TERM PROJECT

The A team
Eduardo Schaefer Sombrio
Joo Victor Oliveira de Albuquerque Malta
Weverton Marques da Silva

Civil 5810 Pavements Design

Submitted to
Dr. David Timm

December 5th, 2014

Table of contents

1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.

Traffic characterization ................................................................................................... 1

2.1. Rigid Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation .................................................................. 2
2.2. Flexible Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation ............................................................. 3

3.

Pavement design .............................................................................................................. 4

3.1. Flexible Pavement Design ........................................................................................... 4
3.1.1. AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design Method ............................................. 4
3.1.2. Comparison with the Asphalt Institute Method ........................................... 6
3.2. Rigid Pavement Design ............................................................................................... 6
3.2.1

AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design .............................................................. 6

3.2.2. PCA Method Comparison ............................................................................ 9

4.

The A team recommendation .......................................................................................... 9

5.

References ..................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix A: Traffic characterization ....................................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Flexible Pavement Design ................................................................................ B-1
Appendix C: Rigid Pavement Design .................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Drainage Calculation ........................................................................................D-1

CIVL 5810
1.

Term Project

INTRODUCTION
Our group was supposed to design a flexible and a rigid pavement for a two-lane

highway (State Highway 280) that goes from Opelika to Alexander City, on the state of
Alabama. The study that we provide is given between mileposts 90 and 96. On this report
you will be able to see different methods on how to design the flexible and the rigid
pavement, including our group recommendation as a final design. Each pavement was
designed for a 35-year period and a cost analysis was performed too.
The flexible pavement was designed according to the AASHTO flexible pavement
design method and then compared with the Asphalt Institute method. Furthermore, a jointed
plain concrete pavement and the final design was compared with the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) method.

Figure 1: Location along State Highway 280 (ALDOT, 2014)

2.

TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION
To make the calculations of the design traffic for the AASHTO flexible and rigid

pavements we utilized the data about the weigh-in-motion (WIM) that was given to us from
Highway 280 for three months of 2008 (March, July, and October).

CIVL 5810

Term Project

The following equation gives the equivalent single axle load value (ESAL) for each
pavement:
ESALdesign = AADT %Trucks Growth Factor 365 ESAL Factor L. D. D. D.
Where:
AADT = average annual daily traffic (vehicle/day)
% Trucks = % of AADT consisting of trucks
Growth Factor =

(1+) 1

Growth rate () = rate of traffic growth for the pavement design life
n = number of years for pavement design (35 in your case)
ESAL Factor = average damage of a vehicle type relative to a single-axle 18-kip
load
L. D. = lane distribution
D. D. = directional distribution
During your calculations we faced four ALDOT stations on the assigned segment
(stations 806, 502, 501, and 803). We decided to choose the station that, in the end of
calculations, gives us the highest ESALdesign number.
We decided to use a lane distribution correction factor equal to 90% and 50% for
directional distribution (assuming that the traffic levels is equal in both directions).
As we needed to be the most conservative design as possible, the ESAL factor for the
scenarios was determined with calculations using a single ESAL factor for each of the three
months and selecting the highest value.
Each A 18 was calculated by multiplying the number of axles by an equivalent axle
load factor (EALF) and the EALF was calculated from the following equation:
EALF = Wt18 /Wtx
Wt18 = the number of standard (18-kips) axle load passes
Wtx = the number of nonstandard axle load passes
2.1.

Rigid Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation

To determine the EALF for each vehicle load we used the AASHTO equation for

rigid pavements:

CIVL 5810

Term Project

log (

) = 5.908 4.62 log( + 2 ) + 3.282 +
18
18
= log (
= 1.0 +

4.5
)
4.5 1.5

3.63 ( + 2 )5.20
( + 1) 8.46 3.52
2

= axle group weight for a nonstandard axle (kips)

2 = axle type number: 1 for single, 2 for tandem, 3 for tridem
= terminal serviceability value
= thickness of the concrete slab
We assumed a slab thickness of 9 inches for EAFL calculations. For AADT > 10,000
vehicles/day the range of terminal serviceabilities (p t) is from 3.0 to 3.5 and we decided to
assumed pt as 3.0 for economic purposes. At the end, your ESALdesign for rigid pavement is:
= 13,264 0.11 72.97 365 1.225 0.90 0.50 = 19,037,912.4
For details see Table 5 in Appendix A: Traffic characterization.
2.2.

