Pavement Thickness Design:

Iterative Method
Assume Pavement Thickness in Inches (D) 6
Designation Parameters Formula
a log10(W18) 5.45
b ZR -0.674
c So 0.4
d 7.35log10(D+1)-0.06 6.15
Po 4.5
Pt 2
e log10[PSI/(4.2-1.5)] (0.03)
f 1+[(1.624x107)/(D+1)8.46] 2.15
g 4.22-0.32Pt 3.58
S'c 650
Cd 1
h S'c (Cd)(D0.75-1.132) 1756.07810656046
Ec 3,372,165.48
J 3.2
K 120
i (215.63)(J){D0.75-[18.42/(Ec/K)0.25]} 1,663.61

Design Equation
log10 a = b x c + d + (e/f) + g x log 10(h/i)

j log10 a 5.45
k b x c + d + (e/f) + g x log10(h/i) 5.95
Decision If (k>j) Depth Sufficient
If (k<j) Depth Not Sufficient
Accept within 5% difference 8.45%
DAY - 1 DATE:
TYPES
Motorcycle
Tricycle
Pick up
Tractor small
Truck (6 - 10 wheelers)
Jeepney
Tractor with Trailer
Draft Animal

DAY -2 DATE:
TYPES
Motorcycle
Tricycle
Pick up
Tractor small
Truck (6 - 10 wheelers)
Jeepney
Tractor with Trailer
Draft Animal

PREPARED BY:
PREPARED BY:
Design 1
Pavement Thickness Design:
0
Iterative Method
Assume Pavement Thickness in Inches (D) 20
Designation Parameters Formula where: W18 = predicted number of 80 kN (18,00
deviate 
a log10(W18) 6.11
prediction and performance prediction 
b ZR -0.674 pt =
c So 0.4 DPSI = difference betw
d 7.35log10(D+1)-0.06 9.66 po, and the design terminal serviceabil
modulus of rupture of PCC (flexural strength)
Po 4.5
coefficient
Pt 2 (value depends upon the load transfer efficiency
e log10[PSI/(4.2-1.5)] (0.03)
See m
f 1+[(1.624x107)/(D+1)8.46] 1.00 pavement-structural-design/#sthash.OUcLkk6p.
g 4.22-0.32Pt 3.58
S'c 650
Cd 1
h S'c (Cd)(D0.75-1.132) 5411.52045852064
Ec 3,372,165.48
J 3.2
K 120
i (215.63)(J){D0.75-[18.42/(Ec/K)0.25]} 5,544.10

Design Equation
log10 a = b x c + d + (e/f) + g x log 10(h/i)

j log10 a 6.11
k b x c + d + (e/f) + g x log10(h/i) 9.32
Decision If (k>j) Depth Sufficient
If (k<j) Depth Not Sufficient
 Accept within 5% difference 34.43%
A. Predicted Loading
A.1 Predicted Loading from Direct Count of Existing Vehicles
Traffic Data

a or b/Projected No.
of Units at Design Life
(assume annual
vehicle growth of No. of Trips/day No. of days a c/Total Trips (one
Type No. of Units 2.0% at SP site) (one direction) year way) Axle Type
Motorcycle 64 1555 4 365 2,270,346 Single Axle
Tricycle 22 535 365 -
Pick up 21 510 4 300 612,294
Tractor small 0 0 0 0 -
Private Vehicles 22 535 4 200 427,634
Jeepney 16 389 4 330 513,160
Tractor with Trailer (Large) 6 146 4 150 87,471
Draft Animal 15 364 2 200 145,784 Tandem Axle
Other Specify 25 607 3 150 273,345
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
Trucks 25 607 3 200 364,461
Total Load Repetitions 4,694,495
a/ linear projection (b+b(1+(rn))
b/compounded b((1+r)^n-1)/r
Traffic Projection:
A. Attracted/Diverted Traffic- increase over existing traffic due to improvement.
B. Normal Traffic Growth- increase due to increased number and usage of motor vehicles
C. Generated Traffic - increase due to motor vehicle trips that would not have been realized if new facility had not been constructed
D. Development Traffic - increase due to change in land use due to construction of the new facility.
*Combined effect is about 2% to 6% for urban and below 2% in rural areas
*Highway truck loading (DPWH) per axle is 13.5 tons.
c/divide by two or times 50% if 5 meters width or two lanes (50% distributional lane load)
A.2 Predicted Loading from ADT through Traffic Count

