Canadian Edition
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................... 3
Applications of Design Procedures ...............................3
Computer Programs Available ................................... 4 User-Developed Design Tables ............................
Basis for Design ........................................................... 4
Chapter 2. Design Factors .............................................. 5
Flexural Strength of Concrete ........................................ 5 Jointed Pavements .................................................... 32
Subgrade and Subbase Support ....................... . . ........ 6
Design Period ................................................................. 6
Traffic .....................................
........................................8
Projection ................................ . . ...............................8
Capacity ..................................................................... 8
ADTT .............................................................................. 9
Truck Directional Distribution .................................10
Axle-Load Distribution ............................................ 10
Load Safety Factors ......................... . ........................... 10
Chapter 3. Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Available) ................................... 11
.... .................................. 11
Fatigue Analysis ..................
Erosion Analysis .....................
..............................11
Sample Proble~nsand Co~nlnents.............................. 13
.
Chapter 4 Simplified Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Not Available) .................................... 23
Sample Problems ......................
.............................. 30
Comments on Simplified Procedure ...........................30
Modulus of Rupture ..................................................
30
Design Period ..............................................................30
Aggregate-Interlock or Doweled Joints ..................30
.... 30
.
Appendix A Development of Design Procedure ....... 32
Analysis of Concrete Pavements .................................32
Continuously Reinforced Pavements ..................... 33
Truck Load Placement .................... . .......................33
Variation in Concrete Strength ....................................34
Concrete Strength Gain with Age ................................34
Warping and Curling of Concrete ........................... .... 34
Fatigue ............................... .... ..................................35
Erosion ............................................................................
35
Appendix B .Design of Concrete Pavements
with Lean Concrete Lower Course ............................... 36
Lean Concrete Subbase .................................................36
Monolithic Pavement ...................... . ........................ 36
Appendix C. Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads ............. 39
Appendix D . Estimating Traffic Volume
by Capacity ........................................................................ 42
Appendix E. References .........................................
46
Design Worksheet for Reproduction .......................... 48
 ures
1. Flexural strength, age, and design relationships.
2. Approximate interrelationships of soil classifications
and bearing values.
3. Percentage of trucks in right lane of a multilane divided
highway.
4. Design 1A.
5. Fatigue analysis-allowable load repetitions based on
stress ratio factor (with and without concrete slroulder).
6a. Erosion analysis-allowable load repetitions based on
erosion factor (without concrete slroulder).
6b. Erosion analysis-allowable load repetitions based on
erosion factor (with concrete slroulder).
7. Design ID.
8. Design 2A.
Al. Critical axle-load positions.
A2. Equivalent edge stress factor depends on percent of
trucks at edge.
A3. Fatigue relationships.
B1. Design clm-t for composite concrete pavement (lean
concrete subbase).
B2. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (mono-
litldc with lean concrete lower layer).
B3. M o d ~ ~ l of
u srupture versus compressive strength.
C1. Analysis of tridems.
1. Effect of Untreated Subbase on k Values
2. Design k Values for Cement-Treated Subbase
3. Yearly Rates of Traffic Growtlr and Corresponding Pro-
jection Factors
4. Percentages of Four-Tiresingle 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 Con-
crete Shoulder
8a. Erosion Factors-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-Pavernents
witlr Aggregate-Interlock Joints
l2a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2-Pavements
with Doweled Joints
12b.Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2-Pavements
with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
13a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3-Pavements
witlr Doweled Joints
13b.Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3-Pavements
witlr Aggregate-Interlock Joints
14a.Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 4-Pavements
with Doweled Joints
14b.Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 4-Pavements
witlr Aggregate-Interlock Joints
15. Axle-Load Distributions Used for Preparing Design
Tables 11 through 14.
C1. Eq~~ivalent Stress-Tridems
C2. Erosion Factors-Triderns-DoweledJoints
C3. Erosion Factors-Tridems-Aggregate-Interlock Joints
Dl. Levels of Service and Maximum Service Volumes for
Multilane Highways, Undivided and/or Without Ac-
cess Control, Under Uninterrupted Flow Conditions
D2. Levels of Service and Maximum Service Volumes for
Two-Lane Highways Under Uninterrupted Flow Con-
ditions
D3. Passenger Car Equivalents of Trucks onMultilane Higlr-
ways on Specific Individual Sections or Grades
CHAPTER 1
This bulletin deals with methods of determining slab
thicknesses adequate to carry traffic loads on concrete
streets, roads, and highways.
The design purpose is the same as for other engi-
neered structures-to find the minimum thickness that
will result in the lowest annual cost as shown by both first
cost and maintenance costs. If the thickness is greater tl~an
needed, the pavement will give good service with low
maintenance costs, but first cost will be high. If the thick-
ness is not adequate, premature and costly maintenance
and interruptions in traffic will more than offset the lower
first cost. Sound engineering requires thickness designs
that properly balance first costs and maintenance costs.
While this bulletin is confined to the topic of thickness
design, other design aspects are equally important to
ensure the performance and long life of concrete pave-
ments. These il~clude-
Provision for reasonably uniform subgrade support.
(See Reference 1 for additional detail.)
Prevention of mud-pumping or faulting with a rela-
tively thin untreated or cement-treated subbase on
projects where the expected truck traffic will be great
enough to cause pumping. (The need for and re-
quirements of subbase are described in References 1,
2, and 3.)
Use of a joint design that will afford adequate load
transfer, control cracking, and prevent joint distress
due to infiltration. ("5)
Use of a concrete mix design and aggregates that will
provide quality concrete wit11 the strength and dura-
bility needed for long life under the actual exposure
conditions. ( 6 )
The thickness design criteria suggested are based on
general pavement performance experience. If regional or
local specific performance experience becomes available
for more favorable or adverse conditions, the design crite-
ria can be appropriately modified. This could be the case
for particular climate, soil, or drainage conditions and
future design innovations.
Applications of Design Procedures
The design procedures given in this text apply to the
following types of concrete pavements: plain, plain dow-
eled, reinforced, and continuously reinforced.
Plain pavements are constructed without reinforcing
steel or doweled joints. Load transfer at the joints is ob-
tained by aggregate interlock between the cracked faces
below the joint saw cut or groove. For load transfer to be
effective, it is necessary that short joint spacings be used.
Plain-doweled pavements are built without reinforcing
steel; however, smooth steel dowel bars are installed as load
transfer devices at each contraction joint and relatively short
joint spacings are used to control cracking.
Reinforced pavements contain reinforcing steel and
dowel bars for load transfer at the contraction joints. The
pavements are constructed with longer joint spacings than
used for unreinforced pavements. Between the joints, one
or more transverse cracks will usually develop; these are
held tightly together by the reinforcing steel and good load
transfer is provided.
Commonly used joint spacings that perform well for
plain and plain-doweled pavements are 4.6 m maximum.
For very thin pavements, a 4.6-m joint spacing may be
excessive.("Jointspacings for reinforced pavements should
not exceed 13.0 m, as greater spacing may cause distress at
joints and intermediate cracks.
Continuously reinforced pavements are built without
contraction joints. Due to the relatively heavy, continuous-
steelreinforcement in the longitudinal direction,these pave-
ments develop transverse cracks at close intervals. A high
degree of load transfer is developed at these crack faces held
tightly together by steel reinforcement.
The design procedures cover the following design
conditions.
 Tlre degree of load transfer at transverse joints pro-
vided by the different pavernent types described.
Tlxe effect of using a concrete slxoulder adjacent to
tlre pavement; concrete shoulders reduce the flex-
ural stresses and deflections caused by vehicle loads.
The effect of using a lean concrete (econocrete) sub-
base, wl-ticlr reduces pavernent stresses and deflec-
tions, provides considerable support when trucks
pass over joints, and provides resistance to subbase
erosion caused by repeated pavement deflections.
Two design criteria:(a)fatigue, to keep pavernent stresses
due to repeated loads within safe limits and thus pre-
vent fatigue cracking; and (b) erosion, to limit tlre effects
of pavement deflections at slab edges, joints, and cor-
ners and tlrus control tlre erosion of foundation and
slroulder materials. The criterion for erosion addresses
pavement distresses suclr as purnping, faulting, and
slroulder distress wlricll are unrelated to fatigue.
Triple axles can be consiclered in design. Wlrile the
conventional single-axle and tandem-axle configu-
rations are still the predominant loads on lriglxways,
use of triple axles (triderns) is increasing. They are
seen on some over-the-road trucks and on special
roads used for hauling coal or other minerals.
Trideins may be more damaging iixterrns of erosion
(deflection) than fatigue.
Selection of an adequate tlrickness is dependent upon
the choice of other design features-jointing system, type of
subbase if needed, and slroulder type.
With these additional design conditions, the tlrick-
ness requirements of design alternatives, whiclr influence
cost, can be directly compared.
Clrapter 2 describes how tlre factors needed for solving
a design problem are determined. Clrapter 3 details the full
design procedure tlrat is used when specific axle-load-
distribution data are known or estimated. If detailed axle-
load data are not available, tlre design can be accomplished
as described in Clrapter 4, by selection of one of several
categories of data that represent a range of pavement
facilities varying from residential streets up to busy inter-
provincial lriglrways.
Thicltness design problems can be worked out by hand
with the tables and charts provided here or by computer
programs tlrat are available from the Canadian Portland
Cement Association.
The tlrickness design rnethods presented here are based
on knowledge of pavernent tlreory, performance, and
research experience from tlre following sources:
1. Theoretical studies of pavement slab behavior by
Westergaard '7-'1), Pickett and Ray artd recently
developed finite element computer analyses, one of
wlriclr is used as the basis for this design procedure. (I'"
Model and full-scale tests suclr as the Arlington
Tests(I5)and several research projects conducted by
PCA and other agencies on subbase^('^-"), joint^(^^-^^),
and concrete slroulders. (25-2G)
Experimental pavements subjected to controlled test
traffic, such as the Bates Test Road ''7', tlre Pittsburg
Test Highway tlre Maryland Road Test tlre
""',
AASHO" Road Test (30-33), and studies of in-service
highway pavements made by various state depart-
ments of transportation.
The performance of nor~nallyconstructed pavements
subject to normal mixed traffic.
All these sources of knowledge are useful. However,
tlxe knowledge gained from performance of normally
constructed pavements is the most important. Accord-
ingly, it is essential to examine tlre relationship between
the roles tlrat perforrnance and tlreory play in a design
procedure. Sophisticated tlreoretical methods permit the
responses of the pavement-stresses, deflections,pressures-
to be more accurately modeled. This tl~eoreticalanalysis is
a necessary part of a mechanistic design procedure, for it
allows consideration of a full range of design-variable
combinations. An important second aspect of the design
procedure is tlre criteria applied to the theoretically com-
puted values-the limiting or allowable values of stress,
deflection, or pressure. Defining the criteria so tlrat design
results are related to pavement performance experience
artd research data is critical in developing a design proce-
dure.
Tlre theoretical parts of the design procedures given
here are based on a comprehensive analysis of concrete
stresses and deflections by a finite element computer
program. (I4)The program models tlxe conventional design
factors of concrete properties, foundation support, and
loadings, plus joint load transfer by dowels or aggregate
interlock and concrete slroulder, for axle-load placements
at slab interior, edge, joint, and corner.
The criteria for the design procedures are based on the
pavement design, performance, artd researclr experience
referenced above including relationships to performance
of pavements at the AASHO Road Test (30) and to studies
(34,35) of the faulting of pavements.
More information on tlre development and basis of
design procedure is given in Appendix A and Reference 36.
" Now the American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials(AASHTO).
CHAPTER 2
DESIGN FACT
After selection of the type of concrete pavement (plain
pavement with or w i t h o ~dowels,
t reinforced jointed pave-
ment with dowels, or continuously reinforced pavement),
type of subbase if needed, and type of shoulder (with or
without concrete shoulder, curb and gutter or integral curb),
thickness design is determined based on four design factors:
Flexural strength of the concrete (modulus of rup-
ture, MR)
Strength of the subgrade, or subgrade and subbase
combination (1c)
The weights, frequencies, and types of truck axle
loads that the pavement will carry
Design period, which in this and other pavement
design procedures is usually taken as 20 years, but
may be more or less
These design factors are discussed in more detail in the
)llowing sections. Other design considerations incorpo-
rated in the procedure are discussed in Appendix A.
Flexural Strength of Concrete
Consideration of the flexural strength of the concrete is
applicable in the design procedure for the fatigue criterion,
which controls cracking of the pavement under repetitive
truck loadings.
Bending of a concrete pavement under axle loads pro-
duces both compressiveand flexuralstresses. However, the
ratios of compressive stresses to compressive strength are
too small to influence slab thickness design. Ratios of flex-
ural stress to flexural strength are much higher, often ex-
ceeding 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 150 x 150 x 760-mm beams.
For specific projects, the concrete mix should be de-
signed to give both adequate durability and flexural
strength at the lowest possible cost. Mix design procedures
are described in Desigiz and Control of Concrete Mixtures.
The modulus of rupture can be found by cantilever,
center-point, or third-point loading. An important differ-
ence in these test methods is that the third-point test shows
the minimum strength of the middle third of the test bearn,
while the other two methods show strength at only one
point. The value determined by the more conservative
third-point method (Canadian Standards Association Stan-
dard CAN/CSA A23.2-8C) (61' is used for design in this
procedure.*
If compressive strength tests are used to evaluate the
quality of the concrete, the relationship between the flex-
ural strength and the compressive strength should be
determined for the mix design under consideration. An
approximate relationship between flexural and compres-
sive strength is:
MR = K J f (c)'
where:
M R = Flexural strength, (in Mpa), for third-point
loading
I< = constant, usually between 0.7 (for rounded
aggregate) and 0.8 (for crushed aggregate)
f(cY = compressive strength, (in Mpa)
The 28-day modulus of rupture test results have been
commonlyused for thickness design of highways and streets
and are recommended for use with this procedure; 90-day
results are used for the design of airfields. These values are
used because there are very few stress repetitions during
the first 28 or 90 days of pavement life as compared to the
millions of stress repetitions that occur later.
* For a standard 760-mm beam, center-point-loading test values
will be about 0.5 MPa higher, and cantilever-loading test values
about 1.1 MPa higher than third-point-loading test values. These
higher values are not intended to be used for design purposes. I f
these other test methods are used, a downward adjustment
should b e m a d e b y establishing correlation t o third-point-load
test values.
 Concrete continues to gain strength with age as shown FLEXURAL STRENGTH -AGE RELATIONSHIP
in Fig. 1.Strength gain is shown by the solid curve, which
represents average MR values for several series by labora-
tory tests, field-cured test beams, and sections of concrete
taken from pavements in service.
In this design procedure the effects* of variations in
concrete strength from point to point in the pavement and
gains in concrete strength with age are incorporated in the
design charts and tables. The designer does not directly
apply these effects but simply inputs the average 28-day
strength value.
The AASHO Read Test (") demonstrated that tlre re-
duced subgrade support during thaw periods has little or
no effect on the required thickness of concrete pavements. yrs. 1