Flexible Pavement ESAL Factor Calculation

To determine the EALF for each vehicle load we used the AASHTO equation for

flexible pavements:
log (

) = 6.1252 4.79 log( + 2 ) + 4.332 +
18
18
= log (

4.2
)
4.2 1.5

0.081 ( + 2 )3.23
= 0.40 +
( + 1) 5.19 3.23
2
= axle group weight for a nonstandard axle (kips)
2 = axle type number (1: single, 2: tandem, 3 for tridem)
= terminal serviceability value
= structural number of the flexible pavement system.
The AADT > 10,000 vehicles/day, so, as we did for the rigid pavement design, a
terminal serviceability value equals to 3.0 is assumed for economic purposes. Another

CIVL 5810

Term Project

assumption that we made is 5.0 for structural number. At the end, your ESALdesign for flexible
pavement is:
= 13,264 0.11 72.97 365 0.523 0.90 0.50 = 8,127,728
For details see Table 6 in Appendix A: Traffic characterization.
3.

PAVEMENT DESIGN
The table bellow shows the material proprieties considered in this report.
Table 1. Construction materials properties

Stockpile
A

Stockpile
B

Stockpile
C

Soil

HMAC

PCC

Modulus (psi)

15,000

22,500

30,000

800,000

Structural Coefficient

0.068

0.11

0.141

0.54

Permeability (ft/day)

100

16,000

2.210-3

Characterization

Filter

Filter

Base

Subgrade

Surface

Surface

Unit Cost ($/yd2/in)

0.3

0.33

0.36

3.65

4.3

D15

0.15

0.55

6.4

0.09

D85

3.7

9.51

N/A

3.1. Flexible Pavement Design

The flexible pavement design was based on the AASHTO flexible pavement design
method and compared with the Asphalt Institute method.
3.1.1. AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design Method
The following equations were used on the calculations of the thicknesses of the
surface, base, and subbase layers:
D1
D2
D3

SN1
a1

SN2 a1 D1
a2 m2

SN3 a1 D1 a2 m2 D2
a3 m3

1: surface; 2: base; 3: subbase.

SN1 , SN2 , SN3 = structural numbers
a1 , a2 , a3 = structural coefficients
4

CIVL 5810

Term Project

D1 , D2 , D3 = thicknesses
m1 , m2 , m3 = drainage coefficients
We chose standard deviation (S0 ) of 0.35 according to AASHTO recommendations.
As we selected 3.0 for terminal serviceability (pt), our PSI is 1.2. The AASHTO method
recommends reliabilities between 75% and 95%, so we decided to choose 90% to balance
other calculations on the traffic part, this number give us a Z-statistic (ZR) of -1.282.
The structural number (SN) affects the thickness of each layer. To calculate those
thicknesses we used the following equation:
PSI
)
4.2
1.5
log(W18 ) = ZR S0 + 9.36 log(SN + 1) 0.20 +
+ 2.32 log(MR ) 8.07
1094
)
0.4 + (
(SN + 1) 5.19
log (

W18 = the number of ESALs for the flexible scenario

ZR = Z-statistic at the design reliability
S0 = standard deviation
PSI = (p0 pt)
p0 = initial serviceability
pt = terminal serviceability
MR = modulus of the underlying material (psi)
For the calculations of the effective subgrade modulus ( , ) (this number governs
the final SN) we considered a wet season that corresponds 30% of the year. An effective
subgrade modulus of 6,290 psi was calculated based on preexisting data and the above
assumptions. See Table 7 in Appendix B: Flexible Pavement Design.
We also assumed a drainage quality as Excellent for each material, which means
that 95% of water is removed in 2 hours or less, and gives us a drainage coefficient = 1.2.
All combinations of stockpiles and asphalts were done (and the filter and clogging
criteria were checked), instead of using a single one and then they were subjected to the
AASHTO equations above. After the cost analysis we chose the cheapest combination.
Table 2. Cost analysis for flexible pavement

