Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
.
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................... 3 Aggregate Interlock or Doweled Joints ........ 30
Applications of Design Procedures ............... 3 User-Developed Design Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Computer Programs Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Appendix A . Development of Design
Metric Version ................................ 4 Procedure ..................................... 32
Analysis of Concrete Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Chapter 2. Design Factors ........................ 5 Jointed Pavements ......................... 32
Flexural Strength of Concrete ................... 5 Continuously Reinforced Pavements .......... 33
Subgrade and Subbase Support ................. 6 Truck-Load Placement ........................ 33
Design Period ................................ 6 Variation in Concrete Strength .................34
Traffic ....................................... 8 Concrete Strength Gain with Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Warping and Curling of Concrete ............... 34
Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. Fatigue ..................................... 34
ADTT ..................................... 8 Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Truck Directional Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Axle-Load Distribution ..................... 10 Appendix B . Design of Concrete Pavements
Load Safety Factors .......................... 10 with Lean Concrete Lower Course ................36
Lean Concrete Subbase .......................36
Chapter 3. Design Procedure Monolithic Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
(Axle-Load Data Available) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1
Fatigue Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Appendix C . Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads ....... 39
Erosion Analysis ............................. I I
Sample Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix D . Estimating Traffic Volume
by Capacity ................................... 42
Chapter 4. Simplified Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Not Available) .................. 23 Appendix E . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Sample Problems ............................30
Comments on Simplified Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Design Worksheet for Reproduction .............. 47
Modulus of Rupture ........................ 30
Design Period ............................. 30
Figures 13b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3-Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
1. Flexural strength, age, and design relationships. 14a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 4-Pave-
2. Approximate interrelationships of soil classifications ments with Doweled Joints
and bearing values. 14b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 4-Pave-
3. Proportion of trucks in right lane of a multilane ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
divided highway. 15. Axle-Load Distribution Used for Preparing Design
4. Design I A. Tables 1 1 Through 14
5. Fatigue analysis-allowable load repetitions based C l . Equivalent Stress - Tridems
on stress ratio factor (with and without concrete C2. Erosion Factors Tridems - Doweled Joints
-
Tables
1. Effect of Untreated Subbase on k Values
2. Design k Values for Cement-Treated Subbase
3. Yearly Rates of Traffic Growth and Corresponding
Projection Factors
4. Percentages of Four-Tire Single Units and Trucks
(ADTT) on Various Highway Systems
5. Axle-Load Data
6a. Equivalent Stress-No Concrete Shoulder
6b. Equivalent Stress-Concrete Shoulder
7a. Erosion Factors-Doweled Joints, No Concrete
Shoulder
7b. Erosion Factors-Aggregate-Interlock Joints, No
Concrete Shoulder
8a. Erosion Factors-Doweled Joints, Concrete
Shoulder
8b. Erosion Factors-Aggregate-Interlock Joints,
Concrete Shoulder
9. Axle-Load Categories
10. Subgrade Soil Types and Approximate k Values
11. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 1-Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
12a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2-Pave-
ments with Doweled Joints
12b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2-Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
13a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3-Pave-
ments with Doweled Joints
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This bulletin deals with methods of determining slab Applications of Design Procedures
thicknesses adequate t o carry traffic loads on concrete
streets, roads, and highways. The design procedures given in this text apply to the fol-
The design purpose is the same as for other engineered lowing types of concrete pavements: plain, plain doweled,
structures-to find the minimum thickness that will re- reinforced, and continuously reinforced.
sult in the lowest annual cost as shown by both first cost Plain pavements are constructed without reinforcing
and maintenance costs. If the thickness is greater than steel or doweled joints. Load transfer at the joints is ob-
needed, the pavement will give good service with low tained by aggregate interlock between the cracked faces
maintenance costs, but first cost will be high. If the thick- below the joint saw cut o r groove. For load transfer to be
ness is not adequate, premature and costly maintenance effective, it is necessary that short joint spacings be used.
and interruptions in traffic will more than offset the lower Plain-doweled pavements are built without reinforcing
first cost. Sound engineering requires thickness designs steel; however, smooth steel dowel bars are installed as
that properly balance first cost and maintenance costs. load transfer devices at each contraction joint and rela-
While this bulletin is confined to the topic of thickness tively short joint spacings are used to control cracking.
design, other design aspects are equally important to en- Reinforced pavements contain reinforcing steel and
sure the performance and long life of concrete pavements. dowel bars for load transfer at the contractionjoints. The
These include- pavements are constructed with longer joint spacings
Provision for reasonably uniform support. (See Sub- than used for unreinforced pavements. Between thejoints,
grades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements.*) one o r more transverse cracks will usually develop; these
Prevention of mud-pumping with a relatively thin are held tightly together by the reinforcing steel and good
untreated o r cement-treated subbase on projects load transfer is provided.
where the expected truck traffic will be great enough Commonly used joint spacings that perform well are 15
t o cause pumping. (The need for and requirements of ft for plain pavements,tt not more than 20 ft for plain-
subbase are also given in the booklet cited above.) doweled pavements, and not more than about 40 ft for
reinforced pavements. Joint spacings greater than these
Use of a joint design that will afford adequate load
have been used but sometimes greater spacing causes
transfer; enable joint sealants, if required, t o beeffec-
pavement distress at joints and intermediate cracks be-
tive; and prevent joint distress due to infiltration.
tween joints.
(See Joint Design for Concrete Highway and Street
Continuously reinforced pavements are built without
Pavements.**)
contraction joints. Due to the relatively heavy, continu-
Use of a concrete mix design a n d aggregates that will ous-steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direction,
provide quality concrete with the strength and dura- these pavements develop transverse cracks at close inter-
bility needed for long life under the actual exposure vals. A high degree of load transfer is developed at these
conditions. (See Design and Control of Concrete crack faces held tightly together by steel reinforcement.
Mixtures.7) The design procedures given here cover design condi-
The thickness design criteria suggested are based on tions that have not been directly addressed before by
general pavement performance experience. If regional o r
local specific performance experience becomes available
for more favorable o r adverse conditions, the design cri- *Portland Cement Associat~onpubl~cationIS029P.