This is true because tlre brief periods when k values are low Age
during spring thaws are more than offset by the longer Fig. 1 Flexural strength, age and design relationships.
periods when the subgrade is frozen and k values are
much higher than assu&ledfor design. To
avoid tile tedious to Table 1. Effect of Untreated Subbase on k Values
design for seasonal variations ink, ??om~al Subyrade Subbase k value
sutmzer- orfall-zoeather 1c valt~esare used as k value 100 mm 150 mm 225 mm 300 mm
MPdm pci MPdm pci MPdm pci MPdrn pci MPdm pci
reasonable mean values.
20 73 23 85 26 96 32 117 38 140
It is not economical to use untreated
40 147 45 165 49 180 57 210 66 245
subbases for the sole purpose of increas- 60 220 64 235 66 245 76 280 330
ing k values. Where a s~lbbaseis used,** 80 295 87 320 90 330 100 370 117 430
there will be an increase in k that shot~ld
be used in the thickness design. If the
subbase is an untreated grantllar mate- Table 2. esign k Values for Cement-Treated Subbase
rial, the approximate increase in k Carl be Subgr.a& Subbase k value
taken from Table 1. k value 100 mm 150 mm 225 mm 300 mm
Theval~1esslrowninTable1arebased MPdm pci MPdm pci MPdm pci MPdm pci MPdm pci
on the Bmmister ("I analysis of two-layer 20 73 60 220 80 300 105 400 135 500
systemsandplate-loadingtestsrnadeto 40 147 100 370 130 500 185 680 230 850
60 220 140 520 190 700 245 900 - -
determine kvalues on subgrades and sub-
bases for full-scale test slabs. (x)

858 ort
The support given to concrete pavements by the subgrade,
and the subbase where used, is the second factor in thick-
ness design. Subgrade and subbase support is defined in
terms of the Westergaard rnodulus of subgrade reaction
(k).It is equal to tlre load in newtons per square millimetre
on a loaded area (760-mm-diameterplate) divided by the
deflection in rnillimetres for that load. The k values are
expressed as megapascals per metre, which gives a realis-
tic unit value (the Imperial unit is pounds per cubic incll,
pci). Equipment and procedures for determining k values
are described in References 37 and 38.
Since tlre plate-loading test is time consuming and
expensive, the k value is usually estimated by correlation
to simpler tests such as the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
or R-value tests. The result is valid because exact determi-
nation of the k value is not required; nornlal variations
from an estimated value will not appreciably affect pave-
ment thickness requirements. The relationships shown in
Fig. 2 are satisfactory for design purposes.
Cement-treated subbases are used for heavy-duty
concrete pavements in many parts of the world. Design
information for cement-treated subbases is provided in
References 1and 2. Other procedures that give an equiva-
lent quality of material can be used. Design k values for
cement-treated subbases meeting these criteria are given
in Table 2.
Thickness design of concrete pavements on lean con-
crete subbases represents a special case that is covered in
Appendix B.
esi erio
The term design period is used in this publication rather
than pavement life. The latter is not subject to precise
* These effectsare discussed in Appendix A.
""
Use o f subbase is recommended for projects where conditions
that would cause mud-pumping prevail; for discussion o f when
subbases should be used and how thick they should be, see the
ACPA publication, S l r l ~ ~.,adesalrd
p Srrbhses for Coi~cretePnaeltients.")
 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO - CBR (')
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5
I
10
I
20
I
1
30
I
IRLslJTANcE VALUE-R
40
I
50
I
I
60
(5)

I
70
I

MODU~US OF! SU'BGRADE R~ACTION- MP& (6)

20 40 60 80 100 140 180

I I I I I I
I

50 100
BEARING VALUE: kPa (')

150
I
200
I
250
I
300
I
I I
400
I

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO - CBR

I I I I I I
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 1

(1) For the basic idea, see O.J.Porter, "Foundations for Flexible Pavements," Highway Research Board Proceedings of the Twenty-secondAnnual Meeting, 1942, Vol
22, Pages 100-136.
(2) ASTM Designation D 2487.
(3) "Classification of Highway Subgrade Materials," Highway Research Board Proceedings of the Twenty-fifthAnnual Meeting, 1945, Vol. 25, pages 376-392.
(4) Airport Paving, US. Department of Commerce, Federal Aviation Agency, May 1948, pages 11-16 Estimated using values given in FAA Design Manual forAirport
Pavements (Formerly used FAA classification; United Classification now used.)
(5) C E Warnes, "Correlation Between R Value and kValue," unpublished report, Portland Cement Association, Rocky Mountain-Northwest Region. October 1971
(best-fit correlation with correction for satnration)
(6) See T. A. Middlebrooks and G. E. Bertram, "Soil Test for Design of Runway Pavements," Highway Research Board Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual
Meeting. 1942, Vol. 22, page 152
(7) See item (6), page 184.

Fig. 2. Approximate interrelationships of soil classifications and bearing values.

definition. Some engineers and highway agencies con- Table 3. Yearly Rates of Traffic
sider the life of a concrete pavement ended when tlre first Growth and Corresponding
overlay is placed. The life of concrete pavements may vary Proiection Factors*
from less t1ra1-120 years on some projects tlrat have carried Yearly
more traffic than originally estimated or have had design, rate of
traffic Projection Projection
material, or construction defects, to more than 40 years on
growth factor, factor,
other projects wlrere defects are absent. Yo 20 years 40 years
Tlre term design period is sometimes considered to be 1 1.1 1.2
synonymous with the term traffic-analysis period. Design 1112 1.2 1.3
periods of 25 to 30 years are becoming more common for 2 1.2 1.5
pavement design, withgreater emphasis onlongevity. There 2112 1.3 1.6
3 1.3 1.8
are often cases wlrere use of a shorter or longer design
31h 1.4 2.0
period may be economically justified, suclr as a special haul 4 15 2.2
road that will be used for only a few years, or a premium 4112 1.6 2.4
facility for which a high level of performance for a long time 5 1.6 2.7
with little or no pavernent maintenance is desired. Some 5112 1.7 2.9
6 1.8 3.2
engineers feel tlrat tlre design period for rural and urban
highways slrould be in tlre range of 30 to 35 years. * Factors represent values at the middes~gnperiod that
The design period selected affects thickness design are widely used in current practice Another method
since it determines how many years, and thus how many of computing these factors is based on the average
annual value Differences (both compound interest)
trucks, tlre pavement must serve. Selection of the design between the two methods will rarely affect design
period for a specific project is based on engineering judg-
ment and economic analysis of pavement costs and service 1. Attracted or diverted traffic-the increase over existing
provided tlrrouglrout tlre entire period. traffic because of improvement of an existing roadway.
2. Normal traffic growth-the increase due to increased
numbers and usage of motor velricles.
3. Generated traffic-the increase due to motor vehicle
The number and weights of heavy axle loads expected trips that would not have been made if the new
during tlre design life are major factors in the tlrickness facility had not been constructed.
design of concrete pavement. Tlrese are derived frorn 4. Development traffic-the increase due to changes in
estimates of land use due to construction of the new facility.
- ADT (average daily traffic in both directions,
all velricles) The combined effects will cause annual growth rates of
- ADTT (average daily truck traffic in both about 2% to 6%. These rates correspond to 20-year traffic
directions) projection factors of 1.2 to 1.8 as shown in Table 3.
- Axle loads of trucks Tlre planning survey sections of provincial ldghway
departments are very useful sources of knowledge about
Information on ADT is obtained from special traffic traffic growtlr and projection factors.
counts or frorn provincial or municipal traffic-volume Where there is some question about the rate of growtlr,
maps. This ADT is called tlre present or current ADT. The it may be wise to use a fairly lriglr rate. This is true on
design ADT is then estimated by tlre commonly used intercity routes and on urban projects where a high rate of
methods discussed here. However, any other method that urban growth may cause a higher-than-expected rate of
gives a reasonable estimate of expected traffic during the traffic growth. However, tlre growth of truck volumes may
design life can be used. be less than that for passenger cars.
High growtlr rates do not apply on two-lane-rural
roads and residential streets wlrere the primary function is
land use or abutting property service. Tlreir growtlr rates
One method for getting the traffic volume data (design may be below 2% per year (projection factors of 1.1 to 1.3).
ADT) needed is to use yearly rates of traffic growtlr and Some engineers suggest that the use of simple interest-
traffic projection factors. Table 3 shows relationships be- growth rates may be appropriate, rather than compound
tween yearly rates of growth and projection factors for interest rates, which when used with a long design period
both 20- and 40-year design periods. may predict unrealistically heavy future traffic.
In a design problem, the projection factor is multiplied
by tlre present ADT to obtain a design ADT representing Capacity
tlre average value for tlre design period.
Tlre following factors influence yearly growth rates The other method of estimating design ADT is based on
and traffic projections: capacity or service volume-the maximum number of ve-
l~iclesthat can use the pavement without unreasonable
delay. This method of estimating the volume of traffic is
described in Appendix D and should be checked for spe-
cific projects where the projected traffic volume is high;
more traffic lanes may be needed if reasonable traffic flow
is desired.

ADTT
The average daily truck traffic in both directions (ADTT) is
needed in the design procedure. It may be expressed as a
percentage of ADT or as an actual value. The ADTT val~ie
inclttdes only trucks with six tires or more and does not
include panel and pickup trucks and other four-tire vehicles.
The data from province, county, or city traffic-volume
maps may include, in addition to ADT, the percentage of
trucks from which ADTT can be computed.
For design of major interprovincial and primary sys-
tem projects, the planning survey sections of province PROPORTION OF TRUCKS IN RIGHT LANE
departments of transportation usually make specific traffic Fig. 3. Percentage of trucks in right lane of a multilane
surveys. These data are then used to determine the percent- divided highway. (Derived from reference 38.)
age relationship between ADTT and ADT.
ADTT percentages and other essential traffic data can
also be obtained from surveys condtlcted by
the highway department at specific locations Tab,e 4, Percentages of Four-Tire Single Units and
on the provincial highway system. These lo- Trucks (ADTT) on Various Highway Sy stems*
cations, called loadometer stations, have been

I
Rural average daily t~,aff ic Urban average dai traffic
carefully selected to give reliable information 2-axle
on traffic composition, truck weights, and Highway 4-tire Total 4-tire Total
axle loads. Survey results are compiled into a system single Trucks of of
set of tables from which the ADTT percentage units both both
can be determined for the highway classes Interstate 14 21 35 24
within a province. This makes it possible to Other federal-
16 13 29 26
aid primary
compute the ADTT percentage for each sta-
FederaCaid
tion. For example, a highway department secondary
10 15 25 22
loadometer table for aMidwesternstate yields
the following vehicle count for a loadometer
station on their Interstate rural system:
. Source:Ref 43

