ANALYSIS OF SHORT PANELLED CONCRETE

PAVEMENT

by
Rinku Saini (2019UCE1615)
Sanjana Dev (2019UCE1135)
Yashi Agrawal (2019UCE1797)

Submitted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Bachelor of Technology (Civil Engineering)
to the

Department of Civil Engineering

Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur,
JAIPUR

May 2023
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled "ANALYSIS OF

SHORT PANELLED CONCRETE PAVEMENT" which is being submitted
by Rinku Saini (2019UCE1615), Sanjana Dev (2019UCE1135) and Yashi
Agarwal (2019UCE1797), for the partial fulfillment of the requirements of the
degree of B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) to the Department of Civil
Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur has been
carried out under my supervision and guidance.

Dr. Rameshwar J. Vishwakarma

(Assistant Professor)

Dept. of Civil Engineering

MNIT Jaipur

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We want to express our profound gratitude towards Dr. Rameshwar J. Vishwakarma

(Assistant Professor, MNIT Jaipur), who supervised us during our project, and without the
support of whom, we will not be able to complete this project report.

We would also like to extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Jeetendra Singh Khichad (Research
Scholar, MNIT Jaipur) for giving his precious time to complete this project.

We would also like to extend our gratitude to our course coordinators Prof. Urmila Brighu
and Dr. Manoj Kumar Diwakar for their cooperation and encouragement, which helped us
a lot during the project.

We would also like to express our sincerest gratitude to all faculties of Civil Engineering
Department who have taught and mentored us throughout our academic career. Your
dedication and expertise have been invaluable to our growth as a student and as a future civil
engineer. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, for pushing us to achieve our best, and for
inspiring us to pursue excellence in all that we do.

Rinku Saini (2019UCE1615)

Sanjana Dev (2019UCE1135)

Yashi Agrawal (2019UCE1797)

Date: May 8, 2023

Jaipur

iii
 ABSTRACT
This project aims to analyze the stresses in Short Panelled Concrete Pavement (SPCP) using
various methods and compare the results with standard size of slab (3.5m x 4.5m). Only the
standard size is addressed in the guidelines; there is no discussion of different sizes.

The project first validates the results of critical stresses available in PCA (1984) and IRC 58
(2015) guidelines using the finite element method and simplified approach. IRC 58 (2015) is
used for roads of concrete pavement with traffic volume more than 450 CVPD. However,
practically it is seen many designers or contractors prepare the concrete pavement with short
joint spacing. Therefore, it is necessary to study the effect of different sizes on design of
concrete pavement. This step ensures the accuracy and reliability of the standard results in
the guidelines. Next, the project analyzes the stresses in shorter-size concrete slabs using the
finite element method. This step aims to find the stresses in the shorter-size slabs and
compare them with the standard-size slab. The analysis considers different thicknesses of the
slab and varying subgrade stiffness. The finite element method is used to model the behavior
of the pavement under different loading conditions. Finally, the project compares the results
of the shorter size slab with the standard size slab.
The study will be beneficial for pavement designers and engineers who need to design
pavements for shorter sizes. The validated standard results of critical stresses will provide a
reliable reference for pavement designers. The finite element method results will provide a
more accurate and detailed understanding of the pavement behavior under different loading
conditions. This study will help designers/engineers to design for safe and economic
pavements with different sizes.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Particulars Page No.

CERTIFICATE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES viii

ABBREVIATIONS ix

1. Introduction 1
1.1. Short panelled Concrete Pavement 2

1.2. Design of Concrete Pavement 2

1.3. Factors Affecting Design 2

1.3.1. Structural models 2

1.3.2. Temperature 3

1.3.3. Traffic and loading 3

1.4. Need of the study 3

1.5. Importance of study 4

1.6. Objective 5

2. Literature Review 6

3. Methodology 10
3.1. Determination of critical stresses for standard sizes 10
3.1.1 Finite Element Modeling using SAP 2000 10

v
 3.1.2 Simplified Approach 10

3.1.3 IRC 58 (2015) Method 10

3.2. Validation of results 11

3.3. Determination of critical stresses for shorter size slabs 16

3.4. Comparison of results of shorter size slabs with standard size slabs 16

4. Results 22
4.1. Analysis of constant aspect ratio SPCP 22

4.2. Analysis of SPCP having a width equal to standard axle width 24

4.3. Analysis of SPCP having a width larger than standard axle width 25

4.4. Analysis of SPCP having a width smaller than standard axle width 27

4.5. Analysis of SPCP having a square shape with dimensions 120 x 120in 27

5. Conclusions 29

References 30

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
Title
No. No.

Fig. 1.1 Concrete Pavement with joint details 1

Fig. 1.2 Short panelled concrete pavement 2
Fig. 2.1 Variation of stress for different length to width ratios due to dual 8
wheel load for radius of relative stiffness (l) = 0.5
Fig. 3.1 The finite element model of a concrete slab carrying a single axle 11
load.
Fig. 3.2 The finite element model of a concrete slab carrying a tandem axle 11
load.
Fig. 5.1 Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 125 inches x 22
100 inches Short Panelled Concrete Pavements slab.
Fig. 5.2 Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 118 inches x 23
94 inches SPCP slab.
Fig. 5.3 Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 100 inches x 24
80 inches SPCP slab.
Fig. 5.4 Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 118 inches x 25
94 inches SPCP slab.
Fig. 5.5 Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 180 inches x 26
144 inches when compared to 180 x 94 inches SPCP slab.
Fig. 5.6 Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 180 inches x 90 27
inches when compared to 180 x 94 Short Panelled Concrete Pavements
slab.
Fig. 5.7 Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 120 inches x 120 28
inches when compared to 180 x 144 Short Panelled Concrete Pavements
slab.

vii
 LIST OF TABLES
Figure Page
Title
No. No.