**Portland Cement Association publication IS059P.
teria can be appropriately modified. This could be the tPortland Cement Association publ~cationEB001T.
case for particular climate, soil, o r drainage conditions t t For very thin pavements,a 15-ftjoint spacing may beexcessive -see
and future design innovations. the aforementioned PCA publication on joint design.
other procedures. These include recognition of- I . Theoretical studies of pavement slab behavior by
1. The degree of load transfer a t transverse joints pro- ~ e s t e r ~ a a r d , " - ~Pickett
'* and ~ a ~"and , ' recently
~
vided by the different pavement types described. developed finite-element computer analyses, one of
2. The effect of using a concrete shoulder adjacent to which is used as the basis for this design procedure.'8'
the pavement; concrete shoulders reduce the flex- 2. Model and full-scale tests such as Arlington ~ e s t s " '
and several research projects conducted b PCA and
ural stresses and deflections caused by vehicle loads.
other agencies on s~bbases,'~~~'~'joints"~ Y"andcon-
3. The effect of using a lean concrete (econocrete) sub-
Crete shoulder^."^ 20'
base, which reduces pavement stresses and deflec-
tions, provides considerable support when trucks 3. Experimental pavements subjected to controlled test
pass over joints, and provides resistance t o subbase traffic, such as the Bates Test ~ o a d , " " the Pitts-
erosion caused by repeated pavement deflections. burg Test ~ i ~ h w a the ~ , Mar
' ~ ~ land
' Rbad ~ e s t , " "
4. Two design criteria: (a) fatigue, t o keep pavement the AASHO** Road Test, ( 2 4 - 2 4 and studies of in-
service highway pavements made by various state
stresses due t o repeated loads within safe limits and
departments of transportation.
thus prevent fatigue cracking; and (b) erosion, to
limit the effects of pavement deflectionsat slabedges, 4. The performance of normally constructed pave-
joints, and corners and thus control the erosion of ments subject to normal mixed traffic.
foundation and shoulder materials. The criterion for All these sources of knowledge are useful. However,
erosion is needed since some modes of pavement the knowledge gained from performance of normally
distress such as pumping, faulting, and shoulder constructed pavements is the most important. Accord-
distress are unrelated t o fatigue. ingly, it is essential t o examine the relationship between
5. Triple axles can be considered in design. While the the roles that performance and theory play in a design
conventional single-axle and tandem-axle config- procedure. Sophisticated theoretical methods developed
urations are still the predominant loads on highways, in recent years permit the responses of the pavement-
use of triple axles (tridems) is increasing. They are stresses, deflections, pressures-to be more accurately
seen on some over-the-road trucks and on special modeled. This theoretical analysis is a necessary part of
roads used for hauling coal o r other minerals. Tri- a mechanistic design procedure, for it allows considera-
dems may be more damaging from a n erosion crite- tion of a full range of design-variable combinations. An
rion (deflection) than from a fatigue criterion. important second aspect of the design procedure is the
Selection of an adequate thickness is dependent upon criteria applied t o the theoretically computed values-
the choice of other design features-jointing system, type the limiting or allowable values of stress, deflection, or
of subbase if needed, and shoulder type. pressure. Defining the criteria so that design results are
With these additional design conditions, the thickness related t o pavement performance experience and research
requirements of design alternatives, which influence cost, data is critical in developing a design procedure.
can be directly compared. The theoretical parts of the design procedures given
Chapter 2describes how the factors needed for solving here are based on a comprehensive analysis of concrete
a design problem are determined. Chapter 3 details the stresses and deflections by a finite-element computer pro-
full design procedure that is used when specific axle-load- gram.'8' The program models the conventional design
distribution data are known or estimated. If detailed factors of concrete properties, foundation support, and
axle-load data are not available, the design can be accom- loadings, plus joint load transfer by dowels or aggregate
plished a s described in Chapter 4, by the selection of one interlock and concrete shoulder, for axle-load placements
of several categories of data that represent a range of at slab interior, edge, joint, and corner.
pavement facilities varying from residential streets up to The criteria for the design procedures are based on the
busy interstate highways. pavement design, performance, and research experience
referenced above including relationships t o performance
of avements at the A A S H O Road ~ e s t 'and ~ ~ to
' stud-
Computer Programs Available ies'' ") of the faulting of pavements.
More information on development and basis of the de-
Thickness design problems can be worked out by hand sign procedure is given in Appendix A and Reference 30.
with the tables and charts provided here or by computer
and microcomputer with programs that are available Metric Version
from Portland Cement Association.
A metric version of this publication is also available from
Portland Cement Association-publication EB209P.
Basis for Design
*Superscript numbers In parentheses denote referencesat the end of
The thickness design methods presented here are based this text.
on knowledge of pavement theory, performance, and re- **Now the American Association of State Hlghway and Transporta-
search experience from the following sources: tion Officials (AASHTO).
CHAPTER 2
Design Factors
After selection of the type of concrete pavement (plain The modulus of rupture can be found by cantilever,
pavement with o r without dowels, reinforced jointed center-point, o r third-point loading. An important dif-
pavement with dowels, o r continuously reinforced pave- ference in these test methods is that the third-point test
ment), type of subbase if needed, and type of shoulder shows the minimum strength of the middle third of the
(with o r without concrete shoulder, curb and gutter o r test beam, while the other two methods show strength at
integral curb), thickness design is determined based on only one point. The value determined by the more con-
four design factors: servative third-point method (American Society for Test-
1. Flexural strength of the concrete (modulus of rup- ing and Materials, ASTM C78) is used for design in this
ture, M R ) procedure.*
2. Strength of the subgrade, o r subgrade and subbase Modulus of rupture tests are commonly made at 7, 14,
combination (k) 28, and 90 days. The 7- and 1 4 d a y test results are com-
pared with specification requirements forjob control and
3. The weights, frequencies, and types of truck axle for determining when pavements can be opened to traffic.
loads that the pavement will carry The 28-day test results have been commonly used for
4. Design period, which in this and other pavement de- thickness design of highways and streets and are recom-
sign procedures is usually taken a t 20 years, but may mended for use with this procedure; 9 0 d a y results are
be more o r less used for the design of airfields. These values are used be-
These design factors are discussed in more detail in the cause there are very few stress repetitions during the first
following sections. Other design considerations incorpo- 28 o r 90days of pavement lifeas compared to the millions
rated in the procedure are discussed in Appendix A. of stress repetitions that occur later.
