EC (118FC2019-1h) - 190905 - AEC + ICPI - Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavers For Municipal Streets and Roadways

Structural Design
About the Instructor About the Sponsor Ask an Expert
of Interlocking Concrete Pavers

for Municipal Streets and Roadways This Online Learning Seminar is available through a
professional courtesy provided by:
Interlocking Concrete
Pavement Institute
14801 Murdock Street, Suite 230
Chantilly, VA 20151
Tel: 703-657-6900
Fax:703-657-6901
Email: icpi@icpi.org
Web: https://www.icpi.org
START
©2018 ICPI. The material contained in this course was researched, assembled and produced by ICPI and remains its property. Questions or powered by
concerns about the content of this course should be directed to the program instructor. This multimedia product is the copyright of AEC Daily.
©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 1 of 78 >

Structural Design of ICP for Municipal Streets and Roadways
To ensure the current status of this course, including relevant association approvals, please view the course details here.
The American Institute of Architects

Course No. AEC1143
This program qualifies for 1.25 LU/HSW Hours
Course Expiry Date: 06/14/2021
AEC Daily Corporation is a registered provider of AIA-approved continuing education under Provider Number J624. All registered AIA CES
Providers must comply with the AIA Standards for Continuing Education Programs. Any questions or concerns about this provider or this
learning program may be sent to AIA CES (cessupport@aia.org or (800) AIA 3837, Option 3).
This learning program is registered with AIA CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be
deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using,
distributing, or dealing in any material or product.
AIA continuing education credit has been reviewed and approved by AIA CES. Learners must complete the entire learning program to receive
continuing education credit. AIA continuing education Learning Units earned upon completion of this course will be reported to AIA CES for AIA
members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon completion of the test.

AEC Daily Corporation has met the standards and requirements of the Registered
Continuing Education Program. Credit earned on completion of this program will be
reported to RCEP at RCEP.net. A certificate of completion will be issued to each
participant. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be
an approval or endorsement by the RCEP.

How to Use This Online Learning Course
To view this course, use the arrows at the bottom of each slide or the up and down arrow keys on your keyboard.
To print or exit the course at any time, press the ESC key on your keyboard. This will minimize the full-screen
presentation and display the menu bar.
Within this course is a test password that you will be required to enter in order to proceed with the online test.
Please be sure to remember or write down this test password so that you have it available for the test.
To receive a certificate indicating course completion, refer to the instructions at the end of the course.
For additional information and post-seminar assistance, click on any of the logos and icons within a page or any of
the links at the top of each page.

Interlocking Concrete Paver Courses
This course is part of a series on interlocking concrete pavers. The series consists of the following three courses. You
are encouraged to read these courses in the order shown.
ICP 1: Guide Specifications for Interlocking Concrete Pavement

ICP 2: Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavers for Municipal Streets and Roadways
ICP 3: Inspection of Interlocking Concrete Pavement Systems
Find the courses here.

Purpose and Learning Objectives
Purpose:
Interlocking concrete pavers (ICP) have the ability to spread applied loads via the interlock between each unit. This
means that the surface does not respond structurally as single pavers but as a composite paved surface. This
structural characteristic of ICP allows the design method for these pavements to be based on flexible pavement design.
In this course, we examine the ASCE and ICPI structural design methods for ICP and review examples using different
soil strengths/stiffnesses and traffic uses. Finally, we survey the design and construction support material and software
available from the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute.
Learning Objectives:
At the end of this program, participants will be able to:
• describe how interlocking concrete pavers act as a structural system and spread applied loads
• recall the origin of the ASCE National Standard: Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for Municipal
Streets and Roadways
• apply the AASHTO structural design method for flexible pavements to interlocking concrete pavements (ICP) and
• use the ICPI design software and Tech Specs to support the structural design of ICP roadways.

Contents
Interlocking Concrete Pavements (ICP) for

Municipal Streets and Roadways
Designing Roadways with ICP

Interlocking
Concrete
Pavements (ICP) for
Municipal Streets
and Roadways

Background: AASHO Pavement Tests 1958–60
The history of systematic pavement design began in the late 1950s when the US embarked on the construction of the
interstate highway system. Given this investment, a standard pavement design procedure was needed. The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials or AASHTO (then AASHO) constructed test pavement sections
just outside of Ottawa, Illinois. The test sections were trafficked continuously using heavy trucks for just over a year, and
the condition of the pavement sections was closely monitored.
Test track location, layout and site

Background: AASHTO Guide
Based on the performance of the test sections, the first AASHTO interim guide
for design of pavement structures was published in 1961.

History of AASHTO Design Guides
The history of the AASHTO design guides is shown here.

Empirical Design Methods The basic empirical pavement design principles of the guide
did not change until 2008 with the release of the
1958–1960 AASHO Road Test
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG)
1961 & 62 - AASHO Interim Guides
1972 - Revised Interim Guide
and associated software program called AASHTOWare®
1981 - Revised Interim Guide for Rigid Pavements Pavement ME Design (formerly DARWin-METM).
1986 - Guide for Design of Pavements
1993 - Guide for Design of Pavements (overlays)
Empirical design is developed from load testing and
1998 - Supplement to Guide (rigid pavements)
developing design equations that provide design solutions.
Mechanistic Design Methods
Mechanistic design is based on modeling of applied
2008 - Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
stresses and resulting strains in pavements and conducting
2010 - AASHTOWare® Pavement ME Design software
full-scale load testing to validate and calibrate the
mechanistic models.