Table 3.1 Slab dimensions 12

Table 3.2 Comparison of Finite Element method results with PCA (1984) results 12
Table 3.3 Comparison of Simplified Approach results with Finite element results 13
Table 3.4 Comparison of Simplified Approach results with PCA (1984) results 14
Table 3.5 Comparison of Simplified Approach results with Finite element results 15
Table 3.6 Comparison of results of shorter size slab 125"x100" (same aspect 17
ratio) with standard size slab.
Table 3.7 Comparison of results of shorter size slab 180"x94" (same aspect ratio) 18
with standard size slab.
Table 3.8 Comparison of results of shorter size slab 118"x94" (Equal to axle and 19
same aspect ratio) with standard size slab.
Table 3.9 Comparison of results of shorter size slab 100inx80" (Inside the 20
edge) with standard size slab.
Table 3.10 Comparison of results of shorter size slab 120inx120in (square 21
size) with standard size slab.

viii
 ABBREVIATIONS

SPCP : Short Panelled Concrete Pavement

JPCP : Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement

FE : Finite Element

IRC : Indian Road Congress

PCA : Portland Cement Association

CVPD : Commercial Vehicle per Day

ix
 Chapter 1
Introduction
Concrete pavement is a type of rigid pavement made of concrete slabs that are designed to
withstand heavy traffic loads and provide a long-lasting, durable surface for roads, airports,
and other applications. Concrete pavement is used widely around the world because of its
durability, low maintenance requirements, and ability to withstand heavy traffic loads. The
layers of concrete pavement are shown in Fig. 1.1.

Concrete pavements, also known as rigid pavements, work through slab/base action, unlike
flexible pavement, which has grain-to-grain contact. Rigid pavements possess flexural
strength. IRC 58 (2015) is the recent design code for the design of rigid pavement with
traffic more than 450 CVPD. Rigid pavements are designed using elastic theory.

The surface of the roadway should be stable and non-yielding to allow heavy wheel loads
of road traffic to move with the least possible rolling resistance. Various parameters
varying with respect to critical stresses are modulus of subgrade reaction, material
properties, axle load, and slab thickness. Key findings of various researchers prove that
if the temperature is kept constant, then the maximum stresses occur at the edge of the
pavement due to a combination of both wheel load and temperature. Precise evaluation
of critical stress helps to determine fatigue life correctly.

Fig. 1.1: Concrete Pavement with joint details (Source: https://www.engineerwing.com/2017/05/types-of-concrete-

pavement-uses.html).

1
1.1 Short panelled Concrete Pavement: SPCP is a type of pavement that consists of
concrete panels that are relatively small in size compared to traditional concrete slabs.
These panels are typically rectangular or square in shape and are designed to interlock
with one another when installed. SPCP is a durable and versatile option for a variety of
paving applications. SPCP pavement is often used in areas such as village roads, urban
roads with poor drainage conditions, municipal roads, airports, bus terminals, and
industrial areas. It is also a popular choice for pedestrian walkways and plazas, as the
interlocking panels provide a stable and durable surface.

Fig. 1.2: Short panelled concrete pavement.

1.2 Design of Concrete Pavement: The flexural strength of rigid pavements is an important
consideration in their design, and the IRC 58 (2015) code is commonly used for the
design of rigid pavements in India. The load-bearing capacity of rigid pavement is due to
the modulus of subgrade reaction and modulus of elasticity. H.M. Westergaard
pioneered and provided a rational approach to concrete pavement analysis and design.

1.3 Factors Affecting Design: There are various factors affecting the design of rigid
pavement, which may be categorically jotted down as structural methods, environment,
traffic, loading, and material characterization.

1.3.1 Structural models: Generally used structural models are layered elastic models
and viscous elastic models. The structural models determine responses (stress,
strain, and deflections) are various locations.

2
  Layered elastic model: As stated above, it is also used for the estimation
of responses, which are relatively easier to determine caused due to
application of a given set of loading and boundary conditions.
Assumptions in this calculation involved are structural layer isotropic,
linearly elastic, and homogenous.

1.3.2 Temperature: Temperature stress may be classified into two categories:

Warping stress is caused by daily temperature variations, where the top surface
of the pavement heats up during the day and cools down at night. This differential
temperature causes the top surface to expand and contract more than the bottom,
which can create bending and warping stresses in the pavement. Frictional stress,
on the other hand, is caused by seasonal temperature variations. When the
temperature drops, the pavement contracts and can become shorter than the base
material, causing it to rub against the base material and create frictional stress.
Both warping stress and frictional stress can lead to cracking and other forms of
pavement distress if they are not accounted for during pavement design and
construction. To minimize temperature stresses on concrete pavement, designers
may consider incorporating joint spacing, reinforcement, and other design
features to accommodate the expansion and contraction of the pavement due to
temperature changes. Additionally, proper curing of the concrete and proper
construction practices can help minimize temperature-related distress in concrete
pavement.
1.3.3 Traffic and loading: Traffic and loading are important considerations in the design
and performance of concrete pavement. Some of the key factors that affect traffic
and loading on concrete pavement include:
 Contact Pressure: The contact pressure between the tires and the pavement
surface is a critical factor that affects pavement performance. High contact
pressures can cause deformation, rutting, and other forms of distress in the
pavement. Therefore, it is important to consider the weight and tire pressure of
the vehicles using the pavement.
 Wheel Load: The magnitude of the wheel load also affects pavement
performance. Heavy loads can cause more damage to the pavement than lighter
3
 loads, leading to premature failure of the pavement. Therefore, it is important
to consider the weight of the vehicles and the frequency of heavy loads when
designing the pavement.
 Axle Configuration: The configuration of the axles also affects pavement
performance. Multiple axles with closely spaced wheels can cause more
damage to the pavement than single axles with widely spaced wheels.
Therefore, it is important to consider the spacing and configuration of the axles
when designing the pavement.
 Moving Loads: Moving loads, such as trucks and buses, can cause additional
stresses on the pavement due to dynamic loading. These dynamic stresses can
cause fatigue and cracking in the pavement, leading to premature failure.
Therefore, it is important to consider the speed and frequency of moving loads
when designing the pavement.
 Repetition of Loads: Repetition of loads is also an important consideration in
pavement design. Repeated loading and unloading cycles can cause fatigue and
cracking in the pavement over time, leading to premature failure. Therefore, it
is important to consider the anticipated traffic volume and loading frequency
when designing the pavement.