Layer 1
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC

D1 (in)
10.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
6.5
5.5
5.5

Layer 2
Subgrade
A
B
C
B
C
C

D2 (in)
0
17
15
15
3
5.5
2

Layer 3
Subgrade
Subgrade
Subgrade
A
A
B

D3 (in)
0
0
0
0
19
19
16.5

Total Cost ($/yd2)

38.33
32.48
28.68
25.48
30.42
27.76
26.24

CIVL 5810

Term Project

The highlighted combination was the one that we chose for our design.
Since there is no melt water condition, the water inflow was estimated as the surface
infiltration only. The discharge capacity of the drainage layer was calculated and was
acceptable. Our pipe size was estimated as 1.43 in. The minimum size available in the market
is 4 in, so that is the value that we adopted. See Appendix D: Drainage Calculation.
3.1.2. Comparison with the Asphalt Institute Method
WESLEA software was used to determine the maximum horizontal tensile strain at
the bottom of the asphalt layer and the maximum vertical compressive strain at the top of the
subgrade with the following equations.
1 3.291 0.854
| |
= 0.0796 ( )

1 4.477
= 1.365 109 ( )

= number of standard axle loads until fatigue failure

= number of standard axle loads until rutting failure
Damage for both failure modes:
=

As the damage ratio for fatigue is higher than 1.0, we can conclude that according to
the Asphalt Institute Method the pavement is underestimated. See Table 8 in
3.2. Rigid Pavement Design
The rigid pavement design was based on the AASHTO rigid pavement design method
and compared with the Asphalt Institute method.
3.2.1

AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design

The thickness of the concrete pavement slab () was calculated from the AASHTO

rigid pavement design equation:

( 0.75 1.132)

log( 18 ) = 0 log

215.63 ( 0.75
(

18.42
)
0.25
( )
)

+ 7.35 log ( + 1) 0.06 + (

)
log (
4.5 1.5
) + (4.22 0.32 )
107
1 + 1.624 (
8.46
+ 1)

CIVL 5810

Term Project

18 = number of ESALs for the rigid scenario

0 = standard deviation
= Z-statistic (at the design reliability)
PSI = (p0 pt)
p0 = initial serviceability
pt = terminal serviceability
= elastic modulus of concrete (psi)
= modulus of rupture (psi)
= drainage coefficient (base material)
, = effective modulus of subgrade reaction (pci)
= load transfer coefficient
We chose standard deviation (S0 ) of 0.35 according to AASHTO recommendations.
As we selected 3.0 for terminal serviceability ( pt), our PSI is 1.2. The AASHTO method
recommends reliabilities between 75% and 95%, so we decided to choose 90% to balance
other calculations on the traffic part, this number give us a Z-statistic (ZR) of -1.282.
For the calculations of the effective modulus of subgrade reaction ( , ), (this
number govern the slab thickness) we considered a wet season that corresponds 30% of the
year. Three effective modulus of subgrade reaction were calculated based on preexisting data
and the above assumptions and we decided to use the highest one ( = 55 psi), after the
correction for loss of support, which corresponds to the stockpile C. Also, a loss of support
correction factor of 2.0 was selected to account for uncertainty regarding the exact nature of
the material in stockpile C. See Table 9 in Appendix C: Rigid Pavement Design.
Using AASHTO design equations to calculate the elastic modulus ( ) and the
modulus of rupture ( ) of the concrete material we have:
= 57,000 = 4,002,196 psi
= 9 = 632 psi
A loss of support correction factor of 2.0 was selected to account for uncertainty
regarding the exact nature of the material in stockpile C. As the % Time Saturated > 25% and
our drainage quality is considered as Excellent, we decided to use the drainage coefficient
equals to 1.20.
% =

+
100%
365
7

CIVL 5810

Term Project

= days of spring thaw

= remaining days with rain if pavement will drain to 85% in 24 hours
% =

0 + 108
100% = 29.6%
365

AASHTO recommends for tied configuration a load transfer ranging between 2.5 and
3.1 and for non-tied configuration it recommends 3.2. We decided to use 2.5 to be more
conservative on our assumption.
Table 3: Design Options and Cost Analysis