If AADT is known and the yearly rate of traffic growth and a design life of 20 years then Use the following table b/Projection Factor in projecting the one way total trips at design l

Yearly Rates of Traffic Growth and Corresponding Projection Factors:

Projected AADT
Yearly Rate of Traffic Growth c/Projection Factor (PF) for a 20 d/Expected Total Trips (20 years
(%) year Design Period for 1 year one way Type of Vehicle AADT lifespan)
1 1.1 ADT*PF*365 Motorcycle 256 307
1.5 1.2 ADT*PF*365 Tricycle - -
2 1.2 ADT*PF*365 Private vehicle 69 83
2.5 1.3 ADT*PF*365 - -
3 1.3 ADT*PF*365 48 58
3.5 1.4 ADT*PF*365 Jeepney 58 69
4 1.5 ADT*PF*365 Tractor 10 12
4.5 1.6 ADT*PF*365 16 20
5 1.6 ADT*PF*365 Other Specify 25 30
5.5 1.7 ADT*PF*365 - -
6 1.8 ADT*PF*365 - -
c/average projection - -
d/times 50% if two lanes (5 meters width) - -
- -
- -
Trucks 41 49
0
 Note: 2% traffic growth rate is used in the sample

B. Reliability of Traffic Count and Projection

R % reliability of performance which is between 50 to 80 in rural roads
So Standard Error in traffic prediction which is 0.40 to 0.50 for flexible pavement and 0.35 to 0.40 for rigid pavement

C. PCC Elastic Modulus

Ec 57,000 √fc' or 27,500 Mpa or 4,000,000.00 psi which corresponds to a compressive strength of 34.5 Mpa or 5,000.00 psi

D. PCC Modulus of Rupture Strength

S'c 550 psi to 700 psi
Taken from a flexural strength test: Use 650 psi from third point loading test as the most conservative.
E. Slab Depth
D unknown
F. Drainage Coefficient
Cd from 0.80 to 1.2 flexible
1.00 Rigid
quick draining layers have higher drainage coefficient
G. Serviceability
Po 4 to 5 Initial construction serviceability index
Pt 1.5 to 3 terminal construction (O&M) serviceability index
PSI (Po-pt) difference from initial to terminal construction
Present serviceability index
H. Load Transfer Coefficient
Undowelled PCC on crushed
J aggregates surfacing 3.8
Dowelled PCC on crushed
aggregates surfacing 3.2
Dowelled PCC on HMA (hot mix asphalt) 2.7
CRCP with HMA (cont reinf conc pave..) 2.9 to 3.2
CRCP with Tied PCC shoulder 2.3 to 2.9
 Fatique Analysis controls fatigue cracking; prevails in single axle load
I. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Erosion Analysis controls foundation and shoulder erosion, pumping
K 13.5 Mpa/m (50 pci for weak support) pci- pounce per sq-inch/inch deflection or pounce per cu-inch
270 Mpa/m (1000 pci for strong support)
Increase from K of sub-grade to K with sub-base
K Value Range
A. Fine-grained soils in Subgrade Soil clay
which silt and Typessize particle Engg Value as Support (pci) Sub-grade K Sub-b
predominate
B. Sand and sand-gravel mixture with moderate amounts of silt Low 75-120 Values in pci 4"
and clay Medium 130-170 50 65
C. Sand and sand-gravel mixture relatively free of plastic fine High 180-220 100 130
D. Cement-treated sub-base Very high 250-400 200 220
300 320
AASHTO Soil Classification
Soil Classification CBR VALUEs (%) K Values in pci
A-2-6, A-2-7 8.5 to 30 185 to 350
A-3 10 to 30 200 to 350
A-1-b 20 to 60 250 to 600
A-1-a 38 to 80 400 to 700
A-2-4, A-2-5 25 to 80 300 to 700
A-5 0 to 7.8 0 to 180
A-4 3 to 25 100 to 300
A-6 0 to 13 0 to 225
A-7-5, A-7-6 0 to 13 0 to 225