ASCE Standard: Structural Design for ICP
The MEPDG was aimed more at highway pavement design rather than local
roads. Inputs required for the MEPDG and necessary performance calibration
of mechanistic models based on field data were not available for interlocking
concrete pavements.
In 2006, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Transportation and

Development Institute formed a committee to write a design standard called
Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for Municipal Streets and
Roadways.
While developing this standard, the committee reviewed various pavement

design methods; these included limited full-scale load testing and modeling
overseas, and an ASCE technical paper authored by Dr. Matthew Witczak and
others. All of these pointed toward using a flexible pavement design model
similar to that for asphalt pavements, a design procedure that had been
published by AASHTO in 1993. This was adopted by the ASCE standards
committee for interlocking concrete pavements.

How Interlock Functions
Interlocking concrete pavers have

been used for roads since the time of
the Roman Empire as shown on the
immediate right. The roads were
constructed with tightly-fitted stone
paving units set on a compacted
aggregate base. Practically all ancient
civilizations built roads from stone.
The modern version, concrete pavers,

are manufactured with close
tolerances to help ensure interlock. It
is interlock that allows this type of
pavement to be considered a flexible
pavement, like asphalt, but with the
durability of concrete.

How Interlock Functions
Interlock produces stiffness in the combined paver and sand layer. Simply put, interlock is the inability of a paver to
move independently of its neighbors. Interlocking pavers transfer vertically applied wheel loads horizontally via sand in
the joints. This load spreading helps decrease the pressure or stress on the base and soil subgrade beneath. Interlock
among pavers resists applied horizontal, vertical and rotational loads as shown in the diagrams below. The surface
collectively acts as a structural system to spread loads rather than act as a loose collection of paving units.

ASCE 58-16 Based in Part on ICPI Tech Spec 4
The photo to the right illustrates

interlock among pavers. This
was a pavement that lost its
base, but the interlocked pavers
remained.
Interlock is further explained in ICPI Tech Spec 4, Structural Design of Interlocking

Concrete Pavement. This is one of many technical bulletins available on
www.icpi.org. Originally published in 1995, Tech Spec 4 is based on the AASHTO
1993 design guide. At its publishing, Tech Spec 4 was a useful starting point for the
development of the ASCE standard in the mid-2000s and its publication in 2010 as
ASCE 58-10. This Tech Spec will be referenced throughout this presentation.
Free Tech Spec 4 download from: www.icpi.org/resource-library

AASHTO Flexible Pavement

Empirical Design Equation Overview
From the 1960s to the 1990s, AASHTO refined flexible pavement design to the empirical equation shown here, often
called the “AASHTO equation.”
Input variables depending on each site: Entered as constants, i.e., the same for all sites:
W = Traffic (ESALs) ZR = Standard normal deviate from an AASHTO table
MR = Subgrade Resilient Modulus for design reliability
SO = Standard Deviation
Solve for: pt = Terminal Serviceability
SN = Structural Number pi = Initial Serviceability

AASHTO Flexible Pavement

Empirical Design Equation Overview
The ASCE standards committee assigned to develop the ICP design method recognized that most ICP would be used
on local roads. The ASCE committee also agreed that the AASHTO equation reasonably represented the structural
behavior of ICP.
Given these realities, the committee identified the key input variables as traffic loads measured as ESALs (described
later), and the subgrade soil strength expressed as resilient modulus (described later). The committee concluded that
the other inputs required by this equation should be set as constants for most design cases.
These constants, i.e., reliability and serviceability, will be covered a few slides later. Given these variables and
constants for inputs, the AASHTO equation solves for the minimal required SN or structural number, a dimensionless
measure of a pavement’s structural requirement.

Structural Numbers and Layer Coefficients
With guidelines from AASHTO, layer coefficients, and by inference their

stiffness, are assigned to most pavement materials. The higher the
coefficient, the stiffer the materials. For example, a compacted aggregate
subbase often has a layer coefficient of 0.09, a high-quality base of 0.14
and a stiff, cement-treated base of 0.35.
As the equation below notes, the layer coefficients of all materials in a

pavement structure are multiplied by the thickness of each layer to arrive
at a total structural number for a pavement design. Therefore, selection of
layer coefficients and the materials represented by them is critical to
developing a cost-effective pavement design.
d
Interlocking concrete pavement

on compacted aggregate base
and subbase

Layer Coefficients for Interlocking Concrete Pavements
Concrete pavers are typically 60 mm (2⅜ in.), 80 mm (3⅛ in.) or 100 mm (4 in.) thick. 60 mm thick units are for
pedestrian applications, 80 mm are for most roadway pavements and 100 mm are for pavements trafficked by heavy
loads such as ports and intermodal terminals. The ASCE standard recommends a minimum 80 mm (3⅛ in.) thick
pavers over 25 mm (1 in.) of bedding sand for parking lots and roads.
In the following example, the layer coefficient of the pavers and bedding sand is given as 0.44, using 80 mm (3⅛ in.)
thick pavers and 25 mm (1 in.) of bedding sand. The 0.44 was derived from research and full-scale accelerated load
testing by the US Army Corps of Engineers, plus testing and research in Australia, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands
and England.

Structural Number Example
The table demonstrates how the thicknesses of each layer are multiplied by the layer coefficient to arrive at a structural
number for each layer. Each of these is added to obtain a total structural number derived from using the AASHTO
equation, which in this example is 4. This provided SN is compared to the required SN calculated from the AASHTO
equation. The design objective is providing an SN equal to or greater than the required SN derived from the AASHTO
equation.
In the ASCE standard, the layer coefficient of 80 mm (3⅛ in.) thick pavers and 25 mm (1 in.) thick bedding sand, 0.44
per inch (25 mm), is equivalent to that for hot mix asphalt. In other words, the stiffness or modulus of each pavement is
approximately the same. This is a conservative assertion because asphalt tends to experience lower stiffness at
ambient temperatures above 20° C or 72° F.
Pavement Layer Thickness, inches (mm) Layer Coefficient per inch Structural Number
. or 25 mm thickness
Pavers & Bedding Sand 4.125 (105) X 0.44 = 1.82 (46)
Aggregate Base 12 (300) X 0.14 = 1.68 (42)
Aggregate Subbase 6 (150) X 0.09 = 0.54 (14)
TOTAL Provided Structural Number

