studies of fatigue research[4s-”9) except that it is applied to A successful correlation with road test performance was

edge-load stresses that are of higher magnitude. A modi- obtained with this parameter,
fication in the high-load-repetition range has been made The development of the erosion criterion was also gen-
to eliminate the discontinuity in the previous curve that erally related to studies on joint faulting. [2* 29) These
sometimes causes unrealistic effects, studies included pavements in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
The allowable number of load repetitions for a given North Dakota, Georgia, and California, and included a
axle load is determined based on the stress ratio (flexural range of variables not found at the AASHO Road Test,
stress divided by the 28-day modulus of rupture). The such as a greater number of trucks, undoweled pave-
fatigue curve is incorporated into the design charts for ments, a wide range of years of pavement service, and
use by the designer. stabilized subbases.
Use of the fatigue criterion is made on the Miner hy- Brokaw’s studies (2o of ““doweled pavements suggest
pothes]s 140that fatigue ~e~istance not consumed by rePe- that climate or drainage is a significant factor in pave-
titions of one load is available for repetitions of other ment performance. So far, this aspect of design has not
loads. In a design problem, the total fatigue consumed been included in the design procedure. but it deserves
should not exceed 100%. further study. Investigations of the effects of climate on
Combined with the effect of reducing the design mod- design and performance of concrete pavements have also
ulus of rupture by one coefficient of variation, the fatigue been reported by Darter. [”]
criterion is considered to be conservative for thickness The erosion criterion is suggested for use as a guideline.
design purposes. It can be modified according to local experience since
cfimate, drainage, local factors, and design innovations
may have an influence. Accordingly, the 100% erosion-
damage criterion, an index number correlated with gen-
Erosion eral performance experience, can be increased or de-
creased based on specific performance data gathered in
Previous mechanistic design procedures for concrete the future for more favorable or more adverse conditions.
pavements are based on the principle of limiting the ffex-
ural 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. T& is the erosion of
material beneath and beside the slab.
,P Many repetitions of heavy axle loads at slab corners
and edges cause pumping; erosion of subgrade, subbase,
and shoulder materialy voids under and adjacent to the
slab; and faulting of pavement joints, especially in pave-
ments with 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(a] with AASHO Road Test{ 24]perform-
ance data were not completely satisfactory for design
purposes. (The principal mode of failure of concrete
pavements at the AASHO Road Test was pumping or
erosion of the granular subbase from under the slabs.) It
was found that to be able to predict the AASHO Road
Test performance, different values of deflection criteria
would have to be applied to different slab thicknesses,
and to a small extent, different foundation moduli (k
values),
More useful correlation was obtained by multiplying
the computed corner deflection values (w) by computed
pressure values (.P) at the slab-foundation interface, Pow-
er, or rate of work, with 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 measure of the length of the deflection basin (l—
radius of relative stiffness, in inches). The concept is that
a thin pavement with its shorter deflection basin receives
~ a faster load punch than a thicker slab. That is, at equal
pw’s and equal truck speed, the thinner slab is subjected
to a faster rate of work or power (inch-pound per second).