Outputs
The 1993 AASHTO Guide equation can be solved for any one of the variables as long as all the others are supplied.  Typically, the output is either total ESALs or the required slab
1. The slab depth (D) determines the total number of ESALs that a particular pavement can support.  This is evident in the rigid pavement design equation presente
in this section.
2. The slab depth also determines what the equivalent 80 kN (18,000 lb.) single axle load is for a given load.
Therefore, the slab depth (D) is required to determine the number of ESALs to design for before the pavement is ever designed.  The iterative design process
usually proceeds as follows:
1. Determine and gather rigid pavement design inputs (ZR, So, DPSI, pt, Ec, S’c, J, Cd and keff).
2. Determine and gather rigid pavement ESAL equation inputs (Lx, L2x, G)
3. Assume a slab depth (D).
4. Determine the equivalency factor for each load type by solving the ESAL equation using the assumed slab depth (D) for each load type.
5. Estimate the traffic count for each load type for the entire design life of the pavement and multiply it by the calculated ESAL to obtain the total number of ESALs
expected over the design life of the pavement.
6. Insert the assumed slab depth (D) into the design equation and calculate the total number of ESALs that the pavement will support over its design life.
7. Compare the ESAL values in #5 and #6.  If they are reasonably close (say within 5 percent) use the assumed slab depth (D).  If they are not reasonably close,
assume a different slab depth (D), go to step #4 and repeat the process.
 number of 80 kN (18,000 lb.) ESALs ZR = standard normal
So = combined standard error of the traffic
nce prediction  D = slab depth (inches)
pt = terminal serviceability index 
DPSI = difference between the initial design serviceability index,
sign terminal serviceability index, S'c=
CC (flexural strength) Cd = drainage
J =  load transfer coefficient
e load transfer efficiency) Ec = Elastic modulus of PCC
k = modulus of subgrade reaction -
See more at: http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/1993-aashto-rigid-
ign/#sthash.OUcLkk6p.dpuf
 Equivalent Single Axle Load (Designed ESAL)

Load Repetitions at Load Repetitions Value use for

Axle Load ESAL Factors Design Life at Design Life ESAL calculation

Tons KN lbs Flexible Rigid Flexible (a) Rigid (a)

1 8.9 2000 0.0003 0.0002 681.10 454.07
1 8.9 2000 0.0003 0.0002 - -
5 44.5 10000 0.118 0.082 72,250.66 50,208.08
6 62.3 14000 0.399 0.341 - -
8 80 18000 1 1 427,633.71 427,633.71 48.22
9 89 20000 1.4 1.57 718,424.63 805,661.91 57.86
14 133.4 30000 7.9 0 691,017.20 - 57.86
1 8.9 2000 0.0001 0.0001 14.58 14.58 9.86
7 44.5 15000 0.011 0.013 3,006.80 3,553.49 30.82
6 62.3 14000 0.042 0.048 - -
8 80 18000 0.109 0.133 - -
9 89 20000 0.162 0.206 - -
14 133.4 30000 0.703 1.14 - -
15 151.2 34000 1.11 1.92 - -
18 177.9 40000 2.06 3.74 - -
23 222.4 50000 5.03 - 1,833,236.55 - 41.10
3,746,265.23 1,287,525.84
Ave. Overload
20%
18%
 DPWH loading for two axle truck =16,880 kg GVW 13.5 tons single rear axle
DPWH loading for three axle truck =27,250 kg GVW 10.9 tons for 2 rear axles
21.8 tons rear axles

e way total trips at design life.

Load Repetitions
Axle Load ESAL Factors at Design Life

Total
Trips/year (One
Way) Axle Type Tons KN lbs Flexible Rigid Flexible (a)
112,128.00 Single Axle 1 8.9 2000 0.0003 0.0002 672.77
- 1 8.9 2000 0.0003 0.0002 -
30,240.00 5 44.5 10000 0.118 0.082 71,366.40
- 6 62.3 14000 0.399 0.341 -
21,120.00 8 80 18000 1 1 422,400.00
25,344.00 9 89 20000 1.4 1.57 709,632.00
4,320.00 14 133.4 30000 7.9 0 682,560.00
7,200.00 Tandem Axle 1 8.9 2000 0.0001 0.0001 14.40
10,950.00 5 44.5 10000 0.011 0.013 2,409.00
- 6 62.3 14000 0.042 0.048 -
- 8 80 18000 0.109 0.133 -
- 9 89 20000 0.162 0.206 -
- 14 133.4 30000 0.703 1.14 -
- 15 151.2 34000 1.11 1.92 -
- 18 177.9 40000 2.06 3.74 -
18,000.00 23 222.4 50000 5.03 - 1,810,800.00
- Total Load Repetitions 3,699,854.57
 R ZR
50 0
75 -0.674
80 -0.841

