6/8/2018

MECHANISTIC EMPIRICAL
PAVEMENT DESIGN

Abubeker W. Ahmed

INTRODUCTION PAVEMENT DESIGN

Establish Layer Thicknesses:
To limit distress (to acceptable levels),
for anticipated loading &
environmental conditions using
available/selected materials
Also fulfils functional requirements
such as
 Ride quality
 Friction
 Geometry
 Appearance
 Surface cracking
 Loss of color

1
 6/8/2018

ELEMENTS TO BE DEFINED - CONDITIONS

Conditions
Martials
Performance criterial

c

c

ELEMENTS TO BE DEFINED - CONDITIONS

Traffic loading
Environment (temperature, moisture)

c

c

2
 6/8/2018

ELEMENTS TO BE DEFINED - MATERIALS

Subgrade varies with season - existing material
Pavement layers - engineered materials

c

c

ELEMENTS TO BE DEFINED – PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA
Conditions that define failure
Performance Relationship
A Pavement Performance Model is an equation that relates some
extrinsic ‘time factor’ (age, or number of load applications) to a
combination of intrinsic factors (structural responses, drainage, etc.) and
performance indicators

c

c

3
 6/8/2018

DESIGN APPROACHES
Difference is in the nature of Performance Relation
Empirical
CBR
AASHTO
Mechanistic / Mechanistic empirical
Shell
Asphalt Institute
CalME
MEPDG /AASHTO ME

EMPIRICAL VS MECHANISTIC-BASED DESIGN

 Beam example
P
d

Empirical “Rule of 2”:

d in cm= (L in m / 2) + 2
L
Mechanistic:
PL
bending=  allowable
4S

4
 6/8/2018

EMPIRICAL- AASHTO
Statistical/Experimental (based on road tests)
Limited to the conditions/environment they are developed
Perhaps the most famous and influential project
 Late 50’s road test in Illinois
 $27 million (in 1960!) Value today?
 "...to study the performance of pavement structures of known
thickness under moving loads of known magnitude and
frequency"
 (still!) the primary source of experimental data when vehicle
damage to highways is considered

AASHTO ROAD TEST

4.79 𝐺ൗ
𝑊𝑋 𝐿18 + 𝐿2𝑠 10 𝛽𝑥
𝐿𝐸𝐹 = = 𝐿2𝑥 4.33
𝑊18 𝐿𝑥 + 𝐿2𝑥 𝐺ൗ
10 𝛽18

5
 6/8/2018

SERVICEABILITY-PERFORMANCE
The serviceability-performance concept is based on five assumptions:
Highways are for the comfort and convenience of the road users
Road user’s opinion of how a highway should perform is subjective
Serviceability can be expressed by the mean ratings of the users
There are physical characteristics of pavement which can be
measured objectively and can be related to road users ratings
Performance can be represented by serviceability history of a
pavement (ΔPSI) (the design serviceability loss)

SERVICEABILITY-PERFORMANCE

𝑃𝑆𝐼 = 5.03 − 1.91𝑙𝑜𝑔 1 + 𝑆𝑉 − 1.38𝑅𝐷 2 − 0.01 𝐶 + 𝑃

SV = mean slope variance in the wheel paths

RD = mean rut depth
C = cracking
P = patching

6
 6/8/2018

AASHTO PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT AND

DESIGN LIFE
 AASHTO performance requirement = ΔPSI
 ΔPSI is such that PSIt is NOT reached before end of design life

FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE PSI

(SN)

 Mref: Accounts for the environment -> known

 SN: Index relating effectiveness of pavement structure -> Solve for
 ESAL: equivalent standard axles -> known

7
 6/8/2018

AASHTO DESIGN GUIDE-STRUCTURAL NUMBER

 The strength of the pavement structure is define by “Structural Number”
SN

 The Structural Number is an abstract number expressing the structural

strength of a pavement required for given combinations of soil support
(MR), total traffic expressed in ESALs, terminal serviceability and
environment

 Index that is indicative of the total pavement thickness required

 Indicative of the overall bearing capacity

AASHTO DESIGN GUIDE-STRUCTURAL NUMBER CONT.