35

Publication List Book Contents


APPENDIX B
Design of Concrete Pavements with Lean
Concrete Lower Course
Following is the thickness design procedure for compos-
ite concrete pavements incorporating a lower layer of
lean concrete, either as a suhhase constructed separately
or as a lower layer in monolithic construction. Design
considerations and construction practices for such pave-
ments are discussed in References 50 through 52.
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 thickness 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 pro-
cedures 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 the design charts, Fig. B] and Fig, B2, the required
layer thicknesses depend on the flexural strengths of the
two concrete materials as determined by ASTM C78.
Since the quality of lean concrete is often specified on the
basis of compressive strength, Fig. B3 can be used to con-
vert this to an estimated flexural strength (modulus of
rupture) for usc in preliminary design calculations.
Lean Concrete Subbase
The largest paving use of lean concrete has been as a sub-
base under a conventional concrete pavement, This is
nonmonolithic 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 2 ft wider than the pavement on each side to support
the tracks of the sfipform paver. This extra width is struc-
turally beneficial for wheel loads applied at pavement
edge.
The normal practice has been to select a surface thick-
36
Publication List
b’
ness about twice the subbase thickness; for example, 9 in.
of concrete on a 4- or 5-in. subbase.
Fig. B 1 shows the surface and subbase thickness re-
quirements 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 pro-
cedure. From laboratory tests, concrete mix designs have
been selected that give moduli of rupture of 650 and 200
psi~*respectively, for the surface concrete and the lean
concrete subbase. Assume that a I&In.-thickness require-
ment has been determined for a pavement without lean ,..
concrete subbase as set forth in Chapter 3 or 4.
As shown by the dashed example line in Fig. BI, de- W’
signs equivalent to the 10-in. pavement are (1) 7.7-in.
concrete on a 5-in. lean concrete subbase, and (2) 8. l-in.
concfcte on a &]n. lean concrete subbase.
Monolithic Pavement
In some areas, a relatively thin concrete surface course is
constructed monolithically with a lean concrete lower
layer. Local or recycled aggregates can be used for the
lean concrete, resulting in cost savings and conservation
of bighqualit y aggregates.
●ll. criteria are that (1) stressratios in either of the two concrete
layers not exceed that of the reference pavement and (2)erosion values
at the s.bbase-s.bgrade interface not exceed those of the reference pave-
ment. Rational. for the criteria is give. in Reference 50 plus two ad&l-
timal considerations: (1) erosion criteria is included in addition to the
fatigue approach given in the referencq and (2) for nonmonolithic con-
struction, some structural benefit C141is added because the subbase is
constructed wider than the pavement.
. . F1.xural wemgth of !..” comxete m be used as a subbase is usually
selected to be between i50 to 250 psi (compressive Wength, 750 to 1200
psih these relatively low strengths are used to minimize reflective crack- ,,.
ing from tbe unjointed subbase (.s..1 practice is to leave the s.hhm.
.“jointed) through the concrete surface. lf, c.ntmry toc.rrem practic.,
joints are placed in the subbase, the stcmgth of the 1..” comrete would u
“.1 have to b. restricted m the lower m “ge.
Book Contents
 Modulus of Rupture of Leon Concrete, psi

350 450 I50 250 350 450

250.
<
14
450 /
I 50 14 _
350
< .< “%
13
250 .. / ‘
,0 / ‘
/
I50 ;
12
/ ‘
6). / /

II / ‘ /
d
/ )
0

I 0(.++ ~ –;

9 r
9
are thicknesses of concrete
surface course

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

37

Publication List Book Contents

 Modulus of Rupture of Lean Concrete, psi

450 150 250 350 450

14

350

/,
13 -

12

“l- t+htl+’tft
‘0+--wH--tf7b%4

3“ Surface 4“ Surface

Fig. B2, Design chart for composite concrete pavement (monolithic with lean concrde Iowef layer).

Unlike the lean concrete subbases discussed in the pre-

vious 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 fulldepth cracking through
both layers at the joint locations.
Fig. B2 is the design chart for monolithic pavements.
To illustrate its use, assume that the design strengths of
the two concretes are 650 and 350 psi, and that the design
procedures of Chapter 3 or 4 indicate a thickness require-
ment of 10 in. for fulldepth normal concrete.
As shown by the dashed example fine in Fig. B2, mono-
lithic designs equivalent to the IO-in. pavement are (1)4-
in. concrete surface on 8.3-in. lean concrete, or (2) 3-in.
surface on 9.3-in. lean concrete.

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI

Fig. B3. Modulus of rupture versus compressive strength

(from Reference 50).

