Concrete Pavement Thickness Design According To The AASHTO D

Concrete Pavement
Thickness Design
according to the
AASHTO Design
Procedures
AASHTO Guide for Design of

Pavement Structures - 1993
Concrete Pavement Basics
Basic Components of a
Concrete Pavement
Surface smoothness Thickness Design

or rideability
Longitudinal joint
Transverse joint
Surface Texture
Concrete materials
Dowel bars
Tiebars
Subgrade
Subbase or base
Concrete Pavement Types
• Jointed Plain
• Undoweled
• Doweled
• Jointed Reinforced
• Continuously Reinforced
• Prestressed
Jointed Plain
Plan
3.5-6.0 m
Profile
or
Agencies Designing Jointed Plain
Concrete Highway Pavements
Use jointed plain designs

Do not use jointed plain designs
Jointed Reinforced
Plan
7.5-9.0 m
Profile
Agencies Designing Jointed Reinforced
Use jointed reinforced designs

Do not use jointed reinforced designs
Continuously Reinforced
Plan
0.6-2.0 m
Profile
Agencies Designing Continuously Reinforced
Use continuously reinforced designs

Do not use continuously reinforced designs
AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN
The AASHO Road Test

was conceived and
sponsored by the
American Association of
State Highway Officials to
study the performance of
pavement structures of
known thickness under
moving loads of known
magnitude and frequency.
The Process of Pavement Type
Selection is:
• Complex
• Hard to Define
• An Economic Decision
• Consideration of All Engineering Factors
• Not An Exact Science
1986 AASHTO GUIDE

PAVEMENT DESIGN
Pavement design is an a priori process.

The new pavement will be built in the future, on
subgrades often not yet exposed or accessible;
using materials not yet manufactured from sources
not yet identified; by a contractor who submitted the
successful "low dollar" bid, employing unidentified
personnel and procedures under climatic conditions
that are frequently less than ideal.
NCHRP 1-26 Phase II Final Report

AASHO Road Test
(1958-1960)
• Third Large Scale Road Test

• Maryland Road Test (1950-51)
Rigid Pavements Only
• WASHO Road Test (1952-54)
Flexible Pavements only
• Include both Rigid and Flexible Designs
• Include a wide range of axle loads and
pavement cross-sections
Purpose of the AASHO Road
Test
• Determine relationships between axle loading (type
and magnitude) and pavement performance.
• To explain performance measurements in terms of
design factors.
• To explain capability measurements in terms of design
factors.
• To determine a correlation between the various
measurements of performance and capability.
• Determine equitable cost allocation tables.
AASHO Road Test Location
AASHO Test Loop Layout
All were segments two-lane divided highway (I-80)

Loop 1: Environmental (not loaded)
Loops 2-6: Loadings
Typical AASHO Loop Layout
Test Tangent = 6800 ft.
South tangents & west
turnarounds: Rigid
North tangents & east
turnarounds: Flexible
Section Length = 100 ft AC
= 240 JRCP
= 120 JPCP
368 rigid test sections
468 flexible test sections
Typical AASHO Pavement Sections
AASHO Test Traffic
• Started Nov. 1958
• Loops 3-6:
• 6 veh/lane
• 10 veh/lane (Jan ‘60)
• Operation
• 18 hr. 40 min.
• 6 days/wk
• Total Loads
• 1,114,000 Applications
• Avg. ESAL - 6.2 million
• Max ESAL - 10 million (Flex)
AASHO Test Traffic
Max Single Axle
Max Tandem Axle

AASHO Road Test Performance
Surviving Sections
Loop 3 Loop 5
5.0 5.0
Serviceability
Serviceability
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
Concrete (36 Sect) Concrete (39 Sect)

2.0 Asphalt (4 Sect) 2.0 Asphalt (11 Sect)
1.0 1.0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Loop 4 Loop 6
5.0 5.0
Serviceability
Serviceability
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 Concrete (38 Sect) Concrete (47 Sect)

2.0
Asphalt (10 Sect) Asphalt (17 Sect)
1.0 1.0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Load Applications Load Applications
AASHO Road Test Performance
The primary mode of

failure at the road test
was loss of support in
the poor clay soil.
All cracking of rigid
pavements at the
AASHO road test were
preceded by the
pumping of material
from underneath the
slab.
AASHTO Design Procedures &
Changes
1961-62 AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of
Rigid and Flexible Pavements
1972 AASHTO Interim Guide for the Design
of Pavement Structures - 1972
1981 Revised Chapter III on Portland Cement
Concrete Pavement Design
1986 Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures
1993 Revised Overlay Design Procedures
AASHTO Design Procedures &
Changes
AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement
Structures - 1993
1986-93 Rigid Pavement Design
Equation
Change in Serviceability
Overall
Standard Standard Deviation   ∆PSI  
Normal Deviate Depth
 Log  
  4.5 - 1.5 
Log(ESALs) = ZR * s o + 7.35* Log(D +1) - 0.06 +
 1.624* 107 
1+ 8.46 
Modulus of
Rupture Drainage  (D + 1) 
Terminal
Serviceability
 Coefficient

 

+ (4.22 - 0.32pt ) * Log
S'c * C d * D [0.75
− 1.132 ] 

  18.42  
 215.63* J * D 0.25  
0.75
-
 Load  (Ec / k)  
Transfer Modulus Modulus of
of Elasticity Subgrade Reaction
1986-93 RIGID PAVEMENT
DESIGN
Factors Affecting Rigid Pavements

Thickness
Serviceability (po, pt)
Traffic (ESALs, E-18s)
Load Transfer (J)
Concrete Properties (S’c, Ec)
Subgrade Strength (k, LS)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
INPUT SENSITIVITY
Consider the Sensitivity of each

factor on the design output
Thickness
Traffic Carrying
Capacity
PAVEMENT DESIGN
Four Forgotten Fundamentals

The subgrade is the subgrade.
Materials are not uniform.
Specify what you design.
Don’t use “Fudge” factors.
AASHTO DESIGN
Beware of Bear Traps
BEAR TRAPS
• Over conservative inputs
• Nonsensical inputs
• Poor relationships
Assigning improper values
can create over-conservative
designs.
Sample Problem # 1
• Subgrade CBR = 10 for a k value

• Concrete Modulus of Rupture = 600 psi
• Two way truck traffic 1000 units per day
maximum
• Design life = 25 years
• Assume aggregate interlock
• Assume concrete shoulders
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
AASHTO DESIGN Serviceability
Serviceability - Present Serviceability

the pavement’s ability Index (PSI)
to serve the type of 5.0
traffic (automobiles Very Good
and trucks) that use 4.0
Good
the facility 3.0
Fair
2.0
Poor
1.0
Very Poor
0.0
AASHTO DESIGN
Serviceability
The AASHTO Design Original

procedure predicts the Capacity
Serviceability
average serviceability
loss (∆∆ PSI) for various
traffic levels & axle PSI
loads.
The larger ∆ PSI, the
more traffic that
pavement can carry Capacity
before failure. at Failure
ESALS
Present Serviceability Index
po
pt
Rehabilitation Required
Accumulated Traffic
Initial Serviceability, po
The condition immediately after construction
Concrete = 4.5
Asphalt = 4.2
Using current construction techniques, concrete roads can

have po = 4.7 to 4.8
Terminal Serviceability, pt
The condition at which the pavement “fails”
pt Street or Highway Classification