𝑆𝑁 = 𝑆𝑁1 +𝑆𝑁2 +𝑆𝑁3

 Di thickness
𝑆𝑁 = 𝑎1 𝐷1 +𝑎2 𝐷2 𝑚2 +𝑎3 𝐷3 𝑚3  ai structural coefficient, ai = f(Ei, material)

8
 6/8/2018

AASHTO DESIGN GUIDE

The variation in the subgrade throughout the year is explicitly
taken into account by choosing a modulus for each month MR
An empirical equation relates the required SN to the equivalent
subgrade modulus, the design traffic, design reliability, and an
acceptable end of life condition
For each potential pavement layer, a layer coefficient is
determined

AASHTO1993 DESIGN EQUATION

Chart or solver determines the overall SN to protect the lower layer

AASHTO basic equation

Subgrade condition
Reliability

𝒍𝒐𝒈 ∆𝑷𝑺𝑰 ൘ 𝟒. 𝟐 − 𝟏. 𝟓
𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝑾𝟏𝟖 = 𝒁𝑹 𝑺𝒐 + 𝟗. 𝟑𝟔𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝑺𝑵 + 𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟐𝟎 + + 𝟐. 𝟑𝟐𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝑴𝑹 − 𝟖. 𝟎𝟕
𝟎. 𝟒 + 𝟏𝟎𝟗𝟒ൗ
𝑺𝑵 + 𝟏 𝟓.𝟏𝟗

9
 6/8/2018

FEW REMARKS IN AASHTO1993 DESIGN GUIDE

Different combination of materials and thicknesses may result in the same

SN
Your job as a designer is to select the most economical combination, using
available materials and considering the following,

Geometry requirements (Cut/Fill)

Drainage requirements
Frost requirements

AASHTO assumes that pavement structural layers will not be overstressed:

Must check that individual layers meet structural requirements

BASIC PROCEDURE
Determine the traffic (ESAL)
Calculate the effective subgrade modulus (Mref)
Select the performance level (ΔPSI)
Solve for the required SN needed to protect the subgrade (Nomograph
or numerical)

10
 6/8/2018

DESIGN INPUTS
Design Life (Historically 20 years- could vary)
Material Properties
Traffic (18 kip ESAL. 80 kN)
Reliability, Degree of certainty that the pavement will last the design
period
 Uncertainty in, Traffic prediction, Performance prediction, Materials
& construction

RELIABILITY
Level of reliability should increase with traffic, traffic sensitivity,
public expectation
Reliability factor decreases the predicted number of ESALs that a
particular design can accommodate
Adjust traffic for reliability: Table 11.14 (Huang )

Zr S0
ZR = standard normal deviate. Table 11.15
S0 = combined standard error of the traffic prediction and
performance prediction, 0.49 for flexible pavements, 0.39 for rigid

11
 6/8/2018

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA SERVICEABILITY

Basic boundary conditions that must be initially established

to compute ΔPSI:
Initial serviceability index PSI0
Flexible 4.2, Rigid 4.5
Terminal serviceability index PSIt, typically:
Major highways 2.5
Low volume roads 2.0

EFFECTIVE SUBGRADE MODULUS

The variation in the subgrade
throughout the year and an
equivalent Mref is obtained using
the relative damage model

𝑼𝒇 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟖 × 𝟏𝟎𝟖 × 𝑴−𝟐.𝟑𝟐
𝒓

12
 6/8/2018

LAYER COEFFICIENTS

𝑆𝑁 = 𝑎1 𝐷1 +𝑎2 𝐷2 𝑚2 +𝑎3 𝐷3 𝑚3

A measure of relative ability of a given material to function as a

structural component
Example, 2 in of material with a = 0.2 layer coefficient provides the
same protection as 1in material having a layer coefficient of a = 0.4
Initially derived from AASHO tests, now related to resilient modulus
(Mr)

LAYER COEFFICIENT FOR HMA

AASHTO does not require test to determine modulus of HMA, usually
assume aHMA=0.44

13
 6/8/2018

LAYER COEFFICIENT FOR OTHER MATERIALS

 Can estimate the base layer coefficient from Figure 7.15 (Text Book
Huang) for untreated base, bituminous-treated base and cement-
treated base
For untreated base can also use the following (instead of
interpolating from the figure):
a = 0.249logE − 0.977