38

Publication List Book Contents

 APPENDIX C
Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads
Tridem loads* can 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 C I through C3 are used.
From these tables for tridems, equivalent stress and ero-
sion factors are entered in an extra design worksheet.
Then Fig. 5 and Fig. ti or 6b are used to determine al-
lowable numbers of load repetitions. Fatigue and erosion
damage totals for tridems are added to those for single-
and tandem-axle loads,
P
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 highway 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 year> so:
100 trucks X 250 days X 10 years = 250,000 total trucks
The trucks in one direction are normally all loaded to
their capacity of 54,000-lb tridem load plus 7000-lb steer-
ing-axle (single-axle) load. (When it is examined, the
steering axles are not heavy enough to affect the design
results.)
Fig. C 1 represents a portion of tbe extra design work-
sheet needed to evaluate tbe effects of these tridems. Since
Publication List
Design 1A (9:5-in. pavement, combined k of 130 pci) is a
pavement with doweled joints and no concrete shoulder,
Tables Cl and C2 are used to determine the equivalent
stress and erosion factors, Items 1 I and 13 on the work-
sheet.
For this example, Fig. 5 is used to determine allowable
load repetitions for the fatigue analvsis and l%. 6a is used
for tbe”erosion analysis. - - -
The tridem loads of 54,000 lb are multiplied by t he load
safety factor for Design 1A of 1.2, giving a design axle
load of 64,800 lb. Before using the charts for allowable
load repetitions, the tridem load (3 axles) is divided by
three (64,800/3 = 21,600 lb) so that the load scale for
single axles can be used, **
As show” in Fig, Cl, the tridem causes only 9.3% ero-
sion damage and 0% fatigue damage. These results, added
to the effects of the single and tandem axles shown in Fig.
4 are not sufficient to require a design thickness increase.
*A trid.m or triple axle isa set of three axles each sp.ced at 48 to 54in.
apart. These am used on special heavy-duty haul trucks.
..Thl$ is not to say th.tatridcm hasthe~meeff=t asthrec singieaxles.
The damaging effects of tridem, tandem, and single axles are incorpo-
rated into their rqmtive equivalent stress and emsicm factor tables,
which i“ the sequeme of the design steps is taken into accmmt before
the charm for allowable-load repetitions arc entered. This divisicm by
three for tridetm is made just to avoid the complexity of adding a third
scale on the charts for allowable-load qxtitio.s,
39
Book Contents
 Calculation of Pavement Thickness
7f T.
/ Z??,(L D
Trial thickness 5?5- (n: Doweled joints yes’+.0 — -.
S.bbase-sub.arade k L.?o .,i concrete sh.w ldw yes _ no X

Modulus .1 nmt”re, MR ~ psi

C9sig” Period ~ yea,,
L-J
Load safely factor, LSF 1 z

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

Axle M“!tiPlied ExPect&
load, ~gYF repetition,
I@ Allowable Fatigue, Allowable Damage,
repetition, percent repetitions percent
/7

111213/4 1516 171

1 1 1 [ I I
I

I 1 1 I I I I
Total Total
o 7.3

74 be ZzdJ& X6 4224 SAw’7 /> 6++

Fig. Cl. Analysis of tridems.
,.-

u’
Tabla Cl. Equivalent Stress-Tridems
(Without Concrete Shouldar/With Concrete Shoulder)
Slab k of subgrsde.subbase, pcl
thickness,
in. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 51W431 456/392 4371377 428/369 419/362 41 4/360 41 2/359
4,5 439/365 380/328 359/31 3 349/305 339/297 331/392 32S/291
5 367/317 328/281 305/266 293/258 282/250 272[244 269/242
5.5 347[279 290/246 266/231 253/223 240/214 230/206 226/206
8 315[249 261/218 237/204 223/1 96 209/187 198/1 80 193/1 78
6.5 289/225 238/1 96 214/163 201/175 186/1 66 173/159 168/1 56
7 267/304 219/178 196/1 65 183/1 58 167/1 49 154/142 148/1 38
7.5 247/1 87 203/1 62 181/151 166/1 43 153/135 139/1 27 132(124
6 230/172 189/1 49 168/1 36 156/131 141/123 126/116 120/112
6.5 215/159 177[1 36 1561126 145/121 131/113 116/106 109/102
9 2W147 166/ 128 148/119 136/112 122/105 108/98 101/94
9.5 1871137 157/120 140/111 129/1 05 115/98 101/91 93/87
10 1741127 148/112 133/104 122/98 106/91 95/64 87/61
10.5 183/119 140/105 125/97 115/92 103/86 89/79 82/78
11 153/111 133/89 119/92 110/87 98/81 S5174 78177
11.5 142/104 125/93 113/86 104/82 93{76 80/70 74/67
12 133/97 119/83 106/82 100[78 89/72 77/66 70/63
12.5 123/91 113/33 103/78 95/74 85/66 73[63 67/847
13 114/85 107/79 98/74 91/70 81/65 70/80 64/57 ,..
13.5 105/80 101/75 93/70 87/67 78[62 67[57 61/54
14 97175 98/71 89/67 83/63 75/59 65/54 59/51 L/”

