Papagiannakis Solutions For Text Book

Instructors Solution Manual
For
Pavement Design and Materials

2nd Print
By A.T.Papagiannakis and E.A. Masad
1st Edition
Published by Wiley and Sons Inc.

2009
Dec. 2009
Acknowledgement:
The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to all the graduate students of
Washington State University, Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at San
Antonio that contributed to the solutions in this manual. They are in alphabetical order:
Silvia Caro
Veronica Castelo-Blanco
Chien-Wei Huang
Emad Kassem
Enad Mahmoud
Arash Rezai
Jessica Woods and
Habtamu Zelelew
Chapter 2
2.1
Truck shown in Figure 2.9(a).
Use Table 2-8 for single axle and penalize load by 10% for single tires:
Steering: 63.4 kN x 1.1 = 69.7 4 kN therefore ESAL = 0.575
Use Table 2.9 for tandem axles:

Drive axle: 128.2 kN therefore ESAL = 0.557
Trailer axle: 148.3 kN therefore ESAL = 1.009
Total for vehicle ESAL = 2.14
Truck show in Figure 2.9(b).
Use Table 2-8 for single axle and penalize load by 10% for single tires:
Steering: 53.2 kN x 1.1 = 58.5 4 kN therefore ESAL = 0.285
Use Table 2.9 for tandem axles:

Drive axle: 92.5 kN therefore ESAL = 0.261
Trailer axle: 52 kN therefore ESAL = 0.139
2nd Trailer axle: 50.2 kN therefore ESAL = 0.012
Total for vehicle ESAL = 0.697 rounded to 0.7
2.2
Compute the dynamic load Coefficient of Variation (CV) using Equ. 2.2 and the
constants given on table 2.3.
Air-spring suspension:
CV = 70 0.346 2.2 0.798 = 8.16%
Rubber-spring suspension:
CV = 70 0.456 2.20.728 = 12.32%
Compute standard dynamic load deviations:
Tractor: 0.0816 x 75 = 6.12 kN
Trailer: 0.1232 x 70 = 8.62 kN

Assuming that the dynamic load is normally distributed, the following ranges are
obtained for 90% confidence:
Tractor: 75 1.65 x 6.12 = [85.1, 64.9] kN
Trailer: 70 1.65 x 8.62 = [74.2, 55.8] kN
Where 1.65 is the standard normal deviate for 90% confidence.
2.3
The maximum dynamic load range tolerated for the tandem tractor axle is 20/1.65 = 12.1
kN, or 6.06 kN for each individual axle. This reflects a CV of 6.06/75 = 8.08%
Similarly, the maximum dynamic load range tolerated for the tandem trailer axle is
20/1.65 = 12.1 kN, or 6.06 kN for each individual axle. This reflects a CV of 6.06/70 =
8.66%.
Solve Equ. 2.2 for speed:
Tractor air-spring:
8.08 = V 0.346 2.2 0.798
Trailer rubber-spring:
8.66 = V 0.456 2.2 0.728
Solution gives speeds of 68 km/h and 32.3 km/hr. The latter governs.
2.4
WIM error computations:
WIM Pass
1 WIM Pass 2 WIM Pass 3 WIM Pass 4 WIM Pass 5
Test Vehicle 1
steering -16.78 11.76 -5.66 9.15 1.31
drive, axle 1 5.41 -14.10 7.26 -17.09 -30.34
drive, axle 2 -9.30 3.85 7.97 -20.05 7.44
trailer, axle 1 -13.92 -16.50 -4.59 -30.70 -3.87
trailer, axle 2 -15.44 -30.73 -35.32 2.60 -0.31
GVW -9.40 -10.17 -5.45 -13.05 -5.51
Test Vehicle 2
steering -12.04 4.17 1.85 3.01 -0.93
drive, axle 1 -17.98 10.59 12.84 -22.47 -10.43
drive, axle 2 -21.99 -17.25 23.89 -12.97 -21.04
trailer, axle 1 -5.34 -7.07 0.58 -2.60 -2.60
trailer, axle 2 -7.41 -11.68 1.57 -8.83 -4.56
GVW -12.72 -5.06 8.24 -9.38 -8.18
Four of 50 WIM measurements violate the 30% rule for weighing individual axles
(shaded cells), which represent a 92% < 95% conformity and hence, this system does not
satisfy Type II WIM requirements. The average error in axle load measurements is
-6.73% which suggests a calibration factor adjustment factor of 1.0722.
2.5:
Consider the vehicle shown in Figure 2.10. Single axle loads and tandem axle load limits
are satisfied, since the single axle load 68 < 89 kN, and the tandem axle loads of 108 <
151 kN and 135 < 151 kN. The GVW is 311 < 356 kN.
Check whether this vehicle satisfies the bridge formula requirement given by Equ. 2.8, by
testing first the tractor that has a wheel base of L = 4.8 m, and rides on N = 3 axles:
0.3048 4.8 3
W = 2.224 + 12 3 + 36 = 165 kN
3 1
The weight of the tractor is 176 kN, which exceeds the maximum allowable calculated
above. Hence, this vehicle is not legally loaded-no further bridge formula checks are
needed.
Chapter 3
3.1:
Provide a summary of the subgrade, subbase and the base properties that are needed as
input to the proposed design guide from the NCHRP 1-37A design approach.
Materials inputs required for critical response computations

Seasonally adjusted resilient modulus (Enter 1 , 2 and 3 ; or R-value; or
CBR(%)).
Poissons ratio (Default=0.35)
Unit weight (Maximum dry unit weight and Specific gravity of solids)
Coefficient of lateral pressure ( 0 Default=0.5)
Gradation parameters and base erodibility (for rigid pavement design)
Plasticity index, gradation parameters, effective grain size, specific gravity, saturated
hydraulic conductivity, optimum moisture contents, parameters to define the soil
water characteristic curve
3.2 Plot the relationships between resilient modulus and CBR given in Equations 3.21
and 3.22 for a range of CBR values from 5 to 50. Comment on the predictions of
these two equations.
Only Eq. 3.21 deals with the relationship between Mr and CBR; while Eq. 3.22 is the
equation about R-Value. Hence, I select Eq. 3.23, which is a relationship between Mr
and R-Value, and use Table 3.9 to regress the relationship between CBR and R-Value.
After obtaining R-value, Mr can be calculated from Eq. 3.23 with R-value.
The figure shows that Mr predicted by Eq. 3.21 and 3.23 are close, when CBR less than
30. After that, the difference between these two equation increases with increasing CBR.
120
y = 0.0816x3 - 4.9171x2 + 89.284x - 412.35
100 2
R =1
80
60
R
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
CBR
70
y = 1.3476x + 11.334
60 R2 = 0.3355
50
40
R
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
CBR
1200000
Eq. 3.21
1000000 Eq. 3.22 Linear regression
Eq. 3.22 polynomial regression
800000
Mr
600000
400000
200000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CBR
3.3 Discuss the benefits of subgrade and base stabilization using lime.
The benefits of using lime to stabilize subgrade and base are:

1. The stabilized subgrade and base have a smaller volume, higher strength, better
resilient properties and better workability;
2. The stabilized subgrade and base have greater capability to resist fatigue and
fracture, and lower sensitivity to changes in moisture content.
3.4 Based on your background in geotechnical engineering, describe the influence of
moisture content on the resilient modulus.
When the moisture content is below the optimum moisture content, the resilient
modulus will increase with increasing moisture content, because the increasing suction
will increase the apparent cohesion between particles. If the moisture content is higher
than the optimum moisture content, the resilient will decrease with increasing moisture
content, because the pore pressures decreases the effective stress.
3.5 Using the data given in Example 3.1, calculate the difference in the estimates of the
resilient modulus obtain from equations 3.4 and 3.6. Plot the difference versus the
ratio of oct to . What do you conclude from this plot?
Using equations 3.4 and 3.6 with the material coefficients 1 to 3 which are
regressed in Example 3.1 to calculate the resilient modulus. The results are shown in the
following table and figures.
The results show that when the ratio of oct to is high, the prediction of resilient
modulus calculated by equation 3.4 is larger than that calculated by equation 3.6; while
when the ratio of oct to is low, the prediction of resilient modulus calculated by
equation 3.4 is smaller than that calculated by equation 3.6. Moreover, at same ratio of
oct to , increasing will increasing the difference between equation 3.4 and 3.6.
Hence, when the ratio of oct to is high, equation 3.4 may over estimate the resilient
modulus, and when the ratio of oct to is low, equation 3.4 may under estimate the
resilient modulus.
Sequence
oct ratio Mr (Eq. 3.4) Mr (Eq. 3.6) difference
No.
1 82.8 9.75807358 0.11785113 58949.48542 69514.9416 10565.45618
2 103.5 19.51614716 0.188561808 73440.62789 68964.37786 -4476.250029
3 124.2 29.27422074 0.23570226 87888.06616 73863.80361 -14024.26254
4 138 16.26345597 0.11785113 97499.19653 112821.2162 15322.01963
5 172.4 32.47977148 0.188397746 121397.3871 111911.6336 -9485.753457
6 206.9 48.74322745 0.23558834 145292.8424 119851.4768 -25441.36558
7 275.6 32.47977148 0.11785113 192705.9667 217355.2312 24649.26458
8 344.6 65.00668342 0.188643887 240146.1789 215649.2669 -24496.91194
9 413.5 97.4864549 0.235759262 287374.6914 230979.8737 -56394.81764
10 379.1 32.47977148 0.085676 263810.8264 341280.6108 77469.78441
11 413.6 48.74322745 0.11785113 287443.1469 319377.0797 31933.93282
12 517 97.4864549 0.188561808 358103.2988 316847.5884 -41255.71037
13 517.1 48.74322745 0.094262672 358171.5253 438076.8124 79905.2871
14 551.6 65.00668342 0.11785113 381698.1283 419609.3908 37911.26253
100000
80000
60000
Difference (Eq. 3.6 - Eq. 3.4)
40000
20000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
Ratio
The results are shown in the Figure above.

Chapter 4
4.1 Name three common minerals and identify their geological origin. Which one is
more porous, and why?
Granite: Igneous rock

Limestone: Sedimentary rock
Quartzite: Metamorphic rock
Limestone has the highest porosity among the three minerals mentioned above; in general
sedimentary rocks will have a higher porosity than igneous and metamorphic rock. The
reason behind that is the formation process.
4.2 Name three common types of igneous rocks used as aggregates.
Basalts, Granite, and Rhyolite
4.3 Given the following measurements on a sample of fine aggregate, calculate the
bulk dry, bulk SSD, and apparent specific gravities:
Aggregate saturated surface dry weight = 459.34g
Weight of flask and water = 2345.67 g
Weight of flask, water, and sample = 2640.35 g
Aggregate weight after being dried in oven = 454.12 g
According to the equations in the book (page 85)

A
Apparent specific gravity = (4-6)
B+ AC
A
Bulk specific gravity = (4-7)
B+ DC
D
Bulk specific gravity, SSD = (4-8)
B+ DC
Where A = weight of oven-dry specimen in air,
B = weight of pycnometer filled with water,
C = weight of pycnometer with specimen and water to calibration mark,
D = weight of saturated surface dry specimen.
And so, A = 454.12 g, B = 2345.67 g, C = 2640.35, and D = 459.34 g

A 454.12 454.12
Bulk dry specific gravity = = = = 2.758
B + D C 2345.67 + 459.34 2640.35 164.66
D 459.34 459.34
Bulk SSD specific gravity = = = = 2.790
B + D C 2345.67 + 459.34 2640.35 164.66
A 454.12 454.12
Apparent specific gravity = = = = 2.848
B + A C 2345.67 + 454.12 2640.35 159.44
4.4 Plot typical gradation curves for two samples, one with fineness modulus of 2.2
and the other of 3.2.
Fineness modulus is defined as one hundredth of the sum of the cumulative percentages
held on the standard sieves (Nos. 4, 8, 16, 30, 50, and 100). Gradation curve uses the
percent passing, the percent retained is simply 100 minus the percent passing. The
following table shows two gradation curves with fineness modulus of 2.20 and 3.20,
Excel spreadsheet was used, the values of percent passing on the sieves #4 through #100
were changed to get the wanted fineness modulus, however this solution is not unique
and different curves could have the same fineness modulus.
Sieve Size Fineness Modulus = 2.20 Fineness Modulus = 3.20

No. mm Percent Passing Percent Retained Percent Passing Percent Retained
1 in 25 100 0 100 0
3/8 in 9.5 100 0 100 0
#4 4.75 95 5 85 15
#8 2.36 90 10 74 26
#16 1.18 80 20 56 44
#30 0.6 65 35 40 60
#50 0.3 40 60 20 80
#100 0.15 10 90 5 95
Summation 220 Summation 320
Fineness Modulus 2.2 Fineness Modulus 3.2
The following figure shows the gradation curves of the two samples with the different
fineness modulus:
100
90
Total Percent Passing (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30 FM = 2.20
20 FM = 3.20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100
Aggregate Diameter (mm)
4.5 Calculate and plot the gradation of the sieve analysis data shown in Table 4.6 on
a smeilog plot.
Table 4.6
Sieve Size Amount Cumulative Cumulative Percent
Retained, g Amount Percent Passing
Retained, g Retained
25 mm (1 in.) 0
9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 35.2
4.75 mm (No. 4) 299.6
2.00 mm (No. 10) 149.7
0.425 mm (No. 40) 125.8
0.075 mm (No. 200) 60.4
Pan 7.3
Cumulative amount retained on a certain sieve is just the algebraic sum of the amounts
retained on that sieve and all sieves above it.
Cumulative amount retained on 25 mm sieve = 0 g
Cumulative amount retained on 9.5 mm sieve = 35.2 + 0 = 35.2 g
Cumulative amount retained on 4.75 mm sieve = 0 + 35.2 + 299.6 = 334.8 g
.
.
.
Cumulative amount retained on Pan = 0 + 35.2 + 299.6 + 149.7 + 125.8 + 60.4 + 7.3
= 678 g
Cumulative Percent retained on each sieve is 100 multiplied by the percentage of

cumulative amount retained on the sieve divided by the cumulative amount retained on
the pan (i.e. the total mass of the sample)
Cumulative Percent retained on 25 mm = 100 * 0/678 = 0 %

Cumulative Percent retained on 9.5 mm = 100 * 35.2/678 = 5.2 %
Cumulative Percent retained on 4.75 mm = 100 * 334.8/678 = 49.4 %
.
.
.
Cumulative Percent retained on Pan = 100 * 678/678 = 100 %
The percent passing is simply 100 minus the cumulative percent retained, the following
table summarize all the calculations, followed by the gradation curve plot:
Sieve Size Amount Cumulative Cumulative Percent

Retained, g Amount Percent Passing
Retained, g Retained
25 mm (1 in.) 0 0 0 100
9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 35.2 35.2 5.2 94.8
4.75 mm (No. 4) 299.6 334.8 49.4 50.6
2.00 mm (No. 10) 149.7 484.5 71.5 28.5
0.425 mm (No. 40) 125.8 610.3 90.0 10.0
0.075 mm (No. 200) 60.4 670.7 98.9 1.1
Pan 7.3 678 100 0

Total Percent Passing (%) 100
80
60
40
Aggregate
20 Gradation
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
4.6 Repeat the solution to problem 4.5, using the Fuller-Thompson approach. Also
plot the Fuller line using an exponent of 0.45. How dense do you think this aggregate
packs?
Fuller and Thompson approach is basically plotting the percent passing versus the
particle size, raised to an exponent n, a value of 0.45 will be used for n as indicate by the
problem statement, the percent passing is the same from problem 4.5 solution, the
difference here will be that the aggregate diameter (sieve size) will be raised to the power
0.45 (see the table below)
Sieve Size Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size^0.45 (mm) Percent Passing*
25 mm (1 in.) 25 4.256699613 100
9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 9.5 2.754074109 94.80825959
4.75 mm (No. 4) 4.75 2.016100254 50.61946903
2.00 mm (No. 10) 2 1.366040257 28.53982301
0.425 mm (No. 40) 0.425 0.680416785 9.985250737
0.075 mm (No. 200) 0.075 0.31172926 1.076696165
Pan 0 0 0
* values from Problem 4.5 Solution
The Fuller line follows the following equation (Book page 77):
P = 100(d / D )
n
Where P is the percentage of aggregates passing the sieve size d, D is the maximum
aggregate size in the blend. According to ASTM C 125, the maximum size refers to the
smallest sieve through which 100 percent of the aggregate sample particles pass, and so
for this problem D = 25 mm, to plot the line various values ranging from 0 to 25 are
plugged in the equation for the d value (see the table below)
d (mm) d^0.45 P (%)