1.4 Need of the study:

 Design of concrete pavement is available for standard size only. Therefore, the
effect of smaller size panels is needed to be studied.
 Validation and understanding of already developed models with existing
guidelines [IRC58 (2015), PCA (1984)] and literatures.
 To compare generated model results with the conventional rigid pavement
results of IRC58 (2015) and PCA (1984) guidelines.

1.5 Importance of the study: The role of this study is to observe the effect of various
panel sizes on critical stresses. The study also dealt with the effect of short panel size on
stress in concrete pavement which affects the design thickness of pavement.
Overall, SPCP research and development is an important area of study that can lead to
improved pavement performance, reduced maintenance costs, and increased durability.

4
 Additionally, the individual panels can be easily replaced if they become damaged,
making maintenance of the pavement relatively simple.

1.6 Objectives: The major objectives of the project are as follows:

 The first objective of the project is to analyze the critical response of concrete
pavement using available guidelines/documents. This involves analyzing the
factors that affect the performance of concrete pavement, such as traffic loading,
environmental conditions, pavement design and evaluating the ability of the
pavement to withstand these factors.
 The second objective of the project is to analyze the impact of the panel size on
stresses developed to understand the behaviour of short slabs as variation in sizes
can affect the distribution of stresses, which in turn can affect the performance of
the pavement.
 The third objective of the project is to put forward some recommendations about
design dimensions and panel sizes to reduce the cost of conventional rigid
pavement. Conventional rigid pavement can be expensive to construct and
maintain, so identifying design dimensions that can reduce costs while
maintaining performance is important.

5
 Chapter 2
Literature Review
Kasu S. R. et al. (2021) state that in In India, Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JPCP) are
a commonly adopted type of pavement construction. These pavements have a longitudinal
spacing of 4.5 meters and a transverse spacing of 3.5 meters, with tie bars and dowel bars
provided across longitudinal and transverse joints, respectively. However, over time, random
cracking is observed in these pavements due to settlement caused by traffic overloading. An
alternative solution to JPCP is the use of Short Panelled Concrete Pavements, which have
panel sizes ranging from 0.5 meters by 0.5 meters to 3 meters by 3 meters. These pavements
rely on the shear action of the cracked faces and aggregate interlocking for load transfer,
eliminating the need for dowel bars and resulting in cost savings. Short Panelled Concrete
Pavements are also beneficial in reducing thermal stresses due to their lower slab dimensions.
Additionally, because they do not require dowel bars, there is no need for drilling or inserting
bars, making the installation process simpler and more efficient. Short Panelled Concrete
Pavements provide a cost-effective and durable alternative to JPCP and can be used in a
variety of paving applications.

Maitra S. R. et al. (2018) state that in various locations across India, concrete highway
stretches are under construction. Standard panel sizes are the preferred choice for highways
as they can handle heavy traffic volumes. However, Short Panelled Concrete Pavements are
a better solution for roads with moderate to low traffic volumes. When comparing the
computed flexural stress results of Short Panelled Concrete Pavements with those of
conventional rigid pavement, a significant reduction in slab thickness is observed due to the
use of shorter panel sizes. This reduction in slab thickness makes SPCP a promising and cost-
effective alternative to the conventional rigid pavement, particularly for roads with lower
traffic volumes.

Chattaraj R. and Pandey B. B. (2014) state that Bituminous pavements are generally
subjected to unfavorable moisture conditions because of clogged and inadequate drainage.
Concrete pavements are the alternative solution for these locations. The initial cost of
Conventional rigid pavements is very high. So, A new type of rigid pavement with a small
panel size can be used in the construction of roads for city streets and village roads. Such

6
pavements are known as Panelled concrete pavement. Such pavements cause low flexural
stresses. Thus, these Short Panelled Concrete Pavements require less thickness. These
pavements become a long-term solution to frequent maintenance problems occurring on the
roads.

Vishwakarma R. J. and Ingle R. K. (2018) state that in practice, the sizes of concrete slabs
used for pavement construction often do not conform to the recommended sizes provided by
guidelines such as those from the PCA (1984) and IRC 58 (2015), which suggest a size of
3.5 m x 4.5 m. The study investigated the impact of slab size and radius of relative stiffness
on critical stresses in concrete pavements without shoulders, using finite element simulations
of traffic and environmental loads. The study found that a simplified approach can be used
with great accuracy and with simple formulas to determine critical stresses in slabs without
shoulders, with the flexibility to consider the actual modulus of elasticity. It was also found
that a length-to-width ratio of 1.25 or less for slabs is economically optimal, and smaller slabs
with a radius of relative stiffness of 0.75 m or more can be designed using standard
guidelines. However, smaller slabs with a radius of relative stiffness less than 0.75 m should
be analyzed using FE methods. It was recommended that the width of a slab should not be
equal to the standard axle width and that temperature loads should not be neglected in regions
with large temperature variations. Additionally, for cases where the radius of relative
stiffness is low, FE analysis should be used to determine the critical response of the pavement
instead of using guidelines with a single slab panel size. However, in some cases, when the
size of the concrete slab is smaller than the axle size or exactly equal to it, the stresses can
also increase as shown in Fig. 2.1.

Chand M. V. A. and Pandey B. B. (2013) state that the Finite Element Method (FEM) can
accurately compute the flexural stresses in rigid pavements caused by traffic volume. By
using this method, it is possible to analyze the pavement response to loads and predict
potential damage or failure. Flexural stresses in rigid pavements can be reduced by
decreasing the size of the pavement. This is because smaller pavement sizes result in shorter
spans between joints, which reduces the deflection caused by traffic loads. As a result, the
pavement experiences less stress and is less likely to crack or fail. This decrease in flexural
stresses can be quite significant and can result in a more durable and long-lasting pavement.

7
By accurately analyzing the pavement response to loads and reducing the pavement size
accordingly, it is possible to design more cost-effective and sustainable pavement solutions
that can withstand the test of time.

Fig. 2.1: Variation of stress for different length to width ratios due to dual wheel load for
radius of relative stiffness (l) = 0.5 (Source: Vishwakarma and Ingle (2018)).