40

Publication List Book Contents

 Table CZ. Eroalon Factors-Tridema-Doweled Joints
(Without Concrete Shoulder/With Concrete !Woulder)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thickness,
p ,., 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.8913.33 3.82/3.20 3.7513.13 3.70/3.10 3,61,13.05 3.53/3.00
4,5 3.7813.24 3.69/3,10 3.62./2.99 3.57/2.95 3.50,(2.91 3.4412.87
5 3,68/3.16 3.56/3,01 3.50/2.89 3.4612.83 3.4012.79 3.3412.75
5.5 3.59/3.09 3.49/2.94 3.40/2.80 3,36/2.74 3.3012.67 3.2512.84
6 3.51/3.03 3,40/2.87 3.3112.73 3.28/2.66 3.2112.58 3.16/2.54
6.5 3,44/2,97 3.33/2.82 3.23/2.67 3.18/2.59 3.12(2,50 3.08/2.45
7 3,37[2,92 3.26/2.76 3,18/2.61 3.10/2.53 3.04!2.43 3.00/2.37
7.5 3.31/2,87 3.20/2.72 3,09/2.56 3.03/2.47 2.97/2.37 2.93/2.31
6 3.26/2,83 3.14/2.67 3,03/2.51 2.97/2.42 2.80/2.32 2.86/2,25
8,5 3.20/2.79 3.09/2.63 2.9712.47 2.91/2,38 2.84,(2.27 2.79/2,20
9 3.15/2.75 3.04/2.59 2.92/2.43 2.66/2,34 2.7612,23 2.73t2.15
9.5 3.11/2.71 2.99/2.55 2.67/2,39 2.81/2.30 2.73/2.18 2,68/2. 11
10 3.08/2.67 2.94/2.51 2.83/2.35 2.76/2,26 2.68,/2.15 2,63/2,07
10.5 3.02/2.64 2.90/2.48 2,78/2.32 2.7.2/2.23 2.64/2.1 1 2.58/2.04
11 2.98/2.60 2.86/2.45 2.74/2.29 2.68/2,20 2,59/2.08 2.54/2.00
11.5 2.94/2.57 2.82/2.42 2.70/2.26 2.64/2.16 2.55,,2.05 2.50/1.97
12 2.91/2.54 2.79/2.39 2.67/2.23 2.60/2.13 2.51/2.02 2.48/1.94
12.5 2.6712.53 2.75/2,36 2.63/2.20 2.56/2.11 2.48,{1 .99 2.42/1.91
13 2,8412.48 2.72/2.33 2.6012.17 2.53/2.06 2.44,{1.96 2.39/1.88
13,5 2,61/2,46 2,68/2.30 2.56/2.14 2.49/2.05 2,41,(1 .93 2.35/1.86
14 2.78/2.43 2.6512.28 2.53/2.12 2.46/2.03 2.38,(1 .91 2.32/1 .83

P
Table C3. Erosion Fectors—Tridems-Aggregate-interlock Joints
(Without Concrete Shoulder/With Concrete :~oulder)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thic;.,
50 100 200 300 5130 700
4 4.06/3.50 3.97[3.36 3.68/3.30 3.62/3.25 3.7413.21 3.6713.16
4.5 3.9513.40 3.8513.26 3,78/3.16 3.70/3.13 3.63/3.08 3.58/3.04
5 I 3,85[3,32 3.75/3.19 3.66/3.06 3.60/3.03 3.52/2.97 3.46/2.93
5.5 3,76/3,26 3,66/3.11 3.56/3.00 3.51[2.94 3.4312.67 3.37[2 .83
6 I 3,68/3,20 3.58/3.05 3.4LV2.92 3,42/2.66 3.35,/2.79 3.29/2.74
6.5 3.61/3.14 3.50/2.99 3.40/2.86 3.34/2.79 3.27,/2.72 3.21/2.67
7 3.54/3.09 3.43/2.94 3.33/2.80 3.27/2.73 3.20/2,65 3,14/2.60
7.5 3.48/3.05 3.3712.89 3.2612.75 3.20/2.67 3.13/2.59 3.06/2.54
8 3.42/3.01 3.31/2,84 3,20/2.70 3.14/2.62 3.07/2.54 3.01/2.46
8.5 3.3712.97 3.25/2.80 3.15/2.65 3.09/2.58 3.01/2,49 2.96/2.43
9 3.32/2.94 3.20/2.77 3.09/2.61 3.03/2.53 2,95/2,44 2.90/2.38
9.5 3.2712.91 3.15/2.73 3.0412.56 2.98/2.49 2.90/2.40 2.85/2.34

10 3.22/2.88 3.11/2,70 3.00/2.54 2.93/2.46 2.85/2.36 2.60/2,29

10.5 3.f 8/2.85 3.06/2.67 2.95/2.51 2.89/2.42 2.8112.32 2.76[2 .26
11 3.14/2.83 3.02/2.85 2.91/2.48 2.8412.39 2.7712.29 2.71/2.22
11.5 3.10/2.80 2,98/2.62 2.8712.45 2.80/2.36 2.72/2.26 2.67/2.19