2.50 Interstate and Major Highways or Arterials
2.25 Primary Secondary Routes, Industrial &
Commercial Streets
2.00 Secondary Routes, Residential Streets,
and Parking Lots
Terminal Serviceability, pt
The condition at which the pavement “fails”
pt Street or Highway Classification

2.50 Interstate and Major Highways or Arterials
2.25 Primary Secondary Routes, Industrial &
Commercial Streets
2.00 Secondary Routes, Residential Streets,
and Parking Lots
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
AASHTO DESIGN TRAFFIC
ESAL’s or E-18’s
The number and weight of all axle loads
from the anticipated vehicles expected
during the pavement design life - expressed
in 18-kip (80 kN) Equivalent Single Axle
Loads for each type of pavement.
—Rigid ESAL’s or E-18’s
—Flexible ESAL’s or E-18’s
REGULAR MIXED TRAFFIC
Equivalent Number of 18k Single Axle Loads

ESALs GENERATED BY
DIFFERENT VEHICLES/DAY
VEHICLE NUMBER RIGID FLEXIBLE

ESALs ESALs
Single Units 2 Axle 20 6.38 6.11
Busses 5 13.55 8.73
Panel Trucks 10 10.89 11.11
Semi-tractor Trailer 3 Axles 10 20.06 13.41
Automobile, Pickup, Van 425 1.88 2.25
Total 500 149.52 108.36

ESALs GENERATED BY
DIFFERENT VEHICLES/DAY
VEHICLE NUMBER RIGID FLEXIBLE

ESALs ESALs
Single Units 2 Axle 20 6.38 6.11
Busses 5 13.55 8.73
Panel Trucks 10 10.89 11.11
Automobile, Pickup, Van 425 1.88 2.25
Total 500 149.52 108.36

AASHTO DESIGN
Traffic
Load Equivalence Factor (LEF)
The Ratio of the Effect (Damage) of a
Specific Axle Load on Pavement
Serviceability to the Effect Produced by an
18-kip Axle Load at the AASHO Road Test.
Change for each:
Pavement Type
Thickness
Terminal Serviceability.
AASHTO DESIGN
Load Equivalence Factor (LEF)
The Ratio of the Effect
(Damage) of a Specific
Axle Load on Pavement LEF =
Serviceability to the Effect No. of repetitions of 18-k SAL
Produced by an 18-kip for a given ∆PSI
Axle Load at the AASHO No. of repetitions of X-k Load
Road Test. causing same ∆PSI
• Change for each:
Pavement Type
Thickness
AASHTO DESIGN
Traffic
Load Equivalence Factor (LEF) =
No. of repetitions of X-k Load causing given ∆PSI

No. of repetitions of 18-k SAL for a same ∆PSI
Changes for Pavement Type, Thickness,

AASHTO DESIGN
Load Equivalency Factors
Type Axle Load LEF
Single 2000 0.0003 PSI
18 K
Axle 10000 0.118 SAL
14000 0.399
18000 1.00
20000 1.4
30000 7.9
Tandem 2000 0.0001 30 K
Axle 10000 0.011 SAL
18000 0.042
30000 0.703
34000 1.11
40000 2.06
50000 5.03
No. of Loads
AASHTO DESIGN
Type Axle Load LEF
Single 2000 0.0003 PSI
18 K
Axle 10000 0.118 SAL
14000 0.399
18000 1.00
20000 1.4
30000 7.9
Tandem 2000 0.0001 30 K
Axle 10000 0.011 SAL
18000 0.042
30000 0.703
34000 1.11
40000 2.06
50000 5.03
No. of Loads
AASHTO DESIGN
General Observations
Type Axle Load LEF
Single 2000 0.0003 18 kip single axle does 3333
Axle 10000 0.118 times more damage than a 2
14000 0.399 kip single axle.
18000 1.00 (1.00 / 0.0003 = 3333)
20000 1.4 30 kip single axle does 67
30000 7.9 times more damage than a
Tandem 2000 0.0001 10 kip single axle.
Axle 10000 0.011 (7.9 / 0.118 = 69.9)
18000 0.042
30000 0.703 30 kip single axle does
about 11 times more
34000 1.11
damage than a 30 kip
40000 2.06
tandem axle.
50000 5.03 (7.9 / 0.703 = 11.2)
AASHTO DESIGN
General Observations
Type Axle Load LEF
Single 2000 0.0003 18 kip single axle does 3333
Axle 10000 0.118 times more damage than a 2
14000 0.399 kip single axle.
18000 1.00 (1.00 / 0.0003 = 3333)
20000 1.4 30 kip single axle does 67
30000 7.9 times more damage than a
Tandem 2000 0.0001 10 kip single axle.
Axle 10000 0.011 (7.9 / 0.118 = 69.9)
18000 0.042
30000 0.703 30 kip single axle does
about 11 times more
34000 1.11
damage than a 30 kip
40000 2.06
tandem axle.
50000 5.03 (7.9 / 0.703 = 11.2)
AASHTO DESIGN
LEFs Can Be Based On:

• Equivalent Stress or Strain at a Given
Location (Mechanistic)
• Equivalent Deflection at a Given Location
(Mechanistic)
• Equivalent Serviceability Loss
(AASHTO)
LOAD EQUIVALENCY
FACTORS
LEF Are System Dependent
ALL
• Layer Materials
• Layer Thickness
• Subgrade Support
AASHTO
• Initial Serviceability (4.5 Rigid, 4.2 Flexible)
• Terminal Serviceability
LOAD EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
FOR A GIVEN PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
For a Given Stress or Strain:
Stress or Strain of X-kip Load on Axle Type Y

Stress or Strain of 18-kip Load on a Single Axle
For a Given Deflection:
Deflection of X-kip Load on Axle Type Y

Deflection of 18-kip Load on a Single Axle
Original
Capacity
Serviceability
PSI
Capacity at
Failure
ESALs
For a Given Serviceability Loss:
PSI PSI
# of Repetitions of X-kip Load on Axle Type Y

# of Repetitions of 18-kip Load on a Single Axle
For a Given Number of Repetitions of
X-kip Load on Axle Type Y :
Original Capacity
Concrete Performance Curve
Serviceability
Asphalt Performance Curve
Load
LEF’s for two equivalent
pavement sections
Axle Load (Kips) Flexible Pavement LEF Rigid Pavement LEF
2 .0002 .0002
6 .013 .010
10 .102 .082
14 .388 .347
18 1.00 1.00
22 1.47 1.55
26 2.89 4.42
30 5.21 7.79
34 11.3 12.9
38 18.1 20.6
Single axles, terminal serviceability = 2.5,

Flexible SN=4.0 (Table D4), , Rigid D=200 mm (8,0 in). (Table D13)
LEF’s for two equivalent
pavement sections
Axle Load (Kips) Flexible Pavement LEF Rigid Pavement LEF
2 .0002 .0002
6 .013 .010
10 .102 .082
14 .388 .347
18 1.00 1.00
22 1.47 1.55
26 2.89 4.42
30 5.21 7.79
34 11.3 12.9
38 18.1 20.6
Single axles, terminal serviceability = 2.5,

Flexible SN=4.0 (Table D4), , Rigid D=200 mm (8,0 in). (Table D13)
Original
Capacity
Concrete Performance Curve
Serviceability
PSI
Asphalt
Performance
Curve
ESALs
34,000 lbs. 34,000 lbs.
Load appliles Load appliles

12,000 lbs. to 24,000 lbs. to
the subgrade. the subgrade.
pressure = 5 psi pressure = 30 psi
Concrete ESAL Bituminous ESAL

1.87 1.10
Smaller pressure on the subgrade means more load is absorbed by concrete.

