Chapter 7 – Pavement Design

020ROUGS4 – Road and Pavement Engineering

1 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design
Procedure
 The design procedure for rigid pavements presented in the AASHTO design
guide is also based on the field results of the AASHO Road Test.
 The AASHTO design procedure is applicable to jointed plain concrete
pavements, jointed reinforced concrete pavements, and continuously
reinforced concrete pavements.
 The idea with both jointed-reinforced and continuously-reinforced pavements
is to permit slab cracking but to provide sufficient slab reinforcement to hold
the cracks tightly together to ensure load transfer.
 The design procedure for rigid pavements is based on a selected reduction in
serviceability and is similar to the procedure for flexible pavements.
 However, instead of measuring pavement strength by using a structural
number, the thickness of the PCC slab is the measure of strength. The
regression equation that is used (in U.S. Customary units) to determine the
thickness of a rigid-pavement PCC slab is:

2 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
[Eq. 4.4]

3 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
W18 – The 18-kip equivalent Single-Axle Load
 The 18-kip–equivalent single-axle load is the same concept as discussed
for the flexible-pavement design procedure.
 However, instead of being a function of the structural number, this
value is a function of slab thickness.
 The axle load equivalency factors used in rigid-pavement design are
presented in Tables 4.6 (for single axles), 4.7 (for tandem axles), and
4.8 (for triple axles).

4 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
Load Equivalency Factors: LEF (Single Axle – TSI = 2.5)

5 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
Load Equivalency Factors: LEF (Tandem Axles – TSI = 2.5)

6 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
Load Equivalency Factors: LEF (Triple Axles – TSI = 2.5)

7 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
ZR, S0, TSI, ΔPSI
 ZR As in flexible-pavement design, the reliability, ZR, is defined as the
probability that serviceability will be maintained at adequate levels
from a user’s point of view throughout the design life of the facility
(the PSI will stay above the TSI).

 In the rigid-pavement design nomograph (Figs. 4.7 and 4.8), the

probabilities (in percent) are used directly (instead of ZR as in Eq. 4.4),
and these percent probabilities are denoted R (see Table 4.4, which still
applies).

8 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
ZR, S0, TSI, ΔPSI
 So As in flexible-pavement design, the overall standard deviation, So, takes
into account designers’ inability to accurately estimate future 18-kip–
equivalent axle loads and the statistical error in the equations resulting from
variability in materials and construction practices.

 TSI The pavement’s terminal serviceability index, TSI, is the point at which
the pavement can no longer perform in a serviceable manner, as discussed
previously for the flexible-pavement design procedure.

 Δ PSI The amount of serviceability loss, Δ PSI, over the life of the pavement is
the difference between the initial PSI and the TSI, as discussed for the flexible
pavement design procedure.

9 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
S’c – Concrete’s Modulus of Rupture
 The concrete modulus of rupture, S’c, is a measure of the tensile strength of
the concrete and is determined by loading a beam specimen, at the third
points, to failure.
 The test method is ASTM C78, Flexural Strength of Concrete.
 Because concrete gains strength with age, the average 28-day strength is used
for design purposes. Typical values are 3450 to 8270 kPa (500 to 1200
lb/in2).
PL
S'c = 1.05
bd 2
d = 6” = b

L = 18”
10 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI
 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
Cd – The Drainage Coefficient
 The drainage coefficient, Cd, is slightly different from the value used in
flexible-pavement design.
 In rigid-pavement design, it accounts for the drainage characteristics of
the subgrade.
 A value of 1.0 for the drainage coefficient represents a material with
good drainage characteristics (such as a sandy material).
 Soils with less-than-ideal drainage characteristics will have drainage
coefficients less than 1.0.

11 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
J – The Load Transfer Coefficient
 The load transfer coefficient, J, is a factor that is used to account for
the ability of pavement to transfer a load from one PCC slab to another
across the slab joints.

 Many rigid pavements have dowel bars across the joints to transfer
loads between slabs. Pavements with dowel bars at the joints are
typically designed with a J value of 3.2.

12 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
Ec – The Concrete’s Modulus of Elasticity
 The concrete modulus of elasticity, Ec, is derived from the stress-strain
curve as taken in the elastic region.
 The modulus of elasticity is also known asYoung’s modulus.
 Typical values of Ec for portland cement concrete are between 20.7
and 48.3 GPa (3 and 7 million lb/in2).

Stress  = P/A
Longitudinal Strain L=ΔL/L
Diametral Strain D =ΔD/D
Modulus of Elasticity E =/ L
Poisson’s Ratio  = - D/ L

13 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI Load P

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
PCC Compressive Strength f’c
 The specimens used for compressive strength are cylinders, made in
the laboratory, in the field or from cores
 Most pavement PCC has a compressive strength between 3,000 and
5,000 psi
 AASHTO T 22 or ASTM C 39

Pultimate
f =
'
c
Area D = 6”
h = 12”
ACI:

Ec and f’c in psi

14 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
k - Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
 The modulus of subgrade reaction, k, is the estimate of the support of the
layers below the PCC slab.
 It depends upon several different factors, including the moisture content and
density of the soil.

