premium facility for which a high level of performance Table 3.

Yearly Rates of Trafffc

for a long time with little or no pavement maintenance is Growth and Corresponding
desired. Some engineers feel that thedesign period for Projection Factora’
rural and urban highways should heinthe range of Xtto
Yearly
35 years.
The design period selected affects thickness design
rate of
traffic Prg:;ecron L--’”
since it determines how many years, and thus how many gro;th,
trucks, thepavement must serve. Selection ofthcdesign 40 yea~s
period for a specific project is based on engineering judg- 1,1 1.2
ment and economic analysis of pavement costs and serv- 1~% 1.2 1.3

ice provided throughout the entire period. 2 1.2 1.5

2,% 1.3 1.6
3 1.3 1.8
3,% 1.4 2,0
Traffic 4 1.5 2.2
4M 1,6 2.4
Tbe numbers and weights ofheavy axle loads expected 5 1.6 2.7
during thedesign life are major factors in the thickness 5% 1.7 2.9
design of concrete pavement. These are derived from esti- 6 1.8 3.2
mates of
—ADT (average daily traffic in both directions, all ,Faclor. represent values at the middesig” period
that are widely used incurre”t pr.ctke, Another
vehicles) mtihod of cmnp.fing these factors is based on the
—ADTT (average daily truck traffic in both directions) averaae annual value. Differences (bothcompound
intere<t) between these two methods will ”rarely
—axle loads of trucks affect design.
Information on ADTis obtained from special traffic
counts or from state, county, or cit y traffic-volume maps.
This ADT is called the present or current ADT. The de.
sign ADT is then estimated by the commonly used meth.
ods discussed here. However, any other method that gives
a reasonable estimate of expected traffic during the design Where there is some question shout the rate of growth,
life can be used, it may be wise to use a fairly high rate. This is true on
intercity routes andon urban projects where ahigh rate
of urban growth maycause ahlgher-than-expected rate
Projection oftraftic growth. However, thegrowth oftruck volumes
“u’
may be less than that for passenger cars.
High growth rates do not apply on two-lane-rural roads
One method forgetting thetraftlc volume data (design
and residential streets where the primary function is land
ADT) needed is to use yearly rates of traffic growth and
useorabutting property service. Their growth rates may
traffic projection factors. Table 3 shows relationships be-
tween yearly rates of growth and projection factors for be below 2% per year (projection factors of 1.1 “to 1.3).
Snme engineers suggest that the use of simple interest
both 20- and 40-year design periods.
growth rates may be appropriate, rather than compound
In a design problem, the projection factor is multiplied
interest rates, which when used with a long design period
by the present ADT to obtain a design ADT representing
may predict unrealistically heavy future traffic.
theaverage value forthedcsign period. Insomeproce-
dures, this is called AADT (average annual daily traffic).
Capacity
The following fact ors influence yearly growth rates and
traffic projections: The other method of estimating design ADT is based on
1. Attracted or diverted traffic-the increase over exist- capacity—the maximum number of vehicles that can use
ing traffic because of improvement of an existing the pavement without unreasonable delay. Tbis method
road way. of estimating the volume of traffic is described in Appen-
2. Normal traffic growth—the increase due to increased dix D and should be checked for specific projects where
numbers and usage of motor vehicles. the projected traffic volume is high; more traffic lanes
may be needed if reasonable traffic flow is desired.
3. Generated traffic-the increase due to motor vehicle
trips that wnuld not have been made if the mw facil.
ity had not been constructed. ADTT
4. Development traffic-the increase due to changes in The average daily truck traffic in both directions (ADTT)
land use due to construction of the new facifity. is needed in the design procedure. It may be expressed as
The combined effects will cause annual growth rates of a percentage of ADT or as an actual value. The ADTT
about 2Yoto 6%. Tbeserates correspond to20-yeartraf- value includes only trucks with six tires or more and does
ficprojection factors of 1.2to 1.8asshown in Table3, not include panel and pickup trucks and other four-tire ._
The planning survey sections of state highway depart- vehicles.
merits are very use fulsources ofknowledge about traftic The data from state, county, or city traffic-volume ~
grnwth and projection factors. maps may include, in addition to ADT, the percentage of

