken at 20 years, but may mended for use with this procedure; 90day results are
be more or less used forthedesign of airfields. These values are used be-
These design factors are discussed in more detail in the cause there arevery fewstress repetitions during the first
following sections. Other design considerations incorpo- 28 or 90 days of pavement life as compared to the millions
rated in the procedure are discussed in Appendix A. of stress repetitions that occur later.
Concrete continues to gain strength with age as shown
in Fig. 1. Strength gain isshown bythesolid curve, which
Flexural Strength of Concrete represents average MR values for several series by lab-
oratory tests, field-cured test beams, and sections of con-
Consideration of the flexural strength of the concrete is crete taken from pavements in service.
a,ppficable in the design procedure for the fatigue crite- fn this design procedure theeffects** ofvafiationsin
rion, which controls cracking of the pavement under concrete strength from point to point in the pavement
repetitive truck loadings. and gains in concrete strength with age are incorporated
Bending of a concrete pavement under axle loads pro- in the design charts and tables. The designer does not di-
duces both compressive and flexural stresses. However, rectly apply these effects but simply inputs the average
the ratios of compressive stresses to compressive strength 28-day strength value.
are too small to influence slab thickness design. Ratios of
flexural stress to flexural strength are much higher, often
exceeding values of 0.5. As a result, flexural stresses and
flexural strength of the concrete are used in thickness de-
sign. Flexural strength is determined by modulus of rup-
ture tests, usually made on 6x6x30-in. beams. *Fora standard 30-in. beam, c.nlcr-point-load inEtcst val.es will be
For specific projects, the concrete mix should be de- about 75 psi higher, and cantilever-loading 1.s1 values.bout 160 psi
signed to give both adequate durability and flexural higher than cticrd-p.int-loa$ i.g test values. Th.x higher values are not
i“te”ded tok.sdfor deszgnpurposts. Iftbese other test methods are
F- strength at the lowest possible cost. Mix design proce- used, adowmvard adjustment should be made byestabtisbing acorre-
dures are described in the Portland Cement Association lationto thtrd-poi.t-load test values.
publication Design and Control of Concrete A4ixt ures. ..’IIe,e effects are discussed in Appendix A.
Am
1216
‘DTT ‘ ZY2x ’00= ‘3%
This ADTT percentage would be appropriate for de.
sign of a project where factors influencing the growth and
,0 composition of traffic are similar to those at this load-
ometer station.
Another source of information on ADTT ercentages
!’37)
is the National Truck Characteristic Report. Table 4,
PROPORTIONOF TRuCKS IN RIGHT LANE
which is taken from this study, shows the percentages of
four-tire single units and trucks on the major highway Fig. 3. Proportion of trucks in right lane of a multilane
systems in the United States. The current publication, divided highway. (Derived from Reference 3&)
which is updated periodically, shows that two-axle, four-
tire trucks comprise between 40’% to 65% of the total
number of trucks, with a national average of 49% It is
fikely that the lower values on urban routes are due to
larger volumes of passenger cars rather than fewer trucks. ‘Tr.cks-xcludes panels and pickups and other f. .r-ti r. vehiclcs.
.m
I Rural average daily traffic I Urban average daily traffic
Data on the axle-load distribution of the truck traffic is 1&20 10.40 21.67 235,800
needed to compute the numbers of single and tandem 16-18 13.56 28.24 307,200
axles* of various weights expected during the design per. 14-16 18.64 38,83 422,500
iod. These data can be determined in one of three ways: 12-14 25.69 53,94 586,900
(1) special traffic studies to establish the loadometerdata 1}12 81.05 168,85 ,637,000
for the specific project; (2) data from the state highway
Tandem axles
department’s Ioadometer weight stations (Table W4) or
48-52 I 0.94 I 1.96 21,320
weigh-in-motion studies on routes representing truck
44-48 1.89 3.94 42,670
weights and types that are expected to be similar to the
project under design; (3) when axle-load distribution 4s44 5.51 11,48 124,800
data are not available, methods described in Chapter 4 36-40 16.45 34.27 372,900
based on categories of representative data for different 32-36 39.06 81,42 885,800
types of pavement facilities. 28-32 41.06 65.54 930,700
The use of axle-load data is illustrated in Table 5 in 24-28 73,07 152.23 1,656,000
which Table W4 data have been grouped by 2-kip and 20-24 43.45 90.52 984,900
4-kip increments for single- and tandem-axle loads, re. 15-20 54,15 112.81 1,227,000
spectively. The data under the heading “Axles per 1000 12-16 59,85 124.69 1,356,000
Trucks” are in a convenient form for computing the axle-
Ioad distribution, However, an adjustment must be made, Columns 1 and 2derived from Ioadometer W-4 Table. This table al$oshows
13,215 tolal trucks coumed with 6,916 two-axle, four-tire trucks (52%].