 It should be noted that most highway agencies do not perform testing to

measure the k value of the soil.
 At best, the agency will have a CBR value for the subgrade.
 Typical values for k range from 0.0271 to 0.2165 N/mm3 (100 to 800
lb/in3).
15 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI
 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
k - Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
 Plate load test is used to measure the modulus of subgrade reaction k

AASHTO T 222 or
ASTM D 1196
P
k=
Δ

where: k = spring constant = modulus of subgrade reaction k

P = applied pressure (load divided by area of 30”  plate)
 = measured deflection of the 30”  plate

16 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
k - Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

17 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
Load Distribution Factor (Rigid and Flexible)
 When there are multiple lanes of a highway in one direction
[Eq. 4.5]

 W18 = 80.1-kN (18-kip)–equivalent single-axle load (ESAL)

 PDL = proportion of directional W18 assumed to be in the design
lane

18 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 5 – Traditional AASHTO Rigid -Pavement Design Procedure
Design Chart – Segment 1

19 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 Design Chart – Segment 2

Example:

20 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 Example 4.3 – Rigid Pavement Design:
Slab Thickness Determination
 A rigid pavement is to be designed to provide a service life of 20 years and has an initial PSI of 4.4 and a
TSI of 2.5. The modulus of subgrade reaction is determined to be 0.0813 N/mm3 (300 lb/in3). For
design, the number of vehicles per day (vpd) and axle weights are shown below:

20,000 vpd -------

200 vpd -------

410 vpd ------

 Reliability is 95%, the overall standard deviation is 0.45, the concrete’s modulus of elasticity is 31.03 GPa
(4.5 million lb/in2), the concrete’s modulus of rupture is 6210 kPa (900 psi), the load transfer coefficient
is 3.2, and the drainage coefficient is 1.0. Determine the required slab thickness.

21 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 Example 4.4 – Rigid Pavement Design with Traffic
Distribution by Lane
 In 1996, a rigid pavement on a northbound section of interstate highway was designed
with a 304.8-mm (12-inch) PCC slab, an Ec of 41.37 GPa (6 × 106 lb/in2), a concrete
modulus of rupture of 5,520 kPa (800 lb/in2), a load transfer coefficient of 3.0, an initial
PSI of 4.5, and a terminal serviceability index of 2.5.
 The overall standard deviation was 0.45, the modulus of subgrade reaction was 0.05149
N/mm3 (190 lb/in3), and a reliability of 95% was used along with a drainage coefficient
of 1.0. The pavement was designed for a 20-year life, and traffic was assumed to be
composed entirely of tractor semi-trailer trucks with one 71.2-kN (16-kip) single axle,
one 88.9-kN (20-kip) single axle, and one 155.7-kN (35-kip) tandem axle (the effect of
all other vehicles was ignored).
 The interstate has four northbound lanes and was conservatively designed. How many
tractor semi-trailer trucks, per day, were assumed to be traveling in the northbound
direction?

22 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 Example 4.5 – Flexible and Rigid Pavement Design-
Life equivalence
 A new flexible pavement was designed for four lanes of traffic
(conservatively designed for load distribution among the lanes). The
design is for a total directional daily traffic of 967 44.48 N (10-kip)
single axles and 1935 133.4 kN (30-kip) tandem axles.
 The pavement has an 203 mm (8-in) hot-mix asphaltic (HMA) surface,
254 mm (10-in) dense-graded crushed stone base and a 254 mm (10-
in) crushed-stone subbase (the drainage coefficients are 0.9 for the base
and 0.78 for the subbase).
 The soil CBR is 2, the reliability used was 95%, the overall standard
deviation was 0.4, initial PSI was 4.5, and the TSI was 2.5.

23 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 Example 4.5 – Flexible and Rigid Pavement Design-
Life equivalence
 Determine the required slab thickness for a rigid pavement designed to
last the same number of years as the flexible pavement, but with only
three lanes (instead of four) in the design direction (again,
conservatively designing for the load distribution among the lanes).

 The design is to use the same truck traffic, reliability, soil, initial PSI,
TSI, and overall standard deviations as the flexible pavement. In
addition, the rigid pavement is to have a modulus of rupture of 5516
kPa (800 lb/in2), a concrete modulus of elasticity of 37.92 Gpa (5.5 ×
106 lb/in2), a load transfer coefficient of 3.0, and a drainage coefficient
of 0.9.

24 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 Example 4.6 – Flexible and Rigid Pavement Design-
Life Comparison
 A roadway is determined to have 400 80.1 kN (18-kip) single axles,
200 106.8 kN (24-kip) tandem axles and 100 177. kN (40-kip) triple
axles per day.
 The subgrade CBR is 2 and the roadway pavement is designed for an
overall standard deviation of 0.4, a reliability of 99 percent and the
initial PSI is 4.5 and the TSI is 2.5.
 One newly constructed section of this roadway is a rigid pavement
designed with a 229 mm (9-inch) slab with a modulus of rupture of
4827 kPa (700 lb/in2), a modulus of elasticity of 27.58 GPa (4.0 × 106
lb/in2), and a joint transfer coefficient of 3.0.

25 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 Example 4.6 – Flexible and Rigid Pavement Design-
Life Comparison
 Another newly constructed section of the same roadway is a flexible
pavement with a 127 mm (5-in) hot-mix asphalt (HMA) surface, 254
mm (10-in) dense-graded crushed stone base and a 229 mm (9-in)
crushed-stone subbase.

 If the roadway has four lanes in each direction and is conservatively

designed, which of the pavement sections will last longer and by how
many years (all drainage coefficients are 1.0)?

26 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI

 References
 Mannering, Fred L.; Washburn, Scott S.;
Principles of Highway Engineering and Traffic
Analysis, 5th Edition SI Version; ISBN-13:
9781118471395 – Chapter 3.
 American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
6th Edition, Washington, DC, 2011.

27 020ROUGS4 - Farah HOMSI