Publication List Book Contents

 trucks from which ADTT can be computed. It is important to keep in mind that the ADTT percent-
For design of major Interstate and primary system ages in Table 4 are average values computed from many
projects, the planning survey sections of state depart- projects in all sections of the country. For this reason,
ments of transportation usually make specific traffic sur- these percentages are only suitable for design of specific
p veys, These data are then used to determine the percent- projects where ADTT percentages are also about average.
age relationship between ADT’T and ADT. For design purposes, the total number of trucks in the
ADTT percentages and other essential traffic data can design period is needed. This is obtained by multiplying
also be obtained from surveys conducted by the highway design ADT by ADTT percentage divided by 100, times
department at specific locations on the state highway sys- the number of days in the design period (365 X design
tem. These locations, called Ioadometer stations, have period in years).
been carefully selected to give reliable information on For facilities of four lanes or more, the ADTT is ad-
traffic composition, truck weights, and axle loads. Sur- justed by the use of Fig, 3.
vey results are compiled into a set of tables from which
the ADTT percentage can be determined for the highway
classes within a state. This makes it possible to compute
the ADTT percentage for each station. For example, a
highway department Ioadometer table (Table w-3) for a
Midwestern state yields the following vehicle count for a
Ioadometer station on their Interstate rural system:
All vehicles—ADT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...9492
Trucks:
All single units and combinations . . . . . ...1645
Panels and pickups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Other four-tire single units . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Therefore, for this station:
T* = ]645 – (353 + 76) = 1216

1216
‘DTT ‘ ZY2x ’00= ‘3%
This ADTT percentage would be appropriate for de.
sign of a project where factors influencing the growth and
,0 composition of traffic are similar to those at this load-
ometer station.
Another source of information on ADTT ercentages
!’37)
is the National Truck Characteristic Report. Table 4,
PROPORTIONOF TRuCKS IN RIGHT LANE
which is taken from this study, shows the percentages of
four-tire single units and trucks on the major highway Fig. 3. Proportion of trucks in right lane of a multilane
systems in the United States. The current publication, divided highway. (Derived from Reference 3&)
which is updated periodically, shows that two-axle, four-
tire trucks comprise between 40’% to 65% of the total
number of trucks, with a national average of 49% It is
fikely that the lower values on urban routes are due to
larger volumes of passenger cars rather than fewer trucks. ‘Tr.cks-xcludes panels and pickups and other f. .r-ti r. vehiclcs.

Table 4. Percentage of Four-Tire Single Units and

Trucks (ADTT) on Varioua Highway Systems

.m
I Rural average daily traffic I Urban average daily traffic

Publication List Book Contents

Truck Directional Distribution Table 5. Axle-Load Data
In most design problems, it is assumed that the weights
and volumes of trucks traveling in each direction are fairly
equ81-50-50 distribution-the design essumes that pave-
ment in each dirsction carries half the total ADTT. Thk ~
L-J
may not be true in special cases where many of the trucks ~ngle axles
may be hauling full loads in one direction and returning 2a30 0.28 0.58 6,310
empty in the other direction. If such is the case, an appro- 2&28 0.65 1.35 14,690
priate adjustment is made. 24-26 1.33 2.77 30,140
22-24 2.84 5.92 64,410
Axie-Load Oiatribufion 2W22 4.72 9.83 106,900