 Granular Sub-bases (Fig. 7.16) or:

a = 0.277 logE − 0.839

DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT
Unbound layers (base, subbase) are also adjusted based on moisture
conditions:
 Quality of drainage measured as time required for drainage
 Percent time moisture levels approach saturation

14
 6/8/2018

AASHTO DESIGN CHART

AASHTO DESIGN PROCEDURE

 The thickness design usually starts from the top
Use E2 as MR to obtain the SN1 required to protect layer 2
Use E3 as MR to obtain the SN2 required to protect layer 3
Use MR to obtain the SN1 required to protect the subgrade
𝑆𝑁 = 𝑎1 𝐷1 + 𝑎2 𝐷2 𝑚2+ 𝑎3 𝐷3 𝑚3
𝑆𝑁1
𝐷1 ≥
𝑎1
𝑆𝑁2 − 𝑎1 𝐷1
𝐷2 ≥
𝑎 2 𝑚2
𝑆𝑁3 − 𝑎1 𝐷1 − 𝑎2 𝐷2 𝑚2
𝐷3 ≥
𝑎 3 𝑚3

15
 6/8/2018

CONSIDER THE COST

Indeed important
Engineers have a tendency to be technically oriented thus consider:
Cost of materials
Different combination of materials
Different constructions
Cost of excavation (cut areas)

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHOD

Improve the relation by understanding the

pavement mechanics
Relate analytical response to performance
More reliable/robust than empirical
Integrates the structural aspects of a
pavement to the material/mix design
properties of the pavement layers

16
 6/8/2018

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHOD

 Greater flexibility than regression models

 More easily transferred to different pavements or
conditions
 Data intensive

COMPONENTS OF MECHANISTIC DESIGN

Climate

Material

Response Structural Performance Damage

Model Response Models Contribution

Geometry

Traffic  Rutting
 Fatigue cracking
 Roughness index

17
 6/8/2018

RESPONSE MODELS
Multilayer elastic theory
Nonlinear elastic theory
Viscoelastic theory
Finite element methods

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PROGRAMS
Shell Method
Asphalt Institute
MEPDG (ASHTOWARE)
CalME

18
 6/8/2018

ASPHALT INSTITUTE DAMA PROGRAM

Developed damage analysis program DAMA

Response model - multilayer elastic theory (max 5 layers)
Considers non-linearity in unbound granular base layers
Asphalt and subgrade layers are considered elastic

E  10.447 h
0.471 0.041 0.139 0.287 0.868
h E E K
2 1 2 1 3 1


h E  h E K 
3
1/ 3 1/ 3 0.868

E  1a 1a 1b 1b 1

 h h 
1

1a 1b

ASPHALT INSTITUTE FATIGUE MODEL

Fatigue cracking
tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt layer controls fatigue performance

N  f
 f2  f3

f 1 bt
E
Where
Nf = number of cycles to failure
bt = strain at the bottom of asphalt

E = modulus of the asphalt layer
f1, f2, and f3 are model parameters

19
 6/8/2018

ASPHALT INSTITUTE RUTTING MODEL

Permanent deformation (Rutting)

Vertical strain at the top of the subgrade controls rutting

 f
 f2
N per . def 1 ztopsg
Where
Nper.def = number of cycles to failure
ztopsg = strain at the top of subgrade 
f1, and f2 are model parameters

DAMAGE RATIO
For a known amount of traffic volume, a damage ratio is then
calculated for each mode of damage (fatigue and rutting)

𝑛 𝑚
𝑁𝑖,𝑗
𝐷𝑟 = ෍ ෍
𝑁𝑓𝑖,𝑗
𝑖=1 𝑗=1

Where n is the number of years (design life), m is number of season,

Nij is the number of load cycles for season i and year j, Nfij is the
number of cycles to failure for fatigue or rutting

20
 6/8/2018

ASPHALT INSTITUTE CHARTS-FULL DEPTH HMA

AI calibrated the equations using AASHO road test data and developed charts
based on the empirical relations controls