41

Publication List Book Contents

APPENDIX D

Estimating Traffic Volume by Capacity

(Note: At the time of preparing this bulletin, information Table D1. Design Capacities for
on highway capacity is under extensive revision and com- Multilane Highways
putational methods and results may be substantially Design capacity:
changed. New publications of AASHTO and theFHWA passenger cars
Type of highway pe;;r2ftJne
“Highway Capacity Manual,” expected to be published
in 1984 and 1985, should be used when available and they
rreew.ys vm. w access comm
will replace the methods and references presented in this
appendix.)
‘Suburt )an freeways with full access control
In Chapter 2, the traffic volume (ADTI is estimated by ,.. . .
a method based cm the projected rates of traffic growth.
‘Rural freeways with Wll or p
When the projected traffic volume is relatively high for a ~
control
specifk project, this method should be checked by the
Rural major highway!
capacity method described here. cross traffic and road.,..
The practical capacity of a pavement facility is defined
Rural major highways with c
as the maximum number of vehicles per lane per hour cross traffic and roadside Inwrmrerwe
that can pass a given point under prevailing road and I
traffic conditions without unreasonable delay or restrict- ,AIso includes panels, pickups, and other four-tire oxnrnerci.1 vehicles
ed freedom to maneuver. Prevailing conditions include that function a. passenger cars in terms of traffic capacity. Values are
taken from References 53 and 54,
composition of traffic, vehicle speeds, weather, align-
ment, proffle, number and width of lanes, and area.
The termproctical capacity is commonly used in refer-
j = ~“mber Of passenger cars equivalent tO One
ence to existing highways, and the term design capaciry
is used. for design purposes. Where traffic flow is uninter- truck
rupted-or nearly so—practical capacity and design = 4 in rolling terrain
capacity are numerically equel and have essentially the = 2 in level terrain
same meaning. In accordance with AAS HTO usage1s3 ’41 K = design hour volume, DHV, expressed as a
the term design capacity is used in this text. Design capac- percentage of ADT
ities for various kinds of multilane highways are sum- = 15% for rural freeways in this text
marized in Table DI. = 12% for urban freeways in thk text**
D = traffic, percent, in direction of heaviest travel
during peak hours—about 5070 to 75%
AD T Capacity of Multilane Highways
= 67% for rural freeways in this text
For thickness design it is necessary to convert the pas-
= 6090 for urban freeways in this text
aenger cars per hour in Table D1 to average daily traffic
in both directions, ADT, For multilane highways with
uninterrupted flow tbe following formula is used:
100P 5000N
ADT =
100+ Tpd- 1) x KD
where P = passenger cars* per lane per hour (from
Table D 1)
N = number of lanes—total both directions
T,, = trucks, percent, during peak hours ‘See f..tn.te at bottom of Table D!.
= 2/3 ADT_f in this booklet **s,, Reference 54, pa.~e$96 m 98, and Reference 56.

42

Publication List Book Contents

 Detailed discussions of this formula will be found in
References 53, 54, and 55. As presented here, the symbol
for one term, T, of the formula, T,~, differs from the sym-
bol for this term in the references. In this text:
p T = trucks—includes only single units with more
than four tires and all combinations. (Does
not include panels, pickups, and other single
units with only four tires.)
ADTT = average daily truck traffic in both direc-
tions—may be expressed as a percentage of
ADT or as an actual value.
Capacity of Two-Lane Highways
Important factors in the design capacit y of two-lane high-
ways are (1) the percent of total project length where sight
distance is less than 1500 ft, and (2) lane widths of less
than 12 ft.* The design capacity in vehicles per hour (vph)
for unintermpted flow on two-lane highways is shown
in Table D2.
It is good practice to use both traffic projection fac-
tors and design capacity for thickness design of specific
projects. For example, if an existing two-lane route is car-
rying 4000 ADT and the projection factor is 2.7, the pro-
jected ADT would be 10,800. This is more than 4000
vehicles per day (vpd) greater than the design capacity of
virtually all two-kme highways.** On the other hand,
10,800 ADT is below the design capacity of most four-
lane highways.t Hence, the design should be made for
10,800 ADT on a four-lane roadway, Design capacity
should not be used where it shows a greater ADT than
shown by traffic projection.

p
*Lane widths of lessthan 12ft are rarely used in current pract i.., ex-
cept for very lightly traveled two-lam roads where land serviceis a pri-
mary function.
**SW Table D2.
?S.. Refermct 53, Table 11-14.