It spreads load out over a larger area and thus has a greater ESAL.
Concrete Asphalt
Response Response
Since pavement responses are different, the equivalency

factors (LEFs) are different. When multiplying the traffic by
the different equivalencies, you get different ESALs
ESALS
12,000 lbs 28,000 lbs 28,000 lbs

0.198* 0.493* 0.493*
0.181** 0.852** 0.852**
* Equals 1.18 Flexible ESALs

** Equals 1.89 Rigid ESALs
ESAL CALCULATION
ESAL = ADT * % Trucks * Directional Distribution *

Lane Distribution * Truck Factor *365
(For one year only)

Sample Problem # 1

maximum
WinPAS
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
AASHTO DESIGN
Load Transfer
• The Load Transfer Coefficient, J-factor,

accounts for the stress load transfer
across a joint or crack.
– Used to minimize corner cracking
• Does not control or account for faulting.
– Does effect deflections.
AASHTO DESIGN
Load Transfer
The J-factor is adjusted by how stress

is transferred across a joint or crack.
Dowels
Yes - Plain or Mesh Reinforced
No - Plain Undoweled
Continuously Reinforced
Tied Shoulder or Curb and Gutter
AASHTO DESIGN
Load Transfer
• Dowels
• Decrease corner stress & deflections across a joint.
• Minimum size is 32 mm diameter.
• Smaller sizes crush concrete under the dowel
• Concrete Shoulders
• Decrease edge and corner stresses & deflections.
• Tied Concrete, curb and gutter, and extended lane
all have the same effect.
• Continuously Reinforced
AASHTO DESIGN
Load Transfer, J
Deflections in Concrete Pavement

Outside Pavement Edge
5 Di 3 Di
12 ft Lanes Di Di
3 Di 2 Di
Longitudinal Centerline
Undoweled transverse Joint Doweled transverse Joint

AASHTO DESIGN
Effect of Dowels and Shoulders on Allowable ESALs

No Shoulders Shoulders No Shoulders Shoulders
Thickness Undoweled Undoweled Doweled Doweled
7 368,600 539,200 663,500 1,186,300

8 805,000 1,177,700 1,449,000 2,590,700
9 1,669,400 2,442,100 3,004,700 5,372,200
10 3,278,700 4,796,300 5,901,400 10,551,200
11 6,114,800 8,945,100 11,006,000 19,677,900
12 10,886,100 15,924,700 19,593,700 35,032,100
AASHTO DESIGN
Effect of Dowels and Shoulders on Allowable ESALs

No Shoulders Shoulders No Shoulders Shoulders
Thickness Undoweled Undoweled Doweled Doweled
7 368,600 539,200 663,500 1,186,300

8 805,000 1,177,700 1,449,000 2,590,700
9 1,669,400 2,442,100 3,004,700 5,372,200
10 3,278,700 4,796,300 5,901,400 10,551,200
11 6,114,800 8,945,100 11,006,000 19,677,900
12 10,886,100 15,924,700 19,593,700 35,032,100
AASHTO DESIGN
Effect of Dowels on Faulting
0.12
0.10
0.08
No Dowels
Fault (in.)
0.06
0.04
Dowels
0.02
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
ESALs (millions)
Dowel Diameter = 1.25 in.
AASHTO DESIGN
Load Transfer, J
Load Transfer Coefficients for Typical Designs

Edge Support
ESALs Doweled and Aggregate Continuously Pavement
(millions) JRCP interlock reinforced class
No Yes No Yes No Yes
under 0.3 3.2 2.7 3.2 2.8 --- --- Local
0.3 - 1 3.2 2.7 3.4 3.0 --- --- Streets &
1-3 3.2 2.7 3.6 3.1 --- --- Roads
3 - 10 3.2 2.7 3.8 3.2 2.9 2.5 Arterials
10 - 30 3.2 2.7 4.1 3.4 3.0 2.6 and
over 30 3.2 2.7 4.3 3.6 3.1 2.6 Highways
AASHTO DESIGN
Load Transfer, J
Load Transfer Coefficients for Typical Designs

Edge Support
ESALs Doweled and Aggregate Continuously Pavement
(millions) mesh reinforced interlock reinforced class
No Yes No Yes No Yes
under 0.3 3.2 2.7 3.2 2.8 --- --- Local
0.3 - 1 3.2 2.7 3.4 3.0 --- --- Streets &
1-3 3.2 2.7 3.6 3.1 --- --- Roads
3 - 10 3.2 2.7 3.8 3.2 2.9 2.5 Arterials
10 - 30 3.2 2.7 4.1 3.4 3.0 2.6 and
over 30 3.2 2.7 4.3 3.6 3.1 2.6 Highways
AASHTO DESIGN
Effect of Dowels and Shoulders

4.0E+07
Dowels &
Shoulders
Allowable ESALs
3.0E+07
Dowels &
2.0E+07 No Shoulders
No Dowels &
1.0E+07 Shoulders
No Dowels &
0.0E+00 No Shoulders
7 8 9 10 11 12
Thickness
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
There are two concrete properties that influence

pavement performance
• Flexural Strength (Modulus of Rupture), S’c
– Average 28-day strength
– 3rd-Point Loading
• Modulus of Elasticity, E c
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Flexural Strength (S’c) Determination
Third-point Loading Center-point Loading
Head of Testing Machine
d=L/3
L/3 L/2
Span Length = L Span Length = L
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Compressive Strength f’c
Head of Testing
Machine
S’c = 8-10 √ f’c

Cylinder
Depth
f’c = Compressive Strength (psi)

S’c = Flexural Strength (psi)
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Comparison of f’c & S’c
Compressive Third Point Center Point

Strength Flexural Strength Flexural Strength
3000 492 579
3500 532 626
4000 569 669
4500 603 710
5000 636 748
5500 667 785
6000 697 820
Note: Third point ≈ Center point * 0.85
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Comparison of f’c & S’c
Compressive Third Point Center Point