Load Transfer Coefficient

Stockpile
3.2
2.5
A
11.5
10.2
B
11.5
10.2
C
11.5
10.1
A steel design was then performed for each configuration and a subsequent cost
analysis was performed to determine the cheapest option.
Table 4: Design Options and Cost Analysis

Design
Option

PCC
Thickness
(in)

Total PCC
Cost ($/yd2)

Total Steel
Cost ($/yd2)

Total Cost
($/yd2)

Non-tied

11.5

49.45

0.33

48.78

Tied

10.5

45.15

0.43

43.58

As the tied option is the cheapest one, we decided to choose it.

Also, we assumed a drainage quality of Excellent for each material, which means
that 95% of water is removed in 2 hours or less, and gives us a drainage coefficient of 1.2. As
there is no melt water condition the water inflow was estimated as the surface infiltr ation
only. The discharge capacity of the drainage layer was calculated and was acceptable. Our
group opted to use a pavement with 12 ft lanes with 9 ft outer shoulders and 2 ft inner
shoulders. A 20 feet joint spacing was used, with 6 tie bars and 40 inches center-to-center
spacing.
With the objective of assist on the load transfers between the lanes, 24 18-inch long
dowels bars of 1. 25 inches diameter was used and 12-inch center-to-center spacing. The
dowel size was selected according to Friberg (1940) (See Huang, Y. H., page 194).

CIVL 5810

Term Project

3.2.2. PCA Method Comparison

We compared the final AASHTO design for the rigid pavement with the Portland
Cement Association (PCA) method. On this analysis we utilized the same traffic data from
March, 2008 used in the AASHTO procedure.
A load factor equals to 1.1, shoulders and dowels were used on the pavement concrete
design. Using the value of 10.5 for the slickness the total expected axle repetitions for each
axle load was calculated for your design period (35 year).
After all your calculations, we can conclude that PCA method showed that this
pavement configuration satisfies the fatigue and erosion requirements. See Appendix C:
Rigid Pavement Design.
4.

THE A TEAM RECOMMENDATION

This report has the objective to show the best alternative when designed a pavement

for Highway 280 according to different methods, whether flexible or rigid. The next table
shows the most economical way to design it:
Design Option

Total Cost ($/yd2)

Flexible

25.48

Rigid

43.58

As the flexible pavement is more economical than the rigid, we decided to choose it
for our design.

CIVL 5810
5.

Term Project

REFERENCES

Timm, David (2014) CIVL 5810: Notes. Auburn University: Department of Civil
Engineering. Auburn, AL.
Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design (2nd ed.).
Alabama Department of Transportation. (2014, November 28). Alabama Traffic Monitoring
Division. Retrieved December 1, 2014. http://algis.dot.state.al.us/atd/default.aspx
U.S. Climate Data. (2014). Retrieved December 2, 2014.
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/opelika/alabama/united-states/usal0413

10

CIVL 5810

Term Project

APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION

Table 5. ESAL calculation for rigid pavement

Station

Last Measured
AADT (2013)

TADT

Current Traffic
(2014)

Growth factor

ESALi

806

10790

12%

2.13%

11020

51.23

30,284,213.5

502

10790

11%

2.05%

11012

50.50

27,346,897.1

501

12760

11%

3.95%

13264

72.97

47,594,781.1

803

11630

12%

2.64%

11937

56.38

36,101,196.2

Maximum

47,594,781.1

ESALDESIGN =

19,037,912.4

Table 6. ESAL calculation for flexible pavement

Station

Last Measured
AADT (2013)

TADT

Current Traffic
(2014)

Growth factor

ESALi

806

10790

12%

2.13%

11020

51.23

12,929,035.8

502

10790

11%

2.05%

11012

50.50

11,675,027.0

501

12760

11%

3.95%

13264

72.97

20,319,320.1

803

11630

12%

2.64%

11937

56.38

15,412,441.1

Maximum

20,319,320.1

ESALDESIGN =

8,127,728.0

A-1

CIVL 5810

Term Project
APPENDIX B: FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
Table 7. Effective resilient modulus calculation