Table D2. De$ign Capacities for Uninterrupted Flow on Two-Lsne Highways’

Design Capacity, both directions, in vph,-

==
40 800 7Cnl 620

I o I 900 640 500 k:~

40 800 570
Rolling
80 720 510
80 620 440
‘KHx!uui

Source: Reference 53, Table 11-10,P.39e88.

‘. T.b.lar ..1..s apply where lateral clearance is not mstri.led. Where clearance is less th.” 6 H
apply factors In Reference 53, Table IIF 7, page 89.
VTr.cks, does not include four-tire vehicle..

43

Publication List Book Contents

 w’

APPENDIX E

References
1. Westergaard, H. M., “Computation of Stresses in 41;, also PCA Development Department Bulletin
Concrete Roads,” High way Research Board pro. DXOI1.
ceedings, Fifth Annual Meeting, 1925, Part 1, pages 11. Childs., L. D., and Kapernick, J. W., “Tests of Con-
90 to 112. crete Pavement Slabs on Gravel Subbases,” Proceed-
2. Westergaard, H. M., “Stresses in Concrete Pavements ings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 84
Computed by Theoretical Analysis,” Public Roads, (HW-3), October 195fi also PCA Development De-
Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1926, pages 25 to 35. partment Bulletin DX021.
3. Westergaard, H. M., “Analysis of Stresses in Con- 12. Childs. ,, L. D.. and Kanernick.
. . J. W... “Tests of Con-
crete Roads Caused by Variations in Temperature,” crete Pavements on Crushed Stone Subbases,” Pro-
Public Roads, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 1927, pages 201 to ceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
215. Proc. Paper No. 3497, Vol. 89 (H W- 1), April 1963, z “’
4. Westergaard, H. M., “Theory of Concrete Pavement pages 57 to 8@ also PCA Development Department ‘~
Design; High way Research Board Proceedings, Bulletin DX065.
Seventh Annual Meeting, 1927, Part 1, pages 175 to 13. Childs, L. D., “Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on
181. Cement-Treated Subbases,” Highway Research Rec-
5. Westergaard, H. M., “Analytical Tools for Judging ord 60, Highway Research Board, 1963, pages 39 to
Results of Structural Tests of Concrete Pavements? 58; also PCA Development Department Bulletin
Public Roads, Vol. 14, No. 10, December 1933, pages DX086.
185 to 188. 14. Childs, L. D., “Cement-Treated Subbases for Con-
6. P1ckett, Gerald; Ravine, Milton E.; Jones, WMam C.; crete Pavements,” Highway Research Record 189,
and McCormick, Frank J., “Deflections, Moments Highway Research Board, 1967, pages 19 to 43; also
and Reactive Pressures for Concrete pavements,” PCA Development Department Bulletin DX125.
Kansas State College Bulletin No. 65, October 1951. 15. Childs, L. D., and Nussbaum, P. J,, “Repetitive Load
7. Pickett, Gerald, and Ray, Gordon K., “Influence Tests of Concrete Slabs on Cement-Treated Sub-
Charts for Concrete Pavements? American Society bases,” RD025P, Portland Cement Association, 1975.
of Civil Engineers Transactions, Paper No. 2425, Vol. 16. Tayabji, S. D., and Coney, B. E,, “Improved Rigid
116, 1951, pages 49 to 73. Pavement Joints,” paper presented at Annual Meeting
8. Tayabji, S. D., and Coney, B. E., “Analysis of Jointed of Transportation Research Board, January 1983 (to
Concrete Pavements,” report prepared by the Con- be published in 1984).
struction Technology Laboratories of the Portland 17. Childs, L. D., and Ball, C. G., “Tests of Joints for
Cement Association for the Federal Highway Ad- Concrete Pavements,” RD026P, Portland Cement
ministration, October 1981. Association, 1975.
9. Teller, L. W., and Sutherland, E. C., “The Structural 18. Coney, B. E., and Humphrey, H. A., “Aggregate in-
Design of Concrete Pavements,” Public Roads, Vol. terlock at Joints in Concrete Pavements,” Highway
16, Nos. 8, 9, and 10 (1935) Vol. 17, Nos. 7 and 8 Research Board Record No. 189, Transportation Re-
(1936); Vol. 23, No. 8 (1943). search Board, 1967, pages I to 18.
10. Childs, L. D., Coney, B. E., and Kapernick, J. W., 19. Coney, B. E., Ball, C. G., and Arriyavat, P., “Evalua- ....
“Tests to Evaluate Concrete Pavement Subbases,” tiOn Of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders or ‘
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Widened Lanes,” Transportation Research Record ‘~
Paper No. 1297, Vol. 83 (H W-3), July 1957, pages 1 to 666, Transportation Research Board, 1978; also Pmt-