All vehicles-ADTT
Trucks: Another source of information on ADTT percentages
All single ~lnitsand combinations 1645 is the National Truck Characteristic Report. (") Table 4,
Panels and pickups 353 wl~ichis taken from this study, shows the percentages of
Other four-tire single units 76 fom-tire single units and trucks on the major highway
systems in the United States. The current publication,
Therefore, for this station: wl~icllis 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
likely that the lower values on urban routes are due to
larger volumes of passenger cars rather than fewer trucks.
It is important to keep in mind that the ADTT percent-
ages in Table 4 are average values computed from many
projects in all sections of the country. For this reason, these
This ADTT percentage would be appropriate for de- percentages are only suitable for design of specificprojects
sign of a project where factors influencing the growth and where ADTT percentages are also about average.
composition of traffic are similar to those at this loadometer
station. * Trucks; excludes panels and pickups and other four-tire vehicles.
 For design purposes, the total number of trucks in the
design period is needed. This is obtained by multiplying
design ADT by ADTT percentage divided by 100, times
the number of days in the design period (365 3 design
period in years).
For facilities of four lanes or more, the ADTT is ad-
justed by the use of Fig. 3.
In most design problems, it is assumed that the load on,
and volumes of, t r ~ ~ ctraveling
ks in each direction are fairly
equal-a 50-50 distribution.The design assumes that pave-
ment in each direction carries half of the total ADTT. This
may not be tr~lein special cases where many of the trucks
may be hauling full loads in one direction and returning
empty in the other direction. If such is the case, an appro-
priate adjustment in the ADTT is made.
Data on the axle-load distribution of the truck tr aff'IC are
needed to compute the nun~bersof single and tande~n
axles* of various masses expected during the design pe-
riod. These data can be determined in one of three ways:
special traffic studies to establish the loadometer data for
the specific project; ("data from the provincial highway
department's loadometer weight stations or in-motion
studies on routes representing truck masses and types that
are expected to be similar to the project mtder
when axle-load distribution data are not available, rnetll-
ods described in C11ayter 4 based on categories of repre-
sentative data for different types of pavement facilities can
be used.
The use of axle-load data is illustrated in Table 5 in
which data have been grouped by 8.8-M and 17.6-kN
increments for single- and tandem-axle loads, respec-
tively. The data under the heading "Axles per 1000Trucks"
are in a convenient form for computing the axle-load
distribution. However, an adjustment must be made. Col-
umn 2 of Table 5 gives values for all trucks, including the
unwanted values for panels, pickups, and other four-tire
vehicles. To overcome this difficulty, the tabulated values
are adjusted as described in the Table 5 notes.
Column 4 of Table 5 gives the repetitions of various
single- and tandem-axle loads expected during a 20-year
design period for the Design 1 sample problem given in
Cl~apter3.
In the design procedure, the axle loads determined in the
previous section are multiplied by a load safety factor
(LSF).These load safety factors are recommended:
For interprovincial and other multilane projects
where there will be uninterrupted traffic flow and
high vol~mlesof truck traffic, LSF = 1.2.
11 1
Axle load,
Axles per
(3)
Axles per
1000
trucks
Axles in
design
trucks (adjusted) period
Single axles
125-133
44.4-53 3 1
Tandem axles
213-231 1
"'
Columns I and 2 derived from loadometer W-4 Table This table also shows
13,215 total trucks counted with 6,918 two-axle. four-tire trucks (52%)
Column 3: Column 2 values adjusted for two-axle, four-tire trucks; equal to
Column 241-521100)
Column 4 = Column 3 x (trucks in design period)/1000. See sample problem,
Design 1, in which trucks in design period (one direction) total 10,880,000
For higl~waysand arterial streets where there willbe
moderate volumes of truck traffic, LSF = 1.l.
For roads, residentiaI streets, and other streets that
will carry small volumes of truck traffic, LSF = 1.0.
Aside from the load safety factors, a degree of conser-
vatism is provided in the design procedure to compensate
for such things as unpredicted truck overloads and normal
construction variations in material properties and layer
thicknesses. Above that basic level of conservatism (LSF
1.0), the load safety factors of 1.1 or 1.2 provide a greater
allowance for the possibility of unpredicted heavy truck
loads and volumes and a higher level of pavement service-
ability appropriate for higher type pavement facilities.
In special cases, the use of a load safety factor as high
as 1.3 may be justified to maintain a higher-than-norlnal
level of pavement serviceability tlrrouglrout the design
period. An example is a very busy urban freeway wit11 110
alternate detour routes for the traffic. Here, it maybe better
to provide a premium facility to avoid any significant
pavement maintenance that W O L disrupt ~ ~ traffic flow.
* See Appendix C if it is expected that trucks with tridem loads will
be included in the tmffic forecast.
CHAPTER 3
The methods in this chapter are used when detailed axle-
load-distribution data have been determined or estimated
as described in Chapter 2."
Fig. 4 is a worksl1eet**showing the format for complet-
ing design problems.+It requires as input data the follow-
ing design factors discussed in Chapter 2:
0 Type of joint and shoulder
0 Concrete flexural strength (MR)at 28 days
lc value of the subgrade or subgrade and subbase
combinationtt
Load safety factor (LSF)
0 Axle-load distribution (Column 1)
Expected nurnber of axle-load repetitions during the
design period (Column 3)
Both a fatigue analysis (to control fatigue cracking)and
an erosion analysis (to control foundation and sl~oulder
erosion, pumping, and faulting) are shown on the design
worksheet.
The fatigue analysis will usually control the design of
light-traffic pavements (residential streets and secondary
roads regardless of whether the joints are doweled or not)
and medium traffic pavements with doweled joints.
The erosion analysis will usually control the design of
medium- and heavy-traffic pavements with undoweled
(aggregate-interlock) joints and heavy-traffic pavements
with doweled joints.
For pavements carrying a norlnal mix of truck types,
single-axle loads are usually Inore severe in the fatigue
analysis, and tandem-axle loads are more severe in the
erosion analysis.
The step-by-step design procedure is as follows: The
desim" inmt
I
data shown at the top of Fie. 4 are established
V
and Columlls and are Out' The loads are
multiplied by the load safety factor for Column 2.
Fatigue Analysis
Results of fatigue analysis, and thus the charts and figures
used, are the same for pavements with doweled and
urtdoweled joints, and also for continuously reinforced
pavements.$
Without concrete shoulder, use Table 6n and Fig. 5
e With concrete shoulder, use Table 6b and Fig. 5.
Procedure Steps:
1. Enter as items 8 and 11 on the worksheet from the
appropriate table the equivalent stress factors de-
pending on trial thickness and k value.
2. Divide these by the concrete modulus of rupture and
enter as items 9 and 12.
3. Fill in Colulnn 4, "Allowable Repetitions," deter-
mined from Fig. 5.
4. Compute Colurnn 5 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
umn 4, multiplying by 100; then total the fatigue at
the bottom.
Without concrete shoulder:
Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
ments-use Table 7n and Fig. 6n.
Aggregate-interlock joints-use Table 7 b and Fig. 6a.
With concrete shoulder:
Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
ments-use Table 8n and Fig. 6b.
0 Aggregate-interlock joints-use Table $27 and Fig. 6b.
Procedure Steps:
1. Enter the erosion factors from the appropriate table
as items 10 and 13 in the worksheet.
* See Chapter 4 when axle-load distribution data are unknown.
** A blank worksheet is provided as the last page o f this bulletin for
purposes of reprodu&m and use in speiifir design problems.
t Computer programs for solving design problems are available
from the Caliadian Portland Ceinent Association.
tt See Appendix B i f lean concrete subbase is used.
$ In this design procedure, continuously reinforced pavements are
treated the same as doweled, jointed pavements-see Appendix A.
 Proiect DESIGN -
1A, 4-LANE RURAL SEC7lON 7CH (1OOmm UNTREATED SUBBASE)
Trial thickness 240 rnm Doweled joints: yes-d.- no -
Subbase-subgrade k MPaIm Concrete shoulder: y e s no B/
Modulus of rupture, MR MPa Design period a
years
Load safety factor, LSF 1@

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

Axel Multiplied Expected
load, by repetitions Allowable Fatigue Allowable Damage,
kilorlewtons LSF percent repetitions percent
repetitions
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Equivalerit stress* 10. Erosion f a c t o r a

Single Axles 9. Stress ratio factor-

107 128 6 4 410 900 000 7.1 5100000 1.3

98 118 106 900 UNLIMITED 0 9200 000 1.2
89 107 235 800 20000000 1.2

11. Equivalent s t r e s s 3 5 13. Erosion factor-

Tandem Axles 12. Stress ratio factor-

/ 195 234 124900 1 UNLIMITED 1 0 1 2400000 5.2

Fig, 4, Design 1A Total 81.9 / Total 38.2

 Fill in Column 6, "Allowable Repetitions," from Fig.
6n or Fig. 6b.
Compute Column 7 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
umn 6, multiplying by 100; the11 total the erosion
damage at the bottom.
In the use of the charts, precise interpolation of allow-
able repetitions is not required. If the intersection line runs
off the top of the chart, the allowable load repetitions are
considered to be unlimited.
The trial thickness is not an adequate design if either of
the totals of fatigue or erosion damage are greater tl~an sl~oulder
100%. A greater trial tl~iclcnessshould be selected for
another iteration." A lesser trial thickness is selected if the
totals are muc1-1lower than 100%.
Sample Problems and Comments
Two sample problems are given to illustrate the steps in the
design procedure and the effects of alternate designs. De- concrete shoulder
sign 1 is for a four-lane rural TCH project; several varia-
tions on the design-LIS~ of dowels or aggregate-interlock
joints, use of concrete sl~oulder,granular and cement-
treated subbases-are shown as Designs 1A tllrougl~1E. Tl~icknessCalculations:
Design 2 is for a low-traffic secondary road, and variations
are shown as Designs 2A and 2B.
Design 1
Project and Traffic Data:
Four-lane TCH
Rolling terrain in rural location
Design period = 20 years
Current ADT = 12,900
Projection factor = 1.5
ADTT = 19% of ADT
Traffic calculations:
Design ADT = 12,900 3 1.5 = 19,350
(9675 in one direction)
ADTT = 19,350 3 0.19 = 3680
(1840 in one direction)
For 9675 one-direction ADT, Fig. 3 sl~owsthat the propor-
tion of trucks in the right lane is 0.81. Therefore, for a 20-year because of excessive fatigue consumption (230%). De-
design period, the total number of trucks in the design lane is: sign 1A is controlled by the fatigue analysis.
1840 x 0.81 x 365 x 20 = 10,880,000 trucks
Axle-load data from Table 5 are used in this design
example and have been entered in Fig. 4 under the maxi-
mum axle load for each group.
Values Used to Calculate Thiclcness.**
Design 1A:doweled joints, untreated subbase, no concrete
sl~oulder
Clay subgrade, k = 27 MPa/m
100-mm-untreated subbase
Combined k = 35 MPa/m (see Table 1)
LSF = 1.2 (see page 10)
Concrete MR = 4.5 MPa
Design 1B: doweled joints, cement-treated subbase, no
concrete shoulder
Same as 1A except:
100-mm cement-treated subbase
Combine 1c = 80 MPa/m (see Table 2)
Design 1C: doweled joints, untreated subbase, concrete
Same as 1A except:
Concrete slloulder
Design ID: aggregate-interlock joints, g r a n ~ ~ lsubbase,
ar
no concrete shoulder
Same as 1B except:
Aggregate-interlock joints
Design 1E: aggregate-interlock joints, granular subbase,
Same as 1D except:
Concrete sl~oulder
A trial thickness is evaluated by completing the design
worksheett sllown in Fig. 4 for Design 1A using the axle-
load data from Table 5.
For Design IA, Table 6n and Fig. 5 are used for the
fatigue analysis and Table 7n and Fig. 6n are used for the
erosion analysis.
Comments on
For designs 1A through 1E, a sulkme of one type or
another is used as a recommended practice"' on fine-
textured soil subgrades for pavements carrying an appre-
ciable number of heavy trucks.
In Design 1A: ( I ' Totals of fatigue use and erosion
damage of 82% and 38%, respectively, show that the 240-
mm thickness is adequate for the design conditions. "'
This design has 18%reserve capacity available for heavy-
axle loads in addition to those estimated for design pm-
poses. (3'Cornments1 and 2 raise the question of wl~ether
a 230-mm thickness would be adequate for Design 1A.
Separate calculations showed that 230 rnm is not adequate
'"
" Some guidance is helpful in reducing the number o f iterations.
The effecto f thickness 011 both the fatigue and erosion damage
approximately follows a geometric progression. For example, i f
178% and 33% fatigue damage are determined at trial tl~icknesses
o f 200 and 240 min, respectively, the approximate fatigue damage
for a tl~ickiiesso f 220 i n m is equal to 4178x33 or 77%.
** Concrete, MR, LSF, and subgrade k values are the same for
Designs 1A through 1E.
t A blank worksheet is provided as the last page o f this bulletin for
the purposes o f reproduction and use in specific design problems
Table 6a. Equivalent Stress-No Concrete Shoulder
sn
i@@;" andem Axle)

thickness (rnrn)

Table 6b. Equivalent Stress-Concrete Shoulder

(Single ~ x l e h a n d e m

T
thickness (rnrn)
subgrade-:
60
3.3712.94
2.99/2.56
2.6712.26
2 4112.02
2.1911 83
2.0011.67
1.a411 "53
1 7011 "42
7.5711.32
1.4611"23
1.3711.16
1.2811.09
1.2011 03
1.1310.98
1.0710.93
1.0110.88
0.9610.84
0.91/0.81
0.8710.77
0.8310.74
0.7910.71
0.7610.69
0.7310.66
0.7010.64
0 6710.62
0.6410.60
Fig. 5. Fatigue analysis-allowable load repetitions based on stress ratio factor (with and without concrete shoulder).
Table 7a. Erosion Factors-Doweled Joints, o Concrete Shoulder
(Single AxleKandem Axle)
IF
Slab k of subgrade-subbase (MPdm)

k
thickness (mm) 20
3.7613.8 1
40 1 60 1 80 1 140
3.75213.79 1 3.74 13.77 1 3.7413.76 1 3.7213.72

Table 7b. Erosion Factors-Aggregate-Interlock Joints,

No Concrete Shoulder
(Single AxleKandem Axle)
iubbase (MPdm)
thickness (mm) r
3.9414.00
3.8213.90
3.7113.81
3.6113.73
140 35213.66
Fig. 6a. Erosion analysis-allowable load repetitions based on erosion factor (without concrete shoulder).