25 4.256699613 100
20 3.850024543 90.44623519
15 3.382525401 79.46356822
10 2.818382931 66.2105196
5 2.063177068 48.46893733
0 0 0
100
Total Percent Passing (%)
80
60
40
Fuller line
20
Aggrgetae Gradation
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Aggregate Diameter (mm) - raised to power n
4.7 Table 4.7 shows the grain size distribution for two aggregates and the
specification limits for an asphalt concrete. Determine the blend proportion
required to meet the specification and the gradations of the blend. On a smeilog
gradation graph, plot the gradations of aggregate A, aggregate B, the selected blend,
and the specification limits
19 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.60 0.30 0.15 0.075
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Spec. Limits 100 80- 100 70- 90 50 - 70 35 - 50 18- 29 13 - 23 8 - 16 4 - 10
Aggregate A 100 85 55 20 2 0 0 0 0
Aggregate B 100 100 100 85 67 45 32 19 11
A quick glance over the specification limits and aggregate A and aggregate B gradations
it can be easily seen that a 50/50 blend of A and B will be a very good starting point.
Sieve Size (mm) 19 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075
Specification 100 80-100 70-90 50-70 35-50 18-29 13-23 8-16 4-10
Limits
Aggregate A 100 85 55 20 2 0 0 0 0
Aggregate B 100 100 100 85 67 45 32 19 11
50/50 Blend 100 92.5 77.5 52.5 34.5 22.5 16 9.5 5.5
Checking the blend gradation against the specification limits, all the sieve sizes are within
the limits except for the sieve 2.36 mm, where the blend is little bit below the lower
specification, in order to elevate this value a more percentage of aggregate B is needed,
and so a 45/55 Blend is used as a second iteration.
Sieve Size (mm) 19 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075
Specification 100 80-100 70-90 50-70 35-50 18-29 13-23 8-16 4-10
Limits
Aggregate A 100 85 55 20 2 0 0 0 0
Aggregate B 100 100 100 85 67 45 32 19 11
45/55 Blend 100 93.25 79.75 55.75 37.75 24.75 17.6 10.45 6.05
The 45/55 blend is within the specification limits for all the sieve sizes. The following
figure contain the curves of Aggregate A, Aggregate B, 45/55 Blend, Lower Limit, and
Upper Limit.
Total Percent Passing (%) 100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Aggregate A Aggregate B 45/55 Blend

Lower Limit Upper Limit
4.8 Laboratory measurement of the specific gravity and absorption of two coarse
aggregate sizes are:
Aggregate A: Bulk dry specific gravity = 2.81; absorption = 0.4%
Aggregate B: Bulk dry specific gravity = 2.44; absorption = 5.2 %
What is the average specific gravity of a blend of 50% aggregate A and 50%
aggregate B by weight and what is its average absorption of the mixture?
According to the equations in the book (page 86)
1
Combined specific gravity G = )
a b
+ + ....
100 G A 100 G B
Combined absorption = a AbsorptionA + b AbsortpionB + ..
Where a, b, and c are the percentages of aggregates A, B, and C, respectively, used in

the blend.
1 1 1
Combined specific gravity G = = = = 2.61
50
+
50 0.178 + .205 0.383
100 2.81 100 2.44
Combined absorption = a AbsorptionA + b AbsortpionB

= 50 * 0.4/100 + 50 * 5.2/100
= 0.2 + 2.6
= 2.8
Chapter 5
5.1 Discuss the influence of oxidation on mixture molecular structure and viscosity.
Solution
Asphalt is composed of hydrocarbons and heteroatoms. Heteroatoms distribution is

responsible for asymmetric charge and polarity in the molecules. The higher the polarity
is, the higher the interaction/association among molecules tends to be. The reaction of
gaseous oxygen (from air) and asphalt increases the surface area and temperature
promoting oxidation. The oxidation process changes asphalt chemical structure and
increases polarity. Those changes promote more molecular association and lead to a more
brittle asphalt structure. Oxidation is a slow process because the driving forces for
molecular orientation are small. Polar molecules formed during oxidation process tend to
orient themselves to the thermodynamic stable state or equilibrium forming a better
packing system and the whole asphalt become stiffer. Oxidation is a permanent hardening
process that generally causes an increase in viscosity and a decrease in penetration.
Oxidation rate depends on: asphalt composition and pavement condition (temperature,
compaction, traffic, asphalt film thickness, etc).
5.2 Use a book on rheology to describe the behavior of a Bingham fluid and a
thixotropic fluid.
Solution
Binghan fluid
Binghan fluid is a type of non-Newtonian fluid. This specific fluid type has a flow
curve, shear stress () versus rate of shear ( ) represented by a straight line with an
intercept in the shear stress axis (yield point: y) (Figure (a) on following page). The yield
point represents the stress magnitude that needs to be exceeded before flow starts. For
stress values lower than the yield stress, the fluid structure has sufficient rigidity to resist
such stress, there is no change in its volume, and the shape will deform elastically (like a
solid). For stress values higher than the yield point, the fluid can not resist (its structure
disintegrates) and there is an irreversible change in its volume (like a Newtonian fluid
with shear stress equals to - y). Examples of this type of fluid are: slurries, drilling
muds, greases, oil paints, toothpaste, sludges, and lipsticks masses.
Thixotropic fluids
Thixotropic fluid is a type of non-Newtonian fluid that does not have a one-one
relation between shear stress () and rate of shear ( ). Those fluids present structural
changes and viscosity decreases during shear, and they are also time-dependent. There is
a shear stress diminution for the same shear rate. The flow curve is represented by a
hysteresis loop (Figure (b) shown below). For those materials, its structure can be
reformed if they are allowed to rest. The potential for having the materials structure
reformed is called thixotropys magnitude. The broken structure is called sol and the
reformed one is called gel. The transformation between sol and gel depends on the
materials nature and temperature. Examples of this type of fluid are: meat products,
cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.

Thixotropy
Magnitude
y

(a) Binghan fluid (b) Thixotropic fluid
Flow curves for different types of fluids
Sources:
Scharamm, G., A Pratical Approach to Rheology and Rheometry,
Gebrueder Haake Gmbh, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany, 1994.
Tanner, R.I., Engineering Rheology, Oxford University Press Inc., New
York, 2nd Edition, 2000.
5.3 Use the LTPPBind software to determine the required span of pavement
temperatures and the appropriate PG binder grades in each of the following
locations.
Houston, Texas (Bush Intercontinental Airport)

Anchorage, Alaska (Anchorage International Airport)
New York, New York (New York JF Kennedy Airport)
The LTPPBind software can be accesses through the book Web site
Solution
After opening the LTPPBind software:
Go to Select Station / Name Location and select desired states;

State/Province selection
Go to Tabular Report (tool bar) and check station ID, county/district, and
station name for desired locations;
Weather station details: ID, county/district, and station name
For the three desired stations, the following information was collected:
Houston, Texas (Bush Intercontinental Airport)
Station ID: TX4300

County/District: Harris
Weather Station: Houston intcntnl ap
Anchorage, Alaska (Anchorage International Airport)
Station ID: AK0280

County/District: Cook Inlet
Weather Station: Anchorage intl ap
New York, New York (New York JF Kennedy Airport)
Station ID: NY5803

County/District: Queens
Weather Station: New York j f kennedy
Go to File / Preferences and select the target rut depth (mm);
Target rut depth selection
Go to Select Station / Name Location and write the name of the desired
station;
On the main screen, click on the red square on the map location
correspondent to the desired station. The weather station information should
appear on the both of the main screen;
Specific station selection
Go to PG (tool bar) and check the span of pavement temperatures and

appropriate PG binder grade for each location (see earlier Figures).
(a) 50 % reliability (b) 98% reliability
Span of pavement temperature and PG binder grade: Houston, Texas (Bush
Intercontinental Airport)

Span of pavement temperature and PG binder grade: Anchorage, Alaska (Anchorage
Intercontinental Airport)
Span of pavement temperature and PG binder grade: New York, New York (New York
JF Kennedy Airport)
The summary of the required span of pavement temperatures and the appropriate PG
binder grades in each of the following locations are on the following Table.
Pavement temperatures and PG binder grades for the desired locations

Pavement Temperature (C)
Station ID Reliability (%) Binder PG
High Low
50 64.3 -0.7 70-10
TX4300
98 65.0 -6.9 70-10
50 35.0 -15.7 40-16
AK0280
98 35.1 -22.5 40-28
50 52.0 -10.0 52-10
NY5803
98 54.4 -15.6 58-16
Comment: To solve this question it was assumed a target rut depth of 12.5mm, no
adjustment for traffic was used, the calculations were based on a surface layer, and
the results were taken just for the desired location (although the software also gives
the average results for five stations closest to the desired location).
5.4 An engineer wants to determine if a certain asphalt would be graded as PG 58-

28. At what temperatures should he or she run the following tests?
DSR for rutting analysis

DSR for fatigue cracking analysis
BBR
Solution
DSR for rutting analysis: DSR is used to measure the binder viscoelastic
properties. The test is conducted at the maximum average seven-day pavement
temperature to assess the binder resistance to rutting. For a binder graded as PG
58-28, this test should be run at 58 C.
DSR for fatigue cracking analysis: DSR is also used to measure binder
resistance to fatigue cracking. The test temperature is taken as 0.5 (seven-day
average maximum pavement temperature + minimum pavement temperature) +
4. For a binder graded as PG 58-28, this test should be run at 19 C.
BBR: BBR is used to assess low-temperature cracking. This test is

conducted at a temperature 10 C higher than the pavements lowest
temperature. For a binder graded as PG 58-28, this test should be run at -18 C.
5.5 What is the PG grade of the asphalt whose results are shown in Table 5.14?
Show all calculations and comparisons with Superpave requirements.
Table 5.14
Asphalt Cement Test Results Problem 5.5
Test Results
Original Properties
Flash point temperature, C 278
Viscosity at 135C 0.490 Pa.s
Dynamic shear rheometer
at 82C G* = 0.82 kPa, = 68
at 76C G* = 1.00 kPa, = 64
at 70C G* = 1.80 kPa, = 60
Rolling Thin Film Oven-Aged Binder
at 82C G* = 1.60 kPa, = 65
at 76C G* = 2.20 kPa, = 62
at 70C G* = 3.50 kPa, = 58
Rolling Thin Film Oven and PAV-Aged Binder
34C G* = 2500 kPa, = 60
31C G* = 3700 kPa, = 58
28C G* = 4850 kPa, = 56
Bending beam rheometer
-6C S = 255 MPa, m = 0.329
-12C S = 290 MPa, m = 0.305
-18C S = 318 MPa, m = 0.277
Solution
The Superpave PG grading system controls rutting based on the rheological

parameters G* and , as follows: (1) G*/sin 1.0 kPa for unaged asphalt, and (2)
G*/sin 2.2 kPa for short-term aged asphalt (RTFO-aged asphalt). The G*/sin values
for the unaged asphalt in this question are: (1) G*/sin = 0.88 kPa for unaged asphalt
tested at 82 C, (2) G*/sin = 1.11 kPa for unaged asphalt tested at 76 C, and (3) G*/sin
= 2.08 kPa for unaged asphalt tested at 70 C. The G*/sin values for the RTFO-aged
asphalt in this question are: (1) G*/sin = 1.77 kPa for RTFO-aged asphalt tested at 82
C, (2) G*/sin = 2.49 kPa for RTFO-aged asphalt tested at 76 C, and (3) G*/sin = 4.13
kPa for RTFO-aged asphalt tested at 70 C. It can be concluded that this asphalt binder
does satisfy the Superpave requirements in its original conditions when it was tested at 76
C and 70 C; but it does not satisfy the Superpave requirements in its original condition
when is tested at 82 C. For the tests conducted using the short-term aged (RTFO-aged)
asphalt, it can be concluded that this short-term aged asphalt binder does satisfy the
Superpave requirements when tested at 76 C and 70 C; but the short-term aged asphalt
binder does not satisfy the Superpave requirements when is tested at 82 C.
Fatigue cracking is controlled by the following requirement: G*sin 5000 kPa (in
long-term aged asphalt samples using the PAV). The G*sin values for the long-term
aged asphalt in this question are: (1) G*sin = 2165.06 kPa for long-term aged asphalt
tested at 34 C, (2) G*sin = 3137.78 kPa for long-term aged asphalt tested at 31 C, and
(3) G*sin = 4020.83 kPa for long-term aged asphalt tested at 28 C. The results for
G*sin obtained from the DSR show that the long-term aged asphalt binder under
analysis satisfy the Superpave requirement for the three temperatures tested (34 C, 31
C, and 28 C).
Low-temperature cracking is controlled by limiting the stiffness (S) and the m-value
obtained from the BBR test in long-term aged samples (PAV), as follows: (1) stiffness
(S) 300 MPa (in long-term aged samples), and (2) m-value 0.3 (in the same
conditions). The BBR values for the long-term aged asphalt in this question are: (1) S =
255 MPa and m = 0.329 for long-term aged asphalt tested at -6 C, (2) S = 290 MPa and
m = 0.305 for long-term aged asphalt tested at -12 C, and (3) S = 318 MPa and m =
0.277 for long-term aged asphalt tested at -18 C. The BBR test conducted using the long-
term aged asphalt binder does satisfy the Superpave requirements (for both: stiffness and
m-value) when tested at -6 C and -12 C. The BBR test conducted using the long-term
aged asphalt binder does not satisfy the Superpave requirements (for both: stiffness and
m-value) when tested at -18 C.
The summary of the Superpave test results and requirements for the asphalt binder
whose results are showed in Table 5.14 are summarized in the following Table. DSR test
to assess binder resistance to permanent deformation is conducted at the maximum
average seven-day pavement temperature for unaged binder and RTFO-aged binder.
Based on the results presented in the following Table, we can conclude that the binder in
question can have a maximum average seven-day pavement temperature equal to 76 C or
70 C. The resistance to low-temperature cracking is assessed using the BBR. BBR test
is conducted in a binder that is aged using both RTFO and PAV. BBR test is conducted at
a temperature 10 C higher than the pavements lowest temperature. Based on the results
presented in the following Table, we can conclude that the binder in question can have
the pavements lowest temperature equal to -22 C or -16 C. The DSR test is also used to
measure the binder resistance to fatigue cracking. Test is conducted after aging the binder
in both the RTFO and PAV. The test temperature is taken as 0.5(seven-day average
maximum pavement temperature + minimum pavement temperature) + 4. Based on the
results presented in the following Table , we can conclude that the binder in question can
have the pavements lowest temperature equal to -16 C, -22 C or -28 C. Considering
that this specific binder needs to satisfy all the Superpave requirements and that we want
a binder PG grad that covers the largest temperature span, this binder can be graded as a
PG 76-22.
Summary of the Superpave test results and requirements

Superpave
Test Results Status
Requirements
Original Properties
Flash point temperature,

278
C
Viscosity at 135 C 0.490 Pa.s 3 Pas SATISFY

G* (kPa) () G*/sin
at 82C 0.82 68 0.88 NOT SATISFY
G*/sin 1.0kPa
at 76C 1.00 64 1.11 SATISFY
at 70C 1.80 60 2.08 SATISFY
Rolling Thin Film Oven-Aged Binder

G* (kPa) () G*/sin
at 82C 1.60 65 1.77 NOT SATISFY
G*/sin 2.2kPa
at 76C 2.20 62 2.49 SATISFY
at 70C 3.50 58 4.13 SATISFY
Rolling Thin Film Oven and PAV-Aged Binder

G* (kPa) () G*xsin
at 34C 2500 60 2165.06 SATISFY
G*xsin 5000 kPa
at 31C 3700 58 3137.78 SATISFY
at 28C 4850 56 4020.83 SATISFY
Bending beam rheometer

-6C S=255 MPa m=0.329 SATISFY
S (t=60 sec) 300
-12C S=290MPa m=0.305 SATISFY
MPa m(t=60sec) 0.3
-18C S=318MPa m=0.277 NOT SATISFY
5.6 An asphalt mixture has been compacted with the Marshall hammer, using 50
blows. The following data was obtained in the laboratory:
Aggregate Blend
Aggregate saturated surface dry (SSD) weight = 459.34 gm
Weight of flask and water = 2345.67 gm
Weight of flask, water, sample = 2640.35 gm
Aggregate weight after being dried in oven = 454.12 gm
Asphalt Mixture
Weight of dry-compacted asphalt mixture in air = 3600.0 gm
Weight of SSD-compacted asphalt mixture in air = 3724.2 gm
Weight of compacted mixture in water = 2200.86 gm
Theoretical maximum specific gravity = 2.50
Asphalt binder percent per weight of mix = 5.0%
Specific gravity of asphalt binder = 1.00
Calculate the bulk dry-specific gravity of aggregate, bulk-specific gravity of the asphalt
mixture, the void in mineral aggregate of the mix, and the percent of air voids in the
compacted mix.
Solution
Bulk dry-specific gravity of aggregate (Gagg-sb)
weight of oven dry aggregate

bulk (dry) specific gravity =
volume of aggregate plus volume of impermeable voids and permeable voids *
WD 454.12
G agg sb = = = 2.758
W SSD W sub 459.34 (2640.35 2345.67 )
* Volume is determined by displacement in water with saturated surface dry (SSD)

aggregate.
Bulk-specific gravity of the asphalt mixture (Gmb)
WD 3600.00
G mb = = = 2.363
W SSD W Sub 3724.20 2200.86
Void in mineral aggregate (VMA) of the mix
G (1 Pb ) 2.363(1 0.05 )
VMA = 100 1 mb = 100 1
= 18.606%
G sb 2.758
Percent of air voids in the compacted mix (VTM)

100 = 1
G 2.363
VTM = 1 mb = 5.48%
G mm 2 .500
5.7 A uniaxial creep test was conducted on an axial mix at 40C. The data for this
test is available on the books Web site under the name mix creep data.xls. Use
the data to calculate flow-time value, flow-time slope, and flow time intercept.
Solution
Creep compliance was calculated using:
l i l0
LVDT gauge length
D( t ) = =
F
specimen area
where, li is the LVDT axial measurement for a specific time, l0 is the first LVDT axial
measurement (at t = 0), and F is the axial load. For this exercise, only axial LVDT
measurements were considered. Radial LVDT measurements were not used.
Creep compliance (D(t)) versus time was plotted in the following Figure. Primary,
secondary and tertiary zones can be identified. Flow-time slope and flow-time intercept
can be obtained graphically from the log compliance versus log time plot shown. The
regression constants (slope and intercept) can be find using the relationship:
log D( t ) = m log( t ) + log( a )
where, a is the flow time intercept and m is the flow time slope.
Flow-time slope (m) is equal to 0.1795 and flow-time intercept (a) is equal to
5.8410-9. To find the flow time slope and flow time intercept a regression analysis was
done for the secondary region. Flow-time value can be obtained graphically from the log
rate of change of creep compliance versus log time plot shown in the following Figure.
Flow-time value is marked by the time at which the rate of change in compliance is
minimum. For this exercise flow-time is equal to 1,000 sec. The rate of change of
compliance was calculated for intervals of 50 sec.
1.0E-06
1.0E-07
Compliance D(t)
1.0E-08
1.0E-09
Secondary Tertiary
Primary Zone Zone
Zone
1.0E-10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
Creep compliance versus time
-6.0
-6.5
-7.0
Log Compliance D(t)
-7.5 y = 0.1795x - 8.2337