Column 2 of Table 5 gives values for all trucks, including
Column 3 Column 2 values adjusted for two.wle, four-tire trucks equal
the unwanted values for panels, pickups, and other four- to Column 2/[1 52/100).
tire vehicles. To overcome this difficulty, the tabulated Column 4 = Col. rnn3X [tr.cksindesig” period ))1000. %esmnpleproblem,
values are adjusted as described in the Table 5 notes, Design 1, In which trucks in design period (onedirection) tolal 10,880,000,
10
Publication List Book Contents
CHAPTER 3
Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Available)
The methods in this chapter are used when detailed axle- ● Without concrete shoulder, use Table &z and Fig. 5
load distribution data have been determined or estimated . With concrete shoulder, use Table 6b and Fig. 5
as described in Chapter 2.* Procedure Steps:
Fig. 4 is a worksheet** showing the format for corn. 1. Enter as items 8 and 11 on the worksheet from the
pleting design problems.t It requires as input data the
aPPr~Priate table the equivalent stress factors de-
following design factors discussed in Chapter 2. pending on trial thickness and k value.
● Type of joint and shoulder
2, Divide these by the concrete modulus of rupture and
● Concrete flexural strength (MR) at 28 days enter as items 9 and 12.
● k value of the subgrade or subgrade and subbase 3. FII1 in Column 4, “Allowable Repetitions; deter.
combination? mined from Fig. 5.
● Load safety factor (LSF) 4. Compute Column 5 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
● Axle-load distribution (Column 1) umn 4, multiplying by 100 then total the fatigue at
P
● Expected number of axle-load repetitions during the bottom.
the design period (Column 3)
Both a fatigue analysis (to control fatigue cracking)
and an erosion analysis (to control foundation and shoul- Erosion Analysis
der erosion, pumping, and faulting) are shown on the de-
sign worksheet. Without concrete shoulder
The fatigue analysis will usually control the design of ● Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
light-traffic pavements (residential streets and secondary ments# —use Table 7a and Fig. 6a.
roads regardless of whether the joints are doweled or not) ● Aggregate-interlock joints—use Table 7b and Fig.
and medium traffic pavements with doweled joints. 6a,
The erosion analysis will usually control the design of
With concrete shoulder
medium- and heavy-traffic pavements with undoweled
● Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
(aggregate-interlock) joints and heavy-traffic pavements
with doweled joints. ments~—use Table 8a and Fig. 6b.
For pavements carrying a normal mix of axle weights, ● Aggregate-interlock joints—use Table 8band Fig, 6b.
single-axle loads are usually more severe in the fatigue Procedure Steps:
analys]s, and tandem-axle loads are more severe in the 1. Enter the erosion factors from the appropriate table
erosion analysis.
as items 10 and 13 in the worksheet.
The step-by-step design procedure is as follows: The
design input data shown at the top of Fig. 4 are estab- 2. FIO in Column 6, “Allowable Repetitions,” from
lished and Columns 1 and 3 are tilled out. The axle loads Fig. 6a or Fig. 6b.
are multiplied by the load safety factor for Column 2.