17
Table 8a. Erosion Factors- oweled Joints, Concrete Shoulder
xle/Tandem Axle)
Ithickness
Slab
(rnm)
subgrade-s
60
3.2713.25 3.2213.14
3.161316 3.10/3.03
2.9912.93
2.8912.85
2,8012.77
2.7212.71
2.6412.65
2.5712.59
2.5012.54
2.4312.49
2.371244
2.3112.40
2.2612.36
2.2112.32
2.1612.28
2.111224
2.0612.21
2.0212.18
1.9812.14
1,9312.11
1.9012.08
1.8612.05
1 8212.03
1.7812.00
l.75ll.97
1.7211"95

Table 8b. Erosion Factors-Aggregate-Interlock Joints,

Concrete Shoulder

subgrade-s
thickness (mm) 60
3.4513.45 3.39/3.33
3.2813.22
3.1813.13
3.0813.05
3 0012.98
2.9212.92
2.8412.86
2.7712.81
2.7112.76
2.6412.71
2.5912.67
2.5312.63
2.4812.59
2.4312.55
2.3812.52
2 3412.48
2.2912.45
2.2512.42
2.2112.39
2.1712.37
2.1412.34
2.1012.31
2.0712.29
2.0412.27
2,0112.24
1.9712.22
Fig. 6b. Erosion analysis-allowable load repetitions based on erosion factor (with concrete shoulder).

19
 project DESIGN ID, $-LANE RURAL FREEWAY with "10,rnrnCEMENFTREATED
Trial thickness 290 mm Doweled joints: y e sn o s / SUBBASE
Subbase-subgrade k % MPdm Concrete shoulder: y e s no J
Modulus of rupture, MR* MPa Design period ayears
Load safety factor, LSF 1.7

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

Axel Multiplied Expected
load, by repetitions
kilonewtons Allowable Fatigue Allowable Darnage,
LSF repetitions percent repetitions percent
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Equivalent stress= 10. Erosion f a c t o r 2 . m

Single Axles 9. Stress ratio factor 0.247

133 160 6310 8000000 0.1 1230 000 0.5

125 150 14 690 UNLIMITED 0 1860000 0.8
115 138 30 130 2 940 000 1.0

11. Equivalent stress 1.09 13. Erosion factor 2.91

Tandem Axles 12.Stress ratio factor 0.242

1 231 1 277 1 21 320 1 UNLIMITED I 0 1 440 000 1 4.9 1

Fig. 7. Design 1D. Total 0.1 Total 88.5 1

 I Thickness / Values Used to Calculate Tldckness.
Concrete requirement, Design 2A: aggregate-interlock joints, no subbase,** no
Subbase Joints shoulder mm concrete sl~oulder
100-mm granular doweled no 240
100-mrn cement-treated doweled no 220
Clay subgrade, k = 30 MPa/m
100-mm granular doweled Yes 210 LSF = 1.0
100-mm granular aggregate no 290 Concrete MR = 4.5 MPa
interlock Design 2B: doweled joints, no subbase: no concrete
100-mm granular aggregate Yes 250 shoulder
interlock
Same as 2A except:
Doweled joints
A design worksheet, Fig. 7, is shown for Design 1D to Thickness Calculations:
illustrate t6e effect of usingaggregate-interlock joints. In For Design 2A, a trial thickness of 160 mm is evaluated by
Design ID: ( I ) Totals of fatigue use and erosion damage of completing the worksheet sl-townin Fig. 8, according to the
0.1%*and 88.5%, respectively, show that 290 mln is ad- procedure given on page 11.Table 6a and Fig. 5 are used for
'"
equate. Separate calculations slww that 250 mm is not the fatigue analysis and Table 7b and Fig. 6a are used for
adequate because of excessive erosion damage (120%),and the erosion analysis.
'3) Design 1D is controlled by the erosion analysis. For Design 2B, a worksheet is not shown here but the
Worksl~eetsfor the other variations of Design 1 are not design was worked out for comparison with Design 2A.
shown here but the results are compared as follows: (Table)
For Design 1 conditions, use of a cement-treated sub- Comments o n Design 2
base reduces the thickness requirement by 20 mm (Design
1A versus 1B);and concrete shoulders reduce the thickness For Design 2A: (1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion dam-
requirement by 30 to 40 mm (Designs 1A versus 1C and ID age of 22.8%and 5.6%,respectively, sl~ow that the 160-mm
versus 1E). Use of aggregate-interlock joints instead of thickness is adequate. (2) Separate calculations show that
dowels increases the thickness requirement by 50 inln a 150-mm pavement would not be adequate because of
(Design 1B versus ID). However, when a facility is sub- excessive fatigue consumption. (3)The tl~icknessdesign is
jected to more than 100 heavy trucks per day, dowels are controlled by the fatigt~eanalysis-whicl~is usually the case
recommended to prevent faulting. '"These effects will vary for light-truck-traffic facilities.
in different design problems depending on the specific The calculations for Design 2B, which is the same as
design conditions. Design 2A except the joints are doweled, s l ~ o wfatigue and
erosion values of 22.0% and 1.1%, respectively. Com-
Design 2 ments: (1) The tl~icknessreq~~irement of 160 mm is the
same as for Design 2A. (2)The fatigue-analysis values are
Project and Traffic Data: exactly the same as in Design 2A.tt (3) Because of the
Two-lane secondary road dowels, the erosion damage is reduced from 5.6% to 1.1%;
Design period = 40 years however, this is immaterial since the fatigue analysis
Current ADT = 600 controls the design.
Projection factor = 1.2 For the Design 2 situation, it is shown that doweled
ADTT = 2.5% of ADT joints are not required. This is borne out by pavement-
performance experienceon light-truck-trafficfacilities sucl~
Traffic calculations: as residential streets and secondary roads and also by
studies (3435) showing the effects of the number of trucks
Design ADT = 600 3 1.2 = 720 on pavements with aggregate-interlock joints.
ADTT = 720 3 0.025 = 18

18
Truck traffic each way = - = 9
2
* For pavements with aggregate-interlock joints subjected to an
For a 40-year design period: appreciablenumberof trucks, the fatigue analysis willusually not
control design.
** Performance experience has shown that subbases are not re-
9 x 365 x 40 = 131,400 trucks quired when truck traffic is very light. (1,3)
t Design 20 is shown for illustrative purposes only. Doweled joints
Axle-load data from Table 15, Category 1, and the ex- are not needed where truck traffic is very light. (4)
pected number of axle-load repetitions are shown in Fig. 8. tt The type of load transfer at the joints-dowels, or aggregate inter-
lock-does not affect the fatigue calculations since the critical axle-
load position for stress and fatigue is where the axle loads are
placed at pavement edge and midpanel, away fro111the joints. See
Appendix A.
 Project DESIGN 2A 2 LANE SECONDARY ROAD NO SUBBASE -
Trial thickness 160 rnrn Doweled joints: y e s no e/
Subbase-subgrade k MPaJm Concrete shoulder: y e s no $
Modulus of rupture, MR 4.4 MPa

1 1 1
Load safety factor, LSF 1.0

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

:Ax
load, M?ed Expected
repetitions Allowable Fatigue Allowable Damage,
kilonewtons repetitions percent repetitions percent

8. Eauivalent stress 2-63 10. Erosion factor 3.34

Single Axles 9. Stress ratio factor 0.584

53 53 16 300 UNLIMITED 0 7 0 0 0 000 0.2

42 42 26 900 66
0 50000000 0

11. Equivalent stress 2.26 13. Erosion factor 3.48

Tandem Axles 12. Stress ratio factor 0.502

89 89 7 500 8 500 000 0.1

71 71 9 900 UNLIMITED 0

Fig. 8. Design 28. Total 22.7 / Total 5.6 1

CHAPTER 4
M

The design steps described in Cl~apter3 include separate
calculations of fatigue consumption and erosion damage
for each of several increments of single- and tandem-axle
loads. This assumes that detailed axle-load data have been
obtained from representative truck weigh stations, weigh-
in-motion studies, or other sources.
This chapter is for use when specific axle-load data are
not available. Simple design tables lave been generated
based on composite axle-load distributions that represent
different categories of road and street types. A fairly wide
range of pavement facilities is covered by four categories
sl~ownin Table 9."
The designer does not directly use the axle-load data""
because the designs have been presolved by the methods
described in Chapter 3. For convenience in design use, the
results are presented in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14, which
correspond to the four categories of traffic. Appropriate
load safety factors of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2, respectively,
have been incorporated into the design tables for axle-load
categories 1,2,3, and 4. The tables show data for a design
period of 20 years. (See the section "Design Period," fol-
lowing.)
111 these tables, subgrade-subbase strength is cl~arac-
terized by the descriptive words, Low, Mediuiiz, High, and
Very Nigh. Fig. 2 sl~owsrelationsl~ipsbetween various
subgrade-bearing values. In the event that test data are not
available, Table 10 lists approximate k values for different
soil types. If a subbase is to be used-see Chapter 2 under
"Subgrade and Subbase Support"-the estimated 1c value
is increased according to Table 1 or Table 2.
The design steps are as follows:
* 011page 30, guidelines for preparing design tables axle-load
distributions different from those given here are discussed.
*"
Axle-load data for the four categories are given in Table 15.

Table 9. Axle-Load Catenories

Maximum axle loads, kN

4xle-load ADT
category Description Per day Single axles Tandem axles
1 Residential streets 200-800 up to 25 98 160
Rural and secondary roads
(low to medium*)
2 Collector streets
Rural and secondard roads (high*) 40-1000 115
Primary roads and arterial streets (low*)
3 Arterial streets and primary roads 3000- 12,000 500-5000+ 133
(medium*) 2 lane
Expressways and urban and rural 3000-50,000+
provincial (low to medium*) 4 lane or more
4 Arterial streets, primary roads, 3000-20,000 1500-8000+ 151
expressways (high*) 2 lane
Urban and rural provincial 3000-150,000+
(medium to high*) 4 lane or more

+
The descriptors high, medium, or low refer to the relative weights of axle loads for the type of street or road;
that is, "low"for a rural provincial would represent heavier loads than "low"for a secondary road.
*' Trucks, two-axle,four-tire trucks excluded.

23
Table 10. Subgrade Soil Types and The ADTT design value should be obtained by a truck

u
Approximate k Values

Type of soil
Fine-grained soils in which silt and
clay-size particles predominate
Subgrade
strength
Law
k values
range,
MPdm
classification count for the facility or for another with a
similar composition of traffic. Other methods of estimat-
ing ADT and ADTT are discussed on pages 8 and 9.
The allowable ADTT values (2 directions) listed in the
tables incIude only two-axle, six-tire trucks, and single or
combination units with three axles or more. Excluded are
Sands and sand-gravel mixtures with Medium
moderate amounts of silt and clay
panel and pickup trucks artd other two-axle, four-tire
Sands and sand-gravel mixtures High
trucks. Therefore, the number of allowable trucks of all
relatively free of plastic fines types will be greater than the tabulated ADTT values by
Cement-treated subbases (see page 6) Very high about double for many highways up to about triple or
more for streets and secortdary roads.
1. Estimate ADTT" (average daily truck traffic, two Tables 11 through 14 include designs for pavements
directions, excluding two-axle, four-tire trucks) with and without concrete shoulders or curbs. For parking
2. Select axle-load Category 1,2,3, or 4 lots, adjacent lanes provide edge support similar to that of
3. Find slab thickness requirement in the appropriate a concrete shoulder or ctwb so the right-hartd side of Tables
Table 11,12,13, or 14. (In the use of these tables, see 11 through 14 are used.
discussion under "Corrtments on Simplified Design
Procedure," page 30)

In the correct use of Table 9, the ADT and ADTTvalues

are not used as the primary criteria for selecting the axle-
load category-the data are shown only to illustrate typical
values. Instead, it is correct to rely more on the word
descriptions given or to select a category based on the " F o r facilities o f four lanes or more, the ADTI i s adjusted by theuse
expected values of maximum axle loads. o f Fig 3.