R2 = 0.9559
-8.0
-8.5
-9.0
-9.5
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Log Time
Log creep compliance versus log time

-9.0
Log Rate of Change of Compliance
-9.5
-10.0
-10.5
-11.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Log Time (sec)
Log rate of change of compliance versus log time

Chapter 6
6.1
False set refers to rapid development of rigidity in the concrete without generating much
heat. By further mixing without adding water, the plasticity of the concrete can be
recovered. False set occurs as a result of hydration of dehydrated gypsum and forming a
rigid crystalline matrix. The fluidity of the concrete can be recovered by further mixing
as there is small fraction of rigid crystals.
Flash set refers to rapid development of rigidity or premature stiffening which subjected
with generating significant heat. The plasticity of the concrete cannot be recovered. The
flash set occurs as a result of the intermediate reaction between tricalcium aluminate
(C3A) and the water which produces calcium aluminates hydrate (CAH). Gypsum is used
to decrease the possibility of the flash set by it reaction with dissolved aluminate to
produce ettringite (C-A-S-H).
6.2
Sulfate attack occurs as a result of the reaction of sulfates from soil and seawater with the
free calcium hydroxide and the aluminates in the cement. Sulfate attack causes expansion
of concrete or increasing in volume which induces cracks. Using cement that is low in
C3A increases the concrete resistance to sulfate attack. Cement type II and type V are
used for moderate sulfate resistance and high sulfate resistance respectively. Also, the use
of fly ash and blast furnace slag as shown in table 6.2 decreases the potential of sulfate
attack.
6.3
It is believed that the concrete pavement fails in flexure and thus the modulus of rupture
is the accurate measure of the concrete strength. The modulus of rapture is required input
in the design process after 28 days. In order to assure the desired performance of the plain
concrete pavement, laboratory mix design based on flexural strength is needed.
6.4
Concrete shrinkage is a reduction in volume caused by the loss of water. The water loss
occurs early in the life of the pavement (plastic shrinkage) or during the subsequent
drying (drying shrinkage). The volume reduction is restrained by the friction between the
concrete pavement layer and the underlying layer. Due to this friction, stresses develop in
the concrete pavements inducing cracks at the surface. These cracks called shrinkage
cracks. Plain concrete experience more shrinkage cracks than the reinforced concrete.
The reinforcement controls the location and the width of the cracks. There is another type
of shrinkage which is associated with the size of the hydration products of cement. Some
of these products occupy less space than the original materials (autogenously shrinkage).
Concrete contraction under cooling temperature can also cause Shrinkage.
6.5
Use Equations 6.3 and 6.5 to compute tensile strength and the flexural strength,
respectively:
= 3.10 MPa (449 lb/in2)
= 4.18 MPa (606 lb/in2)
6.6
The diffusion in concrete is governed by Ficks second law which is given in Equation
6.8. The solution of this equation is as follows:
Where: = chloride concentration at time t

= distance for the surface
= initial concentration of chloride prior to the application of surface chloride
= chloride concentration at the surface
= diffusion coefficient
= error function, given in Table 6.3 for
In order to simplify the solution, assume that the concrete is exposed to a constant
concentration of chloride ( which is not change with time, in addition the
initial concentration ( =0
The solution to Equation 6.8 becomes:

From table 6.3 at = 0.4, = 0.3710. Therefore, time (sec) is obtained by solving:
. Thus the time = 52.36 years
6.7
a. Flexural strength and versus compressive strength
6
Flexural Strength, MPa
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Compressive Strength, MPa
b. Tensile strength versus compressive strength

4.5
Tensile Strength, MPa 4
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
c. Modulus of elasticity versus compressive strength
45
40
Modulus of Elasticity, GPa
35
=2320
=2360
30 =2400
=2440
25 =2480
20
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Chapter 7
7.1:
Input P= 20 kN, r = 0.25 m and z =0.10 m and the layer properties specified into Equ.
7.2:
z = -6.75 kPa
r = -32.57 kPa
= -4.71 kPa
zr = 16.87 kPa
Compute strains from Equ. 7.3:
z =
1
( 6.75 0.35( 32.57 4.71)) = 42 10-6
150000
r =
1
( 32.57 0.35( 6.75 4.71)) = -190 10-6
150000
=
1
( 4.71 0.35( 32.57 6.75)) = 60 10-6
150000
2 16.87 (1 + 0.35)
zr = = 303 10-6
150000
Compute surface deflection from Equ. 7.6:
w=
(
20 1 0.35 2 )
= 0.149 mm
150000 0.25
7.2:
Use Equ. 2.1 to compute the tire imprint radius of curvature a as 0.130 m
Input data into Equ. 7.7:

0.25 3
z = 750 1 + 3/ 2
= -226.2 kPa
(0.13 2 + 0.25 2 )
750 2 (1 + 0.35) 0.25 0.25 3

r = = (1 + 2 0 . 35 ) + = -1.08 kPa
2 0.13 2 + 0.25 2 (
0.13 2 + 0.25 2 )
3/ 2

zr = 0
w=
(
2 1 0.35 2 )
750 0.13 = 0.00114 m (1.1 mm)
150000
7.3:
Input radial offsets r of 0.1, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.0 m into Equ. 7.6:
w=
(
50 1 0.45 2 )
= 0.09402 10-3/ r = 0.94 10-3, 0.376 10-3, 0.188 10-3, 0.125 10-3 and
135000 r
0.094 10-3 m.
7.4:
The strains in the top layer contribute little in the overall surface deflection of this two-
layer system. Therefore, the Odemarks method of equivalent thicknesses can be applied
in computing the strains in the lower layer. These strains are translated into vertical
deformations and added to compute surface deflection. The equivalent layer thickness is
computed from Equ. 7.10 as:
1
1300 3
he = 0.9 0.4 = 0.74 m
150
Vertical strains below the layer interface are computed at intervals of 0.05 m using Equ.
7.3a and the stress value given by Equ. 7.7a and 7.7b. The calculations are shown in the
following table. The resulting vertical defection at the surface is 0.38 mm.
E kPa 1,300,000 150,000
mu 0.5
Load kN 40
radius m 0.15
pressure kPa 565.8842421
sigma
z sigma z sigma r th s z - mu(s r + s th) ez
0.74 -33.17 69.24 69.24 -102.41 -6.8273E-04
0.79 -29.28 63.22 63.22 -92.50 -6.1664E-04
0.84 -26.03 57.82 57.82 -83.85 -5.5901E-04
0.89 -23.28 53.00 53.00 -76.29 -5.0858E-04
0.94 -20.95 48.70 48.70 -69.64 -4.6428E-04
0.99 -18.94 44.84 44.84 -63.78 -4.2522E-04
1.04 -17.21 41.39 41.39 -58.60 -3.9066E-04
1.09 -15.70 38.29 38.29 -53.99 -3.5996E-04
1.14 -14.38 35.51 35.51 -49.89 -3.3260E-04
1.19 -13.22 33.00 33.00 -46.22 -3.0813E-04
1.24 -12.20 30.73 30.73 -42.93 -2.8618E-04
1.29 -11.29 28.68 28.68 -39.96 -2.6641E-04
1.34 -10.47 26.81 26.81 -37.29 -2.4857E-04
1.39 -9.74 25.12 25.12 -34.86 -2.3241E-04
1.44 -9.09 23.57 23.57 -32.66 -2.1774E-04
1.49 -8.49 22.16 22.16 -30.66 -2.0438E-04
1.54 -7.96 20.87 20.87 -28.83 -1.9219E-04
1.59 -7.47 19.68 19.68 -27.15 -1.8103E-04
1.64 -7.03 18.59 18.59 -25.62 -1.7080E-04
1.69 -6.62 17.59 17.59 -24.21 -1.6139E-04
1.74 -6.25 16.66 16.66 -22.91 -1.5273E-04
1.79 -5.91 15.80 15.80 -21.71 -1.4474E-04
1.84 -5.59 15.01 15.01 -20.60 -1.3734E-04
1.89 -5.30 14.27 14.27 -19.57 -1.3050E-04
1.94 -5.04 13.58 13.58 -18.62 -1.2414E-04
1.99 -4.79 12.95 12.95 -17.73 -1.1823E-04 -3.8083E-04
7.5:
Using the Burmister nomograph (Fig. 7.1) for a/h = 0.15/0.4= 0.375 and E2/E1 = 0.115
gives an Fw value of 0.28, which substituted into Equ. 7-9 with a contact stress of 565
kPa (=40/( 0.152)) gives:
1.5 565 0.15

w= 0.28 = 0.237 10-3 m or 0.237 mm.
150000
Using layered analysis software (EVERETSRESS) two types of analyses were conducted
with respect to the interface between the two layers, namely one with full friction (100%)
and the other with no friction (0%). The output of the computer runs is shown next. The
Resulting vertical deflection values computed are 0.243 10-3 m and 0.262 10-3 m,
respectively. These values compare favorably with the one obtained from the Burmister
nomograph.
100% friction between layers

No of Layers: 2 No of Loads: 1 No of X-Y Evaluation Points: 1
Layer Poisson's Thickness Moduli(1)

* Ratio (cm) (MPa)
1 .50 40.000 1300.00

2 .50 * 150.00
Load No X-Position Y-Position Load Pressure Radius

* (cm) (cm) (N) (kPa) (cm)
1 .00 .00 40000.0 565.00 15.012

Location No: 1 X-Position (cm): .000 Y-Position (cm): .000
Normal Stresses
Z-Position Layer Sxx Syy Szz Syz Sxz Sxy
(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
.000 1 -692.56 -692.56 -565.00 .00 .00 .00

Normal Strains and Deflections
Z-Position Layer Exx Eyy Ezz Ux Uy Uz
(cm) * (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6) (microns) (microns) (microns)
.000 1 -50.03 -50.03 97.06 .000 .000 243.068

Principal Stresses and Strains
Z-Position Layer S1 S2 S3 E1 E2 E3
(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
.000 1 -692.56 -692.56 -565.00 -50.03 -50.03 97.06
0% friction between layers

* Ratio (cm) (MPa)
1 .50 40.000 1300.00

2 .50 * 150.00

* (cm) (cm) (N) (kPa) (cm)
1 .00 .00 40000.0 565.00 15.012

Normal Stresses
.000 1 -706.13 -706.13 -565.00 .00 .00 .00

.000 1 -55.26 -55.26 107.47 .000 .000 262.026

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
.000 1 -706.13 -706.13 -565.00 -55.26 -55.26 107.47
7.6 and 7.7:
The EVERSTRESS output for this problem is shown next. The plots of normal strains
and vertical deflection follow.
Layered Elastic Analysis by EverStress for Windows
Title: problem 7.10


* Ratio (cm) (MPa)
1 .35 25.000 1350.00

2 .40 40.000 500.00
3 .50 * 125.00

* (cm) (cm) (N) (kPa) (cm)
1 .00 .00 23561.9 750.00 10.000

2 40.00 .00 23561.9 750.00 10.000
3 400.00 .00 23561.9 750.00 10.000
4 440.00 .00 23561.9 750.00 10.000
Normal Stresses
24.999 1 99.84 134.61 -110.78 .00 15.09 .00

.000 1 -724.64 -759.38 -750.00 .00 .00 .00

24.999 1 67.78 102.54 -142.84 -7.138 .000 237.139

.000 1 -145.45 -180.19 -170.81 12.434 .000 296.857

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
24.999 1 -111.85 100.92 134.61 -143.91 68.85 102.54

.000 1 -759.38 -750.00 -724.64 -180.19 -170.81 -145.45
Location No: 2 X-Position (cm): 5.000 Y-Position (cm): .000
Normal Stresses
24.999 1 86.32 132.96 -108.52 .00 2.08 .00

.000 1 -725.39 -765.31 -750.00 .00 .00 .00

24.999 1 57.61 104.25 -137.24 -3.932 .000 240.742

.000 1 -144.46 -184.39 -169.08 5.174 .000 295.231

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
24.999 1 -108.54 86.35 132.96 -137.26 57.63 104.25

.000 1 -765.31 -750.00 -725.39 -184.39 -169.08 -144.46
Normal Stresses
24.999 1 55.95 122.79 -98.51 .00 -5.23 .00

.000 1 -346.86 -507.79 -375.00 .00 .00 .00

24.999 1 35.15 101.99 -119.31 -1.587 .000 242.003

.000 1 -28.06 -188.99 -56.20 -1.963 .000 270.759

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
24.999 1 -98.68 56.13 122.79 -119.49 35.33 101.99

.000 1 -507.79 -375.00 -346.86 -188.99 -56.20 -28.06
Normal Stresses
24.999 1 26.85 111.86 -88.02 .00 -5.11 .00

.000 1 -27.47 -188.72 .00 .00 .00 .00

24.999 1 13.71 98.72 -101.16 -.398 .000 242.119

.000 1 28.58 -132.67 56.05 .537 .000 248.168

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
24.999 1 -88.25 27.07 111.86 -101.39 13.93 98.72

.000 1 -188.72 -27.47 .00 -132.67 28.58 56.05
Normal Stresses
24.999 1 15.12 107.30 -83.69 .00 -.08 .00

.000 1 -38.48 -177.00 .00 .00 .00 .00

24.999 1 5.08 97.26 -93.73 .002 .000 242.215

.000 1 17.38 -121.13 55.87 1.583 .000 244.632

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
24.999 1 -83.69 15.12 107.30 -93.73 5.08 97.26

.000 1 -177.00 -38.48 .00 -121.13 17.38 55.87
cNormal Stresses
24.999 1 26.84 111.86 -88.02 .00 4.95 .00

.000 1 -27.37 -188.73 .00 .00 .00 .00

24.999 1 13.70 98.72 -101.16 .402 .000 242.738

.000 1 28.66 -132.70 56.02 2.633 .000 248.790

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
24.999 1 -88.24 27.06 111.86 -101.38 13.92 98.72

.000 1 -188.73 -27.37 .00 -132.70 28.66 56.02
Normal Stresses
24.999 1 55.95 122.79 -98.51 .00 5.07 .00

.000 1 28.35 -245.31 .00 .00 .00 .00
24.999 1 35.15 101.99 -119.31 1.589 .000 243.242

.000 1 84.60 -189.06 56.25 5.141 .000 271.916

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
24.999 1 -98.67 56.11 122.79 -119.47 35.31 101.99

.000 1 -245.31 .00 28.35 -189.06 56.25 84.60
150
100
50
-6
0 exx
Strain 10
0 10 20 30 40 eyy
-50 ezz
-100
-150
-200
Offset x (cm)
Uz
350
300
Deflection (m) 10-6
250
200
Uz
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Offset x (cm)
7.8:
Input all specified data into EVERSTRESS. Assume full friction between the layers.
Initial layer moduli were obtained from Figure 7.8 in the book The modulus of the
asphalt concrete was calculated from the creep compliance, by setting time t = 0. The
computer output is given below. The solution converged after 5 iterations to within 3.4%.
The computed Exx, Eyy and Ezz strains are 168.71,116.02 and -242.41 x10-6, resp.
Layer Poisson's Thickness Moduli(1) Moduli(2) Multiplier Power

* Ratio (cm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) *
1 .45 15.200 2950.00 * * *

2 .45 45.700 413.00 254.22 380.00 .500
3 .45 * 103.00 60.92 100.00 .300

* (cm) (cm) (N) (kPa) (cm)
1 .00 .00 19948.6 689.00 9.600

2 .00 35.00 19948.6 689.00 9.600
No of Iteration: 5 Maximum Error in Modulus: 3.4
Normal Stresses
15.199 1 730.78 623.58 -105.64 12.54 .00 .00

38.050 2 10.21 5.43 -37.10 10.42 .00 .00
60.900 3 -.60 -1.53 -15.59 2.32 .00 .00

15.199 1 168.71 116.02 -242.41 .000 -11.261 376.234

38.050 2 96.24 68.97 -173.64 .000 -12.953 322.644
60.900 3 116.65 94.44 -240.17 .000 -17.971 284.506

(cm) * (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (10^-6) (10^-6) (10^-6)
15.199 1 -105.85 623.79 730.78 -242.51 116.13 168.71