Concrete continues t o gain strength with age as shown
in Fig. I . Strength gain is shown by the solid curve, which
Flexural Strength of Concrete represents average M R values for several series by lab-
oratory tests, field-cured test beams, and sections of con-
Consideration of the flexural strength of the concrete is crete taken from pavements in service.
applicable in the design procedure for the fatigue crite- In this design procedure the effects** of variations in
rion, which controls cracking of the pavement under concrete strength from point t o point in the pavement
repetitive truck loadings. and gains in concrete strength with age are incorporated
Bending of a concrete pavement under axle loads pro- in the design charts and tables. The designer does not di-
duces both compressive and flexural stresses. However, rectly apply these effects but simply inputs the average
the ratios of compressive stresses to compressive strength 28-day strength value.
are too small to influence slab thickness design. Ratios of
flexural stress to flexural strength are much higher, often
exceeding values of 0.5. As a result, flexural stresses and
flexural strength of the concrete are used in thickness de-
sign. Flexural strength is determined by modulus of rup-
ture tests, usually made on 6 x 6 ~ 3 0 - i n .beams. * F o r a standard 3 0 - ~ n beam.
. center-polnt-loading test values will be
For specific projects, the concrete mix should be de- about 75 psi higher, and cantdever-loading test values about 160 p s ~
signed to give both adequate durability and flexural higher than thlrd-potnt-loading test values. These higher values are not
intended t o be used for design purposes. If these other lest methods are
strength a t the lowest possible cost. Mix design proce- used, a downward adjustment should be made by establishinga corre-
dures are described in the Portland Cement Association lation t o third-point-load test values.
publication Design and Control of Concrete Mi.utures. **These effects a r e discussed In Appendix A.
Table 1. Effect of Untreated Subbase
on k Values,
Subgrade S u b b a s e k value, pci
k value.
12 in
(1) For the basic Idea, see 0. J. Porter, "Foundations for Flex~blePavements," H~ghwayResearch Board Proceedfngs of the Twenty-second Annual
Meetfng, 1942, Vol 22, pages 100-136.
(2) ASTM Oes~gnatlon02487
(3) "Classif~cat~on of H~ghwaySubgrade Mater~als."Htghway Research Board Proceedfngs 01 the Twenty-111th Annual Meetmg. 1945. Vol 25, pages
376-392.
(4) Afrport Pavfng. U.S Department of Commerce. Federal A v ~ a t ~ oAgency,
n May 1948, pages 11-16 Est~mateduslng values gtven In FAA Desfgn
Manual for Afrport Pavements (Formerly used FAA Classif~catton.U n ~ f ~ eClassiflcatlon
d now used )
(5) C E Warnes. "Correlation Between R Value and k Value," unpubl~shedreport. Portland Cement Assoc~at~on. Rocky Mounta~n-Northwest
Reg~on.October 1971 (best-fit correlat~onwtth correction for saturat~on)
(6) See T. A M~ddlebrooksand G. E Bertram. "So11Tests for Design of Runway Pavements." Htghway Research Board Proceedtngs of the Twenty-
second Annual Meet~ng,1942, Vol 22, page 152
(7) See Item (6). page 184.
35 years. Yearly I 1
The design period selected affects thickness design
rate of
traffic I Projection 1 ~roiection
since it determines how many years, and thus how many
trucks, the pavement must serve. Selection of the design O/O 1 factor.
20 years I factor.
40 years
period for a specific project is based on engineering judg-
ment and economic analysis of pavement costs and serv-
ice provided throughout the entire period.
1216
ADTT = -
9492
x 100 = 13%
Hlghway
system
Interstate
Other federal-
a~dprlmary
Federal-a~d
secondary
Truck Directional Distribution Table 5. Axle-Load Data
In most design problems, it is assumed that the weights (3)
Axles per
and volumes of trucks traveling in each directionare fairly Axles per 1000 Axles In
equal-50-50 distribution-the design assumes that pave- Axle load. 1000 trucks design
kips trucks (adjusted) period
ment in each direction carries half the total ADTT. This p- --
may not be true in special cases where many of the trucks S ~ n g l eaxles
may be hauling full loads in one direction and returning 28-30 0.28
empty in the other direction. If such is the case, an appro- 26-28 0.65
priate adjustment is made. 24-26 1.33
22-24 2.84
Axle-Load Distribution 20-22 4.72
Data on the axle-load distribution of the truck traffic is 18-20 10.40
needed to compute the numbers of single and tandem 16-18 13.56
axles* of various weights expected during the design per- 14-16 18 64
iod. These data can be determined in one of three ways: 12-14 25 89
(I) special traffic studies t o establish the Ioadometer data 10-12 81 05
for the specific project; (2) data from the state highway
Tandem axles
department's loadometer weight stations (Table W-4) or
weigh-in-motion studies on routes representing truck
weights and types that are expected to be similar to the
project under design; (3) when axle-load distribution
data are not available, methods described in Chapter 4
based on categories of representative data for different
types of pavement facilities.
The use of axle-load data is illustrated in Table 5 in
which Table W-4 data have been grouped by 2-kip and
4-kip increments for single- and tandem-axle loads, re-
spectively. The data under the heading "Axles per 1000
Trucks" are in a convenient form for computing the axle-
load distribution. However, an adjustment must be made. Columns 1 and 2der1vedfrom loadometer W-4 Table Thls tablealsoshows
13 215 total trucks counted wlth 6 918 two-axle four-tlre trucks (52%)
Column 2 of Table 5 gives values for all trucks, including
Column 3 Column 2 values adjusted for two-axle four-t~retrucks, equal
the unwanted values for panels, pickups, and other four- to Column 21(1 - 521100)
tire vehicles. T o overcome this difficulty, the tabulated Column 4 = C o l u m n 3 (trucks1ndes1gnper1od)l1000
~ Seesampleproblem
values are adjusted as described in the Table 5 notes. Des~gn1 In which trucks In deslgn pertod (oned~rectton) total 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 I sample problem given in for such things as unpredicted truck overloads and nor-
Chapter 3. 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
Load Safety Factors heavy truck loads and volumes and a higher level of pave-
ment serviceability appropriate for higher type pave-
In the design procedure, the axle loads determined in the ment facilities.
previous section are multiplied by a load safety factor In special cases, the use of a load safety factor as high as
(LSF). These load safety factors are recommended: 1.3 may be justified to maintain a higher-than-normal
For Interstate and other multilane projects where level of pavement serviceability throughout the design
there will be uninterrupted traffic flow and high vol- period. An example is a very busy urban freeway with no
umes of truck traffic, L S F = 1.2. alternate detour routes for the traffic. Here, it may be
For highways and arterial streets where there will be better t o provide a premium facility to circumvent for a
moderate volumes of truck traffic, L S F = 1.1. long time the need for any significant pavement main-
tenance that would disrupt traffic flow.