ASPHALT INST. CHARTS-EMULSIFIED ASPHALT

21
 6/8/2018

ASPHALT INST. CHARTS-HMA ON UNTREATED

AGG. BASE

LIMITATIONS OF ASPHALT INST. METHODS

The permanent deformation assumed to

originate only from the subgrade and the
permanent deformation from other layers is
assumed to be zero

22
 6/8/2018

AASHTOWARE
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design is the next generation of
pavement design software, which builds upon the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program mechanistic-empirical
pavement design guide (MEPDG)

AASHTOWARE RESPONSE MODEL

Multilayer elastic theory is

used to calculate the stresses
and strains in the pavement
system

23
 6/8/2018

AASHTOWARE DISTRESSES

Fatigue cracking (% lane) z i

Longitudinal cracking
z i
Thermal cracking using Paris
Law

Permanent deformation in c
bituminous bound layers, c
granular base layers and
subgrade are all considered

DISTRESS MODELS FOR ME METHODS

Distress models are empirical part of the ME methods, the models
are a transfer functions to predict pavement distress
Distress models are usually developed based on laboratory
experiences and/or data from other old pavement structures thus must
be calibrated to be able to predict what is happing in the reality in
the design life of the pavement
There are distress models for:
Rutting, fatigue cracking, thermal cracking (both low temperature
cracking and thermal fatigue), etc.

24
 6/8/2018

FATIGUE CRACKING MODEL

Similar to the Asphalt Institute method, tensile strain at the bottom of

asphalt layer controls fatigue performance in ASHTOWARE

N  f
 f2  f3

f 1 bt
E
Where
Nf = number of cycles to failure
bt = strain at the bottom of asphalt

E = modulus of the asphalt layer
f1, f2, and f3 are model parameters

PERMANENT DEFORMATION
 Pavement layers are subdivided into
sublayers and the permanent strain is z i
calculated at the mid depth of each
sublayer
z i


n c

p    i z
i 1
p i c

25
 6/8/2018

PERMANENT DEFORMATION IN ASPHALT LAYERS

 Permanent deformation in asphalt

𝜀 = 𝜀𝑒𝑙 + 𝜀𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑐 + 𝜀𝑝𝑙 + 𝜀𝑣 𝑃𝑒𝑟

 MEPDG model

ε  aT N ε
p 1
a2 a3

 Shear strain based model CalME

−𝑙𝑛 𝑁 𝑙𝑛 𝑁 𝛽×𝛾
𝛾𝑝 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝐴 + 𝛼 × 1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 × 1+ × 𝑒𝑥𝑝 × 𝛾𝑒𝛿
𝛾 𝛾 𝜏𝑟𝑒𝑓

PERMANENT DEFORMATION IN UNBOUND LAYERS

 Gidel et al. (2001)

n 1  B 
L   s q   N 
 p ( N )  1 0  max   m   max  1    
 Pa   p max p max    N 0  
 
 Korkiala - Tanttu (2005)

R
 p ( N )  CN b
A R
 Tseng & Lytton (1989) – Implementerad in AASHTOWARE (MEPDG)