4 (102)

Background and Scope: ASCE 58-16
In 2016, ASCE released 58-16 as an update with minor edits to ASCE 58-10. This
standard establishes guidelines for the structural design of interlocking concrete
pavements for all vehicular trafficked areas of up to 10 million, 80 kN (18,000 lb)
equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs).
An ESAL is the standard unit of measurement for a traffic axle as used in the 1993
AASHTO guide for the design of pavement structures. The reference axle load is an
80 kN (18,000 lb) single axle with dual tires.
The pavements included in the design standard are limited to design vehicle speeds of
up to 70 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour). The standard applies to typical
municipal roadways and is not suitable for higher traffic speed roadways.
The design standard also provides information for key design elements including a
range of tables of pavement thickness designs for various traffic levels, subgrade
strengths and drainage conditions. The standard also includes construction
considerations, applicable standards, standard industry definitions and best practices
to ensure successful design and construction.

ICP Base/Subbase Design Options in ASCE 58-16
ASCE 58-16 provides design solutions for interlocking concrete pavements using unbound, dense-graded aggregate
bases. It also provides design guidance for bases bound or treated with cement or asphalt, not surprisingly called
asphalt- or cement-treated bases (ATB or CTB).

ICP Base Options
ASCE 58-16 also provides design guidance for

pavers using asphalt pavement as a base, which is
generally stiffer than an asphalt- or cement-treated
base. That means concrete pavers and bedding sand
can be used as a surfacing for new or existing
construction over asphalt, sometimes called an
overlay. Pavers can also be used as an inlay into
milled asphalt pavements.
ASCE 58-16 does not yet provide design guidance

for concrete pavers and bedding sand over concrete
bases. However, ICPI Tech Spec 4 provides design
guidance for concrete pavers as a structural course
over concrete bases.

ICP Base Options
Overlays on asphalt or concrete may require

geotextile under the bedding sand to prevent
ingress into cracks and joints. Geotextile use
depends on pavement base condition. For
overlays over concrete pavements, always apply
geotextile over joints.

Designing
Roadways
with ICP

Design Steps
ICPI Tech Spec 4 provides a flow chart that

guides a user through the design process,
which is also used in the ASCE 58-16
standard. The initial steps are shown here.
To start, the design reliability is selected; then

the expected ESALs or equivalent single-axle
loads are estimated. The soil subgrade type
is assessed including its drainage
characteristics and resilient modulus. From
there, base and subbase materials are
Continued on next slide
selected.

Design Steps: Base and Subbase Material Options
If an unbound base is desired, it may have a

subbase, especially on weak soils with higher
traffic loads.
If an asphalt-treated, cement-treated or
asphalt base is used (typically under higher
traffic, especially in weak soils), they usually
have an (unbound) dense-graded base under
them. Additional tables provide thicknesses
for bound bases with unbound bases.
Example design tables noted on the flow
chart will be provided later in this
presentation. They appear in ASCE 58-16
and in ICPI Tech Spec 4.
The design tables in Tech Spec 4 are slightly

more conservative because they are based
on a reliability of 80%.
Continued on next slide

Design Steps: Final Steps
After selecting the base and subbase

thickness, drainage is designed, geotextile is
selected and drainage is provided for the
bedding sand when needed.
The concrete pavers are selected as well as

the laying pattern.
Initial construction costs are determined and

sometimes an LCCA or life cycle cost
analysis is conducted. The pavement
assembly might be evaluated for
sustainability using criteria in LEED®,
Envision or other methods.
Then drawings are prepared including pavement sections and design details. Specifications are written in support of the
drawings and compiled as documents for bidding or tendering.

Design Steps: Summary
This slide summarizes the design steps illustrated in the preceding flow chart. The next several slides cover each of
these aspects in greater detail.
1 Establish 6 Select bedding & joint sand

• Design life: typically 20 to 40 years • Establish bedding sand drainage
• Reliability & serviceability
• Anticipated traffic (ESALs)
2 Assess 7 Select concrete pavers

• Subgrade soil strength & drainage • Thickness, pattern & orientation
3 Use design charts to evaluate subbase/base thickness options 8 Select edge restraints
• Unbound dense-graded
• Cement- & asphalt-treated
• Asphalt concrete
• Concrete
4 Design pavement structure drainage 9 Conduct life cycle cost analysis (optional)
5 Select geotextile (if necessary) 10 Create specifications & drawings

1a. Establish Design Life
Pavement design life depends on axle loads, which are often Lifetime Design
summarized over a period of years. Many local and collector Road Class
ESALs
asphalt roads are designed for 15 to 25 years. Then they
Arterial or Major Streets
receive milling and resurfacing.
Urban 7,500,000+
Rural 3,600,000
Obviously, interlocking concrete pavements do not require
resurfacing. They are a 40-year pavement and should be Major Collectors
designed for 40 years with appropriate traffic growth. Urban 2,800,000
Rural 1,450,000
Road classes by ESALs in millions are shown here to frame Minor Collectors
what constitutes a “busy” road. The busier the road, the
Urban 1,250,000
more likely that road will be designed to last longer. Major
collectors and higher-traffic roads are those that should be Rural 550,000
designed to last for decades. The budget or money available, Commercial/Multifamily Locals
as well as local design standards, ultimately drives the Urban 425,000
decision on pavement life.
Rural 275,000
Parking Lots <275,000

1b. Establish Reliability
Recall the AASHTO equation where reliability was an input value, Functional Typical %
albeit a constant. Reliability helps define pavement life. Reliability is Classification Reliability Level
the probability that the pavement will perform its intended function
over its design life under the expected conditions. Highways 90 – 95
Arterials 85 – 95
Reliability is expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100. A reliability of
Minor Arterials 85 – 90
75% means there is a 75% probability that the pavement will meet or
exceed supporting the design loads expected at the end of its design Locals 70 – 90
life. Higher reliability is applied to design of busier roads as shown in
the table. The reason for this is that they are more important and
vehicle speeds are often higher, so they must maintain a smoother
surface for a longer time than roads with lower speeds and lower
traffic.
Basically, the higher the reliability, the thicker or stiffer the pavement.
The design tables used for the ASCE standard use a reliability of
75%. ICPI Tech Spec 4 uses 80%.