For roads, residential streets, and other streets that
will carry small volumes of truck traffic, L S F = 1.0.
Aside from the load safety factors, a degree of conserv- *See Appendix C i f i t isexpected that trucks with tridem loads will be
atism is provided in the design procedure to compensate ~ncludedin the traffic forecast.
CHAPTER 3
Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Available)
The methods in this chapter are used when detailed axle- Without concrete shoulder, use Table 6a and Fig. 5
loaddistribution data have been determined or estimated With concrete shoulder, use Table 66 and Fig. 5
as described in Chapter 2.* Procedure Steps:
Fig. 4 is a worksheet** showing the format for com- 1. Enter as items 8 and I I on the worksheet from the
pleting design prob1ems.t It requires as input data the appropriate 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. Fill in Column 4, "Allowable Repetitions," deter-
combinationtt 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
Expected number of axle-load repetitions during the bottom.
the design period (Column 3)
Both a fatigue analysis (to control fatigue cracking)
and a n 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$-use Table 7a and Fig. 6a.
roads regardless of whether the joints are doweled or not) Aggregate-interlock joints-use Table 76 and Fig.
and medium traffic pavements with doweled joints. 60.
The erosion analysis will usually control the design of
With concrete shoulder
medium- and heavy-traffic pavements with undoweled
(aggregate-interlock) joints and heavy-traffic pavements Doweled joints o r continuously reinforced pave-
with doweled joints. mentsf-use Table 8a and Fig. 66.
For pavements carrying a normal mix of axle weights, Aggregate-interlockjoints-use Tablegband Fig. 66.
single-axle loads are usually more severe in the fatigue Procedure Steps:
analysis, and tandem-axle loads are more severe in the
I. Enter the erosion factors from the appropriate table
erosion analysis.
as items 10 and 13 in the worksheet.
The step-by-step design procedure is as follows: The
design input data shown at the top of Fig. 4 are estab- 2. Fill in Column 6, "Allowable Repetitions," from
lished and Columns I and 3 are filled out. The axle loads Fig. 60 or Fig. 6b.
are multiplied by the load safety factor for Column 2.
-
*See Chapter 4 when axle-load distribution data are unknown.
Fatigue Analysis **A blank worksheet is provided as the last page of this bulletin for
purposes of reproduction and use in specific design problems.
Results of fatigue analysis, and thus the charts and figures t Computer programs for solving design problems are available from
Port'and
used, are the same for pavements with doweled and un- t t S e e Appendix B if lean concrete subbase is used.
doweled joints, and also for continuously reinforced IIn this design procedure, continuously reinforced pavements are
pavements.$ treated the same as doweled, jointed pavements-see Appendix A
Calculation of Pavement Thickness
T r ~ ath~ckness
l 9.5 ~n Doweled jo~nts yes no -
Fat~gueanalys~s Eros~onanalys~s
Axle Mult~pl~ed Expected
load, by repet~t~ons
k~ps LSF Allowable Fat~gue. Allowable Damage
repetltlons percent repet~t~ons percent
/. 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
8. Equwalent stress 2 0& 10. Eros~onfactor 2.59
9. Stress ratlo factor 3 7
0.
Single Axles
12
3. Compute Column 7 by dividing Column 3 by Col- Design 1C: doweled joints, untreated subbase, concrete
umn 6, multiplying by 100; then total the erosion shoulder
damage at the bottom. Same as 1A except:
Concrete shoulder
In the use of the charts, precise interpolation of allow-
able repetitions is not required. If the intersection line Design ID: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
runs off the top of the chart, the allowable load repeti- subbase, no concrete shoulder
tions are considered to be unlimited. Same as I B except:
The trial thickness is not an adequate design if either of Aggregate-interlock joints
the totals of fatigue or erosion damage are greater than Design 1E: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
100%. A greater trial thickness should be selected for subbase, concrete shoulder
another run.* A lesser trial thickness is selected if the Same as I D except:
totals are much lower than 100%. Concrete shoulder
Thickness Calculations:
A trial thickness is evaluated by completing the design
worksheettt shown in Fig. 4 for Design 1A using the
Sample Problems axle-load data from Table 5.
For Design lA, Table 6a and Fig. 5 are used for the
Two sample problems are given to illustrate the steps in fatigue analysis and Table 7a and Fig. 6a are used for the
the design procedure and the effects of alternate designs. erosion analysis.
Design 1 is for a four-lane rural Interstate project; several
variations on the design-use of dowels or aggregate- Comments on Design 1
interlock joints, use of concrete shoulder, granular and
cement-treated subbases-are shown as Designs 1A For designs 1A through IE, a subbase of one type or an-
through 1E. Design 2 is for a low-traffic secondary road, other is used as a recommended practice1 on fine-textured
and variations are shown as Designs 2A and 2B. soil subgrades for pavements carrying an appreciable
number of heavy trucks.
In Design IA: (I) Totals of fatigue use and erosion
Design 1 damage of 63% and 39%, respectively, show that the 9.5-
in. thickness is adequate for thedesignconditions. (2) This
Project and Traffic Data: design has 37% reserve capacity available for heavy-axle
Four-lane Interstate loads in addition to those estimated for design purposes.
Rolling terrain in rural location (3) Comments 1 and 2 raise the question of whether a 9.0-
Design period = 20 years in. thickness would be adequate for Design IA. Separate
Current ADT = 12,900 calculations showed that 9.0 in. is not adequate because
Projection factor = 1.5 of excessive fatigue consumption (245%). (4) Design 1A
ADTT = 19% of ADT is controlled by the fatigue analysis.
A design worksheet, Fig. 7, is shown for Design I D to
Traffic Calculations:
illustrate the combined effect of using aggregate-inter-
Design ADT = 12,900 X 1.5 = 19,350 (9675 in one di- lock joints and a cement-treated subbase. In Design 1D:
rection) (1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion damage of I%$f and
ADTT = 19,350 X 0.19 = 3680 (1840 in one direction) 97%, respectively, show that 10 in. is adequate. (2) Sepa-
For 9675 one-direction ADT, Fig. 3 shows that the rate calculations show that 9.5 in. is not adequate because
proportion of trucks in the right lane is 0.81. Therefore, of excessive erosion damage (142%), and (3) Design 1D is
for a 20-year-design period, the total number of trucks in controlled by the erosion analysis.
one direction is
1840 X 0.8 1 X 365 X 20 = 10,880,000 trucks (continued o n page 21)
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 runs. 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 178%
crete shoulder fatigue damage are determined at trial thicknesses of 10 and 8 in., re-
Clay subgrade, k = 100 pci spectively, the approximate fatigue damage for a thickness of 9 in. is
4-in.-untreated subbase equal to J33X178 = 77%.