Table 11. Allowable ADTT, Axle-load Catagorl 1**-Pavements with

Aggregate-interlock Joints (Dowels not needel )
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb With Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support Subgrade-subbase support
Slab (MPdm) (MPaIm)
thickness, Low Medium High Medium High
mm (20-34) (35-49) (50-60) (20-34) (35-49) (50-60)
a 120 0.1 0.3 a
130 0.2 1 a 6
H
140 2 11 33
150 18 77 210
5
a 160 110 407 a
H
170

I
-.
i
11 160 27 110 290

Note: Fatigue analysis controls the design

Note A fractlorial ADDT md~catesthat the pavement can carry unl~rmtedpassenger cars and two-axle, four-tlre trucks, but only a few
heavy trucks per week (ADTT of 0 3 x 7 days mdlcates two heavy trucks per week )
** ADTT IS two way for 20-year desrgn l~feand excludes two-axle, four-trre trucks, so total number of trucks allowed wrll be greater-
see text
Table 12a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2*-Pavements with Doweled Joints

1 1
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb With Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support I Subgrade-subbase support
Slab
thickness,
rnrn

140
Low
(20-34)
(MPdrn)

Medium
(35-49)
High
(50-60)
Very
High
(70 +)
3 1 thickness,
Low
(20-34)
(MPdrn)

Medium
(35-49)
High
(50-60)
veI
High
(70+)

150 5 26
160 2 12 35 150
170 15 68 190 740
180 77 320 820 3100

1 I ,
230

thickness,
2900
Note: Fatiaue analysis controls the desian

Low
(20-34
- . i -Pavements
Table 12b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Catagory
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support

I
(MPdrn)

Medium
(35-49)
High
(50-60)
High
(70 +)
i
ADTT is two way for 20-year design life and excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks, so total number of trucks allowed will be greater-see
with Aggregate-Interlock Joints

1 thickness,
With Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support
(MPdrn)
text.

High

1 230 1 2900** / I I
'ADTT is two way for 20-year design life and excludes two-axle, four-tire trL .ts, so total nllrnber of trucks allowed will be greater-see text
** Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fatigue analysis controls.
Table 13a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3"-Pavements with Doweled Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb With Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support I Subgrade-subbase support

I
'lab (MPdm)
thickness, Very
mrn Low Medium High High / I rnrn I Low Mediurn High High I

* A D V is two way for 20-year desrgn life and excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks, so total number of trucks allowed will be greater-see text
** Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fatigue analysis controls.
Table Allowable ADTT. Axle-Load Cateaorv
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb With Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support Subgrade-subbase support
Slab (MPah) Slab (MPaJrn)
thickness, Very thickness, Very
mm Low Medium High High mm Low Medium High High
(20-34) (35-49) (50-60) (70 +)
190 37** 170**
200 57** 160** 64V*
21 0 51** 220** 580** '1000
220 180** 740** 1000 1500
230 580** 1100 1400 21 00
240 920 1400 1900 2800
250 1200 1900 2500 3800
260 1500 2400 3300 5200
270 2000 3200 4400 7000
280 2500 41 00 5800 9400
290 3200 5200 7500

*ADTT is two way for 20-year design life and excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks, so total number of trucks allowed will be greater-see text
** Fatigue analysis controls the design; otherwise erosion analysis controls
Table 14a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category
- . 4*-Pavements with Doweled Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb With Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support Subgrade-subbase support

I I
Slab (MPdm) Slab (MPdrn)
thickness, Very Very
mm Low Mediurn High High Low Medium High High
(35-49) (50-60) (70 +)
120

*ADTT is two way for 20-year design life and excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks, so total number of trucks allowed will be greater-see text
** Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fatigue analysis controls
 Slab
thickness,
mm

200
21 0
Low
(20-34)
- . 4*-Pavements
Table 14b. Allowable ADTT. Axle-Load Cateaorv
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Subgrade-subbase support
(MPdm)

Medium
(35-49)
High
(50-60)

1 lo**
Very
High
(70 +)
120**
460**
, Slab
thickness,
mm

170
180
with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
With Concrete Shoulder or Curb

Low
(20-34)
Subgrade-subbase support
(MPdm)

Medium
(35-49)
High
(50-60)

99**
Very
High
(70+)
85**
380**

'ADTT is two way for 20-year design life and excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks, so total number of trucks allowed will be greater-see text
** Fatigue analysis controls the design; otherwise erosion analysis controls
Two sample problems follow to illustrate the use of simpli-
fied design procedure.
Arterial Street, two lanes
Design ADT = 6200
Total trucks per day = 1440
ADTT = 630
Clay subgrade
100-mm untreated subbase
Subgrade-subbase support = low
Concrete MR = 4.4 MPaH
Doweled joints, curb and gutter
Since it is expected that axle-load magnitudes will be
about the average carried by arterial streets, not unusually
heavy or light, Category 3 from Table 9 is selected.Accord-
ingly, Table 13n is used for design purposes. (Table 13n is
for doweled joints, Table 13b is for aggregate-interlock
joints.)
For a subgrade-subbase support conservatively classed
as low, Table 1311, under the concrete shoulder or curb
portion, shows an allowable ADTT of 770 for a 200-mm
slab thickness of 210 for a 190-rnm slab thickness.
This indicates that, for a concrete strength of 4.4 MPa,
the 200-mm thickness is adequate to carry the required
design ADTT of 630.
Residential Street, two lanes
ADT = 720
Total trucks per day = 36
ADTT = 13
Clay subgrade (no subbase), subgrade support = low
Concrete MR = 4.4 MPaH
Aggregate-interlock joints (no dowels)
Integral curb
In this problem, Table 11 representing axle-load Cat-
egory 1 is selected for design use. In the table under
"Concrete Slroulder or Curb," the following allowable
ADTT are indicated:
Slab Thickness, mm I ADTT
Therefore, a 130-mm slab thickness is selected to meet
the required design ADTT value of 13.
Concrete used for paving should be of high ~luality(~) and
have adequate durability, scale resistance, and flexural
strength (modulus of rupture). In reference to Tables 11
tlrrouglr 14, the upper and middle portions of the tables
represent concretes made with normal aggregates that
usually produce good quality concretes with flexural
strengths in the area of 4.1 to 4.4 MPa. Thus, the upper
portions of these tables are intended for general design use
in this simplified design procedure.
The lower portions of the tables, showing a concrete
modulus of rupture of 3.8MPa, are intended for designuse
only for special cases. In some areas of the country, the
aggregates are such that concretes of good quality and
d~~rabilityproduce strengths of only about 3.8 MPa.
The tables list the allowable ADTT's for a 20-year design
period. For other design periods, multiply the estimated
ADTT by the appropriate ratio to obtain an adjusted value
for use in the tables.
For example, if a 30-year design period is desired
instead of 20 years, the estimated ADTT value is multi-
plied by 30/20. In general, the effect of the design period
on slab thickness will be greater for pavements carrying
larger volumes of truck traffic and where aggregate-inter-
lock joints are used.
Tables 12 tlmot~gh14 are divided into two parts, a and b, to
show data for doweled and aggregate-interlock joints,""
respectively. In Table 11, thickness requirements are the
same for pavements with doweled and aggregate-inter-
lock joints; doweled joints are not needed for the low truck
traffic volumes tabulated for Category 1. Whenever dow-
els are not used, joint spacing should be short-see discus-
sion in Chapter 1.
The purpose of this section is to describe how the simpli-
fied design tables were developed so that the design
engineer who wishes to can develop a separate set of
design tables based on an axle-load category different
See discussion under "Comments on SimplifiedProcedure-Modu-
lus of Ruph~re."
When fatigue analysis controls the design (see footnotes of Tables
12 t11rougl1 14), it will be noted that the ADTT values for doweled
joints and for aggregate-interlock joints are the same (see topic
"Jointed Pavenlents" in Appendix A). If erosion analysis controls,
concrete modulus of rupture will have no effect on the allowable
ADTT
from those given in this chapter. Some appropriate situa-
tions include (1) preparation of standard sections from
which a pavement thickness is selected based on amount
of traffic and other design conditions, (2) unusual axle-
load distributions that may be carried on a special haul
road or other special pavement facility, and (3) an increase
in legal axle loads that would cause axle-load distribution
to change.
Axle-load distributions for Categories 1 tlxougl~4 are
shown in Table 15. Each of these is a composite of data
averaged from several U.S. state loadometer tables repre-
senting pavement facilities in the appropriate category.
Also, at the high axle-load range, loads heavier than those
listed on 1J.S. state department of transportation tables
were estimated based on extrapolation. These two steps
were desired for obtaining a more representative general
distribution and smoothing irregularities that occur in
individua1tables. The steps are considered appropriate for
the design use of these particular categories described
earlier in this chapter.
As described in Chapter 2, an adjustment of the data
is made to exclude two-axle, four-tire trucks, and then the
data are partitioned into 8.8- and 17.6-kNaxle-load incre-
ments.
To prepare design tables, design problems are solved
with the given axle-load distribution by computer with the
desired load safety factor at different thicknesses and
subbase-subgrade k values.
Allowable ADTT values to be listed in design tables
are easily calculated when a constant, arbitrary ADTT is
input in the design problems as follows: assume input
ADTT is 1000 and that 45.6% fatigue consumption is
calculated in a particular design problem, then
100 x (input ADTT)
Allowable ADTT =
% fatigue or erosion damage

Table 15. Axle-Load Distributions Used for

ng Design Tables 11 Through 14
Axle
load, Axles per 1000 Trucks*
kN Category 1 I Category 2 I Category 3 I Category 4
Single
- :les
- -

18 1693.31
27 732.28
36 483.10
44 204.96
53 124.00
62 56.1 1
71 38.02
80 15.81
89 4.23
98 0.96
107
116
125
133
142
151
-
Tande axles
18 31.90
36 85.59
53 139.30
71 75.02
89 57.10
107 39.18
125 68.48
$42 69.59
160 4.19
178
196
214
23 1
249
267

Excluding all two-axle, four-tire trucks.

31
APPENDIX A
M

The thickness design procecture presented here was pre-

pared to recognize current practices in concrete pavement
construction and performance experience witlr concrete
pavements tlrat older design procedures did not address.
These include:
Pavements with different types of load transfer at
transverse joints or cracks
Lean concrete subbases under concrete pavernents
Concrete slroulders
Modes of distress, primarily due to erosion of pave-
ment foundations, that are unrelated to the tradi-
tional criteria used in previous design procedures
After analysis of different axle-load positions on the slab,
the critical placements shown in Fig. A1 were established
witlr the following conclusions:
1. The most critical pavement stresses occur when the
truckwheels are placed at or near the pavement edge
and midway between tlre joints, Fig. Al(a).Since tlre
joints are at some distance from this location, trans-
verse joint spacing and type of load transfer have
very little effect on the magnitude of stress. In tlre
design procedure, therefore, tlre analysis based on

Tire erosion criterion tlrat is applied in addition to the

stress-fatigue criterion is an important addition. The ero-
sion criterion recognizes that pavements can fail from
excessive pumping, erosion of foundation, and joint fault-
ing. The stress criterion recognizes that pavements can
crack in fatigue from excessive load repetitions.
This appendix explains the basis for these criteria and i
the developme~rtof the design procedure. Reference 36 I I I
gives a more detailed account of the topic. I I I
i - - - - - -I - - - ----I