11
r Axle
I I I
L
load,
hips
u’
12
13
“’U
14
Publication List Book Contents
10,000,0001
60--(--’20
58
Q 15
:-
/ 2-
56
110 1,ocwooo8—
54
6-
52 4-
[
50 100 0.2”
\ 2-
46
90 loo,ooo—
44 8-
+
“..3
42 6-
/- 2
0
40 80 4-
m i=
a
Z 38 ) 1=
.. —.— —— -——+ w
.—-— a.
c)” 36 — 2- w
a a
o 70
-1
34
w
-1 1o,ooQ—
32
z t 8-
6-
4-
26
50 “.s”
24 2-
22
i 0.(3”
20 40 looo—
8-
18 Q ?“
6-
16 0.80
30 4-
0. 9“
14
-1
I.”.
12
2
10 2“
i 1.s”
/ 100 ~
15
16
50- — 100 2-
— 2.0
– 90 10,000,000 =
— 2.2 8-
6-
40 – – 80
4-
– 2.4
tio~ — — ~—
Y k 2.6 — ~._ 2-
~.+
30 – – 60 a – 2.8 I ,000,000:
g 8-
(/) u
u) a ~ 6-
Il. – 3.0
Z G
~ 4-
~- 25- – 50 ~“
m
a 0 o —3.2
o -1
J 5
u
w 2-
-1
i – 3.4
;
~ 20– — 40 :
w 100,000:
; n – 3.6 6-
~ la- . z1-
(n 35 6-
— 3.8
16- - 4-
– 30
— 4.0
14- - 2-
– 25
IQOOO -
t2- -
8-
6-
4-
lo- — 20
2-
9- - 18
8— 16 1000 —
17
“-/’
18
40 80
–2.2
I ,Ooo,ooo
8
70 6
a
—2.4
P 4
v i
30 60 2 – 2.6 i
/
~ 2- 2
(n g
: —2.8 ~
w 1-
W
100,000
—k
—3.0 8- :
a
6- 0
-1
—3.2
4- ?
m
4
g
— 3.4
J
2- 2
16
!
— 3.6
30
14 I Qooo—
8-
25
6-
12
r
10
8
20
18
16
19
%%.. C&z?#’(+&&d5.A&
1 2 3 4 5 6 T
Total
0.6 I Total
%?/
L) —
Fig. 7. Design ID.
20
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
w
Fig. 8. Design 2A.
22
CHAPTER 4
The design steps described in Chapter 3 include separate correspond to the four categories of traffic. Appropriate
calculations of fatigue consumption and erosion damage load safety factors of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2, respectively,
for each of several increments of single- and tandem-axle have been incorporated into the desigo tables for axle-
loads. This assumes that detailed axle-load data have Ioad Categories 1, 2,3, and 4. Tbe tables show data for a
been obtained from representative truck weigh stations, design period of 20 years. (See the section “Design
weigh-in-motion studies, or other sources. Period”, following.)
This chapter is for use when specific axle-load data are In these tables, subgrade-subbase strength is charac-
not available. Simple design tables have been generated terized by the descriptive words Low, Medium, High, and
based on composite axle-load distributions that repre- Very High. Fig. 2 shows relationships between various
P subgrade-bearing values, In the event that test date are
sent different categories of road and street types. A fairly
wide range of pavement facilities is covered by four cate- not available, Table 10 lists approximate k values for dif-
gories shown in Table 9.* ferent soil types. If a subbase is to be used—see Chapter 2
The designer does not directly use tbe axle-load data**
because the designs have been presolved by the methods
*On page 30, guidelines for preparing designtables for axle-load dis-
described in Chapter 3. For convenience in design use, tbe tributions d~ffemnt fmm th.se givem here are discussed.
results are presented in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14, which ** Axle.load data for the four categories are given in Table 15.
23
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks, so total number of trucks allowed will be greater—see text.
24
w
.-
E
5’
1,
5.5 I 3 17
6 3 14 41 lSU
6.5 29 120 320 1100
7 210 770 1900
7,5 1100 4000
I
Note: Fatigue analysis controls the design. .ADTT exd”des two-axle, four-tire trucks so mtel number.1 tr.cks allowed wilt be greater–see text.
w
8 13W. 19CW
6 19 64 220 610
6.5 I&l 620 1400.. 2100,,
I
7 1000 1900,.