Strength Flexural Strength Flexural Strength
3000 492 579
3500 532 626
4000 569 669
4500 603 710
5000 636 748
5500 667 785
6000 697 820
Note: Third point ≈ Center point * 0.85
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Use average, in-field If specify minimum flexural
strength at 28-day of 550 psi &
strength for design allow 10% of beams to fall
(not minimum specified) below minimum:
STEP 1
Estimate SDEV:
9% for typical ready mix.
SDEV = 550 * 0.09 = 50 psi
STEP 2
S’c design = S’c minimum + z * SDEV
S’c design = 550 + 1.282 * 50
S’c design = 614 psi
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
• Typical Standard Deviation
• Ready-mix Concrete: 7-13%
• Central-mix Concrete: 5-12%
• Allowable % of test specimens
below specified strength
20 (z=0.841)
15 (z=1.037)
10 (z=1.282)
5 (z=1.645)
1 (z=2.327)
Specified Strength
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
TYPICAL STANDARD DEVIATION

Ready-mix Concrete: 7-13%
Central-mix Concrete: 5-12%
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Allowable % of test z
specimens below standard normal
specified strength deviate
20 0.841
15 1.037
10 1.282
5 1.645
1 2.327
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Allowable % of test z
specimens below standard normal
specified strength deviate
20 0.841
15 1.037
10 1.282
5 1.645
1 2.327
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Modulus of Elasticity
Ec = 6750 S’c
Ec = 57,000 (f’c)0.5
Flexural Strength Modulus of Elasticity
600 psi 3,900,000 psi
650 psi 4,200,000 psi
700 psi 4,600,000 psi
AASHTO DESIGN
Concrete Properties
Modulus of Elasticity
Ec = 6750 S’c
Ec = 57,000 (f’c)0.5
Flexural Strength Modulus of Elasticity
600 psi 3,900,000 psi
650 psi 4,200,000 psi
700 psi 4,600,000 psi
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Properties
There are two subgrade properties that

influence concrete pavement design:
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k-value
• Loss of Support
AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Strength
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k
Reaction
Hydraulic Jack Pressure Gauge
Stacked Plates
Deflection Dial at 1/3 Points
k (psi/in) = unit load on plate / plate deflection

AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Strength
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k
Reaction
Reaction for Dial
Hydraulic Jack Pressure Gauge
Stacked Plates
Deflection Dial at 1/3 Points
k (psi/in) = unit load on plate / plate deflection

AASHTO DESIGN
Loss of Support
Accounts for the expected loss of support by

subbase / subgrade erosion and differential
movements.
Decreases the effective or composite k-value for a
subbase / subgrade based on the size of void that
may develop beneath the slab.
LOS Values = 0, 1, 2, 3
LOS = 0 models the conditions at the AASHO road test.
AASHTO DESIGN
k-Value Determination
The current design procedure uses the k-value

for design, but basis the soils characterization
on the Resilient Modulus, MR.
1. Determine MR
AASHTO Test Method TP 46-94
Correlation to CBR or R-values
2. Convert MR to K-value
3. Adjust for Loss of Support
AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Strength
The current procedure
increases the k-value to
unreasonably high values,
and then reduces k back
using Loss of Support
(LOS).
This produces unrealistic

results.
AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Soil Relationships
Be careful when using the MR = 1,500 * CBR
AASHTO Subgrade Soil
MR = 1,000 + 500 * R
Relationships
These relationships given in
the guide between M R and
CBR and R-values over
estimates actual MR values.
AASHTO DESIGN
Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)
160,000
140,000 AASHTO
120,000 Actual
100,000 ACPA
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
CBR (%)
Data: NCHRP Report 128.
AASHTO DESIGN
60,000
Resilient Modulus, RM (psi)
AASHTO
50,000
Actual
40,000 ACPA
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
R-Value
Data: NCHRP Report 128.
AASHTO DESIGN
After determining the Resilient Modulus,

MR, convert MR to k-value for design.
No subbase
K (psi/in) = MR/19.4
Subbase
Fig. 3.3 from Part II
AASHTO DESIGN
• Figure 3.3 -
nomograph for
determining k-value
using
• Roadbed soil modulus
• Subbase modulus
• Subbase thickness
AASHTO DESIGN
The relationships between For Example,
k and MR (base - no base) Assume MR = 12,000 psi
give inconsistent results with no-base
k = M R /19.4 = 619 psi/in
with high in-situ M R Values.
with 6” granular base
k = 574 psi/in (from Fig 3.3)
As the M R value increases, the
difference becomes greater.
Neither value is very realistic.
Historical values are 150-250
psi/in.
AASHTO DESIGN
3,000
AASHTO Mr/19.4
2,500
Backcalculated
k-value (psi/in.)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, Mr (ksi)
Data: NCHRP Report 1-30.
AASHTO DESIGN
Loss of Support
Reduces k-value due to expected

erosion of subgrade.
LOS = 0 models conditions at the
AASHO road test.
Upper 3 feet were required to be:
AASHO A-6 (clay)
Group Index = 9-13
Plastic Index = 11-15
Liquid Limit 27-32
80-85% passed the #200 Sieve
AASHTO DESIGN
Loss of Support
Historical AASHTO k-value

TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0 LOS=1 LOS=2 LOS=3
Silts & 3,000 100 -- -- 22 11
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 -- 79 29 13
Bituminous 100,000 350-450 300 93 -- --

Treated
Cement 1,000,000 400-500 445 128 -- --
Treated
AASHTO DESIGN
Loss of Support
Historical AASHTO k-value

TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0 LOS=1 LOS=2 LOS=3
Silts & 3,000 100 -- -- 22 11
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 -- 79 29 13
Bituminous 100,000 350-450 300 93 -- --

Treated
Cement 1,000,000 400-500 445 128 -- --
Treated
AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Strength
Use Loss of Support = 0 All cracking of rigid

(otherwise your using a pavements at the AASHO
huge fudge factor) road test were preceded by
the pumping of material from
underneath the slab.
The primary mode of failure
at the road test was loss of
support in the poor clay soil.
Therefore, AASHTO design
equations already account
for support loss.
AASHTO DESIGN
Loss of Support
Historical AASHTO
TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0
Silts & 3,000 100 155
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 244
Bituminous 100,000 350-450 300

Treated
Cement 1,000,000 400-500 445
Treated
AASHTO DESIGN
Loss of Support
Historical AASHTO
TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0
Silts & 3,000 100 155
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 244
Bituminous 100,000 350-450 300

Treated
Cement 1,000,000 400-500 445
Treated
AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Strength
Typical Soil Relationships
Soil Type Strength k-value Mr (psi) CBR

(psi / in.)
Silts / Clays Very Low 50-100 1000-1900 <3
Fine grained Low 100-150 1900-2900 3-5.5
Sands Medium 150-220 2900-4300 5.5-12
Gravely soils High 220-250+ 4300-4850 >12

AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Strength
Typical Soil Relationships
Soil Type Strength k-value Mr (psi) CBR

(psi / in.)
Silts / Clays Very Low 50-100 1000-1900 <3
Fine grained Low 100-150 1900-2900 3-5.5
Sands Medium 150-220 2900-4300 5.5-12
Gravely soils High 220-250+ 4300-4850 >12

AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Properties
If designing a roadway on a clay soil
that you intend to lime stabilize 6
Start with the in-situ inches deep:
subgrade soil (not a FIRST: Determine k and Mr for in-
stabilized soil) situ clay:
-typical clay; k = 100 psi/in
-Mr = k * 19.4 = 1940 psi
For PCC: determine k composite starting

with k = 100 & add 6-inch layer w/
typical E for lime soil (30,000 psi).
k composite = 131 psi/in
For AC: start w/ Mr = 1940 psi & add

the layer w/ structural coeff. of 0.14
AASHTO DESIGN
Subgrade Properties
If you do not know the structural coefficient
of a subbase layer use:
agranular = 0.249(log Egranular) - 0.977

3
agranular = 0.0045 Egranular
For lime-modified soil example:

agranular = 0.249[log (30,000)] - 0.977 = 0.138
3
agranular = 0.0045 30,000 = 0.139
AASHTO DESIGN
Subbase Effects
The current AASHTO Design

does not model the contribution
of bases accurately.
At the AASHO Road Test, it was
found that the concrete
pavements with granular bases
could carry about 30% more
traffic.
The current design procedures
allows concrete pavements built
with granular bases to carry
about 5 - 8% more traffic.
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage , Cd
Avenues for water entry

Surface
Entry 1
PAVEMENT
1 BASE
From Edge Vapor 3

Movement
2 Natural Drainage
4
from High-Ground
Capillary
Suction from 5
Water-Table
WATER-TABLE
Water-Table Rise
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage , Cd
Effects of Water Trapped within the

Pavement Structure
1. Reduced Strength of Unbound Granular Materials
2. Reduced Strength of Subgrade Soils
3. Pumping of fines
4. Differential Heaving of Swelling Soils
5. Frost Heave
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage , Cd
Conditions for Pumping

• Subgrade Soil that will go
into Suspension
• Free water between Slab
and Subgrade
• Frequent Heavy wheels
loads / Large Deflections
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage, Cd
Recommended Values for Drainage Coefficient
Percent of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed to
Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation
Quality of Less than Greater than
Drainage 1% 1 - 5% 5 - 25% 25%
Excellent 1.25 - 1.20 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10
Good 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00
Fair 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90
Poor 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80
Very Poor 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80 - 0.70 0.70
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage, Cd
Recommended Values for Drainage Coefficient
Percent of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed to
Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation
Quality of Less than Greater than
Drainage 1% 1 - 5% 5 - 25% 25%
Excellent 1.25 - 1.20 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10
Good 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00
Fair 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90
Poor 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80
Very Poor 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80 - 0.70 0.70
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage Coefficient
Use Drainage Coeff > 1.0 The subgrade soil at the
AASHO road test was a very
(otherwise using a huge poorly draining clay soil.
fudge factor)
Therefore the AASHTO
design equations already
account for a poor drainage
condition.
Modern open-graded bases

and more free-draining soils
are design options which can
be modeled with Cd > 1.0
DESIGN

Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
The statistical factors that influence

pavement performance are:
• RELIABILITY, R - The statistical probability that a
pavement will meet its design life.
• STANDARD DEVIATION, s o -The amount of

statistical error present in the design equations
resulting from variability in materials,
construction, traffic, etc.
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
po
SERVICEABILITY
Performance
Curve
Design Curve
pt
ZR * so
Log ESALs
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended Reliability Values for Design
Recommended Level
of Reliability
Functional Classification Urban Rural
Interstate / Freeways 85-99.9 80-99.9
Principal Arteials 80-99 75-99
Collectors 80-95 75-95
Local 50-80 50-80
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended Reliability Values for Design
Recommended Level
of Reliability
Functional Classification Urban Rural
Interstate / Freeways 85-99.9 80-99.9
Principal Arteials 80-99 75-99
Collectors 80-95 75-95
Local 50-80 50-80
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
ZR
Reliability standard normal
(R) deviate
50 -0.000
75 -0.674
90 -1.282
95 -1.645
99 -2.327
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
ZR
Reliability standard normal
(R) deviate
50 -0.000
75 -0.674
90 -1.282
95 -1.645
99 -2.327
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended so Values for Design
Concrete Asphalt
Ranges 0.30 − 0.40 0.40 − 0.50
Use
New Construction 0.35 0.45
Overlays 0.39 0.49
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended so Values for Design
Concrete Asphalt
Ranges 0.30 − 0.40 0.40 − 0.50
Use
New Construction 0.35 0.45
Overlays 0.39 0.49
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Never compare designs at Another way to think about
different reliabilities reliability is to consider that at
90% reliability, only 10% of the
(reliability = factor of pavement will have “failed” by
safety) the end of the design period.
If you are comparing a new

concrete section to a new
asphalt section use the same
reliability for each.
Make design evaluations at

50% reliability.
Sample Problem # 1

maximum
WinPAS
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
• Identify those inputs that have a significant

effect on the slab thickness
• These are the inputs that must be carefully
derived and selected
AASHTO DESIGN
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000 360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change 320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
50 60 70 80 90 100
Reliability. R
AASHTO DESIGN
50,000,000
ESAL Change 360
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change
320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4
Edge Support, J
AASHTO DESIGN
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change
320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Drainage Coefficient, Cd
AASHTO DESIGN
50,000,000 360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
Thickness Change
40,000,000 320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
160
0
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Concrete Flexural Strength, S'c (MPa)

AASHTO DESIGN
50,000,000
ESAL Change 360
Thickness (mm)
Thickness Change
40,000,000
320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
10 30 50 70 90 110 130
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k-value (MPa/m)

AASHTO DESIGN
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
Delta PSI (pi-pt)

AASHTO DESIGN
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42
Standard Deviation, So (for 90% reliability)

AASHTO DESIGN
50,000,000 360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Concrete Modulus, Ec (MPa)

AASTHO Design Procedure
Evaluation
• Evaluation of the AASHTO
Design Equations and
Recommended
Improvements
• SHRP-P-394 (1994)
Evaluation - JPCP
• The 1986-93 Equation is an “unbiased”
predictor, but it is not accurate
• Pred/Act ranged from 0.1 to over 10
• If designed with a high reliability, it will
get a conservative design
From: Evaluation of the AASHTO

Recommended Improvements
SHRP-P-394 (1994)
Evaluation - AC Pavements
• The 1993 Equation
represents a “serious
extrapolation outside the
reference space from
which the equation was
derived.”