Combined k = 130 pci (see Table 1) **Concrete M R , LSF, and subgrade k valuesare thesame for Designs
I A through I E.
LSF = 1.2 (see page 10) tCement-treated subbase meeting requirements stated on page 6.
Concrete MR = 650 psi t t A blank worksheet is provided as the last page of this bulletin for the
Design 1B: doweled joints, cement-treated subbase, no purposes of reproduction and use in specific design problems.
concrete shoulder :See Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements. Portland
Cement Association publication
Same as 1A except: f f For pavements wlth aggregate-interlock joints subjected to an ap-
4-in. cement-treated subbaset preciable number of trucks, the fatigue analysis will usually not affect
Combined k = 280 pci (see Table 2) design.
Table 6a. Equivalent Stress - No Concrete Shoulder
(Single Axlenandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thickness,
in. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 825/679 726/585 671 /542 634/516 584/486 523/457 484/443
4.5 699/586 616/500 571/460 540/435 498/406 448/378 41 7/363
5 602/516 531/436 493/399 467/376 432/349 390/321 363/307
5.5 526/461 464/387 431 /353 409/331 379/305 343/278 320/264
6 465/416 411/348 382/316 362/296 336/271 304/246 285/232
6.5 417/380 367/317 341/286 324/267 300/244 273/220 256/207
7 375/349 331 /290 307/262 292/244 271 /222 246/199 231 /I86
7.5 340/323 300/268 279/241 265/224 246/203 224/18 1 2 10/169
1
I
-
.o
0,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 - -
80
- -
0
-
P
I
I s
'0
8 -0
0
0
I
h) P m
0
c o o nl P "co 8 nl P m c o 8 nl
0
0
P ma30 nl Pb, 8
ALLOWABLE L O A D REPETITIONS
Table 7a. Erosion Factors - Doweled Joints, No Concrete Shoulder
(Single Axlenandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, p c ~
th~ckness.
in. 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.74/3.83 3.73/3.79 3.72/3.75 3.71/3.73 3 70/3.70 3 68/3 67
4.5 3.59/3.70 3.57/3.65 3.56/3.61 3.55/3.58 3 54/3.55 3 52/3.53
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
55 3.33/3.47 3.31/3.41 3.29/3 36 3 28/3.33 3.27/3.30 3 26/3.28
t
- -I , I II l A l ~ II' I ' I1 '
aiTI
I I I
m m - - -
N N W W P 0 0, (I, (0 0 -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o g
TANDEM A X L E LOAD, KlPS
I
I'
EROSION FACTOR
I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l r 1 1 1 1 1 1
P cEl W cJ W cJ N N N N N
o OD in P N o in in P iu o
I
I
I
I
l -
T r ~ a th~ckness /fl. in Doweled j o ~ n t s yes n o v
Subbase-subgrade k A pcl Concrete shoulder yes no a
Modulus of rupture, MR - M L PSI
Des~gnp e r ~ o d2 0 years
Load safety factor, LSF /. 2
Fig. 7. Design I D .
Worksheets for the other variations of Design 1 are not Design 2B: doweled joints,** no subbase, no concrete
shown here but the results are compared as follows: shoulder
Same as 2A except:
Thickness Doweled joints
Concrete requirement,
Design Subbase Joints shoulder in. Thickness Calculations:
1A 4-in. g r a n u l a r doweled For Design 2A, a trial thickness of 6 in. is evaluated by
IB 4-in. cement-treated doweled completing the worksheet shown in Fig. 8, according t o
the procedure given on page 1 1. Table 6a and Fig. 5 are
1C 4-in. g r a n u l a r doweled
used for the fatigue analysis and Table 76 and Fig. 6a are
ID 4-in. cement-treated aggregate
interlock used for the erosion analysis.
1E 4-in. cement-treated aggregate
For Design 2B, a worksheet is not shown here but the
interlock design was worked out for comparison with Design 2A.
Comments on Design 2
For Design 1 conditions, use of a cement-treated sub- For Design 2A: (1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion
base reduces the thickness requirement by 1.0 in. (Design damage of 89%and 8%, respectively, show that the 6.0-in.
1 A versus I B); and concrete shoulders reduce the thick- thickness is adequate. (2) Separate calculations show that
ness requirement by 1.0 to 1.5 in. (Designs 1A versus 1C a 5.5-in. pavement would not be adequate because of
and 1 D versus 1E). Use of aggregate-interlock joints in- excessive fatigue consumption. (3) The thickness design
stead of dowels increases the thickness requirement by is controlled by the fatigue analysis-which is usually the
1.5 in. (Design 1 B versus 1D). These effects will vary in case for light-truck-traffic facilities.
different design problems depending on the specific de- The calculations for Design 2B, which is the same as
sign conditions. Design 2A except the joints are doweled, show fatigue
and erosion values of 89% and 296, respectively. Com-
Design 2 ments: (1) The thickness requirement of 6.0 in. is the same
Project and Traffic Data: as for Design 2A. (2) The fatigue-analysis values are ex-
actly the same as in Design 2A. (3) Because of the dow-
Two-lane-secondary road els, the erosion damage is reduced from 8% t o 2%; how-
Design period = 40 years ever, this is immaterial since the fatigue analysis controls
Current ADT = 600 the design.
Projection factor = 1.2
ADTT = 2.5% of A D T -
For the Design 2 situation, it is shown that doweled
joints are not required. This is borne out by pavement-
Traffic Calculations: performance experience on light-truck-traffic facilities
Design ADT = 600 X 1.2 = 720 such as residential streets and secondary roads and also
ADTT = 720 X 0.025 = 18 by studies'2829' showing the effects of the number oftrucks
18 on pavements with aggregate-interlock joints.
Truck traffic each way = - = 9
2
For a 40-year design period:
9 X 365 X 40 = 13 1,400 trucks
Axle-load data are shown in Table 15, Category I , and
the expected number of axle-load repetitions are shown *Performance experience has shown that subbases are not requ~red
in Fig. 8. when truck traffic 1s very Ilght; see the PCA publicatlon, Subgradesand
Subbases for Concrete Pavemenrs.
