Design Methods

Highway Pavements

AASHTO
The Asphalt Institute
Portland Cement Association

Airfield Pavements

FAA
The Asphalt Institute
Portland Cement Association
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Objectives of Pavement Design

To provide a surface that is:

Strong

Surface strength
Moisture control

Smooth
Safe

Friction
Drainage

Economical

Initial construction cost

Recurring maintenance cost

Pavements are Designed

to Fail !!

Pavement Design Methodologies

Experience
Empirical

Statistical models from road tests

Mechanistic-Empirical

Calculation of pavement stresses/strains/deformations

Empirical pavement performance models

Mechanistic

Calculation of pavement stresses/strains/deformations

Mechanics-based pavement performance models

Empirical vs. Mechanistic Design

P

Wood Floor Joist

Empirical Rule of 2:
d in inches= (L in feet / 2) + 2

Mechanistic: bending =

PL
allowable
4S

1993 Version

AASHTO Pavement Design Guide

Empirical design methodology
Several versions:

1961 (Interim Guide)

1972
1986

1993

Refined material characterization

Version included in Huang (1993)
More on rehabilitation
More consistency between flexible, rigid designs
Current version

2002

Under development
Will be based on mechanistic-empirical approach

AASHO Road Test (late 1950s)

(AASHO, 1961)

One Rainfall Zone...

(AASHO, 1961)

One Temperature Zone...

(AASHO, 1961)

One Subgrade...

A-6 / A-7-6 (Clay)

Poor Drainage
(AASHO, 1961)

Limited Set of Materials...

One asphalt concrete

3/4 surface course

1 binder course

One Portland cement concrete (3500 psi @ 14 days)

Four base materials

Well-graded crushed limestone (main experiment)

Well-graded uncrushed gravel (special studies)
Bituminous-treated base (special studies)
Cement-treated base (special studies)

One uniform sand/gravel subbase

1950s
Construction
Methods...

(AASHO, 1961)

(AASHO, 1961)

1950s
Vehicle Loads...

Axle Loads (Thousands)

Limited Traffic Volumes...

1.1M
1.1MAxles
Axles

22Years
Years

Time (Months)
(AASHO, 1961)

1950s
Data Analysis...
(AASHO, 1961)

Some Failures...

(Some pavements too!)

(AASHO, 1961)

AASHTO Design Based

on Serviceability Decrease

(AASHTO, 1993)

What is Serviceability?
Based upon Present
Serviceability Rating (PSR)

Subjective rating by
individual/panel

Initial/post-construction
Various times after
construction

0 < PSR < 5

PSR < ~2.5: Unacceptable
(AASHO, 1961)

Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

PSR correlated to physical pavement measures via Present
Serviceability Index (PSI):
2

PSI = 5.03 1.91log(1 + SV ) 1.38 RD 0.01(C + P)1/ 2

SV = slope variance (measure of roughness)

Empirical!

RD = average rut depth (inches)

C + P = area of cracking and patching per 1000 ft 2
PSI PSR

10

AASHTO Design Guide (1993)

Part I: Pavement Design and Management
Principles
Introduction and Background
Design Related to Project Level Pavement Management
Economic Evaluation of Alternative Design Strategies
Reliability

AASHTO Design Guide (1993)

Part II: Pavement Design Procedures for New
Construction or Reconstruction
Design Requirements
Highway Pavement Structural Design
Low-Volume Road Design

11

AASHTO Design Guide (1993)

Part III: Pavement Design Procedures for
Rehabilitation of Existing Pavements
Rehabilitation Concepts
Guides for Field Data Collection
Rehabilitation Methods Other Than Overlay
Rehabilitation Methods With Overlays

Design Scenarios
Included in
AASHTO Guide

(AASHTO, 1993)

12

AASHTO Design Based

on Serviceability Decrease

(AASHTO, 1993)

Flexible Pavements

13

Design Equation
log10 (W18 ) = Z R So + 9.36 log10 ( SN + 1) 0.20

Structural Number

PSI
log10
4.2 1.5 + 2.32 log M 8.07
+
10 (
R)
1094
0.40 +
5.19
( SN + 1)
W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs)
ZR = standard normal deviate
So = combined standard error of traffic and performance prediction
PSI = difference between initial and terminal serviceability index
MR = resilient modulus (psi)
SN = structural number

(AASHTO, 1993)

14

Traffic vs. Analysis Period

(AASHTO, 1993)

Analysis Period

(Also basis for life-cycle cost analysis)

(AASHTO, 1993)

15

Design Traffic (18K ESALs)

(AASHTO, 1993)

Design Traffic (18K ESALs)