SHRP-P-394 (1994)
• Of the 244 sections
tested, 48% over
predicted the actual
amount of traffic by a
factor of 100
• Key reason was because
of “inaccurate” information
on the subgrade resilient
modulus
• Back-calculated using the
AASHTO procedure
SHRP-P-394 (1994)
• When re-evaluated using
“laboratory” resilient
modulus values, ratio of
predicted to actual
decreased to
• Only 3% above 100
• 41% between 2 - 100
• Remaining error is due to
environmental impacts

SHRP-P-394 (1994)
Key Factors for Performance
Design must Consider Site Conditions
- Climate, Subgrade Type, Traffic Loadings
Jointed Plain Jointed Reinforced Continuously Reinforced

Initial smoothness Initial smoothness Initial smoothness
Load Transfer Load Transfer Steel Percentage
Subdrainage Subdrainage Subdrainage
Base type Joint Spacing Surface Texture
Slab Widening Slab Thickness Base type
Joint Spacing
Slab Thickness
Slab Strength From: Common Characteristics of Good and Poorly
Performing PCC Pavements
AASHTO Design
Procedures & Changes
1961 AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of
Rigid and Flexible Pavements
1972 AASHTO Interim Guide for the Design
of Pavement Structures - 1972
1981 Revised Chapter III on Portland Cement
Concrete Pavement Design
1986 The Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures
1993 Revised Overlay Design Procedures
AASHTO DESIGN
Problems with the 86 Guide
Overlay Design was :

• Incomplete
• Hard to Understand
• Difficult to Calibrate to Local Conditions
It was recommended that

the entire procedure be reevaluated
AASHTO DESIGN
Revisions in the 93 Guide
Overlay Design was Completely Revised

• New Procedure consists of
7 Overlay Design Procedures
• Uses the Concept of Structural Deficiency
• Used for Structural Overlays
AASHTO DESIGN
Revisions in the 93 Guide
Structural Overlays Types

• Bonded Concrete over Concrete
• Unbonded Concrete over Concrete
• Concrete over Asphalt
• Asphalt over Asphalt
• Asphalt over Concrete
• Asphalt over Fractured Concrete
• Asphalt over Asphalt / Concrete
Structural Deficiency Approach to
Overlay Design
Original Capacity after
Capacity Rehabilitation
Structural Capacity
Capacity
of Overlay
Effective Capacity
of Existing
Pavement
Loads
Pavement Evaluation for
Overlay Design
Functional Evaluation of Existing Pavement
• Surface Friction Problems/Polishing
• Use Diamond Grinding or Grooving to Restore Skid
Resistance
• Surface Roughness
• Use CPR and Diamond Grinding or Thin Bonded
Overlay to Restore Structure
Overlay Designs Must Address the Causes

of Functional Problems and Prevent Recurrence
Overlay Type Feasibility
• Availability of Adequate Funds
• Construction Feasibility
• Traffic Control
• Materials and Equipment
• Climatic Conditions
• Construction Problems (noise, pollution, subsurface
utilities, overhead clearance)
• Traffic Disruptions and User Delay Costs
• Required Future Design Life of the Overlay
Important Considerations in
Overlay Design
• Pre-overlay Repair
• Reflection Crack Control
• Traffic Loading (80 KN ESALs)
• Subdrainage
• Recycling Existing Pavement (PCC & AC)
• Structural vs Functional Overlays
• Overlay Materials
• Required Future Design Life of the Overlay
Important Considerations in
Overlay Design (cont.)
• Shoulders
• Existing PCC Slab Durability
• PCC Overlay Joints
• PCC Overlay Reinforcement
• PCC Overlays Bonding / Separation Layers
• Overlay Design Reliability Level & Overall Standard
Deviation
• Pavement Widening
• Traffic Disruptions and User Delay Costs
Pavement Evaluation for
Overlay Design
DESIGN OF OVERLAY ALONG PROJECT
• Uniform Section Approach

• Point-by-Point Approach
AASHTO OVERLAY DESIGN
Procedure
1. Determine Existing Pavement Information
2. Predict Future ESALs
3. Perform Condition Survey
4. Perform Deflection Testing
5. Perform Coring / Materials Testing
6. Determine Future Structural Capacity
7. Determine Existing Structural Capacity
8. Determine Overlay Structural Capacity and
Thicknesses
Procedure
1. Determine Existing Pavement Information

• Existing Slab or Layer Thicknesses
• Load Transfer Mechanism
• Type of Shoulder
• Base/Subbase information
• Soils Information
Procedure
2. Predict Future ESALs
• Predicted Future 80 KN ESAL's in the
Design Lane over the Design Period
• Past ESAL's if the Remaining Life Method is
used to determine the Existing Structural
Capacity
Note: The Appropriate ESAL count must

be used in the Overlay Design
Loadings
EXISTING OVERLAY OVERLAY

PAVEMENT TYPE TYPE
JPCP or JRCP PCC or AC Rigid
CRCP PCC or AC Rigid
AC PCC Rigid
COMPOSITE PCC or AC Rigid
Note: Flexible ESALs 2/3 Rigid ESALs

Loadings
EXISTING OVERLAY OVERLAY

PAVEMENT TYPE TYPE
JPCP or JRCP PCC or AC Rigid
CRCP PCC or AC Rigid
AC PCC Rigid
COMPOSITE PCC or AC Rigid
Note: Flexible ESALs 2/3 Rigid ESALs

Procedure

4. Perform Deflection Testing
5. Perform Coring/Materials Testing
The surveys and testing are used to
estimate the in-situ material properties
and the condition of the pavement and
underlying layers.
Procedure
Rigid Pavements Flexible Pavements
• Deteriorating Transverse or • Fatigue / Alligator Cracking

Longitudinal Joints • Rutting
• Corner Breaks • Transverse and Longitudinal
• Localized failing areas where Cracking
the PCC slab is • Localized failing areas where
disintegrating underlying areas are
• Localized Punchouts (CRCP) disintegrating
Procedure
Rigid Pavements Flexible Pavements
• Deteriorating Transverse or • Fatigue / Alligator Cracking

Longitudinal Joints • Rutting
• Corner Breaks • Transverse and Longitudinal
• Localized failing areas where Cracking
the PCC slab is • Localized failing areas where
disintegrating underlying areas are
• Localized Punchouts (CRCP) disintegrating
Procedure
4. Perform
Deflection
Testing
Procedure
5. Perform Coring &
Materials Testing
The surveys and testing are

used to estimate the in-situ
material properties and the
condition of the pavement and
underlying layers.
Procedure
6. Determine Future Structural Capacity
• SCf = Structural Capacity Required to Carry
Future Traffic Loadings
• For Rigid Pavements
• Df = Slab Thickness Required to Carry Future
Traffic Loadings
Determination of Required Thickness
for Future Traffic
Thickness
Load Transfer (J)
Drainage (Cd)
Reliability (R, So)
Overall Standard Deviation
For Overlay Design, use:
Rigid Equation - 0.39
Flexible Equation - 0.49

Procedure
7. Determine Structural Capacity of Existing

Pavement
• SCeff = Effective Structural Capacity of the
Existing Pavement
• Deff = Effective Slab Thickness of the Existing
Pavement
Structural Capacity Determination
Proper Evaluation of Existing

Pavement is Essential to
Selecting Appropriate Overlay
Designs
Structural Capacity of Existing Pavement

can be based on:
1. Visual Survey and Materials Testing
2. Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
3. Fatigue Damage Due to Traffic
(Remaining Life)
Visual Survey and Materials Testing