38.050 2 -39.52 7.85 10.21 -187.43 82.75 96.24
60.900 3 -15.96 -1.16 -.60 -249.01 103.28 116.65
7.9:
The 1.2 meters length of the load influence was subdivided into 0.01 cm increments,
stress increments in radial coordinates were computed for each increment and combined
into an increase in stress function. This was multiplied by the creep compliance versus
time function to yield the strain increase. Examples of the calculations are shown on the
following table. The radial strain versus offset distance is plotted in the following figure.
er
1000
800 er
strain (microns)
600
400
200
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
-200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-400
radial offset (m)
radial stress *10^6 radial strain SUM
sigma stress
r t sigma z sigma r theta s r - mu(s z + s theta) increase 1/E er microns er
0 -0.6 0 -0.53 -7.54 -0.70 -6.99 2.08E+00 -1.46E+01 -1.46E+01
1 -0.59 0.0006 -0.58 -7.91 -0.72 -7.33 -0.34 2.10E+00 -7.18E-01 -1.53E+01
2 -0.58 0.0012 -0.63 -8.30 -0.73 -7.69 -0.36 2.12E+00 -7.68E-01 -1.60E+01
3 -0.57 0.0018 -0.68 -8.72 -0.75 -8.08 -0.38 2.13E+00 -8.21E-01 -1.69E+01
4 -0.56 0.0024 -0.74 -9.16 -0.76 -8.49 -0.41 2.15E+00 -8.79E-01 -1.77E+01
5 -0.55 0.003 -0.80 -9.63 -0.78 -8.92 -0.43 2.17E+00 -9.42E-01 -1.87E+01
6 -0.54 0.0036 -0.87 -10.13 -0.79 -9.38 -0.46 2.18E+00 -1.01E+00 -1.97E+01
7 -0.53 0.0042 -0.95 -10.67 -0.81 -9.87 -0.49 2.20E+00 -1.08E+00 -2.08E+01
8 -0.52 0.0048 -1.04 -11.24 -0.82 -10.40 -0.52 2.22E+00 -1.16E+00 -2.19E+01
9 -0.51 0.0054 -1.14 -11.85 -0.84 -10.95 -0.56 2.24E+00 -1.25E+00 -2.32E+01
10 -0.5 0.006 -1.25 -12.50 -0.86 -11.55 -0.59 2.25E+00 -1.34E+00 -2.45E+01
11 -0.49 0.0066 -1.37 -13.19 -0.87 -12.18 -0.63 2.27E+00 -1.44E+00 -2.60E+01
12 -0.48 0.0072 -1.50 -13.94 -0.89 -12.86 -0.68 2.29E+00 -1.55E+00 -2.75E+01
13 -0.47 0.0078 -1.65 -14.73 -0.91 -13.58 -0.72 2.31E+00 -1.67E+00 -2.92E+01
14 -0.46 0.0084 -1.82 -15.59 -0.92 -14.35 -0.77 2.32E+00 -1.79E+00 -3.10E+01
15 -0.45 0.009 -2.01 -16.51 -0.94 -15.18 -0.82 2.34E+00 -1.93E+00 -3.29E+01
16 -0.44 0.0096 -2.23 -17.49 -0.96 -16.06 -0.88 2.36E+00 -2.08E+00 -3.50E+01
17 -0.43 0.0102 -2.47 -18.55 -0.97 -17.00 -0.94 2.38E+00 -2.24E+00 -3.72E+01
18 -0.42 0.0108 -2.74 -19.69 -0.99 -18.01 -1.01 2.40E+00 -2.41E+00 -3.96E+01
19 -0.41 0.0114 -3.05 -20.91 -1.00 -19.08 -1.08 2.41E+00 -2.60E+00 -4.22E+01
20 -0.4 0.012 -3.40 -22.22 -1.02 -20.24 -1.15 2.43E+00 -2.80E+00 -4.50E+01
21 -0.39 0.0126 -3.80 -23.64 -1.03 -21.47 -1.23 2.45E+00 -3.02E+00 -4.81E+01
22 -0.38 0.0132 -4.25 -25.17 -1.04 -22.79 -1.32 2.47E+00 -3.26E+00 -5.13E+01
23 -0.37 0.0138 -4.77 -26.82 -1.05 -24.20 -1.41 2.49E+00 -3.51E+00 -5.48E+01
24 -0.36 0.0144 -5.36 -28.60 -1.06 -25.71 -1.51 2.50E+00 -3.77E+00 -5.86E+01
25 -0.35 0.015 -6.04 -30.51 -1.07 -27.32 -1.61 2.52E+00 -4.06E+00 -6.26E+01
26 -0.34 0.0156 -6.82 -32.58 -1.07 -29.03 -1.72 2.54E+00 -4.36E+00 -6.70E+01
27 -0.33 0.0162 -7.72 -34.81 -1.07 -30.86 -1.83 2.56E+00 -4.68E+00 -7.17E+01
28 -0.32 0.0168 -8.77 -37.22 -1.06 -32.80 -1.94 2.58E+00 -5.00E+00 -7.67E+01
29 -0.31 0.0174 -9.98 -39.82 -1.05 -34.86 -2.06 2.60E+00 -5.34E+00 -8.20E+01
30 -0.3 0.018 -11.39 -42.62 -1.03 -37.03 -2.17 2.62E+00 -5.68E+00 -8.77E+01
Chapter 8
8.1
A 28 cm thick isolated slab, with dimensions of 3.6x4.2 m, is resting on a liquid subgrade
with a modulus of subgrade reaction of 60 MPa/m. It is subjected to a decrease in
temperature of -12 C at its upper surface and an increase of +7C on its lower surface.
Determine and plot the stresses versus slab depth at mid slab, as well as at mid-span of
the two free boundaries. Additional information given for the Portland concrete: E = 28
GPa, = 0.15 and at = 9.0 10-6/C.
Solution
The temperature distribution is disaggregated into a uniform increase of (-12+7)/2=-2.5
C and a pure bending inducing temperature Ta of (-12-7)/2=8.5 C. Consider stresses
only from pure bending. Equation 8-21 gives the radius of relative stiffness:
1/ 4
28000 0.28 3
= =
( )
0.967 m
12 1 0 . 15 2
60
This gives normalized slab dimensions of 3.6/0.967= 3.72 and 4.2/0.967= 4.34 in the x
and y directions, respectively. Accordingly, Figure 8-6 yields Cx and Cy values of 0.48
and 0.69, respectively. The stresses are computed using Equations 8-20:
At location 1 (mid-span):
2810 6 9 10 6 8.5
y = (0.48 + 0.15 0.69) = 1,253 kPa
(
1 0.15 2 )
2810 6 9 10 6 8.5
x = (0.69 + 0.15 0.48) = 1,636kPa
(
1 0.15 2 )
The slab has a concave shape with outer fiber stresses that are tensile at the top and
compressive at the bottom.
At location 2:
At this location, there is obviously no stress in the x direction, hence no contribution from
it to the stress in the y direction. Accordingly:
2810 6 9 10 6 8.5
y = (0.48) = 1030 kPa
(
1 0.15 2)
x= 0
At location 3:
The reverse is true for location 3, hence:
y =0
2810 6 9 10 6 8.5
x = (0.69) = 1,484 kPa
(
1 0.15 2)
8.2
Compute the tensile stresses generated by subgrade friction in a 8.0 m long concrete slab.
How high is this stress compared to the tensile strength of concrete? Given that the 28-

day compressive strength of the concrete f c is 20 MPa. Also, given for the concrete
equal to 22.5 kN/m3.
Solution
Refer to the free-body diagram shown in Fig. 8.8. Use Equ. 8.23 to compute stresses due
to subgrade friction:
L 8
= y f = = 22.5 1.5 = 135 kPa
2 2
Use Equ. 6.3 to compute the tensile strength of the concrete as: 2,486 MPa. Hence, the
stress generated due to subgrade friction amount to about 5% of the tensile strength of the
concrete.
8.3
Consider the rigid pavement layout shown in Figure 8-22. The slabs are 0.20 m thick and
were poured in two halves by two separate passes of a slip-form paver, (i.e., construction
joint indicated by dotted line). Compute the necessary area of tiebar steel across the
construction joint and the average bond stress between the tiebars and the concrete. The
allowable stress of the steel fr is given as 200 MPa and the length of the tiebars is 1.00 m.
Solution
Refer to Fig. 8.22 The distance between the construction joint and the free slab face is 8.4
m. Substitute into Equ. 8.25 gives:
L h f 8.4 0.2 22.5 1.5

Ar = = = 0.0028 m2/m width (2.8 cm2/m)
fr 200000
Select 2 tiebars per meter width gives a bar diameter of (2.8/2x4/)0.5= 1.34 cm with a
circumference of 4.2 cm.
The corresponding bond stress is computed from Equ. 8.26:

L h f 8.4 0.20 22.5 1.5
u= = = 1,350 kPa.
n o (t / 2 ) 2 0.042 (1 / 2 )
8.4
Compute the maximum tensile stress on a 0.25 m thick slab of a JPCP m under a corner
point load of 40 kN.
Solution
Use Equ. 8.29:
3P 3 40
c = 2
= = 1,820 kPa
h 0.25 2
8.5
Determine the maximum tensile stress and the corner deflection under a circular load of
0.15 m radius carrying 700 kPa pressure, given a slab thickness of 0.22 m, a modulus of
subgrade reaction of 60 MPa/m, a concrete modulus of 28 GPa and a Poissons ratio of
0.15.
Solution
Compute the radius of relative stiffness using Equ 8.21:
1/ 4
28000 0.22 3
=
( )
12 1 0.15 60
2
= 0.8 m
And the load using Equ. 2.1 as 49.5 kN
Use Equ. 8.30 and 8.31. The corner stress is:

3 49.5 0.15 2
0.6
c = 1 = 1,684 kPa
0.22 2 0.8

The corner deflection c is:
49.5 0.15 2
c =
60000 0.8 2
1 .1 0 . 88 0.8 = 0.0011 m or 1.1 mm

8.6
A 3.0 cm diameter dowel bar is transferring a vertical load of 4500 N across a 0.35 cm
wide joint. Compute the dowel bar deflection at the edge of the joint and the
corresponding concrete bearing stresses. Can the concrete handle this stress? Given, Kc

of 120,000 MPa/m, Er of 200,000 MPa and f c 30 MPa
Solution
Concrete bearing strength from Equ. 8.36:
4 0.3937 d 4 0.3937 3
fb = fc = 30000 = 28,081 kPa
3 3
Deflection and bearing stress are calculated from Equ. 8.37 and 8.39, reps. Compute first
the moment of inertia of the dowel bar Ir as 3.974 10-8 m4. Compute :
0.25 0.25
K d 120000 0.03
= c =
8
= 18.34 m-1
4 Er I r 4 200000 3.974 10
Pt
y0 = (2 + z ) = 4.5
(2 + 18.34 0.0035) = 4.73 10-5 m
4 E r I r
3 3 6
4 18.34 200 10 3.974 10 8
The corresponding bearing concrete stress at the joint face is computed as:
= K c y 0 = 120 10 6 4.73 10 5 = 5,676 kPa which is lower than the bearing strength
computed.
8.7
Consider a JDRCP, consisting of slabs 25 cm thick and 3.6 m wide, resting on a subgrade
with a modulus of subgrade reaction of 50 MPa/m. An axle load consisting of 2 identical
tires 1.8 meters apart, each carrying 44 kN, is located at the edge of the joint, 0.30 m
from the edge of the slab. Load across the joint is carried by 30 mm diameter dowel bars
placed at 0.3 m center-to-center distances, as shown in Figure 8-15. Compute the load
carried by each dowel bar. Given, E for the Portland concrete of 28,000 MPa and a
Poissons ratio of 0.15. Assume that the tires apply point loads, the load transfer across
the slabs is 50/50 and the distribution of load varies linearly with the distance from each
tire load location.
Solution
Compute the radius of relative stiffness using Equ 8.21:
1/ 4
28000 0.25 3
=
( )
12 1 0.15 50
2
= 0.925 m
Therefore the influence of each load is 1.8x0.925=1.67 m or 5.58 dowel bars away. The
force diagram is shown on the following page. Using simple geometry allows computing
the fraction of the loads x and y corresponding to each dowel bar location. Equilibrium
of forces for the left-hand-side load gives:
4.58 3.58 2.58 1.58 0.58

x1 + + + + + = 22
5.58 5.58 5.58 5.58 5.58
which results in a value for x of 6.64 kN. Similarly, equilibrium of forces for the right-
hand side load gives:
4.58 3.58 2.58 1.58 0.58 3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5

y 1 + + + + + + + + + = 22
5.58 5.58 5.58 5.58 5.58 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
which results in a value for y of 4.33 kN. Stresses from both wheels can be computed
through superposition.
22 kN 1.8 m 22 kN
1.8x0.93=1.6
0.25 m
0.3 0.3
x
k 1.67 m 1.35 m
k y
8.8
Design the amount of rebar reinforcement required for a CRCP 0.25 m thick slab
subjected to a temperature difference between pouring and the coldest winter day of
40C and estimate the anticipated average spacing of the transverse concrete cracks.
Given a coefficient of thermal expansion for the concrete or 9.0 10-6/C, a tensile
concrete strength of 3.5 MPa, a steel elastic modulus of 200000 MPa, a concrete elastic
modulus of 28000 MPa, a steel elastic limit of 340 MPa, and an allowable bonding stress
between steel and concrete of 2.6 MPa.
8.9
Given the stiffness matrix of the plate element described in Example 8-11, compute the
slab stiffness for the slab below made up of 4 identical plate elements, laid out as shown
below in Figure 8-23.
y
9 8 7
4
3
05m 6 5 4
1 2
1 10m 2 3 x
Solution
Note: The element stiffness was derived using element dimensions of 2 = 2.0 m and 2
= 1.0 m as in Example 8.11. The stiffness matrix for each of these plate elements labeled
as 1, 2 3 and 4 in red above was derived as part of Example 8.11. The stiffness matrix of
the slab is assembled from the individual plate element stiffnesses taking into account the
common nodes of the plate elements (e.g., node 6 is shared between elements 1 and 4,
node 5 is shared by all elements and so on). The following tables show the stiffness
matrices for each of the elements. Their summation gives the overall stiffness of the slab.
SLAB 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
1 11.46 -2.86 9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 -7.16 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 29.72 -19.10 1.43 -28.64 -9.55 0.00 -1.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 -2.03 2.03 -4.06 2.03 0.00 4.06 2.03 -2.03 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00
2 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77
2 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72
2 -2.03 0.00 -4.06 2.03 2.03 4.06 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 -2.03 0.00
3
3
3
4
4
4
5 -7.16 0.00 -4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.46 -2.86 -9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00
5 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.72 -19.10 -1.43 -4.30 -9.55 0.00
5 -2.03 2.03 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00 2.03 -2.03 -4.06 -4.77 0.00 4.06
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -2.03 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 -9.55
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 -9.55
6 -2.03 0.00 0.00 2.03 4.77 0.00 2.03 0.00 -4.06 -2.03 -4.77 4.06
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
SLAB 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
1
1
1
2 11.46 -2.86 9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 -7.16 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 29.72 -19.10 1.43 -28.64 -9.55 0.00 -1.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 -2.03 2.03 -4.06 2.03 0.00 4.06 2.03 -2.03 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00
3 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77
3 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72
3 -2.03 0.00 -4.06 2.03 2.03 4.06 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 -2.03 0.00
4 -7.16 0.00 -4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.46 -2.86 -9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00
4 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.72 -19.10 -1.43 -4.30 -9.55 0.00
4 -2.03 2.03 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00 2.03 -2.03 -4.06 -4.77 0.00 4.06
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -2.03 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 -9.55
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 -9.55
5 -2.03 0.00 0.00 2.03 4.77 0.00 2.03 0.00 -4.06 -2.03 -4.77 4.06
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
SLAB 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4 11.46 2.86 9.55 -4.30 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77
4 29.72 19.10 1.43 -28.64 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72
4 2.03 2.03 4.06 -2.03 0.00 -4.06 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 -2.03 0.00
5 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 11.46 -2.86 9.55 -7.16 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 -28.64 -9.55 0.00 29.72 -19.10 1.43 -1.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 2.03 0.00 4.06 -2.03 2.03 -4.06 2.03 -2.03 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00
6
6
6
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -4.77 11.46 -2.86 -9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 29.72 -19.10 -1.43 -4.30 -9.55 0.00
7 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 2.03 0.00 2.03 -2.03 -4.06 -4.77 0.00 4.06
8 -7.16 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 -9.55
8 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 -9.55
8 2.03 4.77 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 -4.06 -2.03 -4.77 4.06
9
9
9
SLAB 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5 11.46 2.86 9.55 -4.30 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77
5 29.72 19.10 1.43 -28.64 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72
5 2.03 2.03 4.06 -2.03 0.00 -4.06 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 -2.03 0.00
6 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 11.46 -2.86 9.55 -7.16 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 -28.64 -9.55 0.00 29.72 -19.10 1.43 -1.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 2.03 0.00 4.06 -2.03 2.03 -4.06 2.03 -2.03 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00
7
7
7
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -4.77 11.46 -2.86 -9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 29.72 -19.10 -1.43 -4.30 -9.55 0.00
8 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 2.03 0.00 2.03 -2.03 -4.06 -4.77 0.00 4.06
9 -7.16 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 -9.55
9 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 -9.55
9 2.03 4.77 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 -4.06 -2.03 -4.77 4.06
SUM 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
1 11.46 -2.86 9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 29.72 -19.10 1.43 -28.64 -9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 -2.03 2.03 -4.06 2.03 0.00 4.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 -2.03 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 -4.30 1.43 0.00 22.91 0.00 19.10 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 -7.16 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 -28.64 9.55 0.00 59.44 0.00 2.86 -28.64 -9.55 0.00 -1.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 -2.03 0.00 -4.06 0.00 4.06 0.00 2.03 0.00 4.06 2.03 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.03 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.03 0.00 -4.06 2.03 2.03 4.06 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 2.86 4.78 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 -2.86 -9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.65 19.10 0.71 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 -19.10 -1.43 -4.30 -9.55 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.06 4.06 0.00 0.00 -4.06 2.03 -2.03 -4.06 -2.74 0.00 4.06 -2.03 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 -7.16 0.00 -4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 27.21 -2.86 7.52 -12.90 1.43 0.00 4.30 2.86 -4.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 4.77
5 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -28.64 -9.55 0.00 69.82 -2.86 8.83 -61.58 9.55 0.00 28.64 19.10 -8.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 0.00 0.72
5 -2.03 2.03 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.06 35.81 -14.33 1.43 -4.77 0.00 -4.06 0.00 -6.80 4.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.03 -2.03 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10.62 2.03 -4.06 22.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -57.28 0.00 0.00 59.44 0.00 -8.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 -2.03 0.00 0.00 2.03 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.06 0.00 0.00 -4.06 -2.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 -2.03 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.46 -2.86 -9.55 -4.30 -1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.72 -19.10 -1.43 -4.30 -9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00 -2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 -2.03 -4.06 -4.77 0.00 4.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -4.77 -4.30 1.43 0.00 22.91 0.00 -19.10 -4.30 -1.43 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 -28.64 9.55 0.00 59.44 0.00 -10.98 -4.30 -9.55 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.03 2.03 0.00 2.03 0.00 -4.06 0.00 -6.80 0.00 -4.77 0.00 4.06
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.16 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.30 1.43 0.00 11.46 2.86 -9.55
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.07 0.00 -0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -28.64 9.55 0.00 29.72 19.10 -9.55
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 4.77 0.00 -2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 -4.06 -2.03 -4.77 4.06
8.10
Expand the stiffness matrix of the slab above, to account for a liquid foundation, given a
modulus of subgrade reaction of 40 MPa/m.
Solution
The Stiffness Matrix is obtained from the one derived above (Problem 8.9) by adding 40
to the value of the diagonal elements related to the vertical displacement only.
8.11
Compute the solid foundation stiffness matrix for a plate element with dimensions 2a=
4.0 m and 2b=1.5 m. Given, subgrade Es of 300 MPa and s of 0.40.
Solution
Non-diagonal components of the foundation softness matrix can be readily computed
from Equation 8-53:
wi d 1/ 4 1 / 4.272 1 / 1.5 Fi
w
(
j 1 0.40
2
) 1/ 4
d 1 / 1.5 1 / 4.272 F j
=
wk 300 1 / 4.272 1 / 1.5 d 1 / 4 Fk
wl
1 1 / 4.272 1/ 4 d Fl
The diagonal components d is computed from Equ. 8.54 using MathCad
0.75 2
( )
2
1 0.5 1
d= x +y
2
dy dx = 2.104 = 1.403
2 0.75 0 0 2 0.75
Hence, the stiffness matrix is obtained from:

1
Fi 1.403 0.25 0.2341 1 wi 1.460 0.0779 0.024 1.023 wi
F
j 300
0.25
1.403 0.667 0.2341 w
j
0.0779
0.933 0.426 0.024 w j
= =
( )
1122
k 1 0.4
F 2
0.2341 0.667 1.403 0.25 wk 0.024 0.426 0.933 0.0779 wk

Fl 1 0.2341 0.25 1.403 wl 1.023 0.024 0.0779 1.460 wl
8.12
A Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) load of 44 kN is applied to the right-hand side
slab in the middle of a JPCP joint. The deflection measurements obtained in the right
and the left of slabs are 2.08 and 1.82 mm, respectively. Compute the elastic constant of
normal load transmission cw across this joint, given that the modulus of subgrade reaction
k is 60 MPa/m.
Solution
Use Equ. 8.58 to compute the stiffness of the joint:
c w (2.08 1.82 ) = 60 1.82
Therefore c w = 420 MPa/m
8.13
Compute the coefficients of force and moment transmission across a dowel in a JDRPC
pavement. Given, slab thickness of 0.25 m, dowel bar diameter of 0.030 m, joint opening
of 0.01 m, elastic modulus of the dowel bar steel 250,000 MPa, Poissons ratio of the
dowel bar steel of 0.4, spring constant of concrete support Kc 100,000 MPa/m.
Solution:
Compute moment of inertia and area of the dowel bar:
d4 0.03 4
Ir = = = 3.98 10-8 m4
64 64
0.03 2
Ar = = 7.07 10-4 m2
4
Compute the quantity b from Equation 8-38:

0.25
100000 0.03
=
8
= 16.57 m-1
4 250000 3 . 98 10
Compute the shear modulus of steel as:
Er 250000
Gr = = = 89,285 MPa.
2(1 + ) 2(1 + 0.4 )
Use Equation 8-62 to compute the constant of transmitting vertical load cw:
1
cw = = 41.2 MN/m
(2 + 16.57 0.01)
+
0.01
3 8 4
2 16.57 250000 3.98 10 89285 7.07 10
8.14
Utilizing a FEM software package, compute the stresses at the bottom of a 0.20 m thick
Portland concrete slab subjected to a combined load of 100 kN and a thermal gradient
consisting of a reduction at the surface of 5C and an increase at the bottom of 5C. The
layout of the slab and the load is shown below. Given, modulus of subgrade reaction of
80 MPa/m, tensionless subgrade, slab modulus of elasticity of 28000 MPa, Poissons
ratio of 0.15, unit weight of 23.54 kN/m3 and coefficient of linear thermal expansion at of
9.0 10-6/C.
1.8 m
0.20 0.15
0.15
3.6 1.5
0.2
2.8
5.6
Solution
Using EVERFE 2.22, allows producing a variety of stress plots. Examples:
Maximum tensile stresses at the bottom of the slab

Maximum compressive stresses at the bottom of the slab
Chapter 9
9.1
Synthesize a pavement profile by superimposing random elevations ranging between
0.01 to 0.01 m to two in-phase sinusoidal waves with amplitudes of 0.03 and 0.02 and
wave lengths of 3 and 5 meters, respectively. Plot the pavement profile for a distance of
32 meters using 0.25 m increments. Plot the trace of a rolling straight edge (RSE) with a
base length of 4 meters, (i.e., assume that the transport wheels and the tracing wheels are
small enough to neglect their dimensions).
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
elevation (m)
0.02
raw profile
0.00
RSE 4 m
-0.02 0 10 20 30
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
distance (m)
9.2
Filter the profile generated in Problem 1 using a low-pass MA filter with a base length of
1.0 m. Plot the results.

0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
elevation (m)
0.02
raw profile
0.00
MA B=1 m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
distance (m)
Low-Pass 1.0-m base filter

9.3
Filter the profile generated in Problem 1 using a high-pass MA filter with a base length of
2.0 m. Plot the results.
MA B=1 m
0.02
0.01
0.01
elevation (m)
0.00
MA B=1 m
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
5 10 15 20
distance (m)
High-pass 1.0-m base filter

Note: since the random number generated are case-specific, your plots may look slightly
different than those above.
9.4
Compute and plot the power spectral density (PSD) of the artificial pavement profile
given below. What are the dominant wave lengths and corresponding amplitudes?
Distance (m) Elevation (m) Distance (m) Elevation (m)
0 10.0000 3.2 10.0165
0.2 10.0219 3.4 10.0229
0.4 10.0264 3.6 10.0101
0.6 10.0216 3.8 9.9918
0.8 10.0163 4 9.9835
1 10.0074 4.2 9.9788
1.2 9.9901 4.4 9.9726
1.4 9.9783 4.6 9.9783
1.6 9.9818 4.8 9.9994
1.8 9.9917 5 10.0219
2 9.9936 5.2 10.0272
2.2 9.9913 5.4 10.0218
2.4 9.9994 5.6 10.0169
2.6 10.0081 5.8 10.0076
2.8 10.0077 6 9.9895
3 10.0071 6.2 9.9788

0.0003
0.0002
Amplitude Squared (m )
2
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Wave Number (cy/m)
The PSD of the elevation profile given is shown above. The dominant wave numbers are
0.48 and 1.3 cy/m (i.e., dominant wavelengths of 2.08 and 0.77 m, resp.) and the
corresponding amplitudes are 0.0154 m and 0.0057 m.
9.5
The pavement profile data tabulated next was obtained with an inertial profilometer at
intervals of 0.1394 m. Compute its IRI using commercially available software. What is
the corresponding pavement serviceability, (i.e., PSI)?
Use the computer program ProVal. One of the profile input formats it accepts is ASCII.
The particular format is used by the TxDOT and it is suited for importing the data given.
This format includes 5 lines for handling alphanumeric information (i.e., comments,
profile sampling distance increment and other reference data). The format is fully
described under ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/1000-
S_series/pdfs/spe1001.pdf.
Distance (m) Elevation (m) Distance (m) Elevation (m) Distance (m) Elevation (m)
0.0000 -0.02024 2.9274 -0.012725 5.8548 -0.002845
0.1394 -0.02022 3.0668 -0.011760 5.9942 -0.002718
0.2788 -0.01984 3.2062 -0.011608 6.1336 -0.002565
0.4182 -0.01910 3.3456 -0.010541 6.2730 -0.001905
0.5576 -0.01895 3.4850 -0.010058 6.4124 -0.001549
0.6970 -0.01910 3.6244 -0.010109 6.5518 -0.001219
0.8364 -0.01875 3.7638 -0.009398
0.9758 -0.01783 3.9032 -0.008915
1.1152 -0.01768 4.0426 -0.008509
1.2546 -0.01788 4.1820 -0.008255
1.3940 -0.01793 4.3214 -0.007823
1.5334 -0.01699 4.4608 -0.007264
1.6728 -0.01648 4.6002 -0.006528
1.8122 -0.01636 4.7396 -0.006426
1.9516 -0.01638 4.8790 -0.005791
2.0910 -0.01549 5.0184 -0.005232
2.2304 -0.01443 5.1578 -0.004750
2.3698 -0.01422 5.2972 -0.004293
2.5092 -0.01458 5.4366 -0.004064
2.6486 -0.01443 5.5760 -0.003810
2.7880 -0.01356 5.7154 -0.003226
The data file developed is shown on the next page. It has an extension *.DAT. Elevations
are specified in mils (10-3 inches).

HEAD3,08082008,07,007,IH0037S,0010 +00.200,R1
CMET3,Book Problem 9.5,07082008
Manufacturer,mil,R,5.4882,in
COMMENT
COMMENT
-797,
-796,
-781,
-752,
-746,
-752,
-738,
-702,
-696,
-704,
-706,
-669,
-649,
-644,
-645,
-610,
-568,
-560,
-574,
-568,
-534,
-501,
-463,
-457,
-415,
-396,
-398,
-370,
-351,
-335,
-325,
-308,
-286,
-257,
-253,
-228,
-206,
-187,
-169,
-160,
-150,
-127,
-112,
-107,
-101,
-75,
The IRI value calculated with ProVal is 37.4 inches/mi (0.59 m/km) Inputting this metric
IRI value into Equation 9.4 gives a PSI of 4.46, which reflects a very smooth pavement.
9.6
The following FWD measurements were obtained on a flexible pavement using a plate
radius of 10.3 cm and a contact pressure of 500 kPa. Estimate the value of the subgrade
modulus. The layer thicknesses and the assumed values for the Poison ratio are given
next.
Sensor, s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offset (cm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Deflection (m) 280 235 190 175 85 60 30
Layer, k 1 2 3
Thickness (cm) 20 50
Poisons ratio, 0.33 0.45 0.45
The solution is shown in the following Excel-generated tables. The surface deflection
calculations were carried out by Everstress. The subgrade modulus value that
corresponds to the minimum deflection error is 83.6 MPa.

TRIAL E1/ESG E2/ESG ESG pa/Esg Esg/pa W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7
(1/m) (m)
"measured values" 280 235 190 175 85 60 30
estimated values e.g., 10 and 1 1400 and 140 with 140 MPa subgrade
1 3 1 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 335.29 149.24 84.03 54.4 39.36 30.82 25.4
2 3 2 14 3.6785714 0.2718447 279.05 109.32 66.47 48.8 38.7 31.8 26.8
3 5 1 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 258.75 138.11 82.25 55.78 40.2 31.2 25.55
4 5 2 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 212.51 103.11 66.48 48.96 38.7 31.8 26.8
5 10 1 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 188.82 121.81 82.4 57.29 41.76 32.15 26.01
6 10 10 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 102.21 53.26 42.32 37.01 32.9 29.35 26.22
7 100 1 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 77.27 68.31 58.99 49.95 41.9 35.08 29.48
8 100 10 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 48.06 41.03 36.16 32.27 29.05 26.31 23.91
9 100 30 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 35.57 29.68 26.97 25.08 23.49 22.03 20.67
10 300 1 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 52.39 49.07 45.03 40.63 36.28 32.19 28.47
11 300 10 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 37.85 35.04 32.32 29.69 27.25 25.01 22.97
12 300 30 140 0.3678571 2.7184466 28.69 26.3 24.55 23.04 21.7 20.46 19.31
ERRORS (wm-wk)/wm
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.1974643 -0.364936 -0.557737 -0.689143 -0.536941 -0.486333 -0.153333

-0.003393 -0.534809 -0.650158 -0.721143 -0.544706 -0.47 -0.106667
-0.075893 -0.412298 -0.567105 -0.681257 -0.527059 -0.48 -0.148333
-0.241036 -0.561234 -0.650105 -0.720229 -0.544706 -0.47 -0.106667
-0.325643 -0.48166 -0.566316 -0.672629 -0.508706 -0.464167 -0.133
-0.634964 -0.773362 -0.777263 -0.788514 -0.612941 -0.510833 -0.126
-0.724036 -0.709319 -0.689526 -0.714571 -0.507059 -0.415333 -0.017333
-0.828357 -0.825404 -0.809684 -0.8156 -0.658235 -0.5615 -0.203
-0.872964 -0.873702 -0.858053 -0.856686 -0.723647 -0.632833 -0.311
-0.812893 -0.791191 -0.763 -0.767829 -0.573176 -0.4635 -0.051
-0.864821 -0.850894 -0.829895 -0.830343 -0.679412 -0.583167 -0.234333
-0.897536 -0.888085 -0.870789 -0.868343 -0.744706 -0.659 -0.356333
f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7
911.4680 405.7010 228.4311 147.8835 106.9981 83.7825 69.0485
758.5825 297.1806 180.6951 132.6602 105.2039 86.4466 72.8544
703.3981 375.4447 223.5922 151.6350 109.2816 84.8155 69.4563
577.6971 280.2990 180.7223 133.0951 105.2039 86.4466 72.8544
513.2971 331.1340 224.0000 155.7398 113.5223 87.3981 70.7068
277.8524 144.7845 115.0447 100.6097 89.4369 79.7864 71.2777
210.0544 185.6971 160.3612 135.7864 113.9029 95.3631 80.1398
130.6485 111.5379 98.2990 87.7243 78.9709 71.5223 64.9981
96.6951 80.6835 73.3165 68.1786 63.8563 59.8874 56.1903
142.4194 133.3942 122.4117 110.4505 98.6252 87.5068 77.3942
102.8932 95.2544 87.8602 80.7107 74.0777 67.9883 62.4427
77.9922 71.4951 66.7379 62.6330 58.9903 55.6194 52.4932
fi/f1/wm S2 S ESG est pa/Esg

1 0.0036 0.0019 0.0013 0.0009 0.0014 0.0015 0.0025 0.0000 0.0131499 105.57 0.4878507
2 0.0036 0.0017 0.0013 0.0010 0.0016 0.0019 0.0032 0.0000 0.0142237 95.09 0.541566
3 0.0036 0.0023 0.0017 0.0012 0.0018 0.0020 0.0033 0.0000 0.0158765 92.28 0.5580888
4 0.0036 0.0021 0.0016 0.0013 0.0021 0.0025 0.0042 0.0000 0.0174393 85.20 0.6044339
5 0.0036 0.0027 0.0023 0.0017 0.0026 0.0028 0.0046 0.0001 0.0203786 83.64 0.6157258
6 0.0036 0.0022 0.0022 0.0021 0.0038 0.0048 0.0086 0.0001 0.027161 72.21 0.7131755
7 0.0036 0.0038 0.0040 0.0037 0.0064 0.0076 0.0127 0.0003 0.0417086 82.06 0.6276092
8 0.0036 0.0036 0.0040 0.0038 0.0071 0.0091 0.0166 0.0005 0.0478198 65.45 0.786827
9 0.0036 0.0036 0.0040 0.0040 0.0078 0.0103 0.0194 0.0006 0.0526037 56.77 0.9072368
10 0.0036 0.0040 0.0045 0.0044 0.0081 0.0102 0.0181 0.0006 0.0530141 78.60 0.6552261
11 0.0036 0.0039 0.0045 0.0045 0.0085 0.0110 0.0202 0.0007 0.0561991 63.25 0.8142393
12 0.0036 0.0039 0.0045 0.0046 0.0089 0.0119 0.0224 0.0008 0.0597842 53.28 0.9665077
Adjusted Deflections (wip) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
444.66 197.92 111.44 72.15 52.20 40.87 33.69 -0.588072 0.1577809 0.4134724 0.5877425 0.3858933 0.3187773 -0.122846 1.15
410.82 160.94 97.86 71.84 56.97 46.82 39.46 -0.467223 0.3151366 0.4849561 0.5894614 0.3297077 0.2197243 -0.315182 1.16
392.56 209.53 124.78 84.63 60.99 47.33 38.76 -0.401995 0.1083768 0.3432404 0.5164242 0.2824846 0.21109 -0.292093 0.77
349.18 169.42 109.23 80.45 63.59 52.25 44.04 -0.24707 0.2790543 0.4250805 0.5403016 0.2518965 0.1291457 -0.467855 0.91
316.05 203.89 137.92 95.89 69.90 53.81 43.54 -0.128751 0.1323926 0.2740916 0.4520399 0.1776631 0.1031126 -0.4512 0.56
198.16 103.26 82.05 71.75 63.78 56.90 50.83 0.2922945 0.5606096 0.5681735 0.5899864 0.2495976 0.0516381 -0.69445 1.62
131.83 116.55 100.64 85.22 71.49 59.85 50.30 0.5291712 0.504063 0.470294 0.513024 0.1589822 0.0024873 -0.676549 1.50
102.80 87.76 77.34 69.02 62.14 56.28 51.14 0.632865 0.6265489 0.5929246 0.6055781 0.2689833 0.0620717 -0.704741 2.08
87.73 73.20 66.52 61.85 57.93 54.33 50.98 0.686695 0.6885147 0.6499188 0.6465476 0.3184377 0.0944661 -0.699263 2.39
93.32 87.40 80.21 72.37 64.62 57.34 50.71 0.6667253 0.6280709 0.5778562 0.5864569 0.2397431 0.0443877 -0.690356 2.05
83.78 77.56 71.54 65.72 60.32 55.36 50.84 0.7007868 0.6699581 0.6234778 0.6244697 0.2903888 0.0773535 -0.694777 2.29
75.38 69.10 64.50 60.54 57.01 53.76 50.74 0.7307854 0.7059549 0.6605123 0.6540841 0.3292404 0.1040568 -0.691169 2.49
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
9.7/9.8
The following FWD measurements were obtained on a Portland concrete slab 0.30 m
thick under a load of 40 kN and a plate radius of 15 cm. Determine the modulus of
subgrade reaction and the elastic modulus of the slab assuming a liquid foundation
and a Portland concrete Poisons ratio, of 0.15. For the data given in the previous
question, determine the elastic moduli of the subgrade and the slab, assuming a solid
foundation and a subgrade Poisons ratio of 0.40.
Sensor number 0 1 2 3
Offset (m) 0 0.3 0.6 0.9
Deflection (m) 98 80 75 60
The normalized deflection calculations are shown below:
Sensor, s 0 1 2 3
Offset (m) 0 0.3 0.6 0.9
Deflection (m) 98 80 75 60
Deflection (m) 0.000098 0.00008 0.000075 0.00006
Deflection (in) 0.00385827 0.00314961 0.00295276 0.0023622
Normalize 1 0.81632653 0.76530612 0.6122449
Equation 9.41 gives the AREA as 28.65 in, which through Figure 9.30 gives radii of
curvature equal to 30 and 21 inches for liquid and solid foundation assumptions,
respectively. The estimate di values are obtained from Figures 9.31 and 9.32. The
calculations are summarized below.
Estimates of di liquid 0.122 0.11 0.09 0.07

predcitting k (pci) 316.20 349.25 304.80 296.33 316.65
prediciting E (psi) 3,157,715 21772.44
Estimates of di solid 0.19 0.163 0.14 0.107