1b. Estimating ESALs for a Given Design Reliability
Essentially, reliability increases the design traffic level, which increases the pavement thickness and/or stiffness. Given
a road with 1 million ESAL design life, at what ESAL level would the road need to be designed to achieve 75%
reliability?
A reliability of 75% is input into a normal deviate statistical table provided in the AASHTO 1993 guide, which returns a
value of 0.674. The standard error for interlocking concrete pavement is the same as asphalt pavement, i.e., 0.45.
Formula to determine traffic level at a given reliability
= log ESAL(design) = log NT (actual) + (ZR* So)

NT = Actual traffic (ESALs)
ZR = Standard normal deviate from AASHTO table for
design reliability
So = Overall standard error for NT (actual) and Nterminal

1b. Estimating ESALs for a Given Design Reliability
Plugging these two values into the equation, the example design ESAL value of 1 million ESALs yields an actual ESAL
value of 2 million. This means that for the 75% reliability, the pavement is actually designed for 2 million ESALs, not 1
million, the load level the pavement is actually expected to receive during its design life.
Example: Determine ESALs for 1 million ESALs at 75% design reliability

Nt(actual) = 1.0 million ESALs over 20 years
z75 = 0.674 (from Table 4.1 in AASHTO 93 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures)
So = 0.45 for interlocking concrete pavement (assumed)
log ESAL(design) = log 1,000,000 + (0.674 * 0.45)
log ESAL(design) = 6.3
ESAL(design) = 2,000,000

1b. Establish Serviceability
Serviceability incorporates user ratings of pavement smoothness into

the design process. This means that the smoother the pavement is at
the beginning and throughout its life, the higher its serviceability.
Serviceability ranges from 0 (very rough, very poor) to 5 (very smooth,
excellent). These ratings correlate to the measured international
roughness index (IRI), which is horizontal distance divided by
cumulative vertical changes.
The AASHTO design method recognizes the initial (specified

smoothness when new) and terminal (rehabilitation needed)
serviceability in its design method.
The initial serviceability of a pavement is a function of the smoothness

of the pavement when new or rehabilitated. Terminal serviceability Design Tables based on:
represents the time in the pavement life when rehabilitation is needed Initial Serviceability (pi) = 4.2
to return the pavement to a good state of repair. Terminal Serviceability (pt) = 2.5

1b. Establish Serviceability
For high-volume roadways and highways, initial serviceability is typically

4.2 to 4.5. This range is higher than that for municipal roadways
because specifications for highways tend to be more stringent to create
smoother roads. The quality of highway pavement is closely scrutinized
and measured. This is not usually the case for municipal roadways due
to lower vehicle speeds.
The ASCE 58-16 standard uses an initial serviceability of 4.2 and

terminal value of 2.5 for all roadways. These values are considered
representative for municipal roadways.

1c. Establish Anticipated Traffic (ESALs)
Repeated vehicle loads across axles and into tires compress the
pavement layers and subgrade. When enough load applications are
applied, the loads cause the pavement layers to deform (also called
rutting) and eventually crack. The amount of damage depends on
the number and weight of the axles, especially those from trucks.
Look at the trucks on any road and they all have different weights
and axle loads. In order to develop a consistent way to characterize
this variable, loads are characterized using 80 kN (18,000 lb)
equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs).
Compared to motorcycles and automobiles, trucks impose much,

much more damage to pavements over time. Therefore, the mix of
trucks and buses shown on the table and their axle loads expected
to traverse a road is estimated in pavement design. Sometimes the
advice of a traffic engineer can be helpful in making estimates. The
table shows standard vehicle classes established by the US Federal
Highway Administration or FHWA. Each classification has an axle
spacing and load ranges.

ESALs Defined: Example Calculation
A sample ESAL calculation is shown on the next slide. In the example, each of the two rear truck trailer axles is loaded
to 80 kN (18,000 lb). Therefore, these axles comprise 2 ESALs. Moving forward, the truck axles are each loaded to 70
kN (16,000 lb) each.
The formula for calculating ESALs is not linear. Any increase or decrease in loads is raised to the fourth power
(exponent). That means doubling an axle load increases the ESALs by 16 times. Likewise, a similar reduction occurs
when axle loads decrease.
This relationship is demonstrated where each axle exerting 70 kN is equalized by dividing it by 80 kN, then raising it to
the fourth power, which yields 0.6 ESALs. Similarly, for the truck’s front axle, 50 kN is divided by 80 kN, then raised to
the fourth power, which results in 0.15 ESALs. So by reducing the axle load from 80 to 50 (a little less than half), the
load is reduced from 1 ESALs to 0.15 ESALs, a reduction of almost six times.