Values Used t o Calculate Thickness: **Design 2B is shown for illustrative purposes only. Doweledjolnts
Design 2A: aggregrate-interlock joints, no subbase,* no are not needed where truck traffic 1s very I~ght;see the PCA publication
concrete shoulder Joinr Des~gnfor Concrete Hrghwav und Streer Pavements.
Clay subgrade, k = 100 pci t The type of load transfer at thejoints--dowels, or aggregate inter-
lock-does not affect the fatigue calculations since the critical axle-load
L S F = 1.0 position for stress and fatigue is where the axle loads are placed at pave-
Concrete M R = 650 psi ment edge and midpanel, away from the joints. See Appendix A.
Calculation of Pavement Thickness
Fat~gueanalys~s Eros~onanalys~s
Axle Mult~plied Expected
load, by repet~tions
klps LSF Allowable Fatlgue. Allowable Damage.
repetit~ons percent repet~t~ons percent
1.L 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The design steps described in Chapter 3 include separate correspond to the four categories of traffic. Appropriate
calculations of fatigue consumption and erosion damage load safety factors of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2, respectively,
for each of several increments of single- and tandem-axle have been incorporated into the design tables for axle-
loads. This assumes that detailed axle-load data have load Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4. The tables show data for a
been obtained from representative truck weigh stations, design period of 20 years. (See the section "Design
weigh-in-motion studies, or other sources. Period", following.)
This chapter is for use when specific axle-load data are In these tables, subgrade-subbase strength is charac-
not available. Simple design tables have been generated terized by the descriptive words Low,Medium, High, and
based on composite axle-load distributions that repre- Very High. Fig. 2 shows relationships between various
sent different categories of road and street types. A fairly subgrade-bearing values. In the event that test data are
wide range of pavement facilities is covered by four cate- not available, Table 10 lists approximate k values fordif-
gories shown in Table 9.* ferent soil types. If a subbase is to be used-see Chapter 2
The designer does not directly use the axle-load data**
because the designs have been presolved by the methods *On page 30, guidelines for preparing design tables f o r axle-load dis-
described in Chapter 3. For convenience in design use, the tributions different f r o m those given here are discussed.
results are presented in Tables 1 1, 12, 13, and 14, which **Axle-load data f o r the f o u r categories are given i n Table 15.
I Residential streets
Rural and secondary roads (low to
medium')
Collector streets
1
2
Rural and secondary roads (high')
Arterial streets and primary roads (low')
3 Arterial streets and primary roads 3000-12,000 8-30
(medium') 2 lane
Expressways and urban and rural 3000-50.000+
lnterstate (low to medium') 4 lane or more
4 Arterial streets, primary roads. 3000-20,000 8-30
expressways (high') 2 lane
Urban and rural lnterstate (medium to 3000-150,000+
high') 4 lane or more
'The descriptors high, m e d ~ u mor, low refer to the relat~vewe~ghtsof axle loads for the type of street or road.
that IS. "low" for a rural lnterstate would represent heavier loads than "low" for a secondary road
'Trucks -two-axle, four-tire trucks excluded.
Table 10. Subgrade Soil Types and discussion under "Comments on Simplified Pro-
Approximate k Values cedure," page 30.)
k values In the correct use of Table 9, the ADT and ADTT val-
range. ues are not used as the primary criteria for selecting the
Type of soil Support
axle-load category-the data are shown only to illustrate
Fine-gramed soils in which silt and typical values. Instead, it is correct to rely more on the
Low 75-1 20
clay-size particles predominate
word descriptions given or to select a category based on
Sands and sand-gravel mixtures with Medium 13C-170 the expected values of maximum-axle loads.
1
moderate amounts of silt and clay
The ADTT design value should be obtained by a truck
Sands and sand-gravel mixtures
relatively free of plastic fines
Cement-treated subbases (see page 6)
I
1
High
Very high 1
188220
25C-400
classification count for the facility or for another with a
similar composition of traffic. Other methods of estimat-
ing ADT and ADTT are discussed on pages 8 and 9.
The allowable ADTT values (two directions)listed in
under "Subgrade and Subbase Supportw-the estimated the tables include only two-axle, six-tire trucks, and
k value is increased according to Table I or Table 2. single or combination units with three axles or more.
The design steps are as follows: Excluded are panel and pickup trucks and other two-axle,
four-tire trucks. Therefore, the number of allowable
1. Estimate ADTT* (average daily truck traffic, two
trucks ofall types will begreaterthanthe tabulated ADTT
directions, excluding two-axle, four-tire trucks)
2. Select axle-load Category I, 2, 3, or 4. (continued on page 30)
3. Find slab thickness requirement in the appropriate *For facilities of four lanes or more, the ADTT IS adjusted by the use
Table I I, 12, 13, or 14. (In the use of these tables, see of Fig. 3.
Slab
thickness.
Subgrade-subbase support Slab
thickness,
I Subgrade-subbase support
in. Low Medium Hlgh Very high ~n. Low Medlum High Very hlgh
I 5 3 9 42
Note. Fatlgue analysis controls the deslgn. 'ADTT excludes two-axle, four-t~retrucks so total number of trucks allowed w ~ l be
l greater-see text
Table 126. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 2 - Pavements with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb
thickness,
~n. I Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Medium Hlgh Very high
Slab
th~ckness.
~n
5
Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Medium
3
Hlgh
9
Very high
42
5.5 9 42 120 450
6 96 380 700" 970''
6.5 650" 1000" 1400" 2100"
7 1100" 1900"
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
'ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks; total number of trucks ailowed wtll be greater-see text.
"Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fat~gueanalysis controls.
Table 13b. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 3 - Pavements with Aggregate Interlock Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb
I
thickness.
slab
~n. I Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Medium High Very high
th~ckness,
in. I Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Medium High Very high
I Slab
Ith~c:~ness,
I1 Subgrade-subbase support Slab
th~ckness.
II Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Low Med~um Hlqh Very hlqh ~n. Medium H~oh Verv hiah
'ADTT excludes two-axle four-t~retrucks total number of trucks allowed wlll be greater-see text
.Eros~onanalys~scontrols the d e s ~ g notherwise fat~gueanalys~scontrols
Table 14b. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 4 - Pavements with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
I I
Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab Subgrade-subbase support
th~ckness. thickness.
in. Low Medium Hiah Verv hiah tn. Low Medium High Very high
7 100" 400"
7.5 240" 620" 910
8 330" 770 1,100 1,700
8.5 720 1,300 1.900 3,100
9 1,100 2.100 3.200 5.7CO
9.5 1.700 3.400 5.500 10,200
Slab Thickness. in. 1 ADTT *See discussion under "Comments on Simplified Procedure-Mod-
ulus of Rupture," above.