DD = 0.5 typically
DL:

(AASHTO, 1993)

16

Reliability

(AASHTO, 1993)

Recommended Values for

Standard Error So

Rigid Pavements: 0.30 - 0.40

Flexible Pavements: 0.40 - 0.50

17

Standard Normal Deviate ZR

(AASHTO, 1993)

Recommended Reliability Levels

(AASHTO, 1993)

18

Serviceability

PSI = po pt
PSI = Pavement Serviceability Index, 1 < PSI < 5
po = Initial Serviceability Index

Rigid pavements: 4.5

Flexible pavements: 4.2

pt = Terminal Serviceability Index

(AASHTO, 1993)

Adjustment of
Roadbed (Subgrade)
MR for Seasonal
Variations

(AASHTO, 1993)

19

Structural Number
n

SN = a1 D1 + ai Di mi
i =2

SN = structural number = f (structural capacity)

ai = ith layer coefficient
Di = ith layer thickness (inches)
mi = ith layer drainage coefficient
n = number of layers (3, typically)

No Unique Solution!

(AASHTO, 1993)

20

Layer Coefficient a1: Asphalt Concrete

(AASHTO, 1993)

Layer Coefficient a2: Granular Base

a2 0.249 ( log10 Ebase ) 0.977

Ebase in psi

(AASHTO, 1993)

21

Layer Coefficient a2: Cement Treated Base

(AASHTO, 1993)

Layer Coefficient a2:

Bituminous Treated Base

(AASHTO, 1993)

22

Layer Coefficient a3: Granular Subbase

a3 = 0.227(log10 Esubbase ) 0.839

Esubbase in psi

(AASHTO, 1993)

Quality of Drainage

(AASHTO, 1993)

23

Drainage Coefficient mi
mi increases/decreases the effective value for ai

(AASHTO, 1993)

Next Slide
(AASHTO, 1993)

24

Traffic vs. Analysis Period

(AASHTO, 1993)

(AASHTO, 1993)

25

Effect of Frost
on Performance

PSI = Pavement
Servicability
Index
1 < PSI < 5
Failure: PSI < 2+

(AASHTO, 1993)

Frost Heave Rate

= f (-0.02mm)

(AASHTO, 1993)

26

Maximum
Serviceability
Loss
PSImax =
f (frost depth,
drainage)

(AASHTO, 1993)

Effect of
Swelling on
Performance

PSI = Pavement
Servicability
Index
1 < PSI < 5
Failure: PSI < 2+

(AASHTO, 1993)

27

Swell Rate Constant

= f (moisture supply,
soil fabric)

(AASHTO, 1993)

Maximum Potential
Heave VR

VR = f (PI, compaction, thickness)

(AASHTO, 1993)

28

Rigid Pavements

Design Equation
log10 (W18 ) = Z R So + 7.35log10 ( D + 1) 0.06

PCC Thickness

PSI

log10
'
0.75
S c Cd ( D 1.132 )

4.5 1.5

+
+ ( 4.22 0.32 pt ) log10

1.64x107

18.42

0.75
1+
8.46
J
D

215.63

0.25

( D + 1)
E
k
/
(
)

W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs)

ZR = standard normal deviate

Sc = modulus of rupture (psi) for Portland cement

concrete

So = combined standard error of traffic and

performance prediction

J = load transfer coefficient

D = thickness (inches) of pavement slab

Ec = modulus of elasticity (psi) for Portland

cement concrete

PSI = difference between initial and terminal

serviceability indices

pt = terminal serviceability value

Cd = drainage coefficient

k = modulus of subgrade reaction (pci)

29

(AASHTO, 1993)

(AASHTO, 1993)

30

Design Inputs
W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs)
ZR = standard normal deviate
So = combined standard error of traffic and performance prediction

PSI = difference between initial and terminal serviceability indices

pt = terminal serviceability index (implicit in flexible design)

All consistent with flexible pavements!

Additional Design Inputs

Sc = modulus of rupture for concrete
J = joint load transfer coefficient
Cd = drainage coefficient (similar in concept to flexible
pavement terms)

Ec = modulus of elasticity for concrete

k = modulus of subgrade reaction
Additional inputs reflect differences in
materials and structural behavior.