(a) Axle-load position for critical flexural stresses

The design procedure is based on a comprehensive analy-

sis of concrete stresses and deflections at pavement joints,
corners, and edges by a finite-element computer pro-
gram.(lJ)It allows considerations of slabs with finite di-
mensions, variable axle-load placement, and the modeling Traffic
)lane
of load transfer at transverse joints or craclts and load
transfer at the joint between pavement and concrete slroul- Free edge o,r
shoulder joirit
der. For doweled joints, dowel properties such as diameter
and modulus of elasticity are used directly. For aggregate I I Concrete shoulder I
(if used)
interlock, keyway joints, and cracks in contirmously rein- I I
L I- - _ - - - - A
forced pavements, a spring stiffness value is used to rep- (b) Axle-load position for critical defections
resent the load-deflection characteristics of suclr joints
based on field and laboratory tests.
Fig. Al. Critical axle-load positions.
 flex~~ral stresses and fatigue yield the same values
for different joint spacings and different types of
load transfer mechanisms (dowels or aggregate in-
terlock) at transverse joints. When a concrete s11oul-
der is tied on to the mainline pavement, the magni-
tude of the critical stresses is considerably reduce.
The most critical pavement deflections occur at the
slab corner when an axle load is placed at the joint
wit11 the wheels at or near the corner, Fig. A1 (b)." 111
this situation, transverse joint spacing has no effect
on the lnagnitt~deof corner deflections b t ~the
t type
of load transfer mechanism has a substantial effect.
This means that design results based on the erosion
criteria (deflections) may be substantially affected
by the type of load transfer selected, especially when
large numbers of trucks are being designed for. A
concrete shoulder reduces corner deflections con-
siderably.
Continuously Reinforced Pavements
A continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) is
one wit11 no transverse joints and, due to the heavy,
continuous steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direc-
tion, the pavement develops cracks at close intervals.
These crack spacings vary on a given project, generally
from 1 to 3 m with averages of 1.2 to 1.5 m.
In the finite element computer analysis, a high degree
of load transfer was assigned at the cracks of CRCP and the
crack spacing was varied. The critical load positions estab-
lished were the same as those for jointed pavements.
For the longer crack spacings, edge stresses for loads
placed midway between cracks are of about the same
~nagnitudeas those for jointed pavements. For the average
and shorter crack spacings, the edge stresses are less than
those for jointed pavements, because there is not enough
length of uncracked pavement to develop as much bend-
ing moment.
For the longer crack spacings, corner deflections are
sornewl~atless than those for jointed pavements wit11
doweled transverse joints. For average to long crack spac-
ings, corner deflections are about the same as those for
jointed, doweled pavements. For short crack spacings of 1
or 1.2 m, corner deflections are somewhat greater tllan
those for jointed, doweled pavements, especially for tan-
dem-axle loads.
Considering natural variations in crack spacing that
occur in one stretch of pavement, the following comparison
of continuously reinforced pavements wit11 jointed, dow-
eled pavements is made. Edge stresses will sometimes be
the same and sometimes less, while corner deflections will
sometimes be less, the same, and greater at different areas
of the pavement depending on crack spacing.
The average of these pavement responses is neither
substantially better nor worse than those for jointed, dow-
eled pavements. As a result, in this design procedure, the
same pavement responses and criteria are applied to con-
W
3
2 .95
4
2 .90
Q
cn
a:
g "85
(0
cn
$ "80 Percent trucks
t-
cn
75
2"
P .70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
d PERCENT TRlJCKS AT EDGE
Fig. A2. Equivalent edge stress factor depends on
percent of trucks at edge.
tinuously reinforced pavements as those used with jointed,
doweled pavements. This recommendation is consistent
wit11pavement performance experience.Most design agen-
cies suggest that the thickness of continuously reinforced
pavements should be about the same as the thickness of
doweled-jointed pavements.
ruck Load Placement
Truck wheel loads placed at the outside pavement edge
create more severe conditions tllan any other load posi-
tion. As the truck placement moves inward a few
millimetres from the edge, the effects decrease stlbstan-
tially.'""'
Only a small fraction of all the trucks run wit11 their
outside wheels placed at the edge. Most of the trucks
traveling the pavement are driven with their outside wheel
placed about 600 mm from the edge. Taragin's '") studies,
reported in 1958, sl~owedvery little truck encroacl~mentat
the pavement edge for 3.6-m lanes for pavements wit11
unpaved shoulders. More recent studies by Emery "I'
showed more trucks at the edge. Other recent studies '-'N
showed fewer trucks at the edge than Emery. For this
design procedure, the most severe condition, 6% of trucks
at edge,"" is assumed so as to be on the safe side and to take
account of recent changes in United States law permitting
wider trucks.
At increasing distances inward from the pavement
edge, the frequency of load applications increases while
the magnitudes of stress and deflection decrease. Data on
truck placement distribution and distribution of stress and
deflection due to loads placed at and near the pavement
edge are difficult to use directly in a design procedure. As
* The greatest deflections for tridem occur when two axles are
placed at one side of the joint and one axle at the other side
** As used here, the term "percent trucks at the edge" is defined as
the percent of total trucks that are traveling with the outside of the
contact area of the outside tire at or beyond the pavement edge
a result, the distributions were analyzed artd more easily
applied techniques were prepared for design purposes.
For stress-fatigue analysis, fatigue was computed at
millirnetre increments inward from the slab edge for dif-
ferent truck-placement distributions; this gave the equiva-
lent edge-stress factors sl~ownin Fig. A2. (This factor,
wlren rnultiplied by edge-load stress, gives the same de-
gree of fatig~leco~lsu~nptio~l that would result from a
given truck placement distribution.) The most severe con-
dition, 6% truck encroacl~ment,llas been incorporated in
the design tables.
For erosion analysis, whicl~involves deflection at the
slab corner, the most severe case (6%of trucks at edge) is
again assumed. Where there is no concrete sl~oulder,cor-
ner loadings (6%of truclts) are critical; artd where there is
a concrete shoulder, the greater number of loadings in-
ward from the pavement corner (94%of trucks) are critical.
These factors are incorporated into the design charts as
follows:
Percent erosion damage = 100 ~ , I , ( CNi)
I
where:
rli = expected nuinber of axle-load repetitions for
axle-group i
Ni = allowable number of repetitions for axle-group i
C = 0.06 for pavements without shoulder, and 0.94
for pavements with slroulder
To save a design calculation step, the effects of (C/Ni)
are incorporated in Figs. 6n and 6b of Chapter 3 and Tables
11 through 14 of Chapter 4.
Recognition of the variations in concrete strength is con-
sidered a realistic addition to tlre design procedure. Ex-
pected ranges of variations in the concrete's modulus of
rupture have far greater effect than the usual variations in
the properties of other materials, such as subgrade and
subbase strength, and layer tl~icl<nesses. Variation in con-
crete strength is introduced by reducing the r r ~ o d u l of
~ ~ s velop at the slab surface. Temperature distribution is
rupture by one coefficient of variation.
For design purposes, a coefficient of variation of 15%
is assumed and is incorporated into the design charts artd
tables. The user does not directly apply this effect. The
value of 15%represents fair-to-good quality control, and,
combined wit11 other effects discussed elsewhere in this
appendix, was selected as being realistic and given reason-
able design results.
The 28-day flexural strengtl~(moclulus of rupture) is used
as the design strength. This design procedure, however,
incorporates the effect of concrete strength gain after 28
days. This modification is based on an analysis that
incrernented strength gain and load repetitions month by
I I I I I
I o2 I o3 I o4 Io5 I o6 I o7
LOAD REPETITIONS
Fig. 843. Fatigue relations
month for 20-year and 40-year design periods. The effect is
included in the design charts and tables so that the user
simply inputs the 28-day v a l ~ as
~ ethe design strengtl~.
In addition to traffic loading, concrete slabs are also sub-
jected to warping and curling. Warping is the upward
concave deformation of the slab due to variations in mois-
ture content with slab depth. The effect of warping is
twofold: It results in loss of support along the slab edges
and also in compressive restraint stresses in the slab bot-
torn. Since warping is a long-term yl~enornenon,its result-
ant effect is influenced greatly by creep.
Curling refers to slab behavior due to variations of
temperature. During the day, when the top surface is
warmer than the bottom, tensile-restraint stresses develop
at the slab bottom. During the night, the temperature
distribution is reversed and tensile restraint stresses de-
usually nonlinear and constantly changing. Also, maxi-
mum daytime artd nighttime temperature differentials
exist for short durations.
Usually tlre combined effect of curling and warping
stresses are s~~btractive fro111 load stresses because the
moisture content and temperature at the bottom of the slab
exceed that at the top more than the reverse.
The colnylex situation of differential conditions at a
slab's top and bottom plus the uncertainty of the zero-
stress position, make it difficult to compute or measure the
restraint stresses with any degree of confidence or verifi-
cation. At present, the information available on actual
magnitudes of restraint stresses does not warrant incorpo-
ration of the items in this design procedure.
As for the loss of support, this is considered indirectly
in the erodibility criterion, which is derived from actual
field performance and therefore incorporates normal loss
of support conditions.
Calculated stress increase due to loss of support varies
from about 5% to 15%.This theoretical stress increase is
counteracted in the real case because a portion of the load
is dissipated in bringing the slab edges back in contact with
the support. Thus, the incremental load stress due to a
warping-type loss of support is not incorporated in this
design procedure.
Fatigue
The flexural fatigue criterion used in the procedure pre-
sented here is shown in Fig. A3. It is similar to that used in
the previous PCA method ('O' based conservatively on
studies of fatigue research (5'-5" except that it is applied to
edge-load stresses that are of higher magnitude. A modi-
fication in the high-load-repetition range 11as been rnade to
eliminate the discontinuity in the previous curve that
so~netirnescauses unrealistic effects.
The allowable number of load repetitions for a given
axle load is determined based on the stress ratio (flexural
stress divided by the 28-day mod~ilusof rupture). The
fatigue curve is incorporated into the design charts for use
by the designer.
Use of the fatigue criterion is made on the Miner
hypotl~esis that fatigue resistance not consumed by
repetitions of one load is available for repetitions of other
loads. In a design problem, the total fatigue consumed
should not exceed 100%.
Combined with the effect of reducing the design modu-
lus of rupture by one coefficient of variation, the fatigue
criterion is considered to be conservative for thickness
design purposes.
Erosion
Previous mechanistic design procedures for concretepave-
ments are based on the principle of limiting the flexural
stresses in a slab to safe values. This is done to avoid
flexural fatigue cracks due to load repetitions.
It has been apparent that there is an important mode
of distress in addition to fatigue cracking that needs to be
addressed in the design process. This is the erosion of
material beneath and beside the slab.
Many repetitions of heavy axle loads at slab corners
and edges cause pumping; erosion of subgrade, subbase,
and shoulder materials; voids under and adjacent to the
slab; and faulting of pavement joints, especially in pave-
ments wit11 undoweled joints.
These particular pavement distresses are considered
to be more closely related to pavement deflections than to
flexural stresses.
Correlations of deflections computed from the finite
element analysis (") with AASHO Road Test "") perfor-
mance data were not completely satisfactory for design
purposes. (The principal mode of failure of concrete pave-
ments at the AASHO Road Test was pumping of erosion of
the granular subbase from ~ m d e the r slabs.) It was found
that to be able to predict the AASHO Road Test perfor-
mance, different values of deflection criteria would have
to be applied to different slab thicknesses, and to a small
extent, different foundation moduli (1c values).
More useful correlation was obtained by nlultiplying
the computed corner deflection values (zu) by co~npkted
pressure values ( p ) at the slab-foundation interface. Power,
or rate of work, wit11 which an axle load deflects the slab is
the parameter used for the erosion criterion-for a unit area,
the product of pressure and deflection divided by a mea-
sure of the length of the deflection basin (&--radius of
relative stiffness, in ~nilli~netres).
The concept is that a thin
pavement wit11 its shorter deflection basin receives a faster
load punch than a thicker slab. That is, at equal pw's and
equal truck speed, the t11i11ner slab is subjected to a faster
rate of work or power (watts). A successful correlation
wit11 road test performance was obtained wit11 this param-
eter.
The development of the erosion criterion was also
generally related to studies on joint These
studies i ~ ~ c l ~ ~pavements
ded in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Georgia, and California, and included a
range of variables not found at the AASHO Road Test,
such as a greater number of trucl<s, undoweIed pave-
ments, a wide range of years of pavement service, and
stabilized subbases.
Brolcaw's studies ( W of u~tdoweledpavements suggest
that climate or drainage is a significant factor in pavement
performance. So far, this aspect of design has not been
included in the design procedure, but it deserves further
study. Investigations of the effects of climate on design
and performance of concrete pavements have also been
reported by Darter. (W
The erosion criterion is suggested for use as a guide-
line. It can be modified according to local experience since
climate, drainage, local factors, and new design innova-
tions may have an influence. Accordingly, the 100%ero-
sion-damage criterion, an index number correlated wit11
general perfor~nanceexperience, can be increased or de-
creased based on specific performance data gathered in
the future for more favorable or more adverse conditions.
APPENDIX B
Following is tlre thickness design procedure for composite
concrete pavements incorporating a lower layer of lean
concrete, either as a subbase constructed separately or as a
lower layer in monolithic construction. Design consider-
ations and construction practices for such pavements are
discussed in References 56 through 58.
Lean concrete is stronger than conventional subbase
materials and is considered to be nonerodable. Recogni-
tion of its superior structural properties can be taken by a
reduction in tlrickness design requirements.
Analysis of composite concrete pavements is a special
case where the conventional two-layer theory (single slab
on a foundation) is not strictly applicable.
The design procedure indicates a thickness for a two-
layer concrete pavement equivalent to a given thickness of
normal concrete.The latter is determined by the procedures
described in Chapters 3 and 4. The equivalence is based on
providing thickness for a two-layer concrete pavement that
will have the same margin of safety*for fatigue and erosion
as a single-layer normal concrete pavement.
In tlre design charts, Figs. B1 and B2, the required layer
tllicknesses depend on the flexural strengths of the two
concrete materials as determined by CSA A23.2-8C. (61)
Since the quality of lean concrete is often specified on the
basis of compressive strength, Fig. B3 can be used to
convert this to an estimated flexural strength (modulus of
rupture) for use in preliminary design calculations.
The largest paving use of lean concrete lras been as a
subbase under a conventional concrete pavement. This is
nonmonolitlric construction where the surface course of
normal concrete is placed on a hardened lean concrete
subbase. Usually, the lean concrete subbase is built at least
600 mm wider than the pavement on each side to support
tlte tracks of tlte slipform paver. This extra width is structur-
ally beneficial for wheel loads applied at pavement edge.
The normal practice lras been to select a surface thiclt-
ness about twice the subbase tl~icltness;for example, 220
mm of concrete on a 100 or 120 ntm stlbbase.
Fig. B1 shows the surface artd subbase tlricltness re-
q~~irements set to be equivalent to a given thickness of
normal concrete without a lean concrete subbase.
A sample problem is given to illustrate the design
procedure. From laboratory tests, concrete mix designs
have been selected that give moduli of rupture of 4.5 and
2.0 MPa,"* respectively, for the surface concrete and the
lean concrete su~bbase.Assume that a 260-mm-thickness
requirement ltas been determined for a pavement without
lean concrete subbase by tlte procedures set forth in Clrap-
ter 3 or 4.
As shown by tlte dashed example line in Fig. B1,
designs equivalent to the 260-mm pavement are: (1) 185-
mm concrete on a 130-lrun lean concrete subbase, and (2)
200-mm concrete on a 100-rnm lean concrete subbase.
In some areas, a relatively thin concrete surface course is
constructed monolitlrically with a lean concrete lower
layer. Local or recycled aggregates can be used for the lean
* The criteria are that ( 1 ) stress ratios in either o f the two concrete
layers not exceed those o f the reference pavement; and (2)erosion
values at the subbase-subgrade interface not exceed those o f the
reference pavement. Rationale for the criteria is given in Refer-
ence 56 plus two additional considerations: (I)erosion criteria are
included in addition to the fatigue approach given in the refer-
ence; and (2) for nonmonolithic construction, some structural
benefit(20)is added because the subbase is constructed wider
than the pavement.
** Flexural strength o f lean concrete to be used as a subbase is
usually selected to be between 1 0 to 1.7 MPa (compressive
strength, 5.2 to 8.3 MPa); these relatively low strengths are used
to rninimizereflectivecrack'ing from the unjointed subbase tl~rough
the concrete surface. In northern climates where compressive
streltgtlts are typically specified at the upper limit, joints should
be placed in the subbase.
 Modulus of rupture of lean concrete, MPa

2.0 3.0
/
3.0
350

-
/
,150 mm subbase -

-
130 mm subbase
/
230
100 mm subbase Dimensions shown on curves
are thicknesses of concrete
surface course, mm

Fig. B1. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (lean concrete subbase).