Mauricio Pradena (2014) states that new possibilities have emerged for the improvement
of conventional concrete pavement, such as reducing the spacing of joints. This is due to the
high cost of construction and maintenance, as well as potential distress in traditional
pavement design. By utilizing shorter panels, it is possible to reduce the slab thickness and
address issues such as curling reduction and traffic volume configuration. Shorter panels can
also provide cost savings of up to 20% compared to traditional pavement construction
methods. This reduction in cost makes it a more affordable option for constructing and
maintaining pavement while still providing the necessary durability and performance.

Gupta A. and Gandhi A. (2022) state that the flexural stresses experienced by concrete
pavements during their design life are mainly caused by thermal loading and traffic volume.
Thermal stresses make up a significant portion of the total stresses in conventional concrete
pavements. However, this may not be the case for shorter size panelled pavements, which
can result in more cost-effective rigid pavement construction. The reduction in thermal
stresses of Short Panelled Concrete Pavements leads to fewer deflections, making them a
promising solution for concrete pavement construction.

Chattraj R. (2016) states that the initial cost of short panelled pavement is higher compared
to conventional bituminous pavement. It is actually more cost-effective in the long run due
8
to its superior durability. This type of pavement is expected to last for at least 20 years, which
makes it a better investment in the long term. Moreover, the thickness of the PQC layer can
be reduced by decreasing the joint spacing or panel size. This means that using smaller panels
with less spacing can result in a thinner layer of concrete, which can help reduce the overall
cost of the project while still maintaining the durability and strength of the pavement. SPCP
is an excellent choice for roads and areas that experience poor drainages, such as urban roads,
village roads, bus bays, municipal roads, parking bays, toll plazas, and terminals. These
pavements are available in sizes ranging from 0.5m x 0.5m to 1.5m x 1.5m and do not require
the use of reinforcements such as dowel bars. To ensure optimal performance of short
panelled concrete pavement, it is essential to create a firm and well-defined groove with a
desired depth (one-third or one-fourth of the pavement depth) and a width of 3mm. This
process is similar to the construction of a white topping over a bituminous pavement. By
implementing these measures, SPCP can provide a highly durable and long-lasting solution
for various types of roadways and areas with poor drainage, making it a practical and cost-
effective option for a variety of paving applications.

9
 Chapter 3

Methodology
The primary aim of this research is to ascertain the critical stresses induced by single and
tandem axles on Short Panelled Concrete Pavements. The following steps were undertaken
to achieve the objective.

3.1 Determination of critical stresses for standard sizes: To determine the results
for standard sizes, three methods were followed-
3.1.1 Computer software modeling using SAP 2000: To determine the critical stresses for
the standard sizes of Short Panelled Concrete Pavements, Finite Element Method
(FEM) is used with the help of SAP2000 computer software. A finite element model
is created according to the recommended standard size of 3.5 m x 4.5 m by PCA
(1984) and IRC 58 (2015) guidelines. The model is then analyzed for single axle
load (80 KN) and tandem axle load (160 KN) by varying the subgrade stiffness
values and thickness of the concrete slab. The subgrade stiffness values are taken as
50, 150, 300 and 700 pci, and the slab thickness values are taken as 5, 9.5 and 12.5
inches. The critical edge stresses on the concrete slabs are then determined from the
analysis results. This method provides precise structural analysis results for the
critical stresses on Short Panelled Concrete Pavements.

3.1.2 Simplified Approach: The Simplified Approach method, developed by

Vishwakarma R. J. and Ingle R. K., to determine the critical edge stresses on
concrete pavement using simple equations. This method considers the radius of
relative stiffness as the primary parameter that controls the critical stresses.
Microsoft Excel software is used for the calculations, and the results can be obtained
without the need for finite element analysis. The accuracy of this method has been
validated by comparing the results with finite element analysis, and the maximum
percentage variation is 2%.

3.1.3 IRC 58 (2015) Method: Regression equations and graphs given in IRC 58 (2015)
are used to determine the critical edge stresses because of both temperature
differentials and axle loads. These graphs and regression equations are mentioned

10
 in Appendix IV and Appendix V of IRC 58 (2015), respectively. For calculation
purposes, Microsoft Excel software is used.

3.2 Validation of results: Validating the results obtained from different methods is an
important step to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the analysis. In this study, the
results obtained from Finite Element Analysis, Simplified Approach, and Regression
Equations are compared with the results available in PCA (1984) guidelines. The
percentage error is calculated for each method to determine its level of accuracy.

 To validate the Finite Element Model, a thin shell element is used in SAP2000
software to model a concrete slab carrying a single axle load (80 kN) and tandem axle
load (160 kN) as shown in Fig. 3.1 and Fig. 3.2 respectively. Area springs are assigned
at the bottom of the slab to model the stiffness of the concrete slab foundation or
subgrade. Slab loading configurations and geometric configurations for finite element
models are considered by using PCA (1984) and IRC 58 (2015) guidelines. The
parameters for the finite element model are taken as shown in the Table 3.1.

Fig. 3.1: Software model of a concrete slab (3.5m x 4.5m) carrying single axle load.

Fig. 3.2: Software model of a concrete slab (3.5m x 4.5m) carrying tandem axle load.