6.5 4 19
.-
~ 7 I 11 34 150
WE===’
.ADTT excludes two-axle, I..,-tire trucks total ““mbw of tr.cks allowed will be greater—see text,
‘+Erosio” analysis controls the design: otherwise fatigue analysis controls.
25
~ ““”
Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab Subgrade-subbase support u
thickness, thic$~,
in. Low Medium High Very high Low Medium High Very high
a===
=
z
I 7.5 I 250
s 130 350 1,300
z. 8.5 i ,600 6,200
lea 640
,,
a 9 700 2,700 7,000 11,500,,
z 9.5 2,7CQ 10,800
10 9,900
6.5 I 67
7 120 440
7,5 270 8s0 2,300
8 I 370 1,300 3,200 10.s00
6.5 1,600 5,800 14,100
9 6,&10
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire truck% total number of trucks allowed will be greater—see text.
.. Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fatigue analysis comrols. ‘u
v’
26
ConcreteShoulderor Curb
n Slab
thic;~
Subgrade-subbase support Slab
thickness,
Subgrade-subbase support
Low Medium High Very high tn. Low Medium High Very high
I
7,5 ~o..
25W .
8 130- 350- 830
,@y,
.- 8,5 640,, 900 1,300
% 9 680 1,000 1,300 2,000
z 9.5 960 1,500 2,000 2,900
.
10 1,3CC 2,1C!U 2,800 4,300
K
10.5 1,800 2,900 4,000 6,300 10.5 5,300
z
11 2,500 4,000 5,700 9,200 11 8,100
11.5 3,300 5,500 7,900
12 4,400 7,500
8 73..
310++
8.5, 14W. 380”’ 1,300
. 9 160,. 640. - 1,300 2,000
a 9.5 63W + 1,503 2,000 2,900
~ ,0
. 1,300 2,100 2,800 4,300
,,
cc
10.5 1,8CU 2,900 4,000 6,3oo 9.5 I 2,300 4.700 S.om
~ 11 2,500 4,000 5,700 9,200 10 I 3,500 7,700
11.5 3,300 5,500 7,900 10.5 I 5.300
12 4,400 7,500 11 S,loo
1 1
8 56” 7 62’,
6.5 70..
,. 300>+ 1,5 130,. 460’ +
.— 120,, 1,300,. 67..
9 340., 8 270., 670.. 2,301Y+
% 9.5 12W+ 520., 2,900 8,5 330” 1,200., 2,700 4,700
l,3cKl-
z ,0
0 460,, 1,9CW, 2.800 4,300 9 1,400%, 2,900 4,6oo 8,700
10,5 1,600,+ 2,91Y3 4;000 6,300 9.5 2,30+1 4,700 8,000
E
~ 11 I 2,500 4,000 5,700 9,2oo 10 3,500 7,700
11,5 3,300 5,500 7,9C+I 10.5 5,30U
12 I 4.400 7,500 11 8,1OQ
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks total number 0{ trucks allowed will be greater—see text.
,. Fatigue analysis controls the design, otherwise erosion analysis controls.
27
+3=
z tl 21,800 39,800” 10 45,20W.
11.5 39,70W,
—
28
=$===== 8.5
9 120’” 340”
30W+
1,30W.
12
I
12,800
12 ] 12,800
1 1 I
8 130.. 48W ,
8.5 25W , 620” 2,101Y.
K
12 3,600 6,100 8,800 14,900 11 5,900 13,6W 24,200
14 10.800
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks; total number of trucks allowed w(II be greater—see text.
,. Fatigue analysis controls !he design; otherwise erosion analysis controls.