37
 Modulus of rupture of lean concrete, MPa
3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

80 mrri surface
Dimensions shown on curves
are thicknesses of lean
concrete subbase. mm

Fig. B2. Design chart for composite concrete pavement

(monolithic with lean concrete lower layer).

concrete, resulting in cost savings and conservation of

high-quality aggregates.
Unlike the lean concrete subbases discussed in the
previous section, the lower layer of lean concrete is placed
at the same width as the surface course, and joints are
sawed deep enough to induce full-depth cracking through
both layers at the joint locations.
Fig. B2 is the design chart for morlolithic pavements
To illustrate its use, assume that the design strengths of the
two concretes are 4.5 and 2.0 MPa, and that the design
procedures of Chapter 3 or 4 indicate a tldckness require-
ment of 250 mm for full-depth normal concrete
As shown by the dashed example line in Fig. B2,
monolithic designs equivalent to the 250-mm pavement
are (1) 100-mrnconcrete surface on 220-rnm lean concrete,
or (2) 80-mrn surface on 245-mm lean concrete. Cornprtessive strength, MPa

Fig. B3. Modulus of rupture versus compressive

strength (from Reference 56).
APPENDIX C
M
Trideln loadsXcan be included, along with single- and
tandem-axle loads in the design analysis by use of data
given in this appendix.
The same design steps and format outlined in Chapter
3 are followed except that Tables C1 througl~C3 are used.
From these tables for tridems, equivalent stress and ero-
sion factors are entered in an extra design workslleet. Then
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6a and 6b are used to determine allowable
numbers of load repetitions. Fatigue and erosion darnage
totals for tridems are added to those for single- and tan-
dem-axle loads.
An extension of the sample problem; Design 1A given
in Chapter 3, is used here to illustrate the procedure for
tridem loads. Assume that, in addition to the single- and
tandem-axle loads, a section of the llighway is to carry a
fleet of special coal-hauling trucks equipped with tridems
at the rate of about 100 per working day for an estimated
period of 10 years:
100 trucks x 250 days x 10 years = 250,000 total trucl<s
The trucks in one direction are normally a11 Ioaded to
their capacity of 240 kN plus 31-kN steering-axle (single-
axle) load. (When it is examined, the steering axles are not
heavy enough to affect the design results.)
Fig. C1 represents a portion of the extra design
worl<sheetneeded to evaluate the effects of these tridems.
Since Design 1A (240-m1-11pavement, combined k of 35
MPa/m) is a pavement with doweled joints and no con-
crete shoulder, Tables C1 and C2 are used to determine the
equivalent stress and erosion factors, Items 11 and 13 on
the worksheet.
For this example, Fig. 5 is used to determine allowable
load repetitions for the fatigue analysis and Fig. Ga is used
for the erosion analysis.
The tridem loads of 240 kN are multiplied by the load
safety factor for Design 1A of 1.2,giving a design axle load
of 288 kN. Before using the charts for allowable load
repetitions, the tridem load (3 axles) is divided by three
(288/3 = 96 1<N)so that the load scale for single axles cart
be used.""
As sl~ownin Fig. C1, the tridem causes only 6.4%
erosion damage and 0% fatigue damage. These results,
added to the effects of the single and tandem axles sl~own
in Fig. 4 are not sufficient to require a design thickness
increase.
* A tridem or triple axle is a set of three axles spaced at 1 2 to 1.4 111
apart There are used on special heavy-duty haul truclts.
** This is not to say that a tridem has the same effect as three single
axles The damaging effects of tridem, tandem, and single axles
are incorporated into their respective equivalent stress and ero-
sion factor tables, which in the sequence of the design steps, is
talcen into account before the charts for allowable-load repeti-
tions are entered. This division by three for tridems is made just
to avoid the complexity of adding a third scale on the charts for
allowable-load repetitions.
 Calculation of Pavement Thickness

-
project TRIDEM AXLES SUPPLEMENT TO DESIGN I A
Trial thickness 240 rnrn Doweled joints: y e s d no -
Subbase-subgrade k 35 MPaIrn Concrete shoulder: y e s no
Modulus of rupture, MU 4.5 MPa Design period 20 years
Load safety factor, LSF 1.2

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

Axel Multiplied Expected
load, by repetitions
kilonewtons Allowable Fatigue Allowable Damage,
LSF repetitions percent repetitions percent
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Equivalent stress 1.02 13. Erosion factor 2.90

2 4 0 x 1.2 12.Stress ratio factor 0.227
Tridem Axles
/'-
1
3
240 '96 2 5 0 000 UNLIMITED -. 3 900 000 6.4

TOTAL 0 6.4
(TO BE ADDE(D TO TO'ALS SHOWN IN FIG 4 )
Fig. C1. Analysis of tridems.

Table C1. Equivalent Stress-Tridems

Without Concrete ShoulderNVith Concrete Shouldel
Slab )base (MPa
thickness (mm) 80
100 2 9812.57
110 2.5012.18
2.1411 .89
1.8711 66
1.6511"48
1.4811.33
1.3411"20
1.23/1.10
1.1411.01
1.0610.94
0.9910.87
0.9310.81
0.8810.76
0 8410.72
0.8010.68
0.7610.64
0.7310.61
0.7010.58
0.6710.56
0,6510.53
0.6310.51
0.6010.49
0.5810.47
0.5610.45
0.5510.43
0.5310.42
Table C2. Erosion Factors-Tridems-Doweled Joints
(Without Concrete ShoulderNVith Concrete Shoulder)
I Slab kof subarade-subbase (MPaIm)

Table C3. Erosion Factors-Tridems-Aggregate-Interlock Joints

Without Concrete ShoulderNVith Concrete Shouldel
subgrade-subbase (MPa
60 1 80
APPENDIX D
M
The Tra~qortationAssociation of Canada (TAC)Geometric
Design Guide for Canadian Roads and Streets provides
planning and design specification and guidelines for use
t h r o ~ ~ g l Canada.
~ o ~ ~ t In this publication the traffic voluine
(ADT) is estimated by a method based on the projected rates
of traffic growth. When the projected traffic rates are rela-
tively high for a specific project, this method sllould be
checked by the capacity method described in this appendix.
Capacity is defined by TAC as the nuinber of vehicles
that 11as a reasonable expectation of passing over a given
section of a lane or roadway in one direction (or in both
directions on a two- or three-lane l~ighway)during a given
time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions.
Service volume is defined by TAC as the inaxirnuin
nuinber of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a
lane or roadway in one direction on a multilanel~igl~way (or
in both directions on a two- or three-lane higl~way)during
a specified time period while operating conditions are
maintained corresportding to a selected or specified level of
service. In the absence of a time modifier, service volume is
hourly.
The service volume of a rrmltilane l~ighwayis given by:
SV = 2000 N (ale) TW
and for a two-lane highway as
SV = 2000 (vlc) TW
where
SV = service volume for a given level of service
N = number of lanes in each direction
v/c = service volume to capacity ratio
T = adjustment for truclts on grade
W = adjustment for width and lateral clearance
For a two-lane highway the service volume is the total
vehicles per hour for both directions.
The level of service and maxirnmn service volumes for
multilane highways is s11own in Table Dl, and for two-lane
l~ighwaysin Table D2.
For thickness design it is necessary to convert the
passenger cars per hour in Table Dl to average daily traffic
(ADT) in both directions. For multilane highways with
uninterrupted flow, the followii~gformula is used:
loop 5000 N
ADT x-
1 0 0 , j - 1 KD
where:
P =Passenger cars*per lane per hour (from Table Dl)
N = nuntber of lanes-total in both directions
T,,,,
= trucks, percent during peak hours
= 2/3 ADTT in this publication
j = number of passenger cars equivalent to one truck
(from Table D3)
I< = design hour volume, DHV, expressed as a
percent of ADT
= 15% for rural freeways in this p~~blication
= 12% for urban freeways in this publication
D = traffic, percent, in direction of heaviest travel
during peak hours-50% to 75%
= 67% for rural freeways in this publication
= 60% for urban freeways in this publication
The symbol T in the expression Tp12 in the above
formula differs from the T for trucks. Elsewhere in this
publication, T is the number of trucks, including only
single units with more than four tires, and all cornbina-
tions. (Does not include panels, pickups, and other single
~ m i t swith only f o ~ xtires.)
The ADTT is the average daily truck traffic both
directions, and may be expressed as a percentage of ADT
or as an actual value.
Important factors in the maxirnum service volumes
for two-lane highways are the level of service and the
service volume-capacity (v/c) ratio. Table D2 sl~owslevel
of service and maximuin service voluines for a two-lane
highway.
"Includes panels, pickups, and othcr four-tired commelc~alvehicles
that function as passenger cars
 Table D l . Levels of Service and Maximum Service Volumes for Multilane Highways, Undivided
andlor Without Access Control, Under Uninterrupted Flow Conditions (Normally Representative
of Rural O~eration) -- -

Maximum service volume under

Traff~cflow condit~ons Serv~ceVolume-capaclty (vlc ratio) Ideal conditions, lncludlng
Basic I
Approximate working 120 kmlh AHS (total passenger

I
Operating
speed,* /
limiting
value*
for ASH
1
1 - 1
value for restricted
AHS of
cars per hour, one direction)
4-lane hwy. I 6-lane hwy
(2 lanes 1 (3 lanes 1
I Each
additional
Service Description kmlh of 120 kmlh 100 kmlh 80 kmlh one direction) one direction) lane
A Free Flow -
2 100 -
< 0.30 -** -** 1200 1800 600
B Stable flow
(upper speed
I range) 1 -
>90 1 <0.50
- 1 -
< 0.20 / - 2000 3000 1000
C I Stable flow / > 70
- 1 -
< 0.80 1 < 0.60
- 1 5 0.30 1 3200 4800 1 1600
D Approaching
unstable flow 2 55 < 0.95
- < 0.90
- 2 0.70 3800 5700 1900
Et Unstable flow 55tt -
< 1.OO 4000 6000 2000
F Forced flow < 50tt Not meaningful* Widely variable (0 to capacity)

Operating speed and basic vlcratio are independent measures of level of service; both limits must be satisfied in any determination of level
"* Operating speed required for this level is not attainable even at low volumes
t Capacity.
tt Aproximately
$ Demand volume-capacity ratio may well exceed 1 00, indicating overloading
Source of this table: "Geometric Design Standards for Canadian Roads and Streets," TAC

It is good practice to use both the ~ n a x i ~ n uservice

~n
volume (or capacity) and traffic projection factors for the
thicltness design of specific projects. For example, an exist-
ing two-lane highway carrying 4000 ADT, and with a 20-
year projection factor of 2.7, would have to carry a pro-
jected 10,800 ADT. This is considerably more than the
capacity of a two-lane highway but less than the capacity
of a four-lane highway. The thickness design should be
based on a four-lane facility carrying 10,800 ADT. The
~naximumservice volume (or capacity) should not be used
for thickness determination when it shows a greater ADT
tl~anthat shown by traffic projection.
Table D2. Levels of Service and Maximum Service Volumes for Two-Lane Highways Under
Uninterrupted Flow Conditions (Normally Representative of Rural Operation)
Maximum service
Service volume-capacity (v/c) ratio volume under
ideal conditions,
Traffic flow nditions Basic restricted average including
Passing limiting highway speed** of 120 km/h AHS
Level Operating opportunity valuett for (passenger cars,
of speed* >450 m, % AHS of total, both
jervice Description km/h 120 km/h directions,
per hour)

Free flow 340

Stable flow
(upper speed
range)

Stable flow

Approaching 100
unstable 80
flow 60
40
20
0
Not
Unstable flow applicable* 2000
Not Widely variable
Forced flow applicable* Not meaningful** 0 to capacity

* Operating speed and basic v/c ratio are independent measures of level of service. Both limits must be satisfied in any determination of level.
** Where no entry appears, operating speed required for this level is unattainable even at low volumes.
t Capacity
tt Aproxirnately.
$ No passing.
$$Demand volume capacity ratio may well exceed 1.00, indicating overloading.
Source of this table: "Geometric Design Standards for Canadian Roads and Streets." TAC.
Table D3. Passenger Car Equivalents of Trucks
on Multilane Highways on Specific Individual
Subsections or Grades
Length Passenger car equivalent
of levels of service A through C
Grade, grade, 3% 5% 10% 15% 20%
YO km trucks trucks trucks trucks trucks
0-1 All 2 2 2 2 2
2 0.5 4 4 4 3 3
1.0 6 5 5 4 4
1.5 7 5 5 4 5
2.0 7 5 5 5 6
3.0 7 6 6 6 6
4.0 7 7 7 7 7
5.0 7 7 8 8 8
6.0 7 7 8 8 8
3 0.5 10 8 5 4 3
1.0 10 8 5 5 4
1.5 10 8 6 5 6
2.0 10 9 7 6 6
3.0 10 9 8 7 8
4.0 10 10 9 9 9
5.0 10 10 10 10 10
4 0.5 12% 9 5 4 4
1.0 12. 9 6 6 6
1.5 12. 10 7 7 8
2.0 12. 10 9 9 9
3.0 12. 11 11 11 11
4.0 129 11 12 12 12
5.0 12- 12 13 13 13
6.0 12. 13 15 15 14
5** 0.5 13- 10 6 5 4
0.5 13. 10 6 5 4
1.0 13. 11 8 7 8
'1.5 13. 12. 9 9 10
2.0 13. 13. 11 * 11 11
3.0 13. 14. 14. 14. 13.
4.0 1 13. 15- 16. 15. 15.