Use 3500psi 3,372,165.48 psi

5,000.00 3,500.00
4,000,000.00 X
2,800,000.00
SQRT 57,000.00 3,372,165.48
3,500.00 59.16
prevails in single axle loading and light to medium loading
houlder erosion, pumping and faulting; prevails in tandem axle loading and medium to high loading.

ade to K with sub-base

Sub-base K Value (pci)

6" 9" 12"
75 85 110
140 160 190
230 270 320
330 370 430

SALs or the required slab depth (D).  In design, the rigid pavement equation described in this chapter is typically solved simultaneously with the rigid pavement ESAL equation.   The solution
esign equation presented

ve design process
total number of ESALs
ts design life.
not reasonably close,
2 Axle
67.73

3 Axle

Ave. Overload
20.17 21.944
32.02 33.245
 ngle rear axle
or 2 rear axles

Load Repetitions at
Design Life

Rigid (a)
448.51
-
49,593.60
-
422,400.00
795,801.60
-
14.40
2,847.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,271,105.11
Name of Project : Concreting of Sito Pantaron to Brgy. Banlag Proper to Junction of Brgy. Mabuhay FMR

Station Limits : 0+000 - 14+996.22

Section ID:
Location : Sitio Pantaron, Brgy. Banlag-Purok 3, Brgy. Mabuhay

RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN USING CUMULATIVE EQUIVALENT SINGLE AXLE LOAD (CESAL)

1.) Determine the Design Traffic for Each Vehicle Type.

Design Traffic = Pi (1+i)n - 1 365

i
where,
Pi = Annual Average Daily Traffic
i = Traffic Growth Rate
N = Design Life Period (20 years for PCCP,10 years for ACP)

2.) Determine the Traffic Equivalence Factor (EF) for each vehicle type.

The damaging effect per pass to a pavement by a type of axle relative to the damage per pass of a
standard axle load ( ussually the 8,200 kg. single axle load) is expressed as Equivalent Factor (EF). The EF
for each axle is calculated using the following formula.

4
axle load(tons)
EF =
8.2

Then, determine the EF for each vehicle type.

4
axle load(tons)
EF = Σ
8.2

3.) Compute the Cumulative Equivalent Single Axle Load (CESAL) for each vehicle type.

ESAL = (Design Traffic x DD x DL) EF

Page 18 of 23
 where,
DD = Directional distribution factor, which is generally 50%
DL = Lane Distribution Factor

The DL factor may be calculated using the Table:

Table for Lane Distribution Factor

Number of Lanes in each Percentage of 18-tons ESAL in
direction the design Lane
1 100%
2 80% - 100%
3 60% - 80%
4 50% - 75%

4.) Add the ESAL for all vehicle types.

CESAL = Design x 50% x 100% x EF2 axle + Design x 50% x 100% x EF3 axle
(W18) Traffic2 axle Traffic3 axle

+ Design x 50% x 100% x EF4 axle

Traffic3 axle

DETAILED CALCULATION OF CESAL

Page 19 of 23
I) DATA
- Taken from the AADT of a given road section.

Truck Type AADT (one direction)

2-axle 68
3-axle 41
4-axle 0

Assumed traffic growth rate = 2%

Design Period = 20 years

II) DESIGN CALCULATION

1. Determine the Design Traffic for each truck type.

a) 2-axle trucks = 67.726 (1+ 0.02 )20- 1 365 = 600,631

2%

b) 3-axle trucks = 41.096 (1+ 0.02 )20- 1 365 = 364,461

2%

c) 4-axle trucks = 0 (1+ 0.02 )20- 1 365 = 0

2%

2. Determine the equivalence factor (EF) for each axle and truck type.

The table on GVW and maximum allowable axle load prescribed under RA 8794 as shown will be used in
calculating the EF of each truck type.

GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT (GVW) PER RA 8794

Truck Type Code GVW (kg.)
2 - axle 1-1 16,880

Page 20 of 23
 3 - axle 1-2 27,250
4 - axle 11 - 3 30,380

Maximum allowable axle load = 13,500.00 kg.

a) In a 2 - axle truck, the load distribution for each axle is as shown in the figure below

Axle 1 Axle 2

Dist. b/n axles

0.2 (GVW) 0.8 (GVW)

= 3.38 tons 13.50 tons

4 4
3.38 13.50
EF2 axle = + = 7.38
8.2 8.2

b) In a 3 - axle truck, the load distribution for each axle is as shown in the figure below

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3

Dist. b/n axles

0.2 (GVW) 0.4 (GVW) 0.4 (GVW)

5.45 tons 10.90 tons 10.90 tons

4 4 4
5.45 10.90 10.90
EF3 axle = + + = 6.44
8.2 8.2 8.2

c) In a 4 - axle truck, the load distribution for each axle is as shown in the figure below

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4

Page 21 of 23
 0.169 (GVW) 0.298 (GVW) 0.279 (GVW) 0.254 (GVW)
5.13 tons 9.05 tons 8.48 tons 7.72 tons

4 4 4 4
5.13 9.05 8.48 7.72
EF3 axle = + + + = 3.57
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2

3. Determine for CESAL for all types of Vehicles

CESAL (W18) = ( 600,631 x 50% x 100% x 7.38 ) + ( 364,461 x 50% x

50% x 6.44 ) +( 0 x 50% x 100% x 3.57 )

= 2.80 x 10⁶

4. Determine the Thickness of PCCP

Rigid Pavement Design Design Conditions:

- Design Period: 20 years
- Loading: Actual (100%)
Design Equation: (including overloaded-trucks)
log10W18 = ZR*So + 7.35*log10(D+1) - 0.06 + {log10[APSI/(4.5 - 1.5)]} / {1 + [(1.624*107)/(D+1)8.46]} - Design ESAL: 2.800 x 106
+ (4.22 - 0.32pt)*log10{[Sc' * Cd(D0.75 - 1.132)] / [215.63*J(D0.75-(18.42/(Ec/k)0.25))]} - Concrete Strength: 3,500 psi
DESIGN PARAMETERS: Flexural at 14-days (3.80 kN/mm2)
Design Performance Period, = 20 years Note: with Dowel Bars
Design Traffic: (ESAL), W18 = 2.800 x 106 (18 KIP ESAL)
Design Reliability, R= 75 % PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
Standard Normal Deviation, ZR = -0.674
Standard Error, So = 0.40 PCC Thickness
Design Terminal Serviciability Index, pt = 2.00 T= 20 cm
Design Serviciability Loss, APSI = 2.50
PCCP Modulus of Rapture, S'c = 583 psi Aggregate Sub-Base Thickness
PCCP Modulus of Elasticity, Ec = 3.372 x 106 psi T= 20 cm
Design Subgrade, CBR = 4.60% ////\\\\////\\\ Subgrade CBR = 4.60%
Effective Roadbed Resilient Modulus, Mr = 5,800 psi

Page 22 of 23
 Sub-base Elastic Modulus Esb = 15,000 psi (MR = 5,800 psi )
Sub-base Thickness, Item 200 = 20 cm
Effective Modulus @ Subgrade Reaction, k= 120.00 pci
Drainage Coefficient, Cd = 1.00
Load Transfer Coefficient, J= 3.20 with Dowel Bars
Loss of Support, LS = 1.00
kcorrected = 120 pci

(For try&error computation)

6.447 6.446

Result:
D= 7.892 inches o.k. !!! 20.05 cm, Say 20 cm ( = 7.9 inches )

Notes: with Dowel Bars at Contraction Joints

Since the computed D is 200.5 mm but the calculated CESAL is less than 7 x 106 per D.O. # 22, series of 2011,
the total Thickness of PCCP D = 20 cm shall be adopted for this particular project.

Page 23 of 23