 
( )
 p ( N )   0 r e N

c c+

26
 6/8/2018

ACCUMULATION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION

 The Time Hardening Principle

𝑎
𝜀𝑝1 = 𝛽1 𝑎1 𝑇1 2 𝑁 𝑎3 𝜀𝑟1

1ൗ
𝜀𝑝1 𝑎3
𝑁𝑒𝑞1 = 𝑎
𝛽1 𝑎1 𝑇2 2 𝑁 𝑎3 𝜀𝑟2

𝑁𝑖1 = 𝑁𝑒𝑞1 + ∆𝑁 𝑎 𝑎
∆𝜀𝑝 = 𝛽1 𝑎1 𝑇2 2 𝑁𝑖13 − 𝑁𝑒𝑞1
3 𝑎
𝜀𝑟2

ACCUMULATION OF DAMAGE

 The Time Hardening Principle

εp 4 T4, q4, p4, εr4

3 T3, q3, p3, εr3

2 T2, q2, p2, εr2

εp
1 T1, q1, p1, εr1

Neq1 Ni1 Neq2

N N

27
 6/8/2018

THERMAL CRACKING
Cracking due to temperature may be either low temperature cracking or
thermal fatigue
Low-temperature cracking occurs when the tensile strains due to low
temperature is exceeds the tensile strength of the asphalt mix. Low-
temperature cracking is a common phenomena in flexible pavements in
cold climate
Thermal fatigue cracking is similar to load-induced fatigue cracking but
it is caused by the tensile strain in the asphalt layer due to daily
temperature cycle
The pavement surface cools down faster and with more intensity than the
core of the pavement structure, which causes thermal cracking to occur at
the surface of flexible pavements
Thermal cracks extend in the transverse direction across the full width of
the pavement

THERMAL CRACKING MODELS

In AASHTOWARE, thermal fatigue model based on Paris law is
employed
C = crack depth, C =AKn
D = creep compliance, D(t) = D0 + D1tm, 1
𝑛=1+
𝑚

𝐴 = 10𝛽 4.389−2.52𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐸𝜎𝑚 𝑛

𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐶/ℎ
𝐶𝑓 = 𝛽1 × 𝑁
𝜎𝑠𝑡𝑑
E = stiffness, h = AC thickness, std = standard deviation of log of crack depth
N = standard normal distribution

28
 6/8/2018

MODEL PARAMETERS FOR ME METHODS

Laboratory prepared or field drilled samples are tested to obtain

material properties and model parameters for bound and unbound
pavement layers
The tests include
Dynamic modulus test
Fatigue test
Resilient modulus test

TESTS FOR UNBOUND GRANULAR AND SOIL MATERIALS

 The resilient modulus and permanent

deformation properties of unbound
granular materials can be obtained
from

 Triaxial tests
 Plate loading test
 Static shear test
 Falling weight deflectometer test

29
 6/8/2018

TESTS FOR UNBOUND GRANULAR AND SOIL MATERIALS CONT.

 The resilient modulus and permanent modulus tests for granular materials
 Cyclic loading (10hz, EN standard)
 Multi stage loading (several stress paths)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

-79.5
-80
-80.5
-81
-81.5
-82
-82.5
-83
-83.5
-84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

DYNAMIC MODULUS OF BITUMINOUS BOUND MATERIALS

 The dynamic modulus of bituminous mixtures can be obtained from

 Uniaxial direct tension/compression test

 Triaxial test
 Indirect tensile test

30
 6/8/2018

DYNAMIC MODULUS OF BITUMINOUS BOUND MATERIALS CONT.

 The tests are conducted at several cyclic loading frequencies and temperatures
 (Ex. EN standard, 0.1,1, 5,10 Hz frequencies
 Test temperatures, -10, 0, 10, 20 C
 For stress controlled sinusoidal loading test,  t    sin 2ft 
0

 t    sin 2ft   
0

Dynamic modulus

E 
* 0

 0

Complex modulus

E 
*
cos   i sin  
0

 0

DYNAMIC MODULUS & PHASE ANGLE MASTER CURVES

The dynamic modulus and phase angle of asphalt mixtures at

several temperatures and loading frequencies is presented using a
master curve at a reference temperature
Master curves are constructed using the principle of time-
temperature superposition. The data at various temperatures are
shifted with respect to time until the curves merge into single smooth
function
The modulus and phase angle at any temp. and loading frequency
can be calculated from the master curve constructed at a reference
temperature

31
 6/8/2018

DYNAMIC MODULUS & PHASE ANGLE MASTER CURVES

Dynamic modulus
5000
4500
4000 0 10 30 50

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

MASTER CURVE CONT.

Dynamic modulus
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000

32
 6/8/2018

MASTER CURVE CONT.

Dynamic modulus
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.000 0.010 1.000 100.000

MASTER CURVE CONT.

5000
Dynamic modulus
4500
4000 0 10 30 50
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.000 0.000 0.010 1.000 100.000

33
 6/8/2018

MASTER CURVE PHASE ANGLE CONT.