ESALs Defined: Example Calculation
ESAL calculations per axle
5-Axle Truck
Gross Weight = 400 kN (90,000 lbs)
2 x 80 kN (18,000 lb) 2 x 70 kN (16,000 lb) 1 x 50 kN (11,000 lb)

(80/80)4 (70/80)4 (50/80)
LEF = 1 LEF = 0.6 LEF = 0.15
Load Equivalent Factor or LEF = ESALs per truck = (2 x 1) + (2 x 0.6) + 0.15 = 3.35 ESALs

Directional Distribution Affects ESALs
Typically traffic information is provided as average annual daily traffic or AADT. This represents the total number of
vehicles using the roadway in both directions. For this design, traffic is evenly split and 50 percent of the traffic travels
in each direction. That is the case in many designs but should not be assumed for all cases.
Traffic counts should be verified with a traffic engineer familiar with the road network. Also, a traffic engineer can likely
suggest the percentage of trucks traveling in each direction as that will identify the number of trucks each day and each
year, and the estimated number of axle loads and ESALs.

Lane Distribution Affects ESALs
For multilane roadways, the heavy vehicles typically do not all travel in the same lane. In order to determine the number
of trucks for design purposes, we need to use the worst case. In the example below, two roads with AADTs of 300 and
500 are shown. The AADT 300 road shows 85 percent of the vehicles travelling in the right lane (representing 25,500
trucks). This would be considered the design lane. All lanes should be designed to the highest load lane.
AADT 300 AADT 500
15% trucks 20% trucks
85% trucks 510 ESALs/day 30% trucks
50% trucks 500 ESALs/day

3.7 million ESALs over 20 years
ROAD EXAMPLE: ASSUME 1 TRUCK = 2 ESALs AVERAGE
3.6 million ESALs over 20 years

ESALs and Caltrans Traffic Index (TI)
In California, engineers don’t use the number of ESALs. The California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) simplifies the traffic design input to ESALs Traffic Index
a value called the traffic index (TI). 10,000 5.2
20,000 5.7
Conversion Formula: TI = 9.0 x (ESAL/106) 0.119
50,000 6.3
100,000 6.8
This table shows traffic index and its relationship to ESALs. The ASCE
Design Standard 58-16 accommodates ESAL and traffic index input values. 200,000 7.4
500,000 8.3
1,000,000 9.0
2,000,000 9.8
5,000,000 10.9
10,000,000 11.8

2a. Assess Subgrade Soil Strength and Drainage
Characterizing the subgrade soils or “foundation” on which

the pavement will be built is very important. The soil
strength should be evaluated for each design project by
talking samples and subjecting them to geotechnical testing
according to ASTM or AASHTO methods.
As the most sensitive design variable that affects the

resulting base and subbase thicknesses, soil strength is
characterized as resilient modulus (MR). California bearing
ratio (CBR) and R-value are surrogate values if there is no
resilient modulus test data for the soils. That will be the
case for many local road designs since resilient modulus
testing is considerably more expensive than CBR and R-
value tests.

2a. Assess Subgrade Soil Strength and Drainage
For the AASHTO equation and design procedure, the subgrade soil strength
capability is classified using the resilient modulus of the soil. Samples of soil are
subject to repeated load testing that measures the permanent deformation of the 1
soils under load, and a resilient modulus, in psi or MPa, is determined. This test
is a realistic way to characterize repeated wheel loads.
2
Lower-cost CBR or R-value testing can be done as surrogates.
6
3
4
Resilient Modulus Test Device
AASHTO T307 test method
1−Load frame 5
2−Load cell
3−Linear variable differential transformer 7
4−Triaxial cell
5−Split mold for samples
6−Vibratory compaction device
7−Test specimen

Resilient Modulus Factors
The reason why resilient modulus testing is used in the

AASHTO design procedure is because it is a dynamic test
that applies many loads to simulate (and accelerate) the
deformation of soils and bases under wheel loads. The test
applies pressure or stress on a sample and measures the
resilient strain, or the ability of the soil or aggregate not to
deform under simulated wheel stresses.
Factors that influence the resulting resilient modulus values

include the test sample’s moisture, density, uniformity,
presence of deleterious particles such as organics and
environmental influences such as freeze and thaw cycles.
Typically, higher moisture and lower densities result in
lower resilient modulus values.

California Bearing Ratio Laboratory Test
If resilient modulus testing is not done, the CBR or R-value tests can be
used to correlate to resilient modulus values. For a CBR test, soil is
compacted in a 150 mm (6 in.) diameter mold and a piston is pushed
into the soil sample. The force necessary to push the plunger into the
soil by 2.5 and 5.0 mm (0.1 and 0.2 in.) is measured and compared to a
high-quality, compacted, crushed aggregate base. The ratio of the
measured soil force to the force needed to push the plunger into the
aggregate sample is called the CBR. This value is expressed on a scale
of 0 to 100 percent. The CBR is then correlated with the resilient
modulus for input into the AASHTO equations as shown below.
Standard
mold
Correlation to resilient modulus, MR
MR in psi = 2,555 × CBR0.64
MR in MPa = 17.61 × CBR0.64 CBR Test to ASTM D1883 or AASHTO T193

R-Value Laboratory Test
R-value measures the response of a compacted sample of soil or

aggregate to a vertically applied pressure under specific moisture and
pressure conditions. R-value is used by Caltrans (and other state road
agencies) for pavement design and has replaced the CBR test.
R-value measures the point at which water is exuded from a compacted

soil test specimen when a 16.8 kN load (2.07 MPa) is applied. Typically, a
series of test specimens at different moisture contents is used.
Equations that correlate R-value to resilient modulus are below.
Correlation to resilient modulus, MR

MR in psi = 1,155 + 555 × R
MR in MPa = (1,155 + 555 × R)/145 R-value test as per ASTM D2844
and AASHTO T190