Predicting Es 33662.41 35376.53 32410.4 30963.51 33,103.21 228.2466
Preidicting E 2,366,356 16316.02
The resulting modulus of subgrade reaction is 316.6 pci and the resulting
subgrade stiffness is 33,103 psi
9.9
A distress survey conducted on 250 m2 of flexible pavement surface produced the
following results. Compute the PCI.
Distress Extent: Area/length affected
Low severity fatigue cracking 15 m2
High severity longitudinal cracking 10 m
Medium Low severity rutting 8 m2
Compute ratios of distress extent by dividing the coverage of each distress by
250:
15 10 8
6.00% 4.00% 3.20%
DV (Figs 9.35-9.37) 0.22 0.15 0.29
rearrange DV 0.29 0.22 0.15
Compute the maximum number of deduct values m using Equ. 9.43:
m = 1+
9
(100 HDV ) = m = 1 + 9 (100 29) = 7.52 rounded to 7, which
98 98
allows using all 3 distresses present. Computations are tabulated below:
TDV q CDV from Fig 9.38

Summing distresses 0.29 0.22 0.15 0.66 3 0.4
0.29 0.22 0.02 0.53 2 0.41 max
0.29 0.02 0.02 0.33 1 0.32
The PCI is computed form Equ. 9.44 as: 100-41=59.

9.10
A coefficient of friction of 0.35 was measured with an ASTM E-274 tester equipped with
treaded tires. The sand-patch test macrotexture of this pavement, (i.e., MPD), was 0.7
mm. Calculate the value of the normalized coefficient of friction at 60 km/h, give the IFI
and plot the coefficient of friction as a function of slip speed.
The constants for the ASTM E-274 Trailer with treaded tires are shown in Table 9.23. Its
reference slip speed is 65 km/h. Equation 9.49 gives the speed constant Sp
89.7x0.7+14.2= 77 km/h. Equation 9.46 gives the normalized coefficient of friction at 60
km/h as:
65 60
f (60) = 0.023 + 0.607 0.35 e 77

+ 0.098 0.7 = 0.273
Equ. 9.47 allows calculating the coefficient of friction at any speed as:
60 S 60 S
f ( S ) = f (60) e
Sp 77
= 0.273 e . The resulting IFI is (77, 0.273).
Chapter 10
10.1
According to equation (10.6) the total discharge rate for this pavement is:
2 14.4
q = 0.223 + = 0.105 m / day
14.4 14.4 3
Figure 10.3 gives a precipitation rate of 1.4in/hour(0.853 m/day) which according to
equation (10.5) the infiltration rate for Portland cement concrete is calculated to be
between 0.43 to 0.57 m/day.
10.2
Equation (10.9) gives the maximum water infiltration rate that can be drained through
this layer as:
2 2
h 0.4
q = k q = 2 = 0.015 m / hour
b 4.6
The actual speed of pore water movement is obtained by dividing the discharge speed by
the effective porosity, that is 0.015/0.28 = 0.054 m/hour. According to this speed the
required time for one drop of water to transverse the full length of drainage path under
steady state conditions would be determined as 4.6/0.054 = 85.17 hours.
10.3
The length of the drainage path could be calculated by use of equation (10.15) as:
AD =
3.8
0.03
(
0.03 2 + 0.06 2 )0.5
= 8.5 m
Use the Equation (10.16) to compute the difference in elevation between A and D:
h AD =
3.8
0.03
( )
0.03 2 + 0.06 2 = 0.57 m
Which gives a combined grade for the flow path of 0.0670, or 6.7%. This value is
confirmed using Equation 10.17:
(
g f = 0.03 2 + 0.06 2 )
0.5
= 0.0670 m
The maximum rate of flow discharge for this layer is computed from Darcys law as:
q = 2 . 0.067 = 0.1342 m/hour
10.4
Use the Equation 10.18 to compute the gradient factor S1 as 4.50.044/0.35 = 0.57. Use
the Figure 10.6 with a 0.57 gradient factor to obtain a time factor t/m of 0.35. Use the
Equation (10.19) to solve for actual time :
0.2 0.35 t
0.35 = t = 30.38 hours or 1.27 days
0.30 4.5 2
According to table 10.1 this layer would be ranked as a good drainage quality.
10.5
Figure 10.11 allows obtaining the characteristics grain size percentiles shown in the table
below:
Size Soil (mm) Base Layer (mm)

D85 4.1 21
D50 0.8 13
D15 0.1 6.5
The criteria suggested by equations 10.23 to 10.25 are tested by substituting in the values
from table 10.2 as:
D15, filter 6.5
= = 1.59 < 5
D85, soil 4.1
D15, filter 6.5
= = 65 > 5
D15, soil 0.1
D50, filter 13
= = 16.25 < 25
D50, soil 0.8
Which are all satisfied; hence, no intermediate filter layer is required between this base
and the subgrade layer.
10.6
The heat diffusivity of the asphalt concrete and the subgrade are computed as f:
k 1.4
= = 1.06 10 6 m 2 / sec or 0.0038 m 2 / hr
c 2.65 10 3 0.5 10 3
and :
k 1.1
= = 0.54 10 6 m 2 / sec or 0.0019 m 2 / hr
c 2.4 10 0.85 10 3
3
k t
A small time and z is selected such that the ratio is small. In this problem a
c z 2
depth increment of 0.05 and time increment of 0.1 hour is selected that results in :
k t
= 0.0038 40 = 0.152
c z 2
k t
= 0.002 40 = 0.08
c z 2
for the asphalt concrete and subgrade layers, respectively. Applying Equation 10.31 is
applied afterwards.
The following curve shows the results of the analysis.
Depth(m) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
0.05 12.50 14.40 15.72 16.69 17.42 17.99 18.46
0.10 12.50 12.50 12.79 13.19 13.62 14.05 14.45
0.15 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.54 12.64 12.77 12.92
0.20 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.51 12.53 12.56
0.25 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50
0.30 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50
0.35 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50
Tempreature(C)
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
5 hr
10hr
Depth(m)
15hr
0.80
20 hr
25 hr
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
10.7
Using Equation 10.29 to compute the latent heat of the soil:
L = 1.43 . 12.140 = 2402.4 BTU/ft3 or 89,510 kJ/m3
Use Equation 10.34 and 10.35 to obtain the fusion parameter and the thermal ratio ,
respectively:
C avg FI 35.8 850
= = = 0.15
nL 85 2402.4
V0 n (40 32 )85
= = = 0.8
FI 850
Entering the parameter into Figure 10.9 gives a value of of 0.84, which allows
computing the depth of the frost penetration form Equation 10.33 as:
48 0.43 850
= 2.27 ft (0.7 m )
48 k FI
z= = 0.84
L 2402.4
Chapter 11
11.1
Calculate the required layer thicknesses of a new asphalt concrete pavement on a fair
draining base and subgrade (the water drains out the pavement within a period of two
days). It is estimated that the pavement structure becomes saturated less frequently than
5% of the time. The following data is also given:
Estimated number of ESALs over a 15-year maximum performance period = 3

million
Subgrade resilient modulus = 25,000 lbs/in2 (172.4 MPa)
Design reliability = 95%
Standard error in predicting serviceability = 0.45
PSI = 2.5 (from 4.5 to 2.0)
Solution
The AASHTO 1993 design guide is used to design the pavement. A classical flexible
pavement composed by an asphalt surface layer, an unbounded granular base and an
unbounded granular subbase will be designed. The following table summarizes the
information required for the design:
Given information:
Traffic 3 million ESALs
Period 15 years
Subgrade resilient modulus 25,000 lbs/in2 (172.4 MPa)
Design reliability 95%
Standard error in predicting 0.45
serviceability
PSI 2.5 (from 4.5 to 2.0)
Other required information:

Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.645 From Table 11.1
Drainage coefficients for 1.25 Good water removal
untreated granular base and conditions
subbase
Asphalt concrete layer coefficient 0.44 Recommended
(a1)
Modulus of unbounded aggregate 60,000 psi (414 MPa) Assumed
base (E2)
Base layer coefficient (a2) 0.13 Based on E2
Modulus of unbounded aggregate 40,000 psi (276 MPa) Assumed
base
(E3)
83
Subbase layer coefficient (a3) 0.10 Based on E3
layer coefficients vary according to the modulus of the layer. For detailed information and recommended
values consult reference 2.
The moduli of the layer materials were assumed based on experience. In reality these
values are known from tests results performed on the material that is available near the
project area.
The value of SN for this pavement is obtained from the performance equation (Equation
11.1):
2.5
log
( )
log 310 6 = 1.645 0.45 + 9.36 log(SN + 1) 0.20 + 4.2 1.5 + 2.32 log(25000) 8.07
1094
0.4 +
(SN + 1)5.19
From which it is found that the structural number, SN, for the whole structure is 2.69.
However, as mentioned in example 11.1, there is not a unique combination of D1, D2 and
D3 that satisfies the design equation:
2.69 = 0.44 D1 + 0.14 1.25 D2 + 0.10 1.25 D3
Then, a sequential design process is conducted. Initially, the thickness of the asphalt
concrete layer (D1) is determined based on the structural number that satisfies equation
11.1 (SN1) when it is assumed that the layer is supported on a subgrade with the modulus
of the unbounded aggregate base (E2). Then, the thickness of the base is found using the
structural number calculated with the modulus of the subbase (SN2 calculated with E3).
Finally, the thickness of the subbase is computed using the original design equation with
the structural number for the whole structure (SN = 2.69). The following tables
summarizes the results and presents the final design.
Modulus and Layer Coefficients for the Pavements Layers
Layer Modulus (psi) Layer coefficient

Asphalt concrete 0.44
Base 60,000 0.13
Subbase 40,000 0.11
Subgrade 25,000 = MR ---
Design Procedure to Obtain the Thicknesses of the Layers.
SN
(Equation Equation for D (in) Design value of D
11.1)
SN1 = 1.96 D1 = 1.96/0.44 = 4.45 5 in
84
SN2 = 2.28 D2 = (2.28 5 0.44)/ (0.13 1.25) = 0.49 1 in
SN3 = 2.69 D3 = (2.69 5 0.44 -1 0.1625 )/(0.10 1.25) = 2.62 3 in
The final design satisfies the serviceability performance criterion. Note that this is only
one possible design, and that the method provides the possibility to design many other
possibilities (e.g a pavement with an asphalt concrete layer and only a granular base, a
pavement with stabilized layers, etc.) Design engineers should analyze different
possibilities, and based on their experience and taking into account minimal technical
specifications, construction issues and economical considerations determine the optimal
design for this particular project.
11.2
Compute the anticipated life of the pavement designed in problem 11.1 considering the
combined effects of traffic and environment. The subgrade is fair draining clayey sand
(i.e., designated as SC according to the UC system), having less than 10% by weight finer
that 0.02mm, and a Plasticity Index of 10%. The subgrade layer is 10 ft deep; it is
exposed to high moisture levels and exhibits a medium level of structural fracturing. The
percent of the pavement surface subjected to swelling is estimated to be 20%, while the
probability of frost is estimated at 30%. The depth of the frost penetration is 4 ft.
Solution
To calculate the anticipated life of the pavement it is first necessary to compute the
serviceability loss due to the combined effects of traffic and environment. From problem
11.1 it is known that the total serviceability loss for the pavement is 2.5 (PSI=2.5). That
means that the combined loss due to traffic (PSItraffic) and environment (PSIenvir) must
sum up 2.5. The calculation of the actual life in years to terminal serviceability is based
on an iterative process. In this process different period of years are selected, and the total
loss of serviceability due to the environment is calculated for each period. The available
traffic serviceability loss for that number of years is computed as the difference between
the total available serviceability loss (2.5) and the environmental loss. The net PSI that
results from this calculation is used in Equation 11.1 to obtain the number of accumulated
ESALs that are required to obtain that specific loss in serviceability due to traffic load.
The number of ESALs resulting from this equation is then used to estimate the
cumulative period in years at which it is expected to reach the traffic level. This step
requires a traffic growth rate value. In this exercise, it is assumed that the traffic load (i.e.
number of ESALs) growths at a constant annual rate of 3.5%, as shown in the following
Figure. The pavement life is obtained when the period of years used in the initial
calculation of PSIenvir equals the number of years associated with the ESALs calculated
from equation 11.1 using the available loss in serviceability for traffic (PSItraffic).
85
3.5
Accumulated ESALs (millions) 3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age (years)
Accumulation of ESALs versus Time for Problem 11.2.
The serviceability loss due to the environment requires the computation of the loss due to
the subgrade swelling (PSISW) and the loss due to frost heave (PSIFH). PSISW is
computed using Equation 11.2. For this particular case, the low plasticity index of the
subgrade makes the value of the potential vertical rise due to swelling (VR, Figure 11.3)
to be almost 0. Therefore, PSISW = 0, and PSIenvir = PSIFH.
PSIFH is computed using Equation 11.3. According to Figure 11.5, the maximum
serviceability loss due to frost heave (PSImax) for a depth of frost penetration of 4 ft and
good drainage conditions is 0.8. The frost heave rate, , is found to be 1.6 mm/day
(Figure 11.6). Therefore, the loss of serviceability due to frost heave as a function of the
period of service life in years (t) is equal to:
( ) ( )
PSI FH = PSI envir = 0.01 p f PSI max 1 e 0.02 t = 0.01 30 0.8 1 e 0.02 1.6 t = 0.0915
The following table presents the results for the calculation of PSIenvir for different
periods of service life, as well as the calculation of the net PSI available for traffic, the
ESALs associated with that level as serviceability (equation 11.1) and the period in years
required to accumulate that amount of ESALs. For example, after 10 years PSIenvir =
0.0657, therefore, PSItraffic = 2.5-0.0657 = 2.43. The number of ESALs corresponding to
a loss in serviceability of 2.43 is obtained from Equation 11.1:
86
2.43
log
log(W18 ) = 1.645 0.45 + 9.36 log(2.69 + 1) 0.20 + 4.2 1.5 + 2.32 log(25000) 8.07
1094
0.4 +
(2.69 + 1)5.19
That provides a value of W18 of 2.95 millions of ESALs. This number of ESALs are
reached after a period of 14.9 years.
Summary of Serviceability Loss Computations Due to Traffic and Environmental

Factors.
ESALs Period to
Performance PSI loss Due to Net PSI available for obtained with Accumulate
Iteration
period (years) Environment traffic Equation 11.1 Corresponding
(millions) ESALs (years)
1 8 0.05421 2.5-0.0542 = 2.4458 2.98 14.9
2 9 0.06006 2.5-0.0601 = 2.4399 2.98 14.9
3 10 0.06572 2.5-0.0657 = 2.4343 2.97 14.9
4 11 0.07121 2.5-0.0712 = 2.4288 2.97 14.9
5 12 0.07653 2.5-0.0765 = 2.4235 2.96 14.9
6 13 0.08168 2.5-0.0817 = 2.4183 2.96 14.8
7 14 0.08666 2.5-0.0867 = 2.4133 2.96 14.8
8 15 0.09149 2.5-0.0915 = 2.4085 2.95 14.8
9 16 0.09617 2.5-0.0962 = 2.4038 2.95 14.8
The data in Table 11.2.1 suggests that the overall life for this structure under the
combined effect of traffic and environment is 15 years. Note that for this particular
example, the loss in serviceability due to the environment is very low, and therefore, the
overall life of the pavement depends mainly on the traffic conditions.
11.3
Design an asphalt concrete pavement with an untreated granular base to accommodate