Phase angle
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 0 10 30 50

0
0.000 0.000 0.010 1.000 100.000

MASTER CURVE SHIFT FACTOR

The shifting can be done using shift functions such as Arrhenius
equation or WLF equation or manually

Arrhenius equation
1 1
𝐿𝑜𝑔 𝑎 𝑇 = 𝐶 −
𝑇 + 273 𝑇𝑜 + 273
WLF equation
𝐶1 (𝑇 − 𝑇0 )
𝐿𝑜𝑔 𝑎 𝑇 =
𝐶2 + (𝑇 − 𝑇0 )
Where, aT = fr/f is the shift factor, T temperature, T0 reference temp.

34
 6/8/2018

FITTING MASTER CURVE SIGMOIDAL FUNCTION

The master curves for modulus and phase angle can be mathematically
modeled by a fitting function such sigmoidal function for modulus

FITTED MASTER CURVES OF ASPHALT MIXTURES

16000 40

35

12000 30
Dynamic modulus (MPa)

Dynamic modulus
Phase angle ()

25
Phase angle
8000 20

15

4000 10

0 0
1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06
Reduced frequency (Hz)

35
 6/8/2018

PERMANENT DEFORMATION PARAMETERS OF BITUMINOUS BOUND

MATERIALS

 The permanent deformation parameters of asphalt mixtures can be estimated

from
 Triaxial tests or Repeated load compression test
 Shear test
 Wheel tracking test

WHEEL TRACKING TESTS

Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) French Rut Tester (FRT)

Hamburg Wheel Rut Tester (HWRT)

10 cm
7.5 cm 4 cm

7.5 cm

15 cm
12.5 cm 26 cm 18 cm

36
 6/8/2018

RESULTS OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION TESTS

-800
-700
-600
-500
Strain (µm/m)

-400
-300
-200
-100
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Number of cycles

FATIGUE TEST OF BITUMINOUS BOUND MATERIALS

 The resistance to fatigue cracking of bituminous bound mixtures is tests

 Indirect tensile test (IDT)

 Four point bending beam test
 Trapezoidal bending beam test

37
 6/8/2018

FATIGUE TEST CONT.

 Fatigue tests can be either stress controlled or strain controlled

Constant stress Constant strain

 

t t




t t

IDT FATIGUE TEST

 Stress /load controlled indirect tensile test

 The test is conducted at several stress or strain levels
 Haversine loading of 0.1 sec and rest period of 0.4 sec (EN standard) until the
specimen breaks

2500

2000
Load (N)

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (sec)

38
 6/8/2018

4PT BENDING BEAM FATIGUE TEST

IDT FATIGUE TEST CONT.

 Fatigue test results are presented in a form of fatigue curve

1000.00
y = 3612.1x-0.222
R² = 0.8388
Initial strain (µm/m)

100.00
y = 2679.3x-0.292
R² = 0.8711
10.00

1.00
1000 10000 100000 1000000
Number of cycles to failure

39
 6/8/2018

CALIBRATION OF M-E DESIGN METHODS

 Calibration (global or local) a very important part
of Mechanistic-Empirical pavement design
process,
 Calibration is required prior to implementation
 Calibration, along with implementation, is a
continual process, the calibration may be
conducted using
 Historical records of pavement performance
 Full scale accelerated pavement test

Longitudinal asphalt strain gauge

Lateral asphalt strain gauge

DESIGN OF RIGID PAVEMENT

Abubeker W. Ahmed

40
 6/8/2018

INTRODUCTION RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

Types of Rigid Pavements

Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)
Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP)
Continuous Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP)

INTRODUCTION RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN CONT.

Design of rigid pavements includes

Establishing slab thickness
Slab length
Dowel bars and tie bars
Design joints

41
 6/8/2018

DESIGN APPROACHES
Empirical
AASHTO
Mechanistic

AASHTO ROAD TEST

4.79 𝐺ൗ
𝑊𝑋 𝐿18 + 𝐿2𝑠 10 𝛽𝑥
𝐿𝐸𝐹 = = 𝐿2𝑥 4.33
𝑊18 𝐿𝑥 + 𝐿2𝑥 𝐺ൗ
10 𝛽18

42
 6/8/2018

AASHTO EMPIRICAL RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

Empirical design based on the AASHO road test:
Over 200 test sections JPCP (15’spacing) and JRCP
(40’spacing)
Range of slab thickness: 2.5 to 12.5 inches
Subbase type: untreated gravel/sand with plastic fines
Subbase thickness; 0 to 9 inches
Subgrade soil: silty-clay (A-6)
Monitored PSI with load applications developed regression
eqn’s
Number of load applications: 1,114,000