Soil Categories, Drainage and Resilient Modulus (MR)
For use in the ASCE design standard, typical soil classifications are divided into 8 simplified soil categories shown on
this table. Soils with lower numbers are higher quality with higher bearing capacities and higher resilient modulus
values, e.g., gravel and sandy soils compared to finer-grained soils such as silts and clays. The table shows typical
ranges for resilient modulus values for each of the eight soil categories.
Resilient Modulus (MR) for
Category Susceptibility Typical Subgrade
Drainage
Brief Description No. Classification to Frost Conditions, MPa
Characteristics
Action
Good Fair Poor
Rock, rock fill, shattered rock, Boulders/
1 Excellent None 90 80 70
boulders/cobbles cobbles
Well-graded gravels and sands
2 GW, SW Excellent Negligible 80 70 50
suitable as granular borrow
Poorly-graded gravels and sands 3 GP, SP Excellent to fair Negligible to slight 70 50 35
Silty gravels and sands 4 GM, SM Fair to semi-impervious Slight to moderate 50 35 30
Clayey gravels and sands 5 GC, SC Practically impervious Negligible to slight 40 30 25
Silts and sandy silts 6 ML, MI Typically poor Severe 30 25 18

Low-plasticity clays and
7 CL, MH Practically impervious Slight to severe 27 20 15
compressible silts
Semi-impervious to
Medium- to high-plasticity clays 8 CI, CH Negligible to severe 25 20 15
impervious
Soil Categories, Drainage and Resilient Modulus (MR)
The eight soil categories are assigned a good, fair and poor quality Drainage Drain Soil
rating depending on their drainage as shown in the table here. Quality Time Category
Good 1 day 1,2,3
Fair 7 days 3,4
Poor 1 month 4,5,6,7,8

3a. Select Base/Subbase Materials
Unbound Dense-Graded
Base/Subbase
The convenience of the ASCE 58-16
standard, as well as Tech Spec 4, is that
all calculations are subsumed into a
series of design tables like the one
shown here. This is a table for granular
base. On the left hand side is the
subgrade soil categories 1 through 4 and
their drainage characteristics. Not shown
is the rest of the table with soil categories
5 through 8. Along the top is the traffic
express as ESALs and Traffic Index.
Within the table are the recommended
pavement layer thickness for each
combination.

3a. Select Base/Subbase Materials
Unbound Dense-Graded Base/Subbase

The minimum thickness of granular base permitted for
practical constructability reasons is 100 mm (4 in.) for
pavements with traffic less than 500,000 ESALs and 150
mm (6 in.) for ESALs of 500,000 or greater. Additional
guidance on the quality of the base and subbase materials
is provided in the ASCE standard.
Photo courtesy of Ohio DOT

3b. Cement-Treated Base and Aggregate
Subbase Thickness Table

This is the start of the table for cement-
treated bases or CTB. The minimum
thickness is 100 mm (4 in.). Likewise, the
minimum subbase layer is 100 mm.
The CTB should have a minimum seven-

day unconfined compressive strength of
4.5 MPa (650 psi).

3b. Asphalt-Treated Base and Aggregate

This is the start of the table for asphalt-
treated bases or ATB. The minimum
thickness is 100 mm (4 in.). Likewise,
the minimum subbase layer is 100 mm.
The ATB should have a minimum

Marshall stability of 8,000 Newtons
(1,800 lb). Note that dense-graded
aggregate subbases are used in higher
ESAL applications as the soil category
increases, meaning the soil strength
decreases.

3c. Asphalt Base and Aggregate

This is a design table for using
conventional hot mix asphalt pavement
as a base as well as with an aggregate
subbase. These provide the thinnest
cross sections compared to the other
tables because the asphalt base is
significantly stiffer than treated or
untreated base materials.

3c. Asphalt Base and Aggregate
Like cement and asphalt-treated bases, conventional asphalt bases should have
weep or drain holes drilled at the lowest elevations. The holes should be filled with
washed, angular gravel as shown on the right, and covered with geotextile to prevent
bedding sand ingress.
The minimum slope on the base should be 1.5% and drain hole spacing should be
every 13 m (10 ft.). Closer spacing may be required on steeper bases. A minimum
asphalt base is 50 mm (2 in.) and an unbound, dense-graded aggregate base is 100
mm (4 in.) thick.

Design Example 1
This slide and the following two illustrate design solutions using aggregate, stabilized and asphalt bases for a range of
ESALs and soil subgrade categories. The resulting thicknesses provide instructive comparisons to see the effects of
ESALs, soil subgrade and pavement materials. The example on this slide shows differences in solutions for a 2 million
ESAL design on category 3 soils. The aggregate base, subbase, ATB and CTB thickness solutions are almost the
same. With the four options, costs, contractor expertise and site conditions can be considered to determine the
appropriate solution for a project.
ESALs 2,000,000 (TI 9.8)
Drainage Good
Subgrade Category 3 (GP, SP)
Paver 80 mm Paver 80 mm Paver 80 mm Paver 80 mm
Bedding sand 25 mm Bedding sand 25 mm Bedding sand 25 mm Bedding sand 25 mm
AC 50 mm
Base 150 mm ATB 100 mm CTB 100 mm
Base 150 mm
Subbase 150 mm Subbase 150 mm
Subbase 150 mm
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Design Example 2
For the second design example, ESALs are low at 500,000 with poor drainage from a weak clay subgrade. The left-
hand solution, aggregate base, might be expensive to build simply from excavation costs. The right-hand solution using
an asphalt base might provide the most economical solution, depending on current asphalt prices.
ESALs 500,000 (TI 8.3)
Drainage Poor
Subgrade Category 7 (CL, MH)
AC 90 mm
Base 150 mm
Base 150 mm Base 150 mm
Subbase 525 mm
Subbase 200 mm
Subbase 300 mm

Design Example 3
For the final example, extreme design conditions are presented, i.e., the high ESALs at 10 million and the weak soil,
category 8, that drains poorly. In such cases, the asphalt base solution on the right might be the most cost-effective,
again depending on current asphalt prices.
ESALs 10,000,000 (TI 11.8)
Drainage Poor
Subgrade Category 8 (CI, CH)

AC 220 mm
Base 150 mm Base 150 mm
Subbase 1150 mm Base 150 mm
Subbase 850 mm Subbase 925 mm

Structural Design Software
The design tables are folded into

a convenient Excel sheet that can
be downloaded for free from
www.icpi.org (see Technical
Resources/Software).
INPUTS
The Design Assistant in the upper
right corner of the spreadsheet
provides the place to insert input
values, specifically ESALs,
subgrade classification (that
relates to a soil category) and
subgrade drainage conditions.
This sheet and other tabbed
sheets provide input values and
defaults.