29
30
31
‘u
APPENDIX A
I I I
Analysis of Concrete Pavements
L–––––––L–––––_J
The design procedure is based on a comprehensive anai- (.) Axle. I.od p.sil ion for criticolf lexw.1 stresses
ysis of concrete stresses and deflections at pavement
joints, corners, and edges by a finite-element computer
m
program. IN ,t ~I]ow~ ~o”~iderations of slabs with finite
dimensions, variable axle-load placement, and the mod-
eling of load transfer at transverse joints 6r cracks and
load transfer at the joint between pavement and concrete
Troffic
shoulder. For doweled joints, dowel properties such as lone
diameter and modulus of elastic it y are used direct] y. For
aggregate, interlock, keyway joints, and cracks in comim Freeedgem i i
shoulder joint
uously reinforced pavements, a spring stiffness value is
used to represent the load-deflection characteristics of > Concrete shoulder
, (,F medl
such joints based on field and laboratory tests.
L–––____J__——–––– .
(b) Axle load pmitio. for critic.! deflections
Jointed Pavements
d
After analysis of different axle-load positions on the slab, Fig. Al. Critical axle-load positions.
32
0:ME2!&ia
substantially better nor worse than those for jointed,
doweled pavements. As a result, in this design procedure,
the same pavement responses and criteria are applied to
continuously reinforced pavements as those used with
cc 0123 4567a
jointed, doweled pavements. This recommendation is
consistent with pavement performance experience. Most PERCENT TRuCKS AT EDGE
33
: 0.6
m
34
35
APPENDIX B
●ll. criteria are that (1) stressratios in either of the two concrete
Lean Concrete Subbase layers not exceed that of the reference pavement and (2)erosion values
at the s.bbase-s.bgrade interface not exceed those of the reference pave-
The largest paving use of lean concrete has been as a sub- ment. Rational. for the criteria is give. in Reference 50 plus two ad&l-
base under a conventional concrete pavement, This is timal considerations: (1) erosion criteria is included in addition to the
nonmonolithic construction where the surface course of fatigue approach given in the referencq and (2) for nonmonolithic con-
struction, some structural benefit C141is added because the subbase is
normal concrete is placed on a hardened lean concrete constructed wider than the pavement.
subbase. Usually, the lean concrete subbase is built at . . F1.xural wemgth of !..” comxete m be used as a subbase is usually
least 2 ft wider than the pavement on each side to support selected to be between i50 to 250 psi (compressive Wength, 750 to 1200
the tracks of the sfipform paver. This extra width is struc- psih these relatively low strengths are used to minimize reflective crack- ,,.
ing from tbe unjointed subbase (.s..1 practice is to leave the s.hhm.
turally beneficial for wheel loads applied at pavement .“jointed) through the concrete surface. lf, c.ntmry toc.rrem practic.,
edge. joints are placed in the subbase, the stcmgth of the 1..” comrete would u
The normal practice has been to select a surface thick- “.1 have to b. restricted m the lower m “ge.
36
250.
<
14
450 /
I 50 14 _
350
< .< “%
13
250 .. / ‘
,0 / ‘
/
I50 ;
12
/ ‘
6). / /
II / ‘ /
d
/ )
0
I 0(.++ ~ –;
9 r
9
are thicknesses of concrete
surface course
Fig. B1. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (lean concrete subbase),
37
14
350
/,
13 -
12
“l- t+htl+’tft
‘0+--wH--tf7b%4
3“ Surface 4“ Surface
Fig. B2, Design chart for composite concrete pavement (monolithic with lean concrde Iowef layer).
38
39
1 1 1 [ I I
I
I 1 1 I I I I
Total Total
o 7.3
u’
Tabla Cl. Equivalent Stress-Tridems
(Without Concrete Shouldar/With Concrete Shoulder)
Slab k of subgrsde.subbase, pcl
thickness,
in. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 51W431 456/392 4371377 428/369 419/362 41 4/360 41 2/359
4,5 439/365 380/328 359/31 3 349/305 339/297 331/392 32S/291
5 367/317 328/281 305/266 293/258 282/250 272[244 269/242
5.5 347[279 290/246 266/231 253/223 240/214 230/206 226/206
8 315[249 261/218 237/204 223/1 96 209/187 198/1 80 193/1 78
6.5 289/225 238/1 96 214/163 201/175 186/1 66 173/159 168/1 56
7 267/304 219/178 196/1 65 183/1 58 167/1 49 154/142 148/1 38
7.5 247/1 87 203/1 62 181/151 166/1 43 153/135 139/1 27 132(124
6 230/172 189/1 49 168/1 36 156/131 141/123 126/116 120/112
6.5 215/159 177[1 36 1561126 145/121 131/113 116/106 109/102
9 2W147 166/ 128 148/119 136/112 122/105 108/98 101/94
9.5 1871137 157/120 140/111 129/1 05 115/98 101/91 93/87
10 1741127 148/112 133/104 122/98 106/91 95/64 87/61
10.5 183/119 140/105 125/97 115/92 103/86 89/79 82/78
11 153/111 133/89 119/92 110/87 98/81 S5174 78177
11.5 142/104 125/93 113/86 104/82 93{76 80/70 74/67
12 133/97 119/83 106/82 100[78 89/72 77/66 70/63
12.5 123/91 113/33 103/78 95/74 85/66 73[63 67/847
13 114/85 107/79 98/74 91/70 81/65 70/80 64/57 ,..