31

Modulus of Rupture
Sc

(AASHTO, 1993)

Joint Load Transfer Coefficient J

Pavement Type
(no tied shoulders)
JCP/JRCP
w/ load transfer devices
JCP/JRCP
w/out load transfer devices
CRCP

J
3.2
3.8-4.4
2.9

32

Joint Load Transfer Coefficient J

Additional benefits of tied shoulders:

(AASHTO, 1993)

Drainage Coefficient Cd
Two effects:

Subbase and subgrade strength/stiffness

Joint load transfer effectiveness

(AASHTO, 1993)

33

PCC Modulus of Elasticity Ec

Measure directly per ASTM C469
Correlation w/ compressive strength:
Ec = 57,000 (fc)0.5
Ec = elastic modulus (psi)
fc = compressive strength (psi) per AASHTO T22, T140, or ASTM
C39

Effective Subgrade Modulus k

Depends on:

Roadbed (subgrade) resilient modulus, MR

Subbase resilient modulus, ESB

Both vary by season

34

Determining Effective k (See Table 3.2)

Identify:

Subbase types
Subbase thicknesses
Loss of support, LS (erosion potential of subbase)
Depth to rigid foundation (feet)

Assign roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) for each season

Assign subbase resilient modulus (ESB) for each season

15,000 psi (spring thaw) < ESB < 50,000 psi (winter freeze)
ESB < 4(MR)

(AASHTO, 1993)

35

Determining Effective k (contd)

Determine composite k for each season

For DSB = 0: k = MR/19.4

For DSB > 0: Use Figure 3.3

If depth to rigid foundation < 10 feet, correct k for effect of

rigid foundation near the surface (Figure 3.4)

Estimate required thickness of slab (Figure 3.5) and

determine relative damage ur for each season

Use average ur to determine effective k (Figure 3.5)

Correct k for potential loss of support LS (Figure 3.6)

Composite Modulus
of Subgrade Reaction
k = f (MR , ESB , DSB )

(AASHTO, 1993)

36

Rigid Foundation
Correction

(AASHTO, 1993)

Relative Damage
ur = f ( k, D)

(AASHTO, 1993)

37

(AASHTO, 1993)

Loss of Support, LS

Subbase/subgrade
erosion at joints causes
Loss of Support,
impairs load transfer.

(AASHTO, 1993)

38

Loss of Support

(AASHTO, 1993)

(AASHTO, 1993)

39

Next Slide

Consistent with flexible pavement approach!

(AASHTO, 1993)

Traffic vs. Analysis Period

(AASHTO,
(AASHTO,1993)
1993)

40

Joint Design
Joint Types

Contraction
Expansion
Construction
Longitudinal

Joint Geometry

Spacing
Layout (e.g., regular, skewed, randomized)
Dimensions

Joint Sealant Dimensions

Types of Joints
Contraction

Transverse
For relief of tensile stresses

Expansion

Transverse
For relief of compressive stresses
Used primarily between pavement and structures (e.g., bridge)

Construction
Longitudinal

For relief of curling and warping stresses

41

Typical Contraction Joint Details

(Huang, 1993)

Typical Expansion Joint Detail

(Huang, 1993)

42

Typical Construction Joint Detail

(Huang, 1993)

Typical Longitudinal Joint Detail

Full Width Construction

(Huang, 1993)

43

Typical Longitudinal Joint Detail

Lane-at-a-Time Construction
(Huang, 1993)

Joint Spacing
Local experience is best guide
Rules of thumb:

JCP joint spacing (feet) < 2D (inches)

W/L < 1.25

44

Joint Dimensions
Width controlled by joint sealant extension
Depths:

Contraction joints: D/4

Longitudinal joints: D/3

Joints may be formed by:

Sawing
Inserts
Forming

Joint Sealant
Dimension
Governed by
expected joint
movement,
sealant resilience

(AASHTO, 1993)

45

Design Inputs
Z

(AASHTO, 1993)

Reinforcement Design (JRCP)

Purpose of reinforcement is not to prevent cracking, but to hold tightly

closed any cracks that may form

Physical mechanisms:

Thermal/moisture contraction
Friction resistance from underlying material

Design based on friction stress analysis

(Huang, 1993)

46

Dowel Bars: Transverse Joint Load Transfer

size and spacing should be determined by the local

agencys procedures and/or experience.

Guidelines:

Dowel bar diameter = D/8 (inches)

Dowel spacing: 12 inches
Dowel length: 18 inches

Friction Stresses

Induces tensile stresses in concrete

Causes opening of transverse joints
(Huang, 1993)

47

Applies to both longitudinal

and transverse steel reinforcement
(Generally, Ps=0 for L< ~15 feet)
(AASHTO, 1993)

Friction Factor

(AASHTO, 1993)

48

Steel Working Stress

Based on preventing fracture and limiting permanent deformation.

(AASHTO, 1993)

Transverse
Tie Bars

(AASHTO, 1993)

49

Transverse
Tie Bars

(AASHTO, 1993)

50