11
Table 3.1: Slab dimensions
Parameters
Slab width (mm) 3657
Slab length (mm) 4572
Poisson's Ratio 0.15
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 27579

Table 3.2: Comparison of Finite Element method results with PCA (1984) results

Critical stress (MPa) % Difference

Load Thickness K
Axle in critical
(kN) (mm) MPa/m Finite PCA
stresses
Element Analysis (1984)
13 4.08 4.15 1.72
40 3.17 3.39 6.74
127
81 2.72 2.97 8.82
190 2.24 2.50 10.64
13 1.62 1.68 3.89
40 1.36 1.38 1.71
Single 80 241.3
81 1.17 1.21 3.98
190 0.96 1.041 7.99
13 1.01 1.16 12.58
40 0.9 0.94 3.59
317.5
81 0.8 0.83 2.86
190 0.67 0.71 5.75
13 3.52 3.56 0.92
40 2.59 2.75 5.85
127
81 2.21 2.41 8.16
190 1.89 2.12 10.65
13 1.55 1.71 9.18
40 1.23 1.26 2.31
Tandem 160 241.3
81 1.02 1.05 3.73
190 0.79 0.85 7.05
13 0.99 1.26 21.73
40 0.86 0.93 7.99
317.5
81 0.74 0.77 3.80
190 0.58 0.61 5.08

12
Table 3.3: Comparison of Simplified Approach results with Finite element results

Critical stress (MPa) %Difference

Load Thickness K
Axle Simplified FE in critical
(kN) (mm) MPa/m
Approach Analysis stresses
13 4.08 4.08 0.06
40 3.18 3.17 0.52
127
81 2.70 2.72 0.57
190 2.19 2.24 2.11
13 1.61 1.62 0.54
40 1.34 1.36 1.2
Single 80 241.3
81 1.16 1.17 0.16
190 0.96 0.96 0.73
13 1.02 1.01 0.87
40 0.89 0.9 1.02
317.5
81 0.79 0.8 1.35
190 0.67 0.67 0.12
13 3.54 3.52 0.57
40 2.61 2.59 0.91
127
81 2.19 2.21 0.91
190 1.82 1.89 3.33
13 1.55 1.55 0.12
40 1.22 1.23 0.63
Tandem 160 241.3
81 1.02 1.02 0.36
190 0.80 0.79 1.23
13 0.99 0.99 0.79
40 0.85 0.86 0.52
317.5
81 0.73 0.74 0.75
190 0.58 0.58 0.39

13
Table 3.4: Comparison of Simplified Approach results with PCA (1984) results
Critical stress
%Difference
Load Thickness K (MPa)
Axle in critical
(kN) (mm) MPa/m Simplified PCA
stresses
Approach (1984)
13 4.08 4.15 1.67
40 3.18 3.39 6.26
127
81 2.70 2.97 9.34
190 2.19 2.50 12.52
13 1.61 1.68 4.41
40 1.34 1.38 2.89
Single 80 241.3
81 1.16 1.21 4.13
190 0.96 1.041 7.32
13 1.02 1.16 11.82
40 0.89 0.94 4.57
317.5
81 0.79 0.83 4.17
190 0.67 0.71 5.86
13 3.54 3.56 0.35
40 2.61 2.75 5
127
81 2.19 2.41 8.99
190 1.82 2.12 13.62
13 1.55 1.71 9.29
40 1.22 1.26 2.92
Tandem 160 241.3
81 1.02 1.05 3.39
190 0.80 0.85 5.91
13 0.99 1.26 21.11
40 0.85 0.93 8.47
317.5
81 0.73 0.77 4.52
190 0.58 0.61 4.71

14
Table 3.5: Comparison of IRC 58 (2015) results with Finite element results.
Critical stress (MPa)
%Difference
Load Thickness K
Axle in critical
(kN) (mm) MPa/m FE Analysis IRC 58
stresses
(2015)
13 4.08 6.33 35.55
40 3.17 6.38 50.31
127
81 2.72 5.6 51.43
190 2.24 5.04 55.56
13 1.62 1.51 7.28
40 1.36 1.58 13.92
Single 80 241.3
81 1.17 1.31 10.69
190 0.96 1.44 33.33
13 1.01 0.71 42.25
40 0.9 0.79 13.92
317.5
81 0.8 0.59 35.59
190 0.67 0.88 23.86
13 3.52 2.72 29.41
40 2.59 2.67 3
127
81 2.21 2.24 1.34
190 1.89 1.86 1.61
13 1.55 0.74 109.46
40 1.23 0.66 86.36
Tandem 160 241.3
81 1.02 0.55 85.45
190 0.79 0.44 79.55
13 0.99 0.43 130.23
40 0.86 0.35 145.71
317.5
81 0.74 0.29 155.17
190 0.58 0.23 152.17

Based on the comparisons made between the finite element results, PCA (1984) results,
and simplified approach results, it can be concluded that the finite element method is a
reliable approach for analyzing shorter size slabs. The maximum error observed in the
comparison between finite element and PCA (1984) results was 21.73% as shown in
Table 3.2. When comparing finite element results to the simplified approach, the
maximum error was 3.33%, with almost all other errors below 2% as shown in Table
3.2. When comparing the simplified approach to the PCA (1984) results, the maximum

15
 error was about 21%, which was same as the error observed in the comparison between
finite element and PCA (1984) results as shown in Table 3.3. This indicates that the
finite element method provides results with good accuracy and can be used for further
analysis of shorter size slabs.
The IRC 58 (2015) method and the finite element method are significantly dissimilar in
their approach. This is primarily because the IRC 58 (2015) method derives its
calculations by utilizing distinct parameters from those outlined in the PCA (1984)
guidelines, such as the elasticity modulus and the location of the axle load, which is
positioned directly on the pavement edge. Conversely, the PCA (1984) guidelines
specify that the axle load should be placed at a distance of 4 inches (101 mm) from the
edge of the pavement.

3.3 Determination of critical stresses for shorter-size slabs: After validation of results
for standard slab sizes, the slab sizes are reduced. First, the stress analysis using the finite
element method is done for shorter-size slabs with the same aspect ratio as standard sizes.
The slab thickness and subgrade stiffness are taken the same as standard sizes. After
obtaining these results, the stress analysis is done for shorter square panel sizes.

3.4 Comparison of results of shorter size slabs with standard size slabs: After obtaining
the critical stresses for shorter slabs, these results are compared with the critical stresses
obtained in the standard size slabs. Further, it will be investigated how the stresses are
reduced in the panels with the size reduction for the same thickness and subgrade stiffness
value. This will help to find out which combination of slab size, slab thickness, and
subgrade stiffness is developing less critical stresses. It will also help to derive the
conclusions for shorter slabs.