**See Portland Cement Association publication Design and Control
of Concrete Mixtures.
When fatigue analys~scontrols the design (see footnotes of Tables
12 through 14). it will be noted that the ADTTvalues for doweled joints
and for aggregate-interlock joints are the same (see topic "Jointed Pave-
Therefore, a 5.5-in.-slab thickness is selected to meet ments" in Appendix A). If erosion analys~scontrols, concrete modulus
the required design ADTT value of 8. of rupture will have no effect on the allowable ADTT.
(1) preparation of standard sections from which a pave-
ment thickness is selected based on amount of traffic and
other design conditions, (2) unusual axle-load distribu-
tions that may be carried on a special haul road or other
special pavement facility, and (3) an increase in legal axle
loads that would cause axle-load distribution to change.
Axle-load distributions for Categories 1 through 4 are
shown in Table 15. Each of these is a composite of data
averaged from several state loadometer (W-4) tables rep-
resenting pavement facilities in the appropriate category.
Also, at the high axle-load range, loads heavier than those
listed on state department of transportation W-4 tables
were estimated based on extrapolation. These two steps
were desired for obtaining a more representative general
distribution and smoothing irregularities that occur in
individual W-4 tables. The steps are considered appropri-
ate for the design use of these particular categories de-
scribed earlier in this chapter.
As described in Chapter 2, the data is adjusted to ex-
clude two-axle, four-tire trucks, and then the data are
partitioned into 2000- and 4000-lb axle-load increments.
To prepare design tables, design problems are solved
with the given axle-load distribution by computer with
the desired load safety factor at different thicknesses and
subbase-subgrade k values.
Allowable ADTT values to be listed in design tables are
easily calculated when a constant, arbitrary ADTT is in-
put in the design problems as follows: assume input
ADTT is 1000 and that 45.6% fatigue consumption is
calculated in a particular design problem, then
Allowable ADTT =
100 X (input ADTT)
% fatigue or erosion damage
'
Table 15. Axle-Load Distributions Used for
load,
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
m
Preparing Design Tables 11 Through 14
Single axles
4
6
8
Tande axles
4
L
1693.31
732.28
483.10
204.96
124.00
56.11
38.02
15.81
4.23
0.96
31.90
85.59
139.30
75.02
57.10
39.18
68.48
69.59
4.19
Axles per 1000 trucks*
Category 2
2Concrete shoulder
~omt
-
I
I
I
1 Troff~c
lo"e
Jointed Pavements
After analysis of different axle-load positions on the slab, Fig. A l . Critical axle-load positions.
on to the mainline pavement, the magnitude of the Truck Load Placement
critical stresses is considerably reduced.
2. The most critical pavement deflections occur at the Truck wheel loads placed at the outside pavement edge
slab corner when a n axle load is placed a t the joint create more severe conditions than any other load posi-
with the wheels a t or near the corner, Fig. Al(b).* tion. As the truck placement moves inward a few inches
In this situation, transverse joint spacing has no ef- from the edge, the effects decrease s u b ~ t a n t i a l l ~ . " ~ '
fect on the magnitude of corner deflections but the Only a small fraction of all the trucks run with their
type of load transfer mechanism has a substantial outside wheels placed at the edge. Most of the trucks trav-
effect. This means that design results based on the eling the pavement are driven with their outside wheel
erosion criteria (deflections) may be substantially placed about 2 ft from the edge. ~ a r a g i n ' s ' ~studies
" re-
affected by the type of load transfer selected, espe- ported in 1958, showed very little truck encroachment at
cially when large numbers of trucks are being de- pavement edge for 12-ft lanes for pavements with un-
signed for. A concrete shoulder reduces corner de- paved shoulders. More recent studies by ~ m e r ~ ' " " s h o w e d
flections considerably. more trucks at edge. Other recent s t ~ d i e s ' ~showed
" fewer
trucks at edge than Emery. For this design procedure, the
Continuously Reinforced Pavements most severe condition, 6% of trucks at edge,* is assumed
so as to be on the safe side and to take account of recent
A continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) changes in United States law permitting wider trucks.
is one with no transverse joints and, due to the heavy, At increasing distances inward from the pavement
continuous steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direc- edge, the frequency of load applications increases while
tion, the pavement develops cracks at close intervals. the magnitudes of stress and deflection decrease. Data
These crack spacings on a given project are variable, run- on truck placement distribution and distribution of stress
ning generally from 3 to 10 ft with averages of 4 to 5 ft. and deflection due to loads placed at and near the pave-
In the finiteelement computer analysis, a high degree ment edge are difficult to use directly in a design proce-
of load transfer was assigned at the cracks of C R C P and dure. As a result, the distributions were analyzed and
the crack spacing was varied. The critical load positions more easily applied techniques were prepared for design
established were the same as those forjointed pavements. purposes.
For the longer crack spacings, edge stresses for loads For stress-fatigue analysis, fatigue was computed in-
placed midway between cracks are of about the same crementally at fractions of inches inward from the slab
magnitude as those for jointed pavements. For the aver- edge for different truck-placement distributions: this
age and shorter crack spacings, the edge stresses are less gave the equivalent edge-stress factors shown in Fig. A2.
than those for jointed pavements, because there is not (This factor, when multiplied by edge-load stress, gives
enough length of uncracked pavement to developas much the same degree of fatigue consumption that would result
bending moment. from a given truck placement distribution.) The most
For the longer crack spacings, corner deflections are severe condition, 6% truck encroachment, has been in-
somewhat less than those for jointed pavements with
corporated in the design tables.
doweled transverse joints. For average to long crack
spacings, corner deflections are about the same as those
for jointed, doweled pavements. For short crack spacings
of 3 o r 4 ft, corner deflections are somewhat greater than
those for jointed, doweled pavements, especially for tan-
dem-axle loads.