44

Publication List Book Contents

 land Cement Association, Research and Develop-
ment Bulletin RD065P, 1980.
20. Sawan, J. S., Darter, M. L, and Dempsey, B. J.,
“Structural Analysis and Design of PCC Shoulders,”
Report No. FH WA-RD-8 1-122, Federal Highway
Administration, April 1982.
21. Older, Clifford, “Highway Research in Illinois,”
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
February 1924, pages 175 to 217.
22. Aldrich, Lloyd, and Leonard, Ino B., “Report of
Highway Research at Pittsb”rg, California, 19zI-
1922,” California State Pri”ti”g office,
23. Road Test One-MD, Highway Research Board Spe-
cial Report No. 4, 1952.
24. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board
Special Report No. 6 I E, 1962.
25. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board
Special Report No. 73, 1962.
26. AA SHTO Inlerim Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures, /972, Chapter 111 Revised, 1981, Ameri-
can Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials, 1981,
27. Fordyce, Phil, and Teske, W. E,, “Some Relation-
ships of tbe AASHO Road Test to Concrete Pave-
ment Design,” High way Research Board Record No,
44, 1963, pages 35 to 70.
28. Brokaw, M. P., “Effect of Serviceability and Rough-
ness at Transverse Joints on Performance and De-
sign of Plain Concrete Pavement,” Highway Research
Board Record 471, Transportation Research Board,
p 1973.
29. Packard, R. G., “Design Considerations For Control
of Joint Faulting of Undoweled Pavements,” F70-
ceedings of International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design, Purdue University, February 1977.
30. Packard, R. G., and Tayabji, S. D., “Mechanistic De-
sign of Concrete Pavements to Control Joint Faulting
and Subbase Erosion,” International Seminar on
Drainage and Erodability at the Concrete Slab-Sub-
base-Shoulder Interfaces, Paris, France, March 1983.
31. 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 Materials, Designation D 1196.
32. “Rigid Airfield Pavements,” Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Army Manual, EM 1110-45-303, Feb. 3, 1958,
33. Burmister, D. M., “The Theory of Stresses and Dis.
placements in Layered Systems and Applications to
Design of Airport Runway s,” Highway Research
Board Proceedings, Vol. 23, 1943, pages 126 to 148.
34. Standard Methods for Freezing-and-Thawing Tests
of Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, Designation D560.
35. Standard Methods for Wetting-and-Drying Tests of
Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Designation D559.
P search Record 741, Performance of Pavements De-
36. Soil- Cement Laboratory Handbook, Portland Ce-
ment Association publication EB052S, 1971.
37. “National Truck Characteristic Report, 1975- 1979,”
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High-
way Administration, Washington, D. C,, June 1981.
38. Becker, J. M., Darter, M. I., Snyder, M. B., and
Smith, R. E., “COPES Data Collection Procedure—
Appendix A,” June 1983, Appendix to final report of
National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Project 1-19, Concrete Pavement Evaluation System,
draft submitted to Transportation Research Board.
39. Load Stress at Pavement Edge, Portland Cement
Association publication IS030P, 1969.
40. Taragin, Asriel, “Lateral Placement of Trucks on
Two-Lane and Four-Lane D]vided Highways,” Pub-
/it Roads, Vol. 30, No. 3, August 1958, pages71 to 75,
41. Emery, D. K., Jr,, “Paved Shoulder Encroachment
and Transverse Lane Displacement for Design Trucks
on Rural Freeway s,” a report presented to the Com-
mittee on Shoulder Design, Transportation Research
Board, January 13, 1975.
42, “Vehicle Shoulder Encroachment and Lateral Place-
ment Study,” Federal Highway Administration Re-
port No. FH WA/ MN-80/6, Minnesota Department
of Transportation, Research and Development Of-
fice, July 1980.
43. Darter, M, 1,, “Structural Design for Heavily Traf-
ficked Plain-Jointed Comrete Pavement Based o“
Serviceability Performance,” TRR 671, Analysis of
Pavement Systems, Transportation Research Board,
1978, pages 1 to 8.
44. Thickness Design for Concrete Pavemenls, Portland
Cement Association publication 1S0 IOP, 1974.
45, Kesler, Clyde E., “Fatigue and Fracture of Concrete,”
Stanton Wolker Lecture Series of the Malerials Sci-
ences, National Sand and Gravel Association and Na-
tional Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 1970,
46. Fordyce, Phil, and Yrjanson, W. A,, “Modern Design
of Concrete Pavements; American Society of Civil
Engineers, Transportation Engineering Journal, Vol.
95, No. TE3, Proceedings Paper 6726, August 1969,
pages 407 to 438.
47. Ballinger, Craig A., “The Cumulative Fatigue Dam-
age Characteristics of Plain Concrete,” Highway Re-
search Record 370, Highway Research Board, 1971,
pages 48 to 60.
48. Miner, M. A., “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,”
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Trans-
actions, Vol. 67, 1945, page A 159.
49. Klaiber, F. W., Thomas, T. L., and Lee, D. Y., “Fa-
tigue Behavior of Air-Entrained Concrete: Phase 11,”
Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State Univer-
sity, February 1979.
50. Packard, R. G., “Structural Design of Concrete Pave-
ments with Lean Concrete Lower Course,” Proceed-
ings of Second International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design, Purdue University, April 1981.
51. Yrjanson, W. A., and Packard, R. G., “Econocrete
Pavements—Current Practices,” Transportation Re-
signed with Low-Cost Materials, Transportation Re-
search Board, 1980, pages 6 to 13.