Structural Design Software
Also, note the Design

Assumptions provide basic
design inputs/assumptions as
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS presented earlier.
The output at the bottom of the

Design Assistant provides
thickness for the pavers and
bedding, base and subbase
OUTPUTS options. This sheet provides a
fast way to compare thicknesses
and of course resulting costs.

3d. Concrete Base and Aggregate Subbase Thickness
As previously noted, ASCE 58-16 does not yet include design guidance for
concrete pavers on concrete bases. Such design guidance is found in ICPI Tech
Spec 4, Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement.
Design tables are provided for concrete bases ranging from 100 mm (4 in.) to 250
mm (10 in.) thick and at a range of 28-day compressive strengths: 20, 28 and 35
Mpa (3000, 4000 and 5000 psi).
All concrete bases use a minimum 100 mm (4 in.) thick aggregate base. Concrete
bases should have weep or drain holes drilled at the lowest elevations. The holes
should be filled with washed, angular gravel and covered with geotextile to prevent
bedding sand ingress.
The pavers must be at least 80 mm (3⅛ in.) thick and use a 25 mm (1 in.) thick
bedding sand layer, or a bitumen-sand setting bed. Mortar beds are prohibited.

4. Design Pavement Structure Drainage
Designs should include perforated drain pipes to remove

water from the base and from the top of the soil subgrade.
Such drains, which prevent the damaging effects of water

and ice, can often double the life of pavements.

5. Select Geotextile (if necessary)
The ASCE 58-16 standard and ICPI Tech Spec 4 recommend using
the geotextile selection procedures in AASHTO M 288 Standard
Specification for Geosynthetic Specification for Highway
Applications for separation. The separation geotextile is typically
placed between the subbase and soil subgrade.
If soils are continually saturated, consideration should be given to

specifying stabilization and filtration geotextiles per AASHTO M 288.
ICPI also provides geotextile selection guidance in ICPI Tech Spec

22, Geosynthetics for Segmental Concrete Pavements. This
publication is available for free on www.icpi.org.

6. Select Bedding and Joint Sand
Bedding (US): ASTM C33 gradation, except ≤ 1% passing the 0.075 mm (No.
200) sieve.
Bedding (Canada): CSA A23.1.
Joint (US): ASTM C144 gradation, except ≤ 5% passing the 0.075 mm (No. 200)
sieve. ASTM C33 sand may be used.
Screenings: do not use Joint (Canada): CSA A179. CSA A23.1 may be used.
Jointing sand may be stabilized.
Do not use limestone screenings or stone dust!
Bedding sand

6. Select Bedding and Joint Sand
It is imperative to follow gradation specifications for the bedding and jointing

sands as noted in the previous slide.
For the bedding sand, the gradation allows for water to move through the sand.
For the jointing sand, the gradation allows for some clogging to help prevent
water ingress into the joints and bedding.
ICPI Tech Spec 17 should be consulted for designs that exceed 1.5 million
ESALs. In some cases, the bedding sand should be evaluated for durability with
the test methods referenced and described in this Tech Spec, available for free
on www.icpi.org.

7. Select Concrete Pavers
Concrete pavers should meet ASTM C936 in the US or CSA A231.2 in Canada. These standards define pavers by their
length-to-thickness or aspect ratio. For parking lot and road applications, that ratio should be 3 or less with a minimum
thickness of 80 mm (3⅛ in.).

7. Select Concrete Pavers
Herringbone laying patterns, using 45° or 90°, have been shown through full-scale load testing and experience to
provide the highest level of interlock compared to many other patterns. Some proprietary patterns may provide equal or
better interlock, and performance information should be sought from manufacturers.

8. Select Edge Restraints
ICPI Tech Spec 3, Edge Restraints for Interlocking Concrete Pavements,

provides application guidance and detailed drawings of various edge
restraints.
Plastic or metal edge restraints should be applied judiciously, and when they
are used, should be specifically designed for commercial applications.

8. Select Edge Restraints
ICPI Tech Spec 3 recommendations are Precast

summarized in this table. Application
Poured Concrete Plastic
Concrete & & Metal
Cut Stone
Residential Driveways ● ● ●
Commercial/Industrial Driveways ● ● ●1
Parking Lots ● ● ●1
Crosswalks ● ●
Streets – All Types ● ●
Trucking Terminals ● ●
Industrial Flooring ●
1 Only heavy-duty edge products
Please remember the test password EDGE. You will be required to enter it in order to proceed with the online test.

9. Conduct Life Cycle Cost Analysis
For some designs, life cycle cost analysis is

conducted to compare them to other designs
or other pavement types. This diagram can
help visualize how life cycle costing works.
When estimating the condition of the
pavement over time (based on similar
projects), the pavement always starts out in
excellent condition when new, then
deteriorates over time due to vehicle loading
and environmental impacts.
For asphalt pavements shown in the solid,

curved lines, the surface wears out and must
be milled and replaced. Milling typically occurs
when the pavement reaches a minimal
acceptable condition. The performance period
repeats again as long as the surface can be
milled and replaced. At some point, the base
wears out and requires complete replacement.