Data on the axle-load distribution of the truck traffic is 1&20 10.40 21.67 235,800
needed to compute the numbers of single and tandem 16-18 13.56 28.24 307,200
axles* of various weights expected during the design per. 14-16 18.64 38,83 422,500
iod. These data can be determined in one of three ways: 12-14 25.69 53,94 586,900
(1) special traffic studies to establish the loadometerdata 1}12 81.05 168,85 ,637,000
for the specific project; (2) data from the state highway
Tandem axles
department’s Ioadometer weight stations (Table W4) or
48-52 I 0.94 I 1.96 21,320
weigh-in-motion studies on routes representing truck
44-48 1.89 3.94 42,670
weights and types that are expected to be similar to the
project under design; (3) when axle-load distribution 4s44 5.51 11,48 124,800
data are not available, methods described in Chapter 4 36-40 16.45 34.27 372,900
based on categories of representative data for different 32-36 39.06 81,42 885,800
types of pavement facilities. 28-32 41.06 65.54 930,700
The use of axle-load data is illustrated in Table 5 in 24-28 73,07 152.23 1,656,000
which Table W4 data have been grouped by 2-kip and 20-24 43.45 90.52 984,900
4-kip increments for single- and tandem-axle loads, re. 15-20 54,15 112.81 1,227,000
spectively. The data under the heading “Axles per 1000 12-16 59,85 124.69 1,356,000
Trucks” are in a convenient form for computing the axle-
Ioad distribution, However, an adjustment must be made, Columns 1 and 2derived from Ioadometer W-4 Table. This table al$oshows
13,215 tolal trucks coumed with 6,916 two-axle, four-tire trucks (52%].
Column 2 of Table 5 gives values for all trucks, including
Column 3 Column 2 values adjusted for two.wle, four-tire trucks equal
the unwanted values for panels, pickups, and other four- to Column 2/[1 52/100).
tire vehicles. To overcome this difficulty, the tabulated Column 4 = Col. rnn3X [tr.cksindesig” period ))1000. %esmnpleproblem,
values are adjusted as described in the Table 5 notes, Design 1, In which trucks in design period (onedirection) tolal 10,880,000,

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
Chapter 3.
Load Safety Factors
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 Interstate and other multilane projects where
there will be uninterrupted traffic flow and high vol-
umes of truck traffic, LSF = 1.2.
● For highways and arterial streets where there will be
moderate volumes of truck traffic, LSF = 1, 1.
● For roads, residential streets, and other streets that
will carry small volumes of truck traffic, LSF = 1.0.
Aside from the load safety factors, a degree of conserv-
atism is provided in the design procedure to compensate
for such things as unpredicted truck overloads and nor-
mal 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 pave-
ment serviceability appropriate for higher type pave-
ment facilities.
In special cases, the use of a load safet y factor as high as
1.3 may be justified to maintain a higher-than-normal
level of pavement serviceability throughout the design
period. An example is a very busy urban freeway with no
alternate detour routes for the traffic. Here, it may be
better to provide a premium facility to circumvent for a
long time tbe need for any significant pavement main-
tenance that would disrupt traffic flow.
*See Appendix C if it isexpected that trucks with tridem loads will be
included i“ the traffk f.tecast.

10
Publication List Book Contents
 CHAPTER 3
Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Available)
The methods in this chapter are used when detailed axle- ● Without concrete shoulder, use Table &z and Fig. 5
load distribution data have been determined or estimated . With concrete shoulder, use Table 6b and Fig. 5
as described in Chapter 2.* Procedure Steps:
Fig. 4 is a worksheet** showing the format for corn. 1. Enter as items 8 and 11 on the worksheet from the
pleting design problems.t It requires as input data the
aPPr~Priate table the equivalent stress factors de-
following design factors discussed in Chapter 2. pending on trial thickness and k value.
● Type of joint and shoulder
2, Divide these by the concrete modulus of rupture and
● Concrete flexural strength (MR) at 28 days enter as items 9 and 12.
● k value of the subgrade or subgrade and subbase 3. FII1 in Column 4, “Allowable Repetitions; deter.
combination? mined from Fig. 5.
● Load safety factor (LSF) 4. Compute Column 5 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
● Axle-load distribution (Column 1) umn 4, multiplying by 100 then total the fatigue at
P
● Expected number of axle-load repetitions during the bottom.
the design period (Column 3)
Both a fatigue analysis (to control fatigue cracking)
and an erosion analysis (to control foundation and shoul- Erosion Analysis
der erosion, pumping, and faulting) are shown on the de-
sign worksheet. Without concrete shoulder
The fatigue analysis will usually control the design of ● Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
light-traffic pavements (residential streets and secondary ments# —use Table 7a and Fig. 6a.
roads regardless of whether the joints are doweled or not) ● Aggregate-interlock joints—use Table 7b and Fig.
and medium traffic pavements with doweled joints. 6a,
The erosion analysis will usually control the design of
With concrete shoulder
medium- and heavy-traffic pavements with undoweled
● Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
(aggregate-interlock) joints and heavy-traffic pavements
with doweled joints. ments~—use Table 8a and Fig. 6b.
For pavements carrying a normal mix of axle weights, ● Aggregate-interlock joints—use Table 8band Fig, 6b.
single-axle loads are usually more severe in the fatigue Procedure Steps:
analys]s, and tandem-axle loads are more severe in the 1. Enter the erosion factors from the appropriate table
erosion analysis.
as items 10 and 13 in the worksheet.
The step-by-step design procedure is as follows: The
design input data shown at the top of Fig. 4 are estab- 2. FIO in Column 6, “Allowable Repetitions,” from
lished and Columns 1 and 3 are tilled out. The axle loads Fig. 6a or Fig. 6b.
are multiplied by the load safety factor for Column 2.