GENERAL DESIGN VARIABLES

Design Period
Traffic –what changes? (EALF Table 6.7)
Reliability
Based on functional classification
Overall standard deviation (S0=0.25 – 0.35)
Performance criteria
ΔPSI = PSI0–PSIt

43
 6/8/2018

GENERAL DESIGN VARIABLES CONT.

Material Properties
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k)
Need to convert subgrade MR to k for cases:
Without Subbase
With Subbase
Shallow bedrock

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (K) - WITHOUT

SUBBASE
Correlation based on 30-in plate-load tests
k value becomes too high because k=fnc(1/a)
More accurate k if plate test was run with bigger plates; too
expensive & impractical

𝑀𝑅
𝑘=
18.8

44
 6/8/2018

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (K), WITH

SUBBASE
If subbase exists, need to determine the composite modulus of
subgrade reaction (k)
Use chart (Ex. Figure 12.18 Huang)

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (K),

WITH SUBBASE CONT.

45
 6/8/2018

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (K), SHALLOW

BEDROCK

Use chart (Figure 12.9)

EFFECTIVE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION

The variation in the subgrade throughout the year and an

equivalent keff is obtained using the relative damage model

𝟑.𝟒𝟐
Month k Ur 𝑼𝒓 = 𝑫𝟎.𝟕𝟓 − 𝟎. 𝟑𝟗𝒌𝟎.𝟐𝟓

1 500 33.5
2 450 32.5 σ𝑼𝒓
𝑼𝒓 =
𝒏
Then user chart or equation above to calculate keff
corresponding to the mean relative damage

46
 6/8/2018

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

Elastic Modulus of Concrete (Ec):
Correlated with compressive strength

𝑬𝑪 = 𝟓𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒄
Modulus of Rupture (S’c):
 Third-point loading @ 28 days

LOSS OF SUPPORT
Reduction of keff by a factor LS to
account for erosion and/or
differential soil movement
Best case scenario, LS=0 (Slab is in
full contact with subbase)

47
 6/8/2018

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Drainage coefficient Cd, quality of drainage & percent time

exposed to moisture

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS CONT.

Load Transfer Coefficient (J), ability to transfer loads across joints

and cracks (Table 12.19)
Lower J -> better performance/less conservative

48
 6/8/2018

AASHTO DESIGN GUIDE – THICKNESS DESIGN

An empirical equation relates the required thickness D to the
effective modulus of subgrade reaction, the design traffic, design
reliability, and an acceptable end of life condition

𝒍𝒐𝒈 ∆𝑷𝑺𝑰 ൘ 𝟒. 𝟓 − 𝟏. 𝟓
𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝑾𝟏𝟖 = 𝒁𝑹 𝑺𝒐 + 𝟕. 𝟑𝟓𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝑫 + 𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟔 + +
𝟏 + 𝟏. 𝟔𝟐𝟒𝒆𝟕ൗ
𝑫 + 𝟏 𝟖.𝟒𝟔
𝑺𝒄 𝑪𝒅 𝑫𝟎.𝟕𝟓 − 𝟏. 𝟏𝟑𝟐
𝟒. 𝟐𝟐 − 𝟎. 𝟑𝟐𝑷𝒕 𝒍𝒐𝒈
𝟏𝟖. 𝟒𝟐
𝟐𝟏𝟓. 𝟔𝟑 ∗ 𝑱 𝑫 −
𝑬𝒄 𝟎.𝟐𝟓
𝒌

Use chart or solver to determines the D

BASIC PROCEDURE
Determine the traffic (ESAL)
Calculate the effective modulus of subgrade reaction (keff)
Select the performance level (ΔPSI)
Solve for the required D needed to protect the subgrade (Nomograph or
numerical)