Considering natural variations in crack spacing that
occur in one stretch of pavement, the following compari-
son of continuously reinforced pavements with jointed,
doweled pavements is made. Edge stresses will sometimes
be the same and sometimes less. while corner deflections
will sometimes be less, the same, and greater at different
areas of the pavement depending on crack spacing. Percent trucks
of or off edge
The average of these pavement responses is neither
substantially better nor worse than those for jointed,
Taragm 2 lone 04 6
doweled pavements. As a result, in thisdesign procedure,
Emery (paved shoulder) 600
the same pavement responses and criteria are applied to - - -- - - -
continuously reinforced pavements as those used with
jointed, doweled pavements. This recommendation is
consistent with pavement performance experience. Most PERCENT TRUCKS AT EDGE
design agencies suggest that the thickness of continuously
reinforced pavements should be about the same as the Fig. A2. Equivalent edge stress factor depends on
thickness of doweled-jointed pavements. percent of trucks at edge.
*As used here, the term "percent trucks at edge" is defined as the
*The greatest deflect~onsfor t r ~ d e m occur
s when two axles are placed percent of total trucks that are traveling with the outside of the contact
at one s ~ d eof the jolnt and one axle at the other s ~ d e area of the outside tire at or beyond the pavement edge.
For erosion analysis, which involves deflection at the effect is influenced greatly by creep.
slab corner, the most severe case (6% of trucks at edge) is Curling refers to slab behavior due to variations of
again assumed. Where there is no concrete shoulder, cor- temperature. During the day, when the top surface is
ner loadings (6% of trucks) are critical; and where there warmer than the bottom, tensile-restraint stressesdevelop
is a concrete shoulder, the greater number of loadings a t the slab bottom. During the night, the temperature dis-
inward from the pavement corner (94% of trucks) are tribution is reversed and tensile restraint stresses develop
critical. These factors are incorporated into the design a t the slab surface. Temperature distribution is usually
charts as follows: nonlinear and constantly changing. Also, maximum day-
Percent erosion damage = 100 Cn, (C/ Ni) time and nighttime temperature differentials exist for
short durations.
where: n, = expected number of axle-load Usually the combined effect of curling and warping
repetitions for axle-group i stresses are subtractive from load stresses because the
Ni = allowable number of repeti- moisture content and temperature a t the bottom of the
tions for axle-group i slab exceed that a t the top more than the reverse.
C = 0.06 for pavements without The complex situation of differential conditions at a
shoulder, and slab's top and bottom plus the uncertainty of the zero-
0.94 for pavements with stress position make it difficult to compute o r measure
shoulder the restraint stresses with any degree of confidence or
T o save a design calculation step, the effects of (C/Ni] verification. At present, the information available on
are incorporated in Figs. 6a and 6b of Chapter 3 and actual magnitudes of restraint stresses does not warrant
Tables 11 through 14 of Chapter 4. incorporation of the items in this design procedure.
As for the loss of support, this is considered indirectly
in the erodibility criterion, which is derived from actual
Variation in Concrete Strength field performance and therefore incorporates normal loss
of support conditions.
Recognition of the variations in concrete strength is con- Calculated stress increase due to loss of support varies
sidered a realistic addition to the design procedure. Ex- from about 5% to 15%. This theoretical stress increase is
pected ranges of variations in the concrete's modulus of counteracted in the real case because a portion of the load
rupture have far greater effect than the usual variations is dissipated in bringing the slab edges back in contact
in the properties of other materials, such a s subgrade and with the support. Thus, the incremental load stressdue to
subbase strength, and layer thicknesses. Variation in con- a warping-type loss of support is not incorporated in this
crete strength is introduced by reducing the modulus of design procedure.
rupture by one coefficient of variation.
For design purposes, a coefficient of variation of 15%
is assumed and is incorporated into the design charts and Fatigue
tables. The user does not directly apply this effect. The
value of 15% represents fair-to-good quality control, and, The flexural fatigue criterion used in the procedure pre-
combined with other effects discussed elsewhere in this sented here is shown in Fig. A3. It is similar to that used
appendix, was selected as being realistic and giving rea- in the previous PCA method'j4' based conservatively on
sonable design results.
*The criterla are that (I) stress ratios in either of the two concrete
Lean Concrete Subbase layers not exceed that of the reference pavement; and (2)erosionvalues
at the subbase-subgrade interface not exceed those ofthereferencepave-
The largest paving use of lean concrete has been as a sub- rnent. Rationale for the criteria is given in Reference 50 plus two addi-
base under a conventional concrete pavement. This is tional considerations: (I) erosion criteria is included in addition to the
fatigue approach given in the reference; and (2) for nonmonolithiccon-
nonmonolithic construction where the surface course of struction, some structural benefit (I4) is added because the subbase is
normal concrete is placed on a hardened lean concrete constructed wider than the pavement.
subbase. Usually, the lean concrete subbase is built at ** Flexural strength of lean concrete to be used as a subbase is usually
least 2 ft wider than the pavement on each side to support selected to be between 150 to 250 p s ~(compressive strength, 750 to 1200
PSI);these relatively low strengths are used to rn~nlmizereflectlvecrack-
the tracks of the slipform paver. Thisextra width is struc- Ing from the unjolnted subbase (usual practice is to leave the subbase
turally beneficial for wheel loads applied a t pavement unjolnted) through the concrete surface. If, contrary tocurrent practice.
edge. jolnts are placed in the subbase, the strength of the lean concrete would
The normal practice has been to select a surface thick- not have to be restricted to the lower range.
Modulus of Rupture of L e a n Concrete, p s i
350 450 150 250 350 450
I
250 ../ /
14
- 13
--
- 12
- II
10
Fig. 82. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (monolithic with lean concrete lower layer).
:
load.
Mult~pl~ed
by
LSF
L2
2
Expected
repetltlons
3
Allowable
repetlt~ons
4
Fat~gue,
percent
5
Allowable
repet~t~ons
6
Damage.
percent
Total Total
0 5'. 3
ii A= adJd rb &A& skdruh /> fi++
Fig. C1. Analysis of tridems.
-
*Lane widths of less than 12 ft are rarely used in current practice, ex-
cept for very lightly traveled two-lane roads where Land service is a pri-
mary function.
**See Table D2.
tSee Reference 53, Table 11-14,
T r ~ ath~ckness
l ~n. Doweled jo~nts: yes no
Subbase-subgrade k PC1 Concrete shoulder. yes no
Modulus of rupture. MR PSI
Design penod years
Load safety factor. LSF
Fat~gueanalys~s Eros~onanalys~s
Axle Mult~pl~ed Expected
load, by repetitlons
klps LSF Allowable Fat~gue. Allowable Damage.
repetitions percent repetlt~ons percent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I Total I Total I
\ I
Microcomputer Program for Thickness Design of
Concrete Highways, Streets, and Parking Lots