*% Chapter 4 when axle-load distribution data are unknown.

Fatigue Analysis .* A b]a”k ~0 rkshect is provided as the M page Of thk bulletin for
p.rposes of reproduction and use in w=ific design problems.
Results of fatigue analysis, and thus the charts and figures f Computer programs for s.lving design problems are available fr.m
P.rtlmd Cement Ass.ciati.n.
~ used, are the same for pavements with doweled and un- ItSee Appendix B if lean concrete subbase is used.
doweled joints, and also for continuously reinforced $1. this design procedure, ccmtin”cwsly reinforced pavemems are
pavements.~ treated the same as dowdcd, jointed pavements—see Appendix A.

11

Publication List Book Contents

 Calculation of Pavement Thickness

Project A/ 0~ /,4 &.#T- /QA e L7A?r./&/. P&z2/’

Trial thickness 9.5 in. Doweled joints: yes K no —

Subbase-subgrade k /.70 pci Concrete shoulder: yes —no~

Modulus of rupture, MR L5 o psi

Design period ~ years
Load safetv factor. LSF /. Z?

r Axle
I I I

L
load,
hips

8. Equivalent stress 206 10. Erosion factor 2.59

9. Stress rcatiofactor O ? 17
Single Axles

u’

11. Equivalent stress 192 13. Erosion factor z. T?

12. Stress ratio factor Z?Jl$K_
Tandem Axles

Fig. 4. Design 1A.

u

12

Publication List Book Contents

 3. Compute Column 7 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
umn 6, multiplying by lW, then 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 repeti-
tions 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 than
100%, A greater trial thickness should be selected for
another run, * A lesser trial thickness is selected if the
totals are much lower than 100Yo.
Sample Problems
Two sample problems are given to illustrate the steps in
the design procedure and the effects of alternate designs.
Design 1 is for a four-lane rural Interstate project; several
variations on the design—use of dowels or aggregate-
interlock joints, use of concrete shoulder, granular and
cement-treated subbases—are shown as Designs 1A
through 1E. 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 Interstate
Rolling terrain in rural location
Design period = 20 years
Current ADT = 12,900
Projection factor = 1.5
ADTT = 19% of ADT
Traffic Calculations:
Desien ADT = 12.900 X 1.5 = 19,350 (9675 in one di-
re;tion)
ADTT = 19,350 X0.19= 3680 (1840 in one direction)
For 9675 one-direction ADT, Fig. 3 shows that the
proportion of trucks in the right lane is 0.81. Therefore,
for a 20-yeardesign period, the total number of trucks in
one direction is
1840 X 0.81 X 365 X 20 = 10,880,000 trucks
Design lC: doweled joints, untreated subbase, concrete
shoulder
Same as 1A except:
Concrete shoulder
Design ID: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
subbase, no concrete shoulder
Same as 1B except:
Aggregate-interlock joints
Design lE: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
subbase, concrete shoulder
Same as 1D except:
Concrete shoulder
Thickness Calculations:
A trial thickness is evaluated by completing the design
worksheettt shown in Fig. 4 for Design 1A using the
axle-load data from Table 5.
For Design 1A, Table 6a and Fig, 5 are used for the
fatigue analysis and Table 7a and Fig. 6a are used for the
erosion analysis.
Comments on Design 1
For designs 1A through 1E, a subbase of one type or an-
other is used as a recommended practice $onfine-textured
soil subgrades for pavements carrying an appreciable
number of heavy trucks.
In Design 1A: (1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion
damage of 63% and 39%, respectively, show that the 9.5-
in. thickness is adequate for thedesign conditions. (2) This
design has 37% reserve capacity available for heavy-axle
loads in addition to those estimated for design purposes.
(3) Comments 1 and 2 raise the question of whethera 9.0-
in. thickness would be adequate for Design IA. Separate
calculations showed that 9.0 in. is not adequate because
of excessive fatigue consumption (245Yo). (4) Design 1A
is controlled by the fatigue analysis.
A design worksheet, Fig. 7, is shown for Design 1D to
illustrate the comb]ned effect of using aggregate-inter-
lock joints and a cement-treated subbase. In Design 1D:
(1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion damage of l%t$ and
97%, respectively, show that IO in. is adequate. (2) Sepa-
rate calculations show that 9.5 in. is not adequate because
of excessive erosion damage ( 142Yo),and (3) ~sign 1D is
controlled by the erosion analysis.
(continue donpage21)