49
 6/8/2018

EXAMPLE

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, keff=70 pci

Traffic, W18=5 million
Design Reliability, R =95%
Overall Standard Deviation, S0=0.30
Use Nomograph(Figures
ΔPSI = P0 – Pt =1.7 12.17a&b) or solve
Elastic Modulus, Ec=5,000,000 psi equation
Modulus of Rupture, S’c=650 psi
Load Transfer Coefficient, J =3.3
Drainage Coefficient, Cd=1.0

SOLUTION BY NOMOGRAPH

50
 6/8/2018

SOLUTION BY NOMOGRAPH

Use 10in

SOLUTION BY SOLVER (EXCEL)

Excel Solver, D = 9.9 in

51
 6/8/2018

SLAB LENGTH JPCP

Design governed by joint opening

Where If δ≥0.05” then USE dowels

𝛅 = 𝑪 ∙ 𝑳 𝜶𝒕 ∆𝑻 + 𝜺
δ= Joint opening
αt= Coefficient of thermal contraction
ε= Drying shrinkage coefficient
L = Slab length
C = adjustment factor for subgrade friction
(C = 0.65 for stabilized base and 0.8 for granular base)
For NO dowels, determine L for δ=0.05”

SLAB LENGTH JPCP CONT.

For NO dowels, determine L for δ=0.05”
δ= 0.05’’
αt= 5.5e-6
ε= 1e-4 𝛅 𝟎.𝟎𝟓
𝑳=𝑪 = 𝟎.𝟔𝟓 =179’’
T = 60 𝜶𝒕 ∆𝑻+𝜺 𝟓.𝟓×𝟏𝟎−𝟔×𝟔𝟎+𝟏×𝟏𝟎−𝟒
= 15ft
C = 0.65

If slab length > 15 ft then use dowels

52
 6/8/2018

SLAB LENGTH JRCP

Slab Length - Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP)
Design governed by joint opening
Always doweled
δ≤ 0.25” to LIMIT bearing stress

𝛅 = 𝑪 ∙ 𝑳 𝜶𝒕 ∆𝑻 + 𝜺

Using same typical values from previous slide

𝛅 𝟎.𝟐𝟓
𝑳=𝑪 = 𝟎.𝟔𝟓 =894’’
𝜶𝒕 ∆𝑻+𝜺 𝟓.𝟓×𝟏𝟎−𝟔×𝟔𝟎+𝟏×𝟏𝟎−𝟒
= 75ft
Lengths typically between 30’-100’

JRCP REINFORCEMENT
If (when) concrete cracks, steel picks up
Steel reinforcement are used for control of temperature cracking
Do not increase structural capacity of the slab
Used to increase joint spacing
To tie the cracked concrete together

𝒇𝒂 𝜸𝒄 𝑳𝒉
𝑨𝒔 =
𝟐𝒇𝒔

53
 6/8/2018

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHOD

 Greater flexibility than regression models

 More easily transferred to different pavements or
conditions

COMPONENTS OF MECHANISTIC DESIGN

Climate

Material

Response Structural Performance Damage

Model Response Models Contribution

Geometry

Traffic  Fatigue cracking

 Faulting
 Pumping

54
 6/8/2018

RESPONSE MODELS
Finite element methods differing in the adopted foundation types
Liquid foundation (Winkler foundation)
Solid foundation (Boussinesq foundation)
Layered foundation (Burmister foundation)

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PROGRAMS

MEPDG (ASHTOWARE)
KENSLAB

55
 6/8/2018

PCC FATIGUE MODEL

Fatigue cracking, tensile stress at the edge or joint controls

fatigue performance

 
log N  f  f  
S 
f 1 2

Where c

Nf = number of cycles to failure

 = tensile stress
Sc = modulus of rupture of concrete
f1=17.61, f2 =17.61 are model parameters

DAMAGE RATIO
For a known amount of traffic volume, a damage ratio is then
calculated for each mode of damage (fatigue)

𝑛 𝑚
𝑁𝑖,𝑗
𝐷𝑟 = ෍ ෍
𝑁𝑓𝑖,𝑗
𝑖=1 𝑗=1

Where n is the number of years (design life), m is number of load

group, Nij is the number of load cycles for season i and year j, Nfij is
the number of cycles to failure for fatigue

56