Using the finite element method, we have determined the critical stresses of various sizes
of slabs. The sizes analyzed include 125"x100" (same aspect ratio), 180"x94" (equal to
axle), 118"x94" (equal to axle and same aspect ratio), 100"x80" (inside the edge), and
120"x120" (square slab size). Table 3.6, Table 3.7, Table 3.8, Table 3.9, and Table 3.10
present the corresponding results.

16
 To compare these results with the standard size (180"x144"), we calculated the
percentage stress reductions, which are presented in Table 3.6, Table 3.7, Table 3.8, Table
3.9 and Table 3.10 correspondingly.
Table 3.6: Comparison of results of shorter size slab 125"x100" (same aspect ratio) with
standard size slab.
Critical stress
%
Axle Load Thickness K (MPa)
Reduction
(kN) (mm) MPa/m slab size Standard size
in stresses
(125"x100") (180"x144")
13 4.23 4.08 -3.66
81 2.75 2.72 -1.27
127
135 2.42 2.42 0.03
190 2.23 2.34 0.32
13 1.46 1.62 10.28
81 1.21 1.17 -3.52
Single 80 241.3
135 1.09 1.04 -5.05
190 1 0.96 -4.92
13 0.86 1.01 15.30
81 0.78 0.80 2.56
317.5
135 0.73 0.72 -1.61
190 0.69 0.67 -3.14
13 3.28 3.52 7.07
81 2.26 2.21 -2.22
127
135 2.05 2 -2.30
190 1.93 1.89 -2.24
13 1.08 1.55 30.56
81 0.91 1.02 10.08
Tandem 160 241.3
135 0.84 0.87 4.41
190 0.78 0.79 1.60
13 0.64 0.99 33.91
81 0.58 0.74 20.65
317.5
135 0.55 0.64 14.05
190 0.53 0.58 8.35

Based on the Comparison of results of shorter size slab 125"x100" (same aspect ratio) with
standard size slab, we can get maximum stress reduction about 34% for thickness of
317.5mm (or 12.5 in) and subgrade stiffness of 13 MPa/m (or 50 pci).

17
Table 3.7: Comparison of results of shorter size slab 180"x94" (Equal to axle) with
standard size slab.
Critical stress
%
Load Thickness K (MPa)
Axle Reduction
(kN) (mm) MPa/m slab size Standard size
in stresses
(180" x 94") (180" x 144")
13 5.22 4.08 -27.87
81 3.63 2.72 -33.84
127
135 3.29 2.42 -35.91
190 3.07 2.34 -37.18
13 2.11 1.62 -29.94
81 1.49 1.17 -27.78
Single 80 241.3
135 1.33 1.04 -28.48
190 1.24 0.96 -29.46
13 1.33 1.01 -30.99
81 1.03 0.80 -28.26
317.5
135 0.92 0.72 -27.78
190 0.86 0.67 -27.79
13 4.56 3.52 -29.31
81 3 2.21 -35.59
127
135 2.76 2 -37.59
190 2.62 1.89 -38.59
13 2.05 1.55 -32.20
81 1.31 1.02 -29.29
241.3
135 1.13 0.87 -29.81
190 1.04 0.79 -30.78
Tandem 160 13 1.32 0.99 -33.53
317.5 81 0.96 0.74 -30.32
135 0.83 0.64 -29.51
190 0.75 0.58 -29.29

Based on the Comparison of results of shorter size slab 180"x94" (Equal to axle) with
standard size slab, only increase in stress is obtained because axle width is exactly equal to
the slab width and slab length is more.

18
Table 3.8: Comparison of results of shorter size slab 120inx120in (square size) with standard
size slab.
Critical stress
%
Load Thickness K (MPa)
Axle Reduction
(kN) (mm) MPa/m slab size Standard size
in stresses
(118"x94") (180"x144")
13 3.96 4.08 2.85
81 2.76 2.72 -1.53
127
135 2.43 2.42 -0.56
190 2.24 2.34 -0.09
13 1.28 1.62 21.43
81 1.12 1.17 4.05
Single 80 241.3
135 1.03 1.04 0.08
190 0.97 0.96 -1.51
13 0.75 1.01 25.89
81 0.7 0.80 12.69
317.5
135 0.67 0.72 7.17
190 0.64 0.67 3.67
13 3.2 3.52 9.20
81 2.61 2.21 -18.20
127
135 2.4 2 -19.57
190 2.24 1.89 -18.70
13 0.94 1.55 39.66
81 0.9 1.02 11.82
241.3
135 0.86 0.87 1.79
190 0.97 0.79 -22.37
Tandem 160 13 0.56 0.99 42.86
81 0.54 0.74 26.38
317.5
135 0.53 0.64 17.73
190 0.52 0.58 11.36

Based on the Comparison of results of shorter size slab 118"x94" (Equal to axle and same
aspect ratio) with standard size slab, we can get maximum stress reduction about 42% for
317.5mm (or 12.5 in) thickness and 13 MPa/m (or 50 pci).

19
 Table 3.9: Comparison of results of shorter size slab 100inx80" (Inside the edge) with
standard size slab.
Critical stress
%
Load Thickness K (MPa)
Axle Reduction
(kN) (mm) MPa/m slab size Standard size
in stresses
(100"x80") (180"x144")
13 3.78 4.08 7.26
81 2.8 2.72 -3.03
127
135 2.47 2.42 -2.09
190 3.01 2.34 -34.56
13 1.15 1.62 29.08
81 1.06 1.17 8.94
Single 80 241.3
135 1 1.04 2.97
190 0.96 0.96 -0.03
13 0.67 1.01 33.63
81 0.65 0.80 19.59
317.5
135 0.63 0.72 13.02
190 0.64 0.67 3.75
13 3.23 3.52 8.38
81 2.63 2.21 -19.21
127
135 2.41 2 -20.07
190 2.48 1.89 -30.97
13 0.95 1.55 38.55
81 0.9 1.02 11.17
241.3
135 0.87 0.87 0.53
190 0.84 0.79 -6.04
Tandem 160 13 0.56 0.99 43.78
81 0.54 0.74 26.61
317.5
135 0.53 0.64 17.46
190 0.52 0.58 10.67

Based on the Comparison of results of shorter size slab 100"x80" (Inside the edge) with
standard size slab, we can get maximum stress reduction about 44% for thickness of
317.5mm (or 12.5 in) and subgrade stiffness of 13 MPa/m (or 50 pci).