• Visual Survey -
Deteriorating Transverse and Longitudinal Cracks
Corner Breaks
Localized failing Areas
Localized Punchouts in CRCP
• Subdrainage Survey -
Identify Moisture Related Problems
• Coring and Materials Testing -
Identify Material Thicknesses and Conditions
PCC MODULUS OF RUPTURE

(From Split Tensile of Cores)
S’c = 210 + 1.02 * IT

where:
S’c = Modulus of rupture, psi
IT = Indirect Tensile Strength of
6-inch Diameter Cores, psi
Nondestructive Deflection Testing (NDT)

• Direct Evaluation of In Situ Subgrade and
Pavement Stiffness
• Examine Load Transfer Efficiency at Joints and Cracks
• Estimate Effective k-value
• Estimate Concrete Strength
• Examine Resilient Modulus of Pavement Layers
• Quantify Variability Along the Project
Fatigue Damage Due to Traffic

(Remaining Life)
• Uses Estimate of Past Traffic to Determine
Existing Damage
• Remaining Life Determined from Past Traffic
and Expected Future Traffic
Serious Deficiencies with the Remaining Life Approach

• Predictive Capability of the AASHO Road Test
Equations
• Large Variations In-pavement Field Performance,
even between Identical designs
• Difficulty in Estimating Past 80-KN (18-kip) ESALs
• Inability to Account for Pre-Overlay Repairs
Two Extreme Errors with the Remaining Life Approach
1. Remaining Life Very Low; Little Load Distress

Present
If No Cracking Evident, Pavement has Substantial Life,
Regardless of Past Traffic
2. Remaining Life Very High, Substantial Load Stress

Pavement really has Low Remaining Life
Procedure
8. Determine Overlay Structural Capacity and

Thicknesses
• SCol = Structural Capacity for Overlay
• SCol = SCf - Sceff
• Dol = Overlay Thickness
Concrete Overlay Types
PCC OVERLAY EXISTING

TYPE PAVEMENT
Bonded PCC JPCP/JRCP/and CRCP
Unbonded PCC JPCP/JRCP/and CRCP
PCC (whitetopping) AC
Concrete Overlay Types
PCC OVERLAY EXISTING

TYPE PAVEMENT
Bonded PCC JPCP/JRCP/and CRCP
Unbonded PCC JPCP/JRCP/and CRCP
PCC (whitetopping) AC
Bonded Concrete Overlay
• Consists of a thin concrete layer (100 mm or less)
on top of an existing concrete surface.
• Specific steps are taken to bond the new concrete
overlay to the existing concrete.
. .
.. .
. .
.
Bond = Strength . .
Surface Preparation
• Cleanliness is key to long-term performance.
• Surface preparation procedures:
• Shotblasting
• Milling
• Shotblasting
• Surface Cleaning
Grout or No-grout?
600
Corner Center Edge Average
500
Shear Strength (psi)
400
300
200
100
0
Milled/Grout Milled/None Shot Shot
blast/Grout blast/None
Unpublished Research Data: University of Texas
Performance
• Good when:
• Placed correctly and at the right time.
• Poor when:
• Placed on deteriorated pavements.
• Loss of bond does not necessarily
constitute failure.
THICKNESS DESIGN
Dol = Df - Deff
Where
Dol = Required Slab Thickness of Overlay, in.
Df = Slab Thickness to Carry Future Traffic, in.
Deff = Thickness of Existing Slab, in.
DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE SLAB

THICKNESS (Deff)
Deff = Fjc * Fdur * Ffat * D
Where
Fjc = Joints and Cracks Adjustment Factor
Fdur =Durability Adjustment Factor
Ffat = Fatigue Adjustment Factor
D = Effective Thickness of Existing Slab, in.
Joints & Cracks Adjustment Factor, (Fjc)
Adjusts for PSI loss due to unrepaired joints, cracks,

and other discontinuities
Pavements with no ”D” cracking or reactive aggregates
• Number of deteriorated transverse joints per mile
• Number of deteriorated transverse cracks per mile
• Number of existing expansion joints, exceptionally wide joints
(>1 in.), or AC full-depth patches
Do not include joints or cracks with “D” cracking or
reactive aggregate deterioration
Joints & Cracks Adjustment Factor, (Fjc)
Durability Adjustment Factor, (Fdur)
Adjusts for PSI loss due to durability

problems, such as “D” cracking and reactive
aggregates
• 1.00 No durability problems
• 0.96-0.99 Durability cracking exists, no spalling
• 0.88-0.95 Substantial cracking, some spalling
• 0.80-0.87 Substantial cracking, Severe spalling
Fatigue Adjustment Factor, (Ffat)
Adjusts for PSI loss due to fatigue damage in the slab
• 0.97-1.00 Few Cracks / punchouts
JPCP: <5% Slabs cracked
JRCP: <25 working cracks/mile
CRCP: < 4 punchouts/mile
• 0.94-0.96 Significant cracking / punchouts
JPCP: 5-15% Slabs cracked
JRCP: 26-75 working cracks/mile
CRCP: 4-12 punchouts/mile
• 0.90-0.94 Extensive cracking / punchouts
JPCP: >15% Slabs cracked
JRCP: >75 working cracks/mile
CRCP: >12 punchouts/mile
Unbonded Concrete Overlay
• Consists of thick concrete layer (125 mm or greater)

on top of an existing concrete.
• Uses a “separation interlayer” to separate new
overlay and existing concrete.
. . .
.
.. .
. .
. .. . .
. .
Separation Interlayer:
• Allows layers to act
independently.
• Prevents distresses from
reflecting into overlay.
• Materials that work:
• Asphalt concrete
• Some surface treatments
• Materials that do not:
• Polyethylene
• Roofing paper
• Curing compound
Separation Interlayer:
“Key”
Overlay
Old Pavement
Smooth Slip Plane
Overlay
Old Pavement
Thick Interlayer (> 50 mm)

• Whitewash
• Prevent heat build-up
by reflecting
heat/energy
• Temperature reduction
as much as 11ºC
(20ºF)
• Typically lime slurry or
curing compound
Heat/Energy is Absorbed into
Black Leveling Surface
Heat/Energy is Reflected by
Whitewashed Surface
-20° F
Performance
• Very Good
• Can be expected to perform for 20+ years.
• Most failures are due to the use of inadequate
separation layers.
THICKNESS DESIGN
Dol = Df2- Deff2
Where
Deff = Effective Thickness of Existing Slab, in.
DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE
SLAB THICKNESS (Deff)
Deff = Fjcu * D
Where
Fjcu= Joints and Cracks Adjustment Factor
D = Thickness of Existing Slab, in.
Joints & Cracks Adjustment Factor, (Fjcu)
Adjusts for PSI loss due to unrepaired joints,

cracks, and other discontinuities
• Number of deteriorated transverse joints per mile
• Number of deteriorated transverse cracks per mile
• Number of existing expansion joints, exceptionally wide joints
(>1 in.), or AC full-depth patches
Very little reflective cracking has been observed in
unbonded overlays
Can use thicker interlayer instead of repairs
Joints & Cracks Adjustment Factor, (Fjcu)
Concrete Overlays of Asphalt
(Whitetopping)
• Consists of a thick concrete layer (100 mm or greater)
placed directly on top of an asphalt concrete pavement.
• Behaves as a new pavement on a strong base.
Whitetopping
(Whitetopping)
• Fastest Growing
Resurfacing Category 100
90
• 178 documented 80
projects 70
No. Constructed
60
• Over 100 new projects
50
since 1982 40
• Used to combat rutting 30
in heavy truck corridors 20