*
Values with dot, add 1 for service levels D and E
" For 6% grade, add 1 (approx ) to Et values for 5% grade.
Source of this table: "Geometric Design Standards for Canadian Roads
and Streets," TAC.
APPENDIX E
American Concrete Pavement Association, "Subgrades
and Subbases for Concrete Paveinents," TBO11P.
American Concrete Pavement Association, "Cernent-
Treated Permeable Base for Heavy-Traffic Concrete
Paveinents," IS404P.
American Concrete Pavement Association, "Concrete
Pavements Without Subbases for Light-Traffic Facili-
ties," IS414P.
American Concrete Pavement Association, "Design
and Construction of Joints for Concrete Streets," IS061P.
American Concrete Paveinent Association, "Design
and Construction of Joints for Concrete Highways,"
TBOlOP.
Canadian Portland Cement Association, "Design and
Control of Concrete Mixtures," EB101.06T.
Westergaarcl, H.M., "Comp~~tation of Stresses in Con-
crete Roads," Highway Research Board Proceedings,
Fiftlt Annual Meeting, 1925, Part 1, pp. 90-112.
Westergaard, H.M., "Stresses in Concrete Pavements
Computed by Theoretical Analysis," Public Roads,
Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1926, pp. 25-35.
Westergaard, H.M., "Analysis of Stresses in Concrete
Roads Caused by Variations in Temperature," IJublic
Roads, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 1927, pp. 201-215.
Westergaard, H.M., "Theory of Concrete Pavement
Design," Highway Research Board Proceedings, Sev-
enth Annual Meeting, 1927, Part 1, pp. 175-181.
Westergaard, H.M., "Analytical Tools for Judging Re-
sults of Structural Tests of Concrete Pavements," P L
lic Roads,, Vol. 14, No. 10, December 1933, pp. 185-188.
Picltett, G., Raville, M.E., Jones, W.C., and McCoriniclt,
F.]., "Deflections, Moments and Reactive Pressures for
Concrete Paveinents," Kansas State College Bulletin
No. 65, October 1951.
Pickett, G., and Ray, G.K., "Influence Cltarts for Con-
crete Pavernents," American Society of Civil Engineers
Transactions, Paper No. 2425, Vol. 116,1951, pp. 49-73.
Tayabji, S.D., and Colley, B.E., "Analysis of Jointed
Concrete Pavements," report prepared by the Con-
struction Technology Laboratories of the Portland Ce-
ment Association for the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, October 1981.
Teller, L.W., and Sutllerland, E.C., "The Structural
Design of Concrete Pavements," Public Roads, Vol. 16,
No. 8,9, and 10 (1935);Vol. 17,Nos. 7 and 8 (1936);Vol.
23, No. 8 (1943).
Cltilds, L.D., Colley, B.E., and I<aperniclt, J.W., "Tests
to Evaluate Concrete Pavement Subbases," Proceed-
ings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper No.
1297, Vol. 83 (HW-3), July 1957, pp. 1-44; also PCA
Development Department Btllletin DX011.
17. Childs, L.D., and I<apernick, J.W., "Tests of Concrete
Pavement Slabs on Gravel Subbases," Proceedings of
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 84 (HW-31,
October 1958; also PCA Development Department
Bulletin DX021.
18. Cldds, L.D., and Kapernick, J.W., "Tests of Concrete
Pavements on Crushecl Stone Subbases," Proceedings
of Arnerican Society of Civil Engineers, Paper No.
3497, Vol. 89 (HW-11, April 1963, pp. 57-80; also PCA
Development Department Bulletin DX065.
19. Cllilds, L.D., "Tests of Concrete Paveinent Slabs 011
Cement-Treated Subbases," Highway Research Record
60, Highway Research Board, 1063, pp. 39-58; also
PCA Development Department B~~lletin DX086.
20. Childs, L.D., "Cement-Treated Subbases for Concrete
Pavements," Highway Research Record 189, High-
way Research Board, 1967, pp. 19-43;also IJCA Devel-
opment Department Bulletin DX125.
21. Childs, L.D., and Nussbaum, P.J., "Repetitive Load
Tests of Concrete Slabs on Cement-Treated Subbases,"
RD025P, Portland Cement Association, 1975.
22. Tayabji, S.D., and Colley, B.E., Iinproved Rigid Pave-
ment Joints, Transportation Research Board Record
No. 90,1984.
23. Cllilds, L.D., and Ball, C.G., "Tests of Joints for Con-
crete Pavements," RD026P, Portland Ceinent Associa-
tion, 1975.
24. Colley, B.E., Ball, C.G., and Arriyavat, P., "Aggregate
~ Interlock at Joints in Concrete Pavernents," Highway
Research Board Record 189, Transportation Research
Board, 1967, pp. 1-18.
25. Colley, B.E., Ball, C.G., and Arriyavat, P., "Evaluation
of Concrete Pavements with Tied S11oulclers or Wid-
ened Lanes," Transportation Research Record 666,
Transportation Research Board, 1978; also Portland
Cement Association, Research and Development Bul-
letin RD065P, 1980.
26. Sawan, J.S., Darter, M.I., and Demysey, B.J., "Struc-
tural Analysis and Design of PCC Sl~o~dders," Report
No. FHWA-RD-81-122, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, April 1982.
27. Older, C., "Highway Research in Illinois," Proceed-
ings of American Society of Civil Engineers, February
1924, p p 175-217.
28. Aldricll, L., and Leonard, I.B., "Report of Highway
Research at Pittsburg, California, 1921-1922," Califor-
nia State Printing Office.
29. Road Test One-MD, Higltway Research Board Special
Report No. 4, 1952.
30. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board
Special Report No. 61E, 1962.
31. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board Spe-
cial Report No. 73, '1962.
32. ASSHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement Struc-
tures 1972, Chapter 111Revised, 1981, American Asso-
ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
1981.
33. Fordyce, P., and Teslte, W.E., "Some Relationships of
the AASHO Road Test to Concrete Pavement Design,"
Highway Research Board Record No. 44,1963, pp. 35-
70.
34. Brakaw, M.P., "Effect of Serviceability and Rougl~ness
at Transverse Joints on Performance and Design of
Plain Concrete Pavei~~ent," Highway Research Board
Record 471, Transportation Research Board, 1973.
35. Packard, R.G., "Design Considerations for Control of
Joint Faulting of Undoweled Pavements," Proceedings
of Internatioi~alConference on Concrete Pavement
Design, Purdue University, February 1977.
36. Packard, R.G., and Tayabji, S.D., "Mecl~anisticDesign
of Concrete Pavements to Control Joint Faulting and
Subbase Erosion," International Seminar on Drainage
and Erodability at the Concrete Slab-Subbase-Shoul-
der Interfaces, Paris, March 1983.
37. Standard Method for Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load
Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, for
Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway
Pavements, American Society for Testing and Materi-
als, Designation D 1196.
38. "Rigid Airfield Pavements," Corps of Engineers, US.
Army Manual, EM 1110-45-303, February 3, 1958.
39. Burmister, D.M., "The Theory of Stresses and Displace-
ments in Layered Systems and Applications to Design
of Airport Runways," Highway Research Board Pro-
ceedings, Vol. 23,1943, pp. 126-148.
40. Standard Metl~odsfor Freezing-and-Thawing Tests of
Coinpacted Soil-Ceinent Mixtures, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Desigixition D 560.
41. Staildard Metl~odsfor Wetting-and-Drying Tests of
Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Designation D 559.
42. Soil-Cement Laboratory Handbook, Portland Cement
Association publication EB052S, 1992.
43. "NationalTrucl<Characteristic Report, 1975-1979,'' IJS.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, Washington, D.C., June 1981.
44. Beclter, J.M., Darter, M.I., Snyder, M.B., and Smith,
R.E., "COPES Data Collection Procedures-Appendix
A," June 1983, Appendix to final report of National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 1-19,
Concrete Pavement Evaluation System, draft submit-
ted to Transportation Research Board.
45. Load Stress at Pavement Edge, Portland Cement Asso-
ciation publication IS030P, 1969.
46. Taragin, A., "Lateral Placement of Trucks on Two-Lane
and Four-Lane Divided Highways," Public Roads, Vol.
30, No. 3, August 1958, py. 71-75.
47. Emery, D.I<.,Jr., "Paved Sho~llderEncroachment and
Transverse Lane Displacement for Design Truclts on
Rural Freeways," a report presented to the Committee
on Sl~oulderDesign, Transportation Research Board,
January 13, 1975.
48. "Vehicle Sl~oulderEi~croachmei~t and Lateral Place-
ment Study," Federal Highway Administration Report
No. FHWA/MN-80/6, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Research and Developinent Office, July
1980.
49. Darter, M.I., "Structural Design for Heavily Trafficked
Plain-Jointed Concrete Pavement Based on Service-
ability Performance," TRR 671, Analysis of Pavement
Systems, Transportation Research Board, 1978,pp. 1-8.
50. Tl~icknessDesign for Concrete Pavements, Portland
Cement Association publication ISOIOP, 1974.
51. Kesler, C.E., "Fatigue and Fracture of Concrete," Stanton
Walker Lecture Series of the Materials Sciences, Na-
tional Sand and Gravel Association and National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, 1970.
52. Fordyce, P., and Yrjanson, W.A., "Modern Design of
Concrete Pavements," American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Transportation Engineering Journal, Vol. 95, No.
TE3, Proceedings Paper 6726, August 1969, pp. 407-
438.
53. Ballinger,C.A., "T11eC~1mulativeFatigue Damage Char-
acteristics of Plain Concrete," Highway Research Record
370, Highway Research Board, 1971, pp. 48-60.
54. Miner,M.A., "Crrmulative Damage in Fatigue," Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers Trai~sactions,Vol.
67,1945, p. A159.
55. Iclaiber, F.W., Thomas, T.L., and Lee, D.Y., "Fatigue
Behavior of Air-Entrained Concrete: Phase 11," Engi-
neering Research Institute, lowa State University, Feb-
ruary 1979.
56. Packard, R.G., "Structural Design of Concrete Pave-
ments wit11 Lean Concrete Lower Course," Proceed-
ings of Second International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design, Purdue University, April 1981.
57. Yrjanson, W.A., and Packard, R.G., "Econocrete Pave-
ments-Current Practices," Trai~sportationResearch
Record 741, Perforinai~ceof Pavemei~tsDesigned with
Low-Cost Materials, Transportation Research Board,
1980, p p 6-13.
58. Ruth, B.E., and Larsen, T.J., "Save Money with
EcoilocretePavement Systems," Concrete Internatiol~al,
American Concrete Institute, May 1983.
59. Geometric Design G~ridefor Canadian Roads and
Streets, Transportation Association of Canada, 1986.
60. Schuster, J.J., and Michael, H.L., "Vel~icularTrip Esti-
mation in Urban Areas," Engineering Bulletin of Purdue
University, Vol. XLVIII, No. 4, July 1964, pp. 67-92.
61. "Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam
with Third-Point Loading)," Canadian Standards As-
sociation Standard CAN/CSA A23.2-8C.
 Trial thickness rnrn Doweled joints: y e s no -
Subbase-subgrade k MPalrri Concrete shoulder: y e s no -
Modulus of rupture, MR MPa Design period -years
Load safety factor, LSF

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

Axel Multiplied Expected
load, by repetitions
kilonewtons Allowable Fatigue Allowable Darnage,
LSF repetitions percent repetitions percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Equivalent stress 10. Erosion factor

Single Axles 9. Stress ratio factor

11. Equivalent stress 13. Erosion factor

Tandem Axles 12. Stress ratio factor

Total Total

48