13.5 105/80 101/75 93/70 87/67 78[62 67[57 61/54
14 97175 98/71 89/67 83/63 75/59 65/54 59/51 L/”
40
P
Table C3. Erosion Fectors—Tridems-Aggregate-interlock Joints
(Without Concrete Shoulder/With Concrete :~oulder)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thic;.,
50 100 200 300 5130 700
4 4.06/3.50 3.97[3.36 3.68/3.30 3.62/3.25 3.7413.21 3.6713.16
4.5 3.9513.40 3.8513.26 3,78/3.16 3.70/3.13 3.63/3.08 3.58/3.04
5 I 3,85[3,32 3.75/3.19 3.66/3.06 3.60/3.03 3.52/2.97 3.46/2.93
5.5 3,76/3,26 3,66/3.11 3.56/3.00 3.51[2.94 3.4312.67 3.37[2 .83
6 I 3,68/3,20 3.58/3.05 3.4LV2.92 3,42/2.66 3.35,/2.79 3.29/2.74
6.5 3.61/3.14 3.50/2.99 3.40/2.86 3.34/2.79 3.27,/2.72 3.21/2.67
7 3.54/3.09 3.43/2.94 3.33/2.80 3.27/2.73 3.20/2,65 3,14/2.60
7.5 3.48/3.05 3.3712.89 3.2612.75 3.20/2.67 3.13/2.59 3.06/2.54
8 3.42/3.01 3.31/2,84 3,20/2.70 3.14/2.62 3.07/2.54 3.01/2.46
8.5 3.3712.97 3.25/2.80 3.15/2.65 3.09/2.58 3.01/2,49 2.96/2.43
9 3.32/2.94 3.20/2.77 3.09/2.61 3.03/2.53 2,95/2,44 2.90/2.38
9.5 3.2712.91 3.15/2.73 3.0412.56 2.98/2.49 2.90/2.40 2.85/2.34
41
42
p
*Lane widths of lessthan 12ft are rarely used in current pract i.., ex-
cept for very lightly traveled two-lam roads where land serviceis a pri-
mary function.
**SW Table D2.
?S.. Refermct 53, Table 11-14.
==
40 800 7Cnl 620
43
APPENDIX E
References
1. Westergaard, H. M., “Computation of Stresses in 41;, also PCA Development Department Bulletin
Concrete Roads,” High way Research Board pro. DXOI1.
ceedings, Fifth Annual Meeting, 1925, Part 1, pages 11. Childs., L. D., and Kapernick, J. W., “Tests of Con-
90 to 112. crete Pavement Slabs on Gravel Subbases,” Proceed-
2. Westergaard, H. M., “Stresses in Concrete Pavements ings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 84
Computed by Theoretical Analysis,” Public Roads, (HW-3), October 195fi also PCA Development De-
Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1926, pages 25 to 35. partment Bulletin DX021.