10
0
< 1950 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-92
Years
Whitetopping - Advantages
Construction
• Can place on
pavement in bad
condition.
• Little or no pre-overlay
repair needed.
• Avoid reconstruction
problems.
• Minimal rain delays.
• Maintain traffic on
existing surface.
Whitetopping - Advantages
Structural
• Improved structural capacity.
• Maintains high level of
serviceability.
• Reacts structurally as if on
strong base course.
• Concrete slabs bridge
problems asphalt cannot.
• Reduced potential for
pumping, faulting
and loss of support.
(Whitetopping)
Performance
• Most projects are too new to provide data
• 20 Years or less
• Those that are old enough are providing
excellent performance
• Oldest in-service project built 1956
(Columbus AFB, Miss.)
(Whitetopping)
THICKNESS DESIGN
Dol = Df
Where
Overlay is designed as “New PCC Pavement” using

an effective modulus of subgrade reaction (keff) on
existing flexible pavement.
(Whitetopping)
Effective K-Value (keff)

• Determine from deflection data on asphalt
using Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
data.
• Determine using Fig. 3.3 and AC thickness, AC
modulus, and subgrade modulus.
Concrete Overlays of
Asphalt (Whitetopping)
• Figure 3.3 -
nomograph for
determining k-value
using
• Roadbed soil modulus
• Subbase modulus-use
AC modulus
• Subbase thickness-use
AC thickness
Ultra-Thin Whitetopping
• A concrete overlay, 2 to 4 inches thick with
close joint spacing, bonded to the existing
asphalt pavement.
• May or may not contain fibers
. .
.. .
. .
.
. .
Ultrathin Whitetopping
Bonding Effects
Surface Preparation
Milling for Surface Preparation
Clean Surface
Placing Concrete
Placement using
Slipform Paver
Placement using
Vibrating Screed
Effects of Joint Spacing
3.0 ft 3.0 ft 3.0 ft 10.0 ft
Short joint spacing allows the slabs to deflect instead of bend.

This creates the need to balance thickness and joint spacing.
UTW Jointing
2’ x 2’ panels
Cutting Joints
Construction Steps
Early Saw
Open to Traffic
Design Charts
• 4 Design Tables for Roads, Streets and Parking
Areas
• Light Residential Traffic (Cat. A), k= 100 psi/in
• Light Residential Traffic (Cat. A), k= 200 psi/in
• Collector and Minor Arterial Traffic (Cat. B), k= 100 psi/in
• Collector and Minor Arterial Traffic (Cat. B), k= 200 psi/in
• 4 General Aviation Tables
Design Charts
Allowable Number of Trucks Per Lane (Thousands)
h2, h1, UTW thickness
Flexural Asphalt 2 in 3 in 4 in
Strength, Thickness, Joint Spacing
psi in 3 ft 2 ft 4 ft 3 ft 6 ft 4 ft
700 3 0 75 6 102 56 298
4 55 216 110 284 230 578
5 197 497 331 620 553 1076
6 or more 511 1053 771 1221 1148 1915
800 3 9 111 79 197 266 551
4 101 261 221 398 502 875
5 277 622 495 778 922 1460
6 or more 639 1183 1002 1493 1583 2438
Axle-Load Category B, k = 200 psi/in

Design Charts
Allowable Number of Trucks Per Lane (Thousands)
h2, h1, UTW thickness
Flexural Asphalt 2 in 3 in 4 in
Strength, Thickness, Joint Spacing
psi in 3 ft 2 ft 4 ft 3 ft 6 ft 4 ft
700 3 0 75 6 102 56 298
4 55 216 110 284 230 578
5 197 497 331 620 553 1076
6 or more 511 1053 771 1221 1148 1915
800 3 9 111 79 197 266 551
4 101 261 221 398 502 875
5 277 622 495 778 922 1460
6 or more 639 1183 1002 1493 1583 2438
Axle-Load Category B, k = 200 psi/in

http://www.pavement.com
ACPA Home Page
UTW Design/Evaluation Program

Concrete Pavement Thickness Design According To The AASHTO D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concrete Pavement Thickness Design According To The AASHTO D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concrete Pavement

AASHTO Guide for Design of

Surface smoothness Thickness Design

Use jointed plain designs

Use jointed reinforced designs

Use continuously reinforced designs

The AASHO Road Test

1986 AASHTO GUIDE

Pavement design is an a priori process.

NCHRP 1-26 Phase II Final Report

• Third Large Scale Road Test

All were segments two-lane divided highway (I-80)

Max Tandem Axle

Concrete (36 Sect) Concrete (39 Sect)

2.0 Concrete (38 Sect) Concrete (47 Sect)

The primary mode of

Factors Affecting Rigid Pavements

Consider the Sensitivity of each

Four Forgotten Fundamentals

• Subgrade CBR = 10 for a k value

Factors Affecting Rigid Pavements

Factors Affecting Rigid Pavements

Serviceability - Present Serviceability

The AASHTO Design Original

Using current construction techniques, concrete roads can

pt Street or Highway Classification

pt Street or Highway Classification

Factors Affecting Rigid Pavements

Equivalent Number of 18k Single Axle Loads

VEHICLE NUMBER RIGID FLEXIBLE

Total 500 149.52 108.36

VEHICLE NUMBER RIGID FLEXIBLE

Total 500 149.52 108.36

No. of repetitions of X-k Load causing given ∆PSI

Changes for Pavement Type, Thickness,

LEFs Can Be Based On:

For a Given Stress or Strain:

Stress or Strain of X-kip Load on Axle Type Y

For a Given Deflection:

Deflection of X-kip Load on Axle Type Y

# of Repetitions of X-kip Load on Axle Type Y

Asphalt Performance Curve

Single axles, terminal serviceability = 2.5,

Single axles, terminal serviceability = 2.5,

Load appliles Load appliles

pressure = 5 psi pressure = 30 psi

Concrete ESAL Bituminous ESAL

Smaller pressure on the subgrade means more load is absorbed by concrete.

Since pavement responses are different, the equivalency

12,000 lbs 28,000 lbs 28,000 lbs

* Equals 1.18 Flexible ESALs

ESAL = ADT * % Trucks * Directional Distribution *

(For one year only)

• Subgrade CBR = 10 for a k value

Factors Affecting Rigid Pavements

• The Load Transfer Coefficient, J-factor,

The J-factor is adjusted by how stress

Deflections in Concrete Pavement

Undoweled transverse Joint Doweled transverse Joint

Effect of Dowels and Shoulders on Allowable ESALs

7 368,600 539,200 663,500 1,186,300

Effect of Dowels and Shoulders on Allowable ESALs

7 368,600 539,200 663,500 1,186,300