20
Table 3.10: Comparison of results of shorter size slab 120inx120in (square size) with
standard size slab.

Critical stress
%
Load Thickness K (MPa)
Axle Reduction
(kN) (mm) MPa/m slab size Standard size
in stresses
(120"x120") (180"x144")
13 3.64 4.08 10.69
81 2.75 2.72 -1.33
127
135 2.43 2.42 -0.53
190 2.24 2.34 -0.10
13 1.25 1.62 22.90
81 1.1 1.17 5.44
Single 80 241.3
135 1.02 1.04 1.22
190 0.96 0.96 -0.60
13 0.63 1.01 37.33
81 0.69 0.80 14.22
317.5
135 0.66 0.72 8.65
190 0.63 0.67 5.21
13 3.16 3.52 10.47
81 2.61 2.21 -17.91
127
135 2.39 2 -19.37
190 2.24 1.89 -18.57
13 1 1.55 35.89
81 0.9 1.02 11.31
241.3
135 0.86 0.87 1.74
190 0.83 0.79 -4.37
Tandem 160 13 0.54 0.99 45.68
81 0.55 0.74 25.06
317.5
135 0.53 0.64 16.90
190 0.52 0.58 10.87

Based on the Comparison of results of shorter size slab 120"x120" (Square Size) with
standard size slab, we can get maximum stress reduction about 45% for 317.5mm (or 12.5
in) thickness and 13 MPa/m (or 50 pci).

21
 Chapter 4
Results and Discussion

4.1 Analysis of constant aspect ratio SPCP:

A slab with a length of 125 inches and a width of 100 inches was analyzed, which had an
aspect ratio of 1.25, equivalent to the standard dimensions of a slab with a length of 180
inches and a width of 144 inches. Fig. 5.1 depicts the percentage decrease in Short Panelled
Concrete Pavements when the slabs dimensions, maintaining the same aspect ratio, are
decreased to 70% of the standard dimensions.

Fig. 5.1: Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 125 inches x 100 inches Short
Panelled Concrete Pavements slab.

From the above graphical representation, it is found that the critical flexural stresses are
reduced more for Short Panelled Concrete Pavements slab having higher slab thickness and
existing foundation (soil subgrade) strength is weaker. Fig. 5.2. illustrates percentage reduction
22
in Short Panelled Concrete Pavements considering the same aspect ratio and but sizes are more
reduced than Fig. 5.1 analysis (reduced to 65%) and compared with standard dimensions slabs.

Fig. 5.2: Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 118 inches x 94 inches SPCP slab.

From the above analysis results, it is found that 65% of standard dimensions sized slab
reduces more flexural stresses compared the 70% of standard dimensions sized slab. Fig. 5.3
illustrates % reduction in Short Panelled Concrete Pavements considering the same aspect ratio, but
sizes are more reduced than in Fig. 5.2 analysis.

23
 Fig. 5.3: Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 100 inches x 80 inches SPCP slab.

By reducing the size of Short Panelled Concrete Pavements while maintaining the same
aspect ratio, it has been shown that the decrease is relatively substantial for high thickness
and low modulus of subgrade reactions.

In the case of a single axle load and a higher subgrade modulus, the percentage of stress
reduction is reduced as compared with the lower subgrade modulus but still in favor of a high
thickness.

The percentage decrease has been shown to be negative for low thickness, which is not
necessary for tandem axle loads. However, high-thickness Short Panelled Concrete
Pavements functions well with any subgrade reaction modulus, higher thickness causes%
reduction to vary with subgrade modulus.

For both single-axle and tandem-axle applications, a thicker Short Panelled Concrete
Pavements might be used if the soil demonstrates any stiffness characteristics.

4.2 Analysis of SPCP having a width equal to standard axle width:

A FE model of slab having length 118 inches and width 94 inches was analyzed which having
wheel axle loading width is same as the slab width. Obtained results of critical stresses were
compared with standard dimension slab as illustrated in Fig. 5.4.

24
 Fig. 5.4: Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 118 inches x 94 inches SPCP slab.

Results indicate that stress reduction was higher in case of higher thickness for both single
and tandem axle loading as shown in Fig. 5.4. Also we found that for higher soil subgrade
reaction stresses were found to be higher in case of less thickness which can be clearly seen
in above graph for 5inch. Also, the choice of thickness for weaker soil subgrade reaction is
left to the designer because 9.5 inch and 12.5 inch almost shows same reduction in stresses,
care must be taken for strong soil subgrade reaction when axle width is same as standard axle
width.

4.3 Analysis of SPCP having a width larger than standard axle width:
A finite element model is developed and investigates the effect of variation of axle width,
keeping slab length constant to 180 inches. To achieve this goal, we collected pavement
performance data for standard and wider axle widths. Subsequently, we employed statistical
analysis which is illustrated in Fig. 5.5 to identify any significant variations in pavement
performance between the two widths.

25
 Fig.5.5: Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 180 inches x 144 inches when
compared to 180 x 94 inches SPCP slab.

Since the %reduction is seen as very high for low thickness and high modulus of subgrade
reactions, it can be stated if soil possesses excellent stiffness properties, then undoubtedly,
the lower thickness of Short Panelled Concrete Pavements can be used for both single and
tandem axle loading.

Also, for higher thickness, we obtain a certain amount of %reduction. This implies Short
Panelled Concrete Pavements with a width of 180 x 144 perform, we obtain a certain amount
of %reduction for higher thickness, we obtain a certain amount of %reduction for higher
thickness better than pavement with a width of 180 x 94 in terms of cracking and deflection
resistance.

26
4.4 Analysis of SPCP having a width smaller than standard axle width:

Fig. 5.6: Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 180 inches x 90 inches when
compared to 180 x 94 Short Panelled Concrete Pavements slab.