3. Westergaard, H. M., “Analysis of Stresses in Con- 12. Childs. ,, L. D.. and Kanernick.
. . J. W... “Tests of Con-
crete Roads Caused by Variations in Temperature,” crete Pavements on Crushed Stone Subbases,” Pro-
Public Roads, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 1927, pages 201 to ceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
215. Proc. Paper No. 3497, Vol. 89 (H W- 1), April 1963, z “’
4. Westergaard, H. M., “Theory of Concrete Pavement pages 57 to 8@ also PCA Development Department ‘~
Design; High way Research Board Proceedings, Bulletin DX065.
Seventh Annual Meeting, 1927, Part 1, pages 175 to 13. Childs, L. D., “Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on
181. Cement-Treated Subbases,” Highway Research Rec-
5. Westergaard, H. M., “Analytical Tools for Judging ord 60, Highway Research Board, 1963, pages 39 to
Results of Structural Tests of Concrete Pavements? 58; also PCA Development Department Bulletin
Public Roads, Vol. 14, No. 10, December 1933, pages DX086.
185 to 188. 14. Childs, L. D., “Cement-Treated Subbases for Con-
6. P1ckett, Gerald; Ravine, Milton E.; Jones, WMam C.; crete Pavements,” Highway Research Record 189,
and McCormick, Frank J., “Deflections, Moments Highway Research Board, 1967, pages 19 to 43; also
and Reactive Pressures for Concrete pavements,” PCA Development Department Bulletin DX125.
Kansas State College Bulletin No. 65, October 1951. 15. Childs, L. D., and Nussbaum, P. J,, “Repetitive Load
7. Pickett, Gerald, and Ray, Gordon K., “Influence Tests of Concrete Slabs on Cement-Treated Sub-
Charts for Concrete Pavements? American Society bases,” RD025P, Portland Cement Association, 1975.
of Civil Engineers Transactions, Paper No. 2425, Vol. 16. Tayabji, S. D., and Coney, B. E,, “Improved Rigid
116, 1951, pages 49 to 73. Pavement Joints,” paper presented at Annual Meeting
8. Tayabji, S. D., and Coney, B. E., “Analysis of Jointed of Transportation Research Board, January 1983 (to
Concrete Pavements,” report prepared by the Con- be published in 1984).
struction Technology Laboratories of the Portland 17. Childs, L. D., and Ball, C. G., “Tests of Joints for
Cement Association for the Federal Highway Ad- Concrete Pavements,” RD026P, Portland Cement
ministration, October 1981. Association, 1975.
9. Teller, L. W., and Sutherland, E. C., “The Structural 18. Coney, B. E., and Humphrey, H. A., “Aggregate in-
Design of Concrete Pavements,” Public Roads, Vol. terlock at Joints in Concrete Pavements,” Highway
16, Nos. 8, 9, and 10 (1935) Vol. 17, Nos. 7 and 8 Research Board Record No. 189, Transportation Re-
(1936); Vol. 23, No. 8 (1943). search Board, 1967, pages I to 18.
10. Childs, L. D., Coney, B. E., and Kapernick, J. W., 19. Coney, B. E., Ball, C. G., and Arriyavat, P., “Evalua- ....
“Tests to Evaluate Concrete Pavement Subbases,” tiOn Of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders or ‘
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Widened Lanes,” Transportation Research Record ‘~
Paper No. 1297, Vol. 83 (H W-3), July 1957, pages 1 to 666, Transportation Research Board, 1978; also Pmt-
44
45
‘u’
7..
“u
46
Axle
load,
hips
,p
P’
Total Total
‘u
to pavement
routine
thickness
offers
design problems
u
● Pavement fatigue and subbase erosion calculations
“ Comprehensive theory
● Realistic design criteria
The computer program design procedures, based on this manual and verified by
performance, consider !oad transfer at transverse and longitudinal joints (doweled
or undoweled), concrete shoulders, curbs and gutters, and adjacent parking-lot
Ianee.
Traffic load considerations are simplified. Any designer can choose a stored
traffic load category to fit the situation. Or available traffic load data can be input.
The software runs on IBM personal computers and compatibles(128K, DOS 2.0
or later), and the package includes a floppy diskette, the user’s manual, and this
design manual, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements.
To order PCAPA~(MCO03), contact the Portland Cement Association, Order
Processing Department, 5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1083,
(800)888-6733