9. Conduct Life Cycle Cost Analysis
For interlocking concrete pavements, shown in

the curved dotted line, there may be minor
maintenance throughout the pavement’s life
such as replacing jointing sand or occasional
cracked paving units.
When correctly designed and installed,

interlocking concrete pavements require less
maintenance, and therefore their deterioration
rate is much longer and slower than asphalt.
Obviously, there is no milling.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Resources
ICPI offers a free Excel program on

www.icpi.org to conduct life cycle cost
analyses. It can be used to compare costs of
conventional flexible asphalt and rigid
concrete pavements to ICP.

10. Create Specifications and Drawings
Once the pavement design is decided, specifications and drawings can be

created. ICPI provides guide specifications on www.icpi.org for downloading
that should be edited to specific project conditions. Likewise, ICPI provides a
range of detail drawings. Additionally, ICPI Tech Spec 9 provides a generic
guide specification for pavers on an aggregate base.

Sample Detail: Pavers on Concrete, Asphalt and Treated Bases
This detail shows a pavement cross section for a concrete

base. It is similar to that for asphalt pavement as well as
asphalt- or cement-treated base. Note the placement of a
geotextile between the bedding sand and base. The
geotextile on the concrete should be placed over the joints
to prevent bedding sand ingress. In some cases, it might
be less expensive to cover the entire surface rather than
cut strips of fabric to cover the joints.
The geotextile over the weep hole ensures that the bedding
sand is not lost through it. In addition, the drainage hole is
filled with washed, angular gravel to ensure bedding sand
drainage at low points.

Sample Detail: Catch Basin
Detailing around street utilities is also important to ensure

the proper performance of the pavement. This detail shows
proper detailing around a catch basin.
Note the weep holes through the concrete collar to assist in

bedding sand drainage. These are covered with geotextile
to prevent bedding sand loss.

Sample Detail: Utility Structure
Finally, this detail shows the proper placement of pavers

around a utility cover including the use of a sailor course
of pavers. The drawing also shows weep holes for the
bedding sand when the structure is placed in a low
elevation.

Sample Detail: Utility Structure
The concrete collar can be exposed as shown in the drawing on the previous slide or under the pavers as shown in the
picture on the left. The picture on the right shows what happens where there is no square or rectangular collar around
the round structure cover. The pavers are much more subject to tire damage.

ICPI Resources
In summary, there are free downloads of Tech Specs, detailed drawings and guide specifications, as well as software
programs on the ICPI website.

Conclusion
If you desire AIA/CES, state licensing or CE credits for another

organization, please click on the button to commence your online test. A
score of 80% or better will allow you to print your Certificate of Completion;
you may also go to your AEC Daily Transcript to see your completed
courses and certificates.
For additional knowledge and post-seminar assistance, click on the Ask an

Expert link. ©2018 ICPI. The material contained in this course was researched, assembled
and produced by ICPI and remains its property. Questions or concerns about the
content of this course should be directed to the program instructor. This
If you have colleagues that might benefit from this seminar, please let them multimedia product is the copyright of AEC Daily.
know. Feel free to revisit the AEC Daily website to download additional
programs.
MORE
Questions? Ask an Expert – click here
Click Here to Take the Test
powered by Exit

EC (118FC2019-1h) - 190905 - AEC + ICPI - Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavers For Municipal Streets and Roadways

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EC (118FC2019-1h) - 190905 - AEC + ICPI - Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavers For Municipal Streets and Roadways

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Design

About the Instructor About the Sponsor Ask an Expert

of Interlocking Concrete Pavers

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 1 of 78 >

Structural Design of ICP for Municipal Streets and Roadways

The American Institute of Architects

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 2 of 78 >

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 3 of 78 >

How to Use This Online Learning Course

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 4 of 78 >

Interlocking Concrete Paver Courses

ICP 1: Guide Specifications for Interlocking Concrete Pavement

Find the courses here.

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 5 of 78 >

Purpose and Learning Objectives

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 6 of 78 >

Interlocking Concrete Pavements (ICP) for

Designing Roadways with ICP

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 7 of 78 >

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 8 of 78 >

Background: AASHO Pavement Tests 1958–60

Test track location, layout and site

Background: AASHTO Guide

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 10 of 78 >

History of AASHTO Design Guides

The history of the AASHTO design guides is shown here.

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 11 of 78 >

ASCE Standard: Structural Design for ICP

In 2006, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Transportation and

While developing this standard, the committee reviewed various pavement

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 12 of 78 >

How Interlock Functions

Interlocking concrete pavers have

The modern version, concrete pavers,

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 13 of 78 >

How Interlock Functions

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 14 of 78 >

ASCE 58-16 Based in Part on ICPI Tech Spec 4

The photo to the right illustrates

Interlock is further explained in ICPI Tech Spec 4, Structural Design of Interlocking

Free Tech Spec 4 download from: www.icpi.org/resource-library

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 15 of 78 >

AASHTO Flexible Pavement

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 16 of 78 >

AASHTO Flexible Pavement

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 17 of 78 >

Structural Numbers and Layer Coefficients

With guidelines from AASHTO, layer coefficients, and by inference their

As the equation below notes, the layer coefficients of all materials in a

Interlocking concrete pavement

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 18 of 78 >

Layer Coefficients for Interlocking Concrete Pavements

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 19 of 78 >

Structural Number Example

TOTAL Provided Structural Number

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 20 of 78 >

Background and Scope: ASCE 58-16

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 21 of 78 >

ICP Base/Subbase Design Options in ASCE 58-16

©2018 ∙ Table of Contents < Slide 22 of 78 >

ICP Base Options

ASCE 58-16 also provides design guidance for

ASCE 58-16 does not yet provide design guidance