2.5 million ESALs without failing in fatigue cracking or rutting. The subgrade resilient
modulus is 80 MPa, and the MAAT is 15.5C. (Note: You need to obtain the proper chart
from Reference 3).
Solution
The Asphalt Institute (AI) design method is used to find the thicknesses of layers. Based
on the traffic level and the quality of the subgrade it is concluded that a granular base is
required as part of the design. Therefore, a 10 inches (0.254 m) untreated granular base
layer is selected.
87
The appropriate chart from reference 3 that corresponds to a MAAT of 15.5C and an
unbounded granular base of 10 inches is required for this design. Using this chart, it is
found that a pavement subjected to 2.5 million ESALs, and having a subgrade with
resilient modulus of 80 MPa requires 8 inches (0.203 m) of an asphalt concrete layer.
Note that the method provides other possibilities for the pavement design. As an
example, the following table presents the results when unbounded granular bases of 12 or
18 inches are selected instead of the 10 in base (note: different charts are required). For
this particular case, it is observed that a change of 8 inches in the granular base produces
only a change of 0.5 inches in the asphalt concrete base. The final design would be
selected based on economical and technical considerations.
Three Possible Designs using the Asphalt Institute Method

Layer Design 1 Design 2 Design 3
Asphalt concrete 8 in 7.8 in 7.5 in
Unbounded granular base 10 in 12 in 18 in
Subgrade
Note: 1 in = 2.54 cm
11.4
A pavement section has accumulated a total of 20% bottom-up fatigue damage. Estimate
its fatigue cracking, given that the asphalt concrete layer has a thickness of 15 cm (5.9
in).
Solution
The coefficient c2 is computed from Equation 11.13:
c 2' = 2.40874 39.748 (1 + 5.9 )

2.856
= 2.569
This parameter is used in combination with the accumulated bottom-up fatigue cracking
(FD = 20%) in Equation 11.12 to obtain the fatigue cracking (FC), as follows:
100
FC = 2.569 ( 2 + log 20 )
= 14.24%
1+ e
11.5
Compute and plot the plastic strain accumulated at the mid-depth of an asphalt concrete
layer 0.23 m (9 in) thick at a temperature of 75F after 1, 10, 100 and 200 load cycles.
88
Also compute the plastic deformation after 200 load cycles. The elastic vertical strain is
120 10-6.
Solution
Equation 11.18 is used to compute C1 and C2, the coefficients that are required in
equations 11.17 and 11.16:
C1 = 0.1039 9 2 + 2.4868 9 17.342 = 3.3767
C 2 = 0.0172 9 2 1.7331 9 + 27.428 = 13.2233
These values provide a value of the calibration factor that accounts for the increased in
confinement with depth (k1) at the middepth of the layer of 0.373 (Equation 11.17):
k1 = (3.3767 + 13.2233 4.5) 0.328196 4.5 = 0.373
Then, the plastic strain is calculated as a function of the number of loading cycles as
(Equation 11.16):
p = (0.373 10 3.4488 T 1.5606 N 0.479244 ) v = (0.373 10 3.4488 751.5606 N 0.479244 )120 10 6

= 1.3437 10 5 N 0.479244
The plot of plastic strain versus the number of loading cycles is presented in the
following figure
4.0E-04
3.5E-04
3.0E-04
Plastic strain
2.5E-04
2.0E-04
1.5E-04
1.0E-04
5.0E-05
0.0E+00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of strain cycles
Plastic Strain as a Function of the Number of Strain Cycles for the Asphalt Concrete
Layer
89
According to equation 11.16, after 200 cycles the plastic strain is 1.70 10-4. The total
plastic deformation in the asphalt layer is equal to the plastic deformation multiplied by
the total thickness of the asphalt concrete layer: 1.70 10-4 x 9 = 1.53 10-3 in (0.0389 mm).
11.6
Compute the plastic strain and the plastic deformation in a 14-in thick (35.5 cm) granular
base layer with a moisture content of 6% after 1000 cycles, at a compressive strain level
of 180 10-6. Treat the base as a single layer.
Solution
Equations 11.21, 11.22 and 11.23 can be used to determine and and the ratio 0 / r ,
the parameters that are required to compute the plastic strain in the granular base layer:
log = 0.6119 0.017638 Wc = 0.6119 0.017638 6 = 0.7177 , then

= 0.1915
1 1
4.89285 0.1915
= 10 9 = 10 9 4.89285 = 4.406 10 3
( )
1 10 9
( )
1 10 9 0.1915

1
0.1915
0 1

4.406 103
( )
9
= 3 0.1915

(4.406 10 ) + 20 e 109

= 0.15 e + 20 e 10
2
0. 15 e = 21.975
r 2

The plastic strain is computed from equation 11.20 (assuming a single layer), using the
compressive strain level (180 10-6), the G value (1.673 for granular base) and N, the
number of loading cycles (1 103):
0.1915

4.406 103

p = G 0 e N v = 1.673 21.975 e 10 180 10 6 = 1.753 10 3
3
r
Therefore, the plastic deformation in the granular layer is: 1.753 10-3 * 14 = 2.454 10-2 in
(0.62 mm).
11.7
The constant describing the master curve of the creep compliance of an asphalt concrete
at -20C is given in Table 11.6. Compute its fracture parameters and the growth of an
existing 5.1 cm (2 in) deep transverse crack caused by an increase in stress at its tip of
334.7 kPa (50 lbs/in2). The tensile strength of the asphalt concrete is 4.0 MPa (580
lbs/in2).
90
Constants Defining the Creep Compliance of the
Asphalt Concrete
Constant Units Value
2
D0 1/lbs/in. 2.8 10-07
2
D1 1/lbs/in. 5.4 10-08
D2 1/lbs/in.2 9.5 10-08
D3 1/lbs/in.2 4.0 10-08
2
D4 1/lbs/in. 3.0 10-07
T0 sec 13,000
T1 sec 0.9
T2 sec 1.9
T3 sec 2.8
T4 sec 3.6
Solution
Table 11.6 provides the information to characterize the creep compliance of the asphalt
concrete in terms of the reduced time, , using a generalized Voight-Kelvin model
(Equation 11.24)
D0 N
D( ) = D0 +
T0
(
+ Di 1 e / Ti = )
i =1
2.8 10 7
= 2.8 10 7
+
13,000
( ) (
+ 5.4 10 8 1 e / 0.9 + 9.5 10 8 1 e / 1.9 )
( )
+ 4.0 10 8 1 e / 2.8 + 3.0 10 7 (1 e / 3.6
)
To compute the fracture parameter n, the linear part of master curve (in log-log scale) is
fitted to an exponential function: D( ) = D0 + D1 m . The parameters D0, D1, and m are
obtained by minimizing the sum of square errors between the estimated and the actual
compliance values: D0 = 5.8 10-7 (1/psi), D1 = 6.70 10-7 (1/psi) and m = 0.192. Equation
11.28 is used to determine n based on the m-value:
1 1
n = 0.8 1 + = 0.8 1 + = 4.967
m 0.192
Master curve of the Creep Compliance for the Asphalt Concrete (-20C)
91
1.00E-06
Creep Compliance (1/psi)
1.00E-07
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
Obtaining the Slope m of the Creep Compliance Master Curve after Fitting an
Exponential Function (-20C)
1.00E-06
Creep Compliance (1/psi)
slope of the curve: m
D()=D0+D1-m
1.00E-07
10 100 1000
Tim e (sec)
The n-value and the tensile strength of the material (580 lbs/in2) are substituted in
Equation 11.29 to compute the fracture parameter A:
log A = 4.389 2.52 log (10000 S t n ) = 4.389 2.52 log (10000 580 4.967 ) = 14.41
Then,
A = 10 14.41 = 3.899 10 15
92
Equation 11.27 provides the change in the stress intensity factor:
( ) ( )
K = 0.45 + 1.99C 00.56 = 50 0.45 + 1.99 2 0.56 = 169.19
Finally, Equation 11.26 gives the resulting increase in crack propagation:
C = AK n = 3.899 10 15 169.19 4.967 = 4.56 10 4 inches (0.0l159 mm)
93
Chapter 12
12.1
The drainage coefficient and the load transfer coefficient for the conditioned specified are
obtained as 1.1 and 3.1. from the table 12.1 and 12.2, respectively. The value of the
standard normal deviate for the 95% is -1.645. Substituting this values into equation 12.1
gives :
2.5
log(5,000,000) = 1.654 0.40 + 7.35 log(D + 1) 0.06 +

log
4.5 1.5
+ (4 . 22 0 . 32 2 ) log
(
525 1.1 D 0.75 1.132 )
1.624 10 7 18.42
1+ 215.63 3.1 D 0.75
(D + 1) 8.46
(4,000,000 / 140)0.25
which, solved for the D gives a value of 9.85in(25 cm)to be rounded up to 10in.(26 cm).
12.2
First estimate the serviceability loss due to subgrade swelling. Use Figures 11.2 and 11.3
to compute the potential swelling rise, VR, as 0.78 in and swelling rate as 0.15,
respectively. Substituting these values into Equation 12.2 gives:
PSIsw = 0.003350.7840(1-e-0.1530) = 0.103
Next estimate the serviceability loss due to subgrade frost heave. Use the figure 11.4 and
11.5 to compute the maximum loss PSImax as 0.85 and the frost heave rate as 5 mm/day,
respectively. Substituting these values into Equation 12.3 gives:
PSIFH = 0.01500.85(1-e-0.02530) = 0.403

Adding the two serviceability loss components give the total serviceability loss due to
environment, PSISWFH = 0.506
12.3
Given the ESAL growth assumption, the accumulated ESAL versus pavement age
relationship is plotted in the figure below.
Select a performance period shorter than the stipulated 30 years, say 20 years, for this
problem(i.e., it is assumed that at the end of this performance period the pavement
section will need rehabilitation).
For the selected performance period, compute the loss in serviceability due to
environment
PSIsw = 0.003350.7840(1-e-0.1520) = 0.103
PSIFH = 0.01500.85(1-e-0.02520) = 0.403
PSISWFH = 0.467
Subtract this value from the maximium performance period serviceability loss (4.5-2 =
2.5) to obtain the serviceability loss available for the traffic alone, PSITR, which after 20
years is :
PSITR = PSI PSISWFH = 2.5 0.403 = 2.097
Compute the ESALs that will bring about this serviceability loss using Equation 12.1:
94
6
5
Accumulated ESALs(millions)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Age(years)
2.097
log(Wt ) = 1.654 0.40 + 7.35 log(10 + 1) 0.06 +
log
4.5 1.5 + (4.22 0.32 2) log ( )
525 1.1 100.75 1.132
1.624 107 18.42
1+ 215.63 3.1100.75 0.25
(10 + 1) 8.46
(4,000,000 /140)
Solving this equation gives Wt = 4,560,163 ESALs. This level of ESAL is accumulated
over a period of 25.6 years. The environmental and serviceability loss calculations are
repeated for another trial period, until a time period is found over which the sum of
serviceability losses due to traffic an environment add to 2.5.The results are tabulated in
table below. It is evident that the pavement section remains serviceable for approximately
25 years under the combined effect of traffic and environment.
Net PSI Period to
Performance PSI Loss available accumulate
period due to for corresponding
iteration (years) environment traffic ESALs (years)
1 20 0.403 2.097 25.6
2 25 0.492 2.008 25.4
3 25.5 0.494 2.006 25.4
95
12.4
Figure 12.2 is used to compute the tensile stress in the slab due to 22,000 lb load, w as
170 lbs/in2. Table 12.5 for a limestone aggregate gives a value of 3.810-6/oF for the
coefficient of the Portland concrete, c,. The tensile strength of the concrete suggests a
shrinkage coefficient z of 0.00045 from A Table 12.4. Selecting as a trial a No.5 steel bar
gives a limiting steel stress of 61,000 lbs/in2 from Table 12.6. Substituting the available
values in Equations 12.4, 12.5, and 12.6 allows solving for the minimum percent steel
reinforcement, :
6.70 1.15
500 5
1.321 + 1 + (1 + 0.625)2.19
1000 2 3.8
8= 5.20
170
1 + (1 + )4.6 (1 + 1000 0.00045)1.79
1000
6.53
500
0.009321 + (1 + 0.625)2.20
1000
0.04 = 4.91
170
1 + (1 + )4.55
1000
0.425 4.09
65 500
473001 + 1 +
100 1000
61000 = 3.14
170
1 + (1 + 1000 0.00045)0.494 (1 + )2.74
1000
The calculated values for the minimum percent are 0.26, 0.39, and 0.41, respectively
which yield a minimum percent steel reinforcement pmin of 0.41. The maximum percent
steel reinforcement value is obtained by substituting the minimum crack spacing value
equal to 3.5 ft into Equation 12.4. The corresponding maximum percent steel
reinforcement value is 0.51. Since pmax is larger than pmin the design is feasible. Utilizing
the Equation 12.8 and 12.9 gives the number of reinforcement bars required:
Nmin = 0.01273 0.41 1212/0.6252 = 1.92 No.5 bars
Nmax = 0.01273 0.51 1212/0.6252 = 2.39 No.5 bars
Finally, select two No. 5 bars per foot-width of slab, that gives 6-in center to center bar
spacing
12.5
Compute the total number of heavy trucks in the design lane over the 25 years life:
20000365250.500.750.15 = 10,265,625
Use the load frequency distribution given in table 12.8 to calculate the actual number of
axle passes, by configuration as shown in table below:
Single axle
Axle load(kN) Actual number of axle passes
125-133 5,954
96
115-125 13,859
107-115 28,436
97.8-107 60,773
88.8-97.8 100,911
80-88.8 222,456
Tandem axle
Axle load(kN) Actual number of axle passes
213-231 20,121
195-213 40,447
178-195 117,849
160-178 351,803
142-160 835,827
125-142 878,122
Select a trial slab of 220 mm to test the fatigue damage. For 220 mm slab Table from Ref.
17) gives ES value of 1.04 MPa and 1.21 MPa for single and tandem axles, respectively.
Using Equation 12.10 and a modulus of rupture of 4.0 MPa allows computing SRF values
of 1.21/4 = 0.30 and 1.03/4 = 0.26, respectively. Entering these SRF values into Figure
12.3 allows computing the number of axle passes to fatigue failure. In doing so, it was
conservatively elected to use the upper limit of the load interval. Finally, the damage
ratios caused by each axle load interval are computed and summed for all load intervals
and axle configurations. The results tabulated in table below show that 220 mm is
perhaps too thick for the traffic loads specified. Before testing a lesser slab thickness for
fatigue, however, it is prudent to make sure that the 220mm slab can pass the erosion test
as well.
Single axle
Number of passes to failure
Damage
Axle load(kN) Figure(12.7) Actual number of axle passes ratio(%)
125-133 1,300,000 5,954 0.46%
115-125 10,000,000 13,859 0.14%
107-115 28,436 0
97.8-107 60,773 0
88.8-97.8 100,911 0
80-88.8 222,456 0
Tandem axle
Axle load(kN) Figure(12.7) Actual number of axle passes Damage ratio
213-231 >10,000,000 20,121 0
195-213 40,447 0
178-195 117,849 0
160-178 351,803 0
142-160 835,827 0
125-142 878,122 0
Total accumulated fatigue
damage 0.60%
97
For a 220mm JDRCP slab with concrete shoulders on a subgrade with a 60 MPa/m
reaction modulus, Tables found in reference (17) give EF values of 2.26 and 2.43 for
single and tandem axles, respectively. The number of axle load passes and erosion factors
are in table below:
Single axle
Damage
Axle load(kN) Figure(12.8) Actual number of axle passes ratio(%)
125-133 40,000,000 5,954 0.01%
115-125 100,000,000 13,859 0.01%
107-115 28,436 0
97.8-107 60,773 0
88.8-97.8 100,911 0
80-88.8 222,456 0
Tandem axle
Axle load(kN) Figure(12.8) Actual number of axle passes Damage ratio
213-231 50,000,000 20,121 0.04%
195-213 40,447 0
178-195 117,849 0
160-178 351,803 0
142-160 835,827 0
125-142 878,122 0
Total accumulated fatigue
damage 0.02%
That shows the total accumulated erosion damage for this trial is 0.06%. Another slab
thickness should be checked to see if some slab thickness can be economized without
raising the accumulated fatigue and erosion higher than 100%.
Fatigue cracking
ES SRF Damage ratio
Thickness(mm) Single Tandem Single Tandem Single Tandem total
200 1.37 1.16 0.34 0.29 9.60% 0 9.60%
190 1.47 1.24 0.37 0.31 49.17% 0.20% 49.37%
180 1.58 1.33 0.40 0.33 224% 0.80% 224.80%
Erosion
ES Damage ratio
Thickness(mm) Single Tandem Single Tandem total
200 2.37 2.44 0.04% 0.05% 0.09%
190 2.44 2.49 0.19% 0.06% 0.25%
180 2.5 2.54 0.44% 0.18% 0.62%
98
According to above table the 190mm in slab could be selected.
12.6
Use the Equation 12.27 to compute the joint opening as:
jw = 12000 8 0.85 (5 10-6 (55+25) + 1.5 10-4) = 44.8810-3

Use Equation 12.28 to compute the initial joint shear capacity, so:
s0 = 0.05 10 exp(-0.032 44.88) = 0.11892
Use equation 12.29 to compute the dimensionless joint transverse stiffness from
aggregate interlock, Jagg
0.11892 0.35

( )