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 Thickness:** *Some guidance is helpful in reducing the number of trial inns. The
effect of thickness on both the fatigue and erosion damage approxi-
Design 1A: doweled joints, untreated subbase, no con- mately follows a geometric progression. For example, if 33% and 17870
crete shoulder fatigue damage are determined at trial thicknessesof 10 and 8 in., r.-
Clay subgrade, k = 100 pci spectivdy, the approximate fatigue damage for t+thickness of 9 in. is
4-in. -untreated subbase cowl to .~ = 77%
:*com& MR. LS F. and submade k value, are tie WM. for DesiEns
Combined k = 130 pci (see Table 1) 1A through lE. -
LSF = 1.2 (see page 10) Weme.t-treamd subbase meeting requirements stated on page 6.
Concrete MR = 650 psi tTA blank worksheet is provided asthe last page of this bulletin for the
Design lB doweled joints, cement-treated subbase, no p.rp.ses .f =prodtiction and U= in sp=ific de$ign problems.
1S.. Subzr.de$ and Subbasesfor Concrete’ P.vetnents. Portland
concrete shoulder
Cement Aswxiatio” p“bfica.tio.
Same as 1A except: $1 For pavements with aggregate-interlock joints subjected to an ap-
4-in. cement-treated subbaset preciable num~r of truck% the fadw ,..M will .$.aW ..1 affect
Combined k = 280 pci (see Table 2) design.

13

Publication List Book Contents

 Table 6a. Equivalent Streaa — No Concrete Shoulder
(Singla Axle/Tandam Axle)
Slab
k of Subgrade-subbase, pci
thickness,
In. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4
4.5
825[679 726/585 6711542 634/516 584/486 5231457 484/443 u
699/586 61 6/500 57f /460 540/435 498/406 4481378 417/363
5 602/51 6 531 /436 493/399 467/376 432/349 390/321 363/307
5.5 526/461 484/367 431/353 409/331 379/305 3431278 320/264
6 485/4f 6 4111348 382/31 6 362/296 336/271 304/246 285/232
6.5 41 7/380 367/31 7 341/286 324/267 300/244 2731220 256/207
7 375[349 331 /290 307/262 292/244 2711222 246/199 231/186
7.5 340/323 300/268 279/241 265/224 246/203 224/181 210/169
8 311 /300 2741249 255/223 242/208 2251188 205/167 192)1 55
8.5 285/281 252)232 234/206 222/1 93 206/174 186/154 177/143
9 264/264 232/21 6 216/195 205/181 190/1 63 1741744 163/1 33
9.5 245/248 215/205 200/183 190/1 70 176/153 161 /134 151/124
10 226/235 200/1 93 186/1 73 177/160 164/144 150/126 141/117
10.5 21 3/222 187/1 83 174[1 64 165/151 153/1 36 140/119 132/110
11 200/21 1 175/1 74 163/155 154/1 43 144/1 29 131/113 123/1 04
11.5 133/201 165/165 153/1 48 145/1 36 135/122 123/1 07 116/96
12 177/192 155/156 144/141 137/130 1271116 116/1 02 109/93
12,5 1681183 147/151 136/1 35 129/124 120/111 109/97 103/89
13 159/1 76 139/144 129/1 29 122/119 113/106 103/93 97[85
13.5 152/1 68 132/136 122/123 116/114 107/102 98/89 92/81
14 144/162 125/133 116/116 110/109 102/98 93[85 88/78