Season

MR (psi)

Duration (days)

Dry

7850 (Average)

257

0.1086

Wet

4710 (Average - 40%)

108

0.3552

Weighted average

MR,eff (psi)

0.1816

6290

Table 8. Asphalt Institute comparison

t (10-6in/in) =

183.28

v (10-6in/in) =

388.29

E* (psi) =

800000

Nf (ESALs) =
Df =
Nr (ESALs) =
Dr =

1.44106
5.65
2.54107
3.20

B-1

CIVL 5810

Term Project
APPENDIX C: RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN
Table 9. Effective modulus of subgrade reaction calculation

Material

Season

Dry

Wet

Dry

Wet

Dry

Wet

Roadbed Soil Modulus, psi

7850

4710

7850

4710

7850

4710

Subbase Modulus, psi

15000

15000

22500

22500

30000

30000

composite k-value (pci) figure 3.3

410

260

445

275

480

290

k-value on rigid foundation Fig. 3.4

680

460

770

490

840

515

Relative Damage, ur Fig. 3.5

82.35

97.63

77.57

95.14

74.27

93.18

Weighted Average Relative Damage, ur

86.87

82.77

79.86

Composite k-value (pci)

605

673

725

keff

50

52

55

Table 10. Input information for performance evaluation according to PCA method

Thickness of slab (in) =

10.5

k-value (pci) =

55

LSF =

1.1

Concrete Shoulders?

no

Dowels?

yes

Sc (psi) =

632

Table 11. Performance evaluation according to PCA method for single axles.

Single Axles
Axle
Load
(kips)
34
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16

Axle Load*LSF
37.4
33
30.8
28.6
26.4
24.2
22
19.8
17.6

Fatigue
Expected
Reps

Allowable
Reps

95
6,048
95
46,197
855
128,648
2660
448,197
10641
3,509,364
29642
Unlimited
112202
Unlimited
365201
Unlimited
795862
Unlimited
Subtotal - Singles

Erosion

%
Consumed

Allowable
Reps

%
Consumed

1.6%
0.2%
0.7%
0.6%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%

2,261,131
5,014,808
8,032,822
13,852,433
26,709,862
62,440,563
224,335,664
11,657,544,852
Unlimited

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%

C-1

CIVL 5810

Term Project

Table 12. Performance evaluation according to PCA method for tandem axles.

Fatigue
Axle
Load
(kips)
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24

Axle Load*LSF

Expected
Reps

57.2
55
52.8
50.6
48.4
46.2
44
41.8
39.6
37.4
35.2
33
30.8
28.6
2.2

0
1443
2309
4619
9239
37822
71313
148401
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Allowable
Reps

232,981
478,340
1,207,912
4,439,238
40,223,929
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Subtotal-Tandem

Total Life Consumed

Erosion

%
Consumed

Allowable
Reps

%
Consumed

0.00%
0.30%
0.20%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.60%

1,446,669
1,830,709
2,348,677
3,061,614
4,066,777
5,525,570
7,719,510
11,171,136
16,931,499
27,355,848
48,600,586
101,134,818
291,231,200
2,796,149,258
Unlimited

0.00%
0.10%
0.10%
0.20%
0.20%
0.70%
0.90%
1.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.50%

4.00%

3.70%

C-2

CIVL 5810

Term Project
APPENDIX D: DRAINAGE CALCULATION
Table 13. Drainage parameters

Surface Infiltration

Steady-State Inflow

Ic (ft3/day.ft2) = 2.4

Kd (ft/day) = 16000

Nc = 3

S = 0.02

Wp (ft) = 24

Hd (ft) = 0.5

Wc (ft) = 24

L (ft) = 22

Cs (ft) = 40
qi (ft3/day.ft2)

q = 250.9

= 0.36

Criteria (q > qdL) -> OK

In this case qd = qi

0 0.375
0.01 (0.36 12) 500
=[
]
=[
]
0.5
53
53 0.250.5

0.375

= 1.43 in

D-1