In this case the length of the slab is same as the standard length suggested by design
guidelines, but the width of the slab is reduced to 90 inches. By comparing this one with the
previous slab dimension 180 x 94 inch, graph shows % reduction in flexural stresses.
However, it is not reduced by a large amount and flexural stresses are similar. We can say
that for any subgrade reaction the lesser thickness slab is more preferred than higher thickness
slab when width is smaller than axle width.

4.5 Analysis of SPCP having a square shape with dimensions 120 x 120 inches:
It has been demonstrated that %reduction is quite high for high thickness and low modulus
of subgrade reactions by reducing the area and altering the shape of the SPCP as shown in
Fig. 5.7.

27
 Fig. 5.7: Percentage reduction in maximum flexural stresses in 120 inches x 120 inches when
compared to 180 x 144 Short Panelled Concrete Pavements slab.

In the case of a single axle load and a higher subgrade modulus, the percentage of stress
reduction is still in favor of high thickness as compared to low thickness.

It has been demonstrated that in tandem axle load % reduction is negative for low thickness,
which is not required. Higher thickness causes % reduction to vary with subgrade reaction
modulus, although high thickness SPCP fulfills the requirement that is less flexural stresses
with any subgrade reaction.

In this case of square SPCP, if soil exhibits any stiffness characteristics, then a thicker Short
Panelled Concrete Pavements can be employed for both single-axle and tandem-axle
applications.

28
 Chapter-5
Conclusions
The software analysis is done for Short Panelled Concrete Pavements, and the results are
compared with conventional concrete pavements. The following important recommendations
are suggested for the design of Short Panelled Concrete Pavements:

 This study found that decreasing slab dimensions while maintaining the same aspect ratio
resulted in greater reductions in critical flexural stresses for Short Panelled Concrete
Pavements with higher thicknesses and weaker soil subgrade strength.
 The study revealed that reducing the width of a slab while maintaining the recommended
constant length can significantly decrease critical flexural stresses, up to 25.90% and
42.86% for single and tandem axle loading, respectively. However, for tandem axle
loading, the slab resting on higher soil subgrade strength increases flexural stresses,
highlighting the importance of aspect ratio and avoiding slab width equal or nearer to
standard wheel axle loads for economical design.
 The results suggest that opting for the SPCP with a 180 x 144 inch width is a better choice
in terms of fatigue resistance and overall performance than a width of 180 x 94. Although
the wider pavement may entail higher initial construction costs, it can offer long-term
advantages, such as lower maintenance and repair expenses.
 For the cases when short size panels are used, it is recommended to do finite element
analysis to determine critical response of pavement instead of using guidelines with
single slab panel size.
 All the above conclusions are dimensions specific and hence do not conclude for all sizes
of short panelled pavements. This study is limited to concrete pavement without shoulder
conditions only.

29
 References
[1] Chand, M. V., and Pandey, B. B. (2013, October). Analytical design of Short
Panelled Concrete Pavements. In Journal of the Indian Roads Congress (Vol. 74, No.
3).

[2] Chattaraj, R., and Pandey, B. B. (2014). Short panelled concrete pavement in built-
up area. Indian Highways, 42(1), 5-12.

[3] Gupta, A., and Gandhi, T. (2016). Comparative analysis of short panelled pavement
using 3-D Finite Element analysis. In Functional Pavement Design (pp. 1421-1429).
CRC Press.

[4] IRC: 58. (2015). Guidelines for the design of plain jointed rigid pavements for
highways. In Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India.

[5] Kasu S.R., Mitra N., and Muppireddy A. R. (2021). Construction practices of short
paneled concrete pavements (SPCP) for high volume roads. Proceeding of the 12th ICCP
(978-0-578-33418-9).

[6] Maitra, S. R., Reddy, K. S., Ramachandra, L. S., and Pandey, B. B. (2018).
Numerical analysis of short panelled concrete pavement. Indian Highways, 46(8).

[7] PCA (1984), Thickness design for concrete highway and street pavements, Portland
Cement Assosiation, Skokie.

[8] Pradena, M., and Houben, L. (2014). Sustainable pavements: An analysis of the
cracks width in jointed plain concrete pavements with short slabs. In 14th International
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2014 (pp. 347-354).

[9] Vishwakarma, R. J., and Ingle, R. K. (2017). Simplified approach for the evaluation
of critical stresses in concrete pavement. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An
Int'l Journal, 61(3), 389-396.

[10] Vishwakarma, R. J., and Ingle, R. K. (2018). Effect of panel size and radius of
relative stiffness on critical stresses in concrete pavement. Arabian Journal for Science
and Engineering, 43(10), 5677-5687.

30
ANALYSIS OF SHORT PANELLED CONCRETE PAVEMENT
ORIGINALITY REPORT

10 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
6%
INTERNET SOURCES
6%
PUBLICATIONS
3%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
Rameshwar J. Vishwakarma, Ramakant K.
Ingle. "Effect of Panel Size and Radius of
2%
Relative Stiffness on Critical Stresses in
Concrete Pavement", Arabian Journal for
Science and Engineering, 2018
Publication

2
shellbuckling.com
Internet Source 1%
3
Encyclopedia of Tribology, 2013.
Publication <1 %
4
www.slideshare.net
Internet Source <1 %
5
dokumen.pub
Internet Source <1 %
6
inis.iaea.org
Internet Source <1 %
7
eprint.iitd.ac.in
Internet Source <1 %
8
Submitted to Govt. Mahila Engineering
College Makhupura
<1 %
Student Paper

9
www.mgijournal.com
Internet Source <1 %
10
core.ac.uk
Internet Source <1 %
11
idr.mnit.ac.in
Internet Source <1 %
12
ro.uow.edu.au
Internet Source <1 %
13
Said Elkholy, Bilal El-Ariss, Sameh Galal.
"Structural performance of jointed reinforced
<1 %
concrete pavement slab with subbase
erosion", Structures, 2020
Publication

14
www.eprint.iitd.ac.in
Internet Source <1 %
15
Submitted to Mar Baselios Engineering
College
<1 %
Student Paper

16
repository.sustech.edu
Internet Source <1 %
17
Jeetendra Singh Khichad, Rameshwar J.
Vishwakarma, Sushilkumar B Magade.
<1 %