45

Publication List Book Contents

52. Ruth, B. E., and Larsen, T. J., “Save Money with
Econocrete Pavement Systems,” Concrete Inrer.
national, American Concrete Institute, May 1983.
53. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways,
American Association of State Highway Officials,
Washington, D. C., 1954.
54. A Policy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas,
American Association of State Highway Officials,
Washington, D. C., 1957.
55. Highway Capacity Manual, Bureau of Public Roads,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.,
1966.
56. Schuster, J. J., and Michael, H. L., “Vehicular Trip
Estimation in Urban Areas; Engineering Bulletin of
Purdue University, Vol. XLWII, No. 4, July 1964,
pages 67 to 92.

57. Packard, R. G., and Tayabji, S. D., “New PCA

T’lickness Design Procedure for Concrete Highway
and Street Pavements,” Proceedings of Third Inter-
national Conference on Concrete Pavement Design
and Rehabilitation, Purdue University, April 1985.

‘u’

7..

“u

46

Publication List Book Contents

 Calculation of Pavement Thickness
p
Project

Trial thickness m. Doweled joints: yes _ no _

Subbase-subgrade k pci Concrete shoulder: yes _ no _

Modulus of rupture, MR psi

Di!sign period _ years
Load safety factor, LSF

Axle
load,
hips

8. Equivalent stress 10. Erosion factor

9. Stress ratio factor

Single Axles

,p

11. Equivalent stress 13. Erosion factor

12. Stress ratio factor
Tandem Axles

P’

Total Total

Publication List Book Contents

 /-.. ,,

‘u

Microcomputer Program for Thickness Design of

Concrete Highways, Streets, and Parking Lots

PCAPA V—the low-cost software for concrete pavement design

PCAPA V’s easy-to-use,

● High-speed solutions
menu-driven

to pavement
routine

thickness
offers

design problems
u
● Pavement fatigue and subbase erosion calculations
“ Comprehensive theory
● Realistic design criteria

The computer program design procedures, based on this manual and verified by
performance, consider !oad transfer at transverse and longitudinal joints (doweled
or undoweled), concrete shoulders, curbs and gutters, and adjacent parking-lot
Ianee.
Traffic load considerations are simplified. Any designer can choose a stored
traffic load category to fit the situation. Or available traffic load data can be input.
The software runs on IBM personal computers and compatibles(128K, DOS 2.0
or later), and the package includes a floppy diskette, the user’s manual, and this
design manual, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements.
To order PCAPA~(MCO03), contact the Portland Cement Association, Order
Processing Department, 5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1083,
(800)888-6733

An .rganizati.m.( .em..t ma.. facl.r.m

PORTLAND
t. improve .nd
CEMENT
exte+a the uses d po,tla.d mme.t
ml I I ASSOCIATION
and concrete through rn.cket development, engineert.g, reyea.ch, education, md Public.(faim work.
,7-~..
‘u

5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, Illinois 60077-1083

Printed in U.S.A. Eel 09.01 P

Publication List Book Contents