Table 6b. Equivalent Straaa — Concrete Shoulder

(Single Axle/Tandem Axle)
“w’
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thic;n~,
50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 640/534 559/466 51 7/439 489/422 452/403 409/388 363/384
4.5 547/461 479/400 4441372 421 /356 390/336 355/322 333/31 6
5 4751404 41 7/349 387[323 367/308 341 /290 311/274 294/267
5.5 41 6)360 366/309 342/285 324/271 302/254 276/236 261/231
6 3721325 3271277 304/255 269/241 270/225 247/210 2341203
6.5 334/295 294/251 274/230 260/218 243/203 223/1 88 21 2/180
7 302/270 266/230 248/21 O 236/1 98 220/1 84 203/170 192/162
7,5 275/250 243/21 1 226)1 93 215/182 201/168 185/155 176/148
8 252/232 222/196 207/1 79 197/168 185/155 170/142 162/135
8,5 232/21 6 205/1 62 191/166 182/156 170)1 44 157/131 150/1 25
9 215/202 190/171 177/1 55 169/146 158/1 34 146/1 22 139/1 16
9.5 200/1 90 176/160 164/146 157/137 1471126 136/114 129/1 08
10 186/1 79 164/151 153/137 146/129 137/116 127/107 121)101
10.5 174/170 154/143 144/130 137/121 128/711 119/101 1>3/95
11 164/161 144/1 35 135/1 23 129/1 15 1201105 112/95 106/90
11.5 154/153 136/1 28 1271117 121/109 113/100 105/90 100/65
12 145/146 128/1 22 120/111 114/104 107/95 99/86 95/81
12.5 137/1 39 121/117 113/106 106/99 101/91 94/82 90/77
13 130/1 33 *15)112 107/101 102/95 96/86 89/78 85173
13,5 124/1
27 10S/107 102/97 97/91 91183 85174 81 /70

14 I 118/122 104/103 97/93 93/87 87179 81/71 77167

“’U

14
Publication List Book Contents
 10,000,0001
60--(--’20
58
Q 15
:-
/ 2-
56
110 1,ocwooo8—
54
6-
52 4-
[

50 100 0.2”
\ 2-

46
90 loo,ooo—
44 8-
+
“..3
42 6-

/- 2
0
40 80 4-
m i=
a
Z 38 ) 1=
.. —.— —— -——+ w
.—-— a.
c)” 36 — 2- w
a a
o 70
-1
34
w
-1 1o,ooQ—
32
z t 8-

6-

4-

26
50 “.s”
24 2-

22
i 0.(3”
20 40 looo—
8-
18 Q ?“
6-
16 0.80
30 4-
0. 9“
14
-1
I.”.
12
2

10 2“
i 1.s”
/ 100 ~

Fig. 5. Fatigue analysis—allowable toad repetitions based

on stress ratio factor (with and without concrete shoulder).

15

Publication List Book Contents

 Table 7a. Erosion Fectora — Doweled Jointa, No Concrete Shoulder
(Single Axle/Tandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thickness,
In. 50 100 200 300 500 700
<
4 I 3. 74/3.83 3.7313.79 3.7213.75 3.7113.73 3. 70/3.70 3.68/3.67
4.5 3.59/3. 70 3.5713.65 3.56/3.61 1 3. 55/3,58 3.5413.55 3.52/3.53
I
5 3. 45[3. 58 3.43/3.52 3.42/3. 48 3.41/3,45 3.40)3.42 3.38/3.40
5.5 iI 3.3313.47 3.31/3.41 3.29/3.36 3.28/3.33 3.27/3.30 3.26/3.28
6 I 3,2213.38 3.1 9/3, 31 3,18/3.26 3. 17/3.23 3.1 5/3. 20 3. 14/3,17
6.5 3,11 /3. 29 3.09/3, 22 3.07/3, 16 3,06/3. 13 3.05/3. 10 3. 03/3,07
7 I 3, 02/3.21 2.99/3.14 2,97/3,08 2. 96/3.05 2. 95/3.01 2. 94/2.98
7,5 2. 93/3.14 2.91/3,06 2. 86/3.00 2.6712.97 2.86/2, 93 2. 84/2.90
8 2. 85/3.07 2, 62/2.99 2.80/2.93 2.7912.89 2,7712.65 2.76/2.82
8.5 2.7713.01 2.7412.93 2. 72)2.86 2.7112.82 2,89/2.78 2. 68/2.75
9 2, 70/2.96 2. 67/2.87 2.65/2.80 2, 63/2,76 2.6212.71 2.61/2.68
9.5 2, 63)2.90 2. 60/2.81 2. 58/2.74 2.56/2,70 2.55/2.65 2.5412,62
10 2.5612,85 2.54/2. 76 2,51/2.68 2.50/2.64 2.46/2. 59 2.4712,56
10.5 2.50/2.81 2.47[2,71 2.4512.63 2,4412.59 2.4212.54 2.41/2.51
11 2.4412,76 2. 42/2.67 2. 39/2.58 2.38)2.54 2.36/2.49 2,35/2,45
11,5 2.36[2.72 2. 36/2,62 2.3312.54 2.32/2.49 2.30[2. 44 2.29/2.40
12 2.33/2. 68 2.30/2.58 2.28/2.49 2. 26/2,44 2,2512.39 2.23/2.38
12.5 2.2812.84 2. 25)2.54 2.2312.45 2.2112.40 2, 19/2.35 2. 18/2.31
13 2. 23[2. 61 2. 20/2.50 2.1812,41 2.1612.36 2. 14/2.30 2.1312.27
13.5 2,1612,57 2.t5/2 ,47 2.1312.37 2, 11/2.32 2.09/2.26 2. 08[2, 23
14 2. 13/2.54 2. 11/2,43 2. 06/2.34 2,07/2.29 2.05/2. 23 2.03/2. 19