= 0.63192
log J agg = 3.19626 + 16.09737 exp 2.7183 0.38

Which gives a Jagg value of 0.233. Substituting this value into Equation 12.30 gives:
100
LTE agg = = 19.50%
1 + 1.2 0.233 0.849
12.7
For the month of January the LTEagg was calculated as 19.50%, which given a deflection
wl of 1210-3in allows the computing a deflection wul of 2.3410-3in. This gives the
dimensionless shear stress , using Equation 12.25:
=
0.233
(12 2.34) = 0.225
10
Use Equation 12.33 to compute the reference shear stress.
ref = 111.1 exp{-exp[0.9988exp(0.1089log 0.233)]} = 6.02
Considering that 3.810 = 38 is smaller than jw = 44.88 and larger and that there is only
one axle configuration /load to be considered, allows computation of the loss in shear
stress s, using Equation 12.32, as:
0.0068 250,000 0.255 5

= 1.93 10
1 + 6(44.88 / 10 3) 1.98
10 6 6.02
Which is to be subtracted from the dimensionless shear stress for the following
month.(Equation 12.31)
12.8
During the first month, the load transfer stiffness variable Jd is computed from Equation
12.34:
99
120 1.25 2
Jd = J0 = = 13.4
14
Which allows computing of LTEdowel using Equation 12.38:
100
LTE dowel = = 88.30%
1 + 1.2 13.4 0.849
Which allows computing the wul for the current month (Equation 12.18) as 0.015 0.883
= 0.0132in. This, in turn, allows computing the dimensionless bearing stress of the
Portland concrete(Equation 12.26):
b =
13.4
(0.015 0.0132) = 0.0188
1.25
Use the Equation 8.21 to compute the radius of relative stiffness:
0.25
4,000,000 14 3
l= = 52.84in.
( )
12 1 0.15 120
2
Substituting this values into Equation 12.37 gives the dowel support damage at the end of
the first month:
100,000 0.0188 120 52.84
DAM dowel = 400 = 1.135
10 6 4200
Which allows computing the Jd for the following month (Equation 12.35), after
computing Jd* as :
Jd* = Min(118, Max[1651.252/14-19.8120, 0.4]) = 0.4
Jd = 0.4 +(13.4-0.4)exp(-1.135) = 4.58

As a result, the LTEdowel for the following month will be:
100
LTE dowel = = 75.2%
1 + 1.2 4.58 0.849
12.10
Use the equation 12.58 to compute the site factor:
1 + 20
SF = 35(1 + 0.5556 1000 ) = 0.4091
10 6
Use equation 12.26 to compute the scaling factor:
SCF = -1400 + 3507(0.5+0)+1.364000-0.210035+4312-5360.45 = 4839.8

Use the equation 12.55 to compute the extent of spalling:
100
35 100 6
SPALL = ( + ) = 2.6 10 %
35 + 0.01 1 + 1.005 12 35 4839 .8

Use Equation 12.57 to compute the present roughness
IRI = 65 +0.082322+0.44172.610-6+1.492925+25.240.4091 = 114.46 in/mi
101
Chapter 13
13.1
Use the equation 13.4 to compute the resilient modulus of the subgrade:
0.24 P 0.24 10000
Mr = = = 17142 ib / in 2
wr r 0.007 20
Given a contact area of 62 = 113.1 in , the contact pressure p on the FWD plate is 88.4
lb/in2. Use Equation 13.5 to solve for Ep:
1
1
2
16.5
1 +
1 6
0.010 = 1.5 88.4 6 +
2 EP
E P
17142 1 + 16.5 3
6 17142

That gives the value of approximately 195000lbs/in2. Entering this value along with the D
value of the 16.5 in. into Figure 13.3 gives an SNEFF value of 4.2..Consideration of the
structural number required to accommodate future traffic allows computation of the
required overlay thickness. Considering the require structural number of overlay to
accommodate future traffic allows to compute the overlay thickness as:
5.2 4.2
DoL = = 2.27in.
0.44
Which rounds up to 2.5in. over lay thickness.
13.2
Draining within one week characterizes the drainage as fair (Table 10.1), which
combined with 5% of time saturation, allows estimating drainage coefficients for the base
and subbase layers of 1.1(Table 2.7).Hence, the original structural number of the section
post construction can be computed from Equation 2.5:
SN0= 0.448.67+0.141.17.1+0.111.15.9 = 5.62

The remaining life factor is computed from Equation 13.1 as:
4.5
RL = 1001 = 18.2%
5.5
Using a 18.2% remaining life, Figure 13.1 gives a condition factor of 0.73which allows
computing the effective structural number SNEFF from Equation 13.2 as:
SNEFF = 0.735.62 = 4.1

Given a required future structural number of 4.8, the overlay thickness can be computed
from Equation 13.3 as:
102
4.8 4.1
DoL = = 1.6in.
0.44
Which rounds up to 2in. over lay thickness.
13.3
Use Equation 12.1 to compute the required thickness of a Portland concrete layer to carry
future traffic, DF. Compute the necessary input from the information given. For the 95%
confidence, the value of the standard normal deviate ZR is -1.645. The adjusted modulus
of the subgrade reaction is
13.4.
Substituting given moduli values into Equation 13.12 and solve it for dAC:
400000 190000
325000 = 190000 +
1 + e 0.3+ 5 log d AC
Which gives dAC value of 87.5%.
103
Chapter 14
14.1
A company purchased a paving machine for $350,000 in 1992. What its actual
replacement cost for an equivalent machine would have been in the year 2000 and
subsequently 2008, assuming an average inflation rate of 3.5%?
Solution
Use compound interest formula (Tab. 14.3).
350000 (1 + 0.035) 8 = $460,883
350000 (1 + 0.035)16 = $606,895
14.2
Explain why the incremental benefit-cost method is superior to the net method and the
plain benefit-cost method in comparing economic alternatives.
Solution
Incremental B/C explains the differential benefit gained from increases in expenditure
and therefore removes the bias introduced by the scale of the problem. For examples
Using the Net method:
B-C = $2,000,000-$1,900,000 = $100,000
would be equally desirable to
B-C = $200,000-$100,000 = $100,000
Although clearly in differential terms the second alternative is preferable, since for the
first alternative the extra $1,800,000 in cost returns only $1,800,000 in extra profit, which
makes it undesirable.
104
Similarly, the plain B/C method cannot differentiate between two alternatives of
different magnitude, such as for example:
B/C = $100,000/$50,000 = 2
B/C = $2,000,000/$1,000,0000 = 2
While computing B/C in differential terms:
B/C = $1,900,000/$950,000 = 2
Suggests that spending the additional $950,000 returns benefit of $1,900,000, which
suggests that the more expensive alternative is worthwhile.
14.3
Land was acquired for the right-of-way of a roadway in 1955 for $2 million. Its
estimated value in 2001 was $36 million. Calculate the inflation-free rate of return of this
investment, given that the inflation runs at 2.5% average per annum. Carry out your
calculations in terms of (a) actual $ and (b) real (i.e., inflation-free) $.
Solution
(a) Use the compound rate formula from Tab. 14.3
F / P = 36 / 2 = (1 + i )
46
which gives i = 181/46 1 = 6.49% ignoring inflation (actual $)
(b) Use Equ. 14.2 to compute the inflation-free rate of return (real-1955$)
i f 0.0649 0.025
i = = = 3.89%
1+ f 1 + 0.025
105
14.4
Compare the agency costs for two flexible pavement treatments with the following
characteristics:
capital cost of $60,000 per 2-lane-km and an expected life of 9 years,
capital cost of $100,000 per 2-lane-km and an expected life of 13 years.
Assume a discount rate of 3.5%.
Solution
Compare with the EUA Cost method. Annualize costs using the Capital Recovery
formula in Tab. 14.3.
i (1 + i ) n 0.035 (1.035) 9
A=P = $ 60000 = $7,890 /yr
(1 + i ) n 1 1.035 9 1
i (1 + i ) n 0.035 (1.035)13
A=P = $100000 = $9,710 /yr
(1 + i ) n 1 1.03513 1
Which suggest that the first alternative is the best.
14.5
Compare the agency costs for a flexible and a rigid pavement with the following
characteristics:
capital cost of $405,000 and an expected life of 15 years,
capital cost of $675,000 and an expected life of 35 years.
Assume a discount rate of 3.5%. Perform the calculations short-hand and through the
built-in functions of a spreadsheet.
106
Solution
Compare with the EUA Cost method. Annualize costs using the Capital Recovery
formula in Tab. 14.3.
i (1 + i ) n 0.035 (1.035)15
A=P = $ 450000 = $39,071 /yr
(1 + i ) n 1 1.03515 1
i (1 + i ) n 0.035 (1.035) 35
A=P = $ 675000 = $33,748 /yr
(1 + i ) n 1 1.035 35 1
which makes the rigid pavement a better choice.
14.6
Compare the rolling resistance forces acting on a large passenger car operating on two
different pavements with IRI roughnesses of 1 m/km and 6 m/km. Given:
vehicle speed of 110 km/h,
radial tires,
Tdsp of 2 mm,
vehicle mass M of 1,800 kgr.
Ignore the effect of pavement surface stiffness.
Solution
Table 14-5 gives:
CR1 = 1.0
b11 = 24.42
b12 = 0.097
b13 = 0.1102
107
Assuming a flexible pavement, Tab. 14.6 gives he value of CR2 as:
CR2 = 0.89 +0.03 1 (0.38+0.93 2)2 = 1.04 for IRI of 1 m/km
CR2 = 0.89 +0.03 6 (0.38+0.93 2)2 = 1.79 for IRI of 6 m/km
which, substituted into Equ. 14-5 give the rolling resistance force for roughness levels of
1 m/km and 6 m/km in the IRI scale as:
Fr = 1.04 (24.42 4 + 1 (0.097 1800 + 0.1102 30.55 2 )) = 389.8 N
Fr = 1.79 (24.42 4 + 1 (0.097 1800 + 0.1102 30.55 2 )) = 670.9 N
respectively. Hence, the difference in traction forces due solely to the difference in
pavement roughness is 281 N.
14.7
What is the difference in fuel consumption for the circumstance of the previous problem?
Solution
Table 14-7 suggests that Pmax for a large passenger car is 90 kW, hence Ptot at
mid-power is 45 kW. Equation 14-6 suggests that the difference in the power requirement
due to the calculated difference in rolling resistance force (i.e., 281 N calculated earlier)
is:
Ptot = Ptr = v Fr / 1000 = 30.55 281 / 1000 = 8.6 kW
which according to Equs. 14-9 and 14-10 results in a difference in fuel consumption of:
Ptot Peng 45
IFC = Ptr = b (1 + ehp )Ptr = 0.067 (1 + 0.25 ) 8.6 = 0.65 ml/s
Pmax 90
or 2.33 liters of fuel per hour (0.61 gallons/hr) difference in fuel consumption. At 110
km/h (68.35 miles/h), this represents a difference of 0.009 gallons/mile. Considering a
108
25 miles/gallon (0.04 gallons/mi) typical car fuel consumption, this represents a
difference of 22.3%.
14.8
Compare the cost of vehicle maintenance parts and labor for a large passenger car that
has an odometer reading of 100,000 km and operates on pavements with IRI of 6 m/km
versus operating on a pavement with an IRI of 1 m/km. Given:
the purchase cost of the vehicle is $20,000 and
the shop charges $60 per hour labor.
Solution
Substituting the constants for the large passenger car from Table 14-10 into
Equation 14-11 gives:
0.23
100,000
PARTS = 1.0 (1 + 0.230 (6- 3))=1.69 of the price of a new vehicle in
100,000
$1000s, that is 1.69 x 20 = $33.8 per 1000 km for operating on a pavement with an IRI of
6 m/km. The corresponding labor is calculated from Equation 14-13 as:
LH = 77.14 PARTS 0.547 e 0 = 77.14 0.001690.547= 2.35 hours per 1000 km
which translates to labor cost of $141 and brings the total vehicle maintenance cost to
$174.75 per 1000 km.
Repeating these calculations for an IRI of 1 m/km gives:
RI = 3.0 + 5.54x10-8 IRI13= 3.000
which when substituted into Equation 14-11 gives:
109
0.23
100,000
PARTS = 1.0 (1 + 0.23 ( 3 - 3))=1.00 of the price of a new vehicle in
100,000
$1000s, that is $20 per 1000 km and involves labor of:
LH = 77.14 PARTS 0.547 e 0 = 77.14 0.0010.547= 1.76 hours per 1000 km,
which translates to a labor cost of $106 and brings the total vehicle maintenance cost to
$126 per 1000 km.
14.9
Calculate the delay and the associated cost for a two-lane lane closure of 250 m in length
on a 6-lane divided freeway. Given that:
the arrival rate is 1,300 pce/hour in the 10 minute interval to be analyzed,
no lower speed limit is posted through the work zone,
all vehicles have double occupancy and
the unit cost of travel time is $10/hour.
Solution
Assuming a 50% confidence that the capacity will be equal or lower than the one
computed and utilizing the constant values found in Tab. 14.15. Equ. 14-21 gives:
CAPWZ = (1370 4.05 50) = 1167 passenger car equivalents/hr, (pce/hr)
The number of vehicles at the end of the interval is calculated from Equation 14-20 as:
10
VEHQUEi = (1,300 - 1,167) = 22.2 rounded to 23 passenger car equivalents.
60
Assuming 0 vehicles in the queue in the previous time interval, the total time delay
DQUEi (vehicle-sec) is calculated as:
110
DQUEi =
(0 +23) 60 10 = 6900 vehicle-sec or 1.91 vehicle-hrs, which translates to 3.83
2
person-hrs or $38.3 for the time interval of 10 minutes analyzed.
14.10
Calculate the total hourly delay for a 1,000 meter lane closure on a 2-lane undivided
roadway with a directional volume of 800 pce/hour, a work zone cycle of 700 seconds, a
work-zone capacity or 1,100 pce/hour and a posted speed through the work zone of 45
km/hour (12.5 m/sec). Assume lost times at the beginning and end of the green interval of
2 seconds and 0 second, respectively.
Solution
Equs. 14-26 to 14-28 give:
700
IG = = 56 sec
12.5
700
EFFG = + (56 + 2 + 0) = 408 sec
2
408
GCRATIO = = 0.582
700
The volume over capacity ratio is:
800
X = = 0.73
1100
which when substituted into Equation 14-30b gives:
700 (10.582) 2
DELAYUN = 0.38 = 80.81 s/pce.
10.582 0.73
Equation 14-32 gives:
111
1,100
Xo = 0.67 + = 0.975 > 0.75
3,600
which suggests that there is no incremental delays. Hence, the total delay is 80.81
sec/pce which results in 80.81 / 3600 800 2 10 = $359/hour for both directions of traffic.
112

Papagiannakis Solutions For Text Book

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Papagiannakis Solutions For Text Book

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Instructors Solution Manual

Pavement Design and Materials

Published by Wiley and Sons Inc.

Truck shown in Figure 2.9(a).

Use Table 2.9 for tandem axles:

Truck show in Figure 2.9(b).

Use Table 2.9 for tandem axles:

CV = 70 0.346 2.2 0.798 = 8.16%

CV = 70 0.456 2.20.728 = 12.32%

Compute standard dynamic load deviations:

Tractor: 0.0816 x 75 = 6.12 kN

Trailer: 0.1232 x 70 = 8.62 kN

Tractor: 75 1.65 x 6.12 = [85.1, 64.9] kN

Trailer: 70 1.65 x 8.62 = [74.2, 55.8] kN

Where 1.65 is the standard normal deviate for 90% confidence.

Solve Equ. 2.2 for speed:

8.08 = V 0.346 2.2 0.798

8.66 = V 0.456 2.2 0.728

WIM error computations:

Materials inputs required for critical response computations

The benefits of using lime to stabilize subgrade and base are:

The results are shown in the Figure above.

Granite: Igneous rock

4.2 Name three common types of igneous rocks used as aggregates.

Basalts, Granite, and Rhyolite

According to the equations in the book (page 85)

Where A = weight of oven-dry specimen in air,

B = weight of pycnometer filled with water,

C = weight of pycnometer with specimen and water to calibration mark,

D = weight of saturated surface dry specimen.

And so, A = 454.12 g, B = 2345.67 g, C = 2640.35, and D = 459.34 g

Sieve Size Fineness Modulus = 2.20 Fineness Modulus = 3.20

9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 35.2

4.75 mm (No. 4) 299.6

2.00 mm (No. 10) 149.7

0.425 mm (No. 40) 125.8

0.075 mm (No. 200) 60.4

Cumulative Percent retained on each sieve is 100 multiplied by the percentage of

Cumulative Percent retained on 25 mm = 100 * 0/678 = 0 %

Sieve Size Amount Cumulative Cumulative Percent

9.5 mm (3/8 in.) 35.2 35.2 5.2 94.8

4.75 mm (No. 4) 299.6 334.8 49.4 50.6

2.00 mm (No. 10) 149.7 484.5 71.5 28.5

0.425 mm (No. 40) 125.8 610.3 90.0 10.0

0.075 mm (No. 200) 60.4 670.7 98.9 1.1

Pan 7.3 678 100 0

d (mm) d^0.45 P (%)

19 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.60 0.30 0.15 0.075

Spec. Limits 100 80- 100 70- 90 50 - 70 35 - 50 18- 29 13 - 23 8 - 16 4 - 10

Aggregate B 100 100 100 85 67 45 32 19 11

Aggregate A Aggregate B 45/55 Blend

According to the equations in the book (page 86)

Combined absorption = a AbsorptionA + b AbsortpionB + ..

Where a, b, and c are the percentages of aggregates A, B, and C, respectively, used in

Combined absorption = a AbsorptionA + b AbsortpionB

Asphalt is composed of hydrocarbons and heteroatoms. Heteroatoms distribution is

Houston, Texas (Bush Intercontinental Airport)

After opening the LTPPBind software:

Go to Select Station / Name Location and select desired states;

Weather station details: ID, county/district, and station name

Houston, Texas (Bush Intercontinental Airport)

Station ID: TX4300

Station ID: AK0280