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

No Concrete Shoulder (Single AxleiTandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbme, pci
thickness,
in. 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.94/4. 03 3.91/3.95 3. 68/3.89 3. 86/3.86 3.62/3, 83 3,77/3.80
4.5 3. 79/3.91 3.7613.82 3. 73/3.75 3.71 [3, 72 3.6813.68 3. 64/3.65
5 3. 86/3,81 3. 63/3,72 3, 60/3.64 3,5813.80 3.55[3 ,55 3. 52/3.52
5.5 3.54/3.72 3,51/3,62 3.4813,53 3.46/3.49 3.43/3.44 3.41 /3.40
6 3.44/3. 64 3. 40/3.53 3. 37[3. 44 3. 35/3.40 3.32/3.34 3.30/3, 30
6.5 3.34/3. 56 3.30/3.46 3.26/3.38 3. 25/3.31 3.22/3. 25 3.20/3, 21
7 3. 26/3.49 3.21/3.39 3. 17/3.29 3. 15/3.24 3,1 3/3. 17 3,11/3,13
7.5 3, 16/3,43 3. 13/3.32 3.09/3.22 3.07/3, 17 3. 04/3,1 o 3. 02/3.06
8 3.1 1/3.37 3.05/3.26 3.01/3.18 2.99/3. 10 2.96/3.03 2.94/2.99
8,5 3.04/3,32 2.96/3.21 2.93/3.10 2.81/3.04 2.S812.97 2.8712.!33
9 2. 98/3.27 2,91/3.16 2, 86/3,05 2. 84/2.99 2.81/2.92 2. 79/2.87
9.5 2. 92/3.22 2. 65/3.11 2. 60/3.00 2. 77/2.94 2.7512.86 2. 73/2.81
10 2.66/3. 18 2. 79/3.06 2.7412.95 2.71/2.89 2.68/2.81 2.66/2.76
10,5 2.81/3.14 2. 74/3.02 2. 66/2.91 2. 65/2.64 2.62/2.76 2,60/2,72
11 2.77[3. 10 2.69/2.98 2.63[2.86 2.60/2. 80 2,5712.72 2.54/2.67
11.5 2.7213,06 2. 64/2.94 2.58/2.82 2,5512.76 2.51/2,68 2.49/2.63
12 2. 68/3.03 2. 60/2,90 2.5312.78 2,5012.72 2. 46/2.64 2.44/2. 58
12.5 2.64/2.99 2,5512.87 2, 48[2. 75 2.4512,68 2.41/2.60 2.39/2.55
13 2.60/2.96 2.51/2.83 2.4412.71 2. 40/2.65 2.36/2.56 2.34/2.51
13.5 2.56/2.93 2.47/2.80 2.40/2. 68 2.36/2.61 2.32/2.53 2.30/2. 48
14 2.5312.90 2.4412.77 2.36/2.65 2.32/2.58 2, 28[2. 50 2,25[2.44

16

Publication List Book Contents