Método de diseño de espesores

para construcciones nuevas

TALLER DE DISEÑO DE
PAVIMENTOS DE
CONCRETO

November 7, 2014
Design Methods
Robert Rodden, P.E.
Senior Director of
Pavement Technology

Countries with Concrete Pavements SOME of the Design Variety

Argentina Guatemala Portugal AASHTOWare Pavement ME USA, Canada

Australia Honduras Puerto Rico USA, Canada, most of
Austria India Russia AASHTO 93/WinPAS
South & Central America, etc.
Belgium Indonesia South Africa
Bolivia Iran South Korea TCPavements OptiPave Chile, Guatemala, Peru
Brazil Italy Spain cncPave South Africa
Canada Japan Sweden VENCON2.0 Belgium, Netherlands
Chile Kenya Switzerland
China Kingdom of Bahrain Taiwan Custom Catalog Germany, India, Poland
Costa Rica Mexico Thailand Australia, Portugal, USA
Czech Republic Netherlands Turkey ACPA StreetPave (previously the PCA
(“approved” in MN and VA),
Dominican Republic New Zealand Uruguay Method)
Canada, Uruguay
Ecuador Nicaragua United Kingdom
El Salvador Norway USA IP-07/2004 Brazil
France Pakistan … ACPA’s apps.acpa.org CHAUSSEE2 Canada
Germany Peru has been accessed in over
140 countries! FAARFIELD, AirPave, ACI 330, BCOA,
Ghana Poland USA
CO 6x6x6, custom method, etc.
Certainly we have many design methods!!!

US Practices are Changing U.S. Roadway Length (lane miles)

Federal, 3%
Other, 1%
AASHTO tools are
Summary of State Agency practice in 2005: being developed for
Design Method Percent of Responding State these owners…
State Agency Agency,
Used Agencies
19%
AR, AZ, DE, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, MD,
AASHTO City, county, and other
85% MI, NV, NC, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT,
72/86/93 Town, 32% local engineers need
VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
AASHTO MEPDG 4% MO to decide what to use
PCA Method 7% HI, IN, IA locally because
State-Developed 11% IL, MT Pavement ME will not
County,
trickle down due to its
44% cost and complexity!
At the end of 2013, 41 state agencies had performed
ME Design calibration and implementation efforts,
indicating a relatively quick shift from AASHTO 93. Source: HM-10, 2012 FHWA Highway Statistics

1
Design Method Basis U.S. Design Standards for Roadways

Mechanistic – Purely scientific and based on measured, AASHTOWare

defendable scientific rules and laws Pavement ME
(previously known as
∆L α ∗ ∆ ∗ DARWin-ME and
/
MEPDG)

Empirical – Based on observations or experimentation

and requires a lot of tests to connect all the relationships AASHTO 93 ACPA
(software as StreetPave
ACPA WinPAS)

325 &
330

EMPIRICAL
AASHO Road Test (1958-1960)

Included 368 concrete and 468 asphalt

sections | focus was highway pavement
Included a wide range of axle loads and
pavement cross-sections
Design first introduced in 62, revised
several times thereafter until 93 version

AASHTO 93/WinPAS
acpa.org/winpas

Typical AASHO Loop Layout

Tangent = 6,800ft (2km)
368 rigid sections
468 flexible sections

Subgrade = Clay Soil

2
AASHO Test Traffic Performance Metric

Max Single
Axle

Max Tandem
Axle

Some AASHO Results – Loop 2 Some AASHO Results – Loop 2

…1,114,000 load applications to end

Some AASHO Results – Loop 4 Some AASHO Results – Loop 4

3
Some AASHO Results – Loop 6 Some AASHO Results – Loop 6

Performance Estimated Subjectively Note on Inference Space of ‘93

Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

4.0 – 5.0 = Very Good
3.0 – 4.0 = Good
2.0 – 3.0 = Fair
1.0 – 2.0 = Poor
0.0 – 1.0 = Very Poor
“Failure” at the Road Test
considered @ 1.5
Typical U.S. state agency
terminal serviceability
in practice = 2.5

Current design traffic

Don’t Just Take My Word…
is far beyond AASHO “The current design guide and its
road test limits
PAVEMENT THICKNESS

predecessors were largely based on

design equations empirically derived
Data from the observations AASHTO’s
Limits predecessor made during road
(AASHO performance tests completed in 1959-
Road 60. Several transportation experts have
criticized the empirical data thus derived
Test)
as outdated and inadequate for today’s
highway system. In addition, a March
     Current 1994 DOT Office of Inspector General

Designs report concluded that the design guide
<2 >100 was outdated and that pavement design
million million information it relied on could not be
AXLE LOAD REPETITIONS supported and validated with systematic
comparisons to actual experience or
research.”
…this is why Pavement ME exists!

4
1986-93 Concrete Pavement Rigid Design Nomograph
Equation
Change in Serviceability
Overall
Standard Standard Deviation
Normal Deviate Thickness   PSI  
 Log  
Log ( ESAL)  Z R * so  7.35 * Log ( D  1)  0.06    4.5  1.5  
7
 1.624 *10 
Traffic  1  ( D  1)8.46 
 
Modulus of
Drainage
Terminal Rupture
Coefficient
Serviceability   10
 
S '
* C * ( D 0.75
 1 . 132 ) Inputs.
 (4.22  0.32 * pt ) * Log  c d 
  0.75 18.42   Solve
 215.63 * J *  D  0.25   for 11th
  ( Ec / k )  
Load Modulus Modulus of
Transfer of Elasticity Subgrade Reaction

WinPAS Makes it Easy

MEPDG / DARWin-ME /
AASHTOWare Pavement ME

MECHANISTIC -
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design ME Design EMPIRICAL

15+ years in the making

Design method and software
not “perfect”; not intended to
be a “final” product
Complex and relatively costly
+ =
Mechanistic Empirical Pavement
Requires local calibration to Calculation Tie to Performance
work correctly of Responses Ground Prediction
Models were not developed
for street, road, parking lot,
etc.

5
JPCP Calibration – BIG INF. SPACE! AASHTO 93 vs. ME

Wide range of structural and

rehabilitation designs 50+ million load reps

Limited structural sections 1.1 million load reps

AASHTO 93

AASHTO Pavement ME
1 climate/2 years 1 set of materials

All climates over 20-50 years New and diverse materials

LTPP GPS-3 & RPPR JPCP Sections LTPP SPS-2, MnROAD, & AASHO JPCP Sections

MECHANISTIC -
Sounds Easy Enough, Right? EMPIRICAL INPUTS, INPUTS, INPUTS!!!!

ESALs/Truck
INPUTS, INPUTS, INPUTS!!!! Notes on ME ESALs TTC 1 1.69
TTC 2 1.57
TTC 3 1.82
Output in a .txt file and TTC 4 1.43
not included on report TTC 5 1.90
TTC 6 1.26
TRB 2014: TTC 7 1.63
TTC 8 1.83
“Approaches to Relate
TTC 9 1.16
Cumulative Traffic TTC 10 1.46
Loading to Performance TTC 11 1.85
for Pavements Designed TTC 12 1.05
Using MEPDG” TTC 13 1.55
TTC 14 0.83
“Investigation of ESALs TTC 15 1.04
vs. Load Spectra for TTC 16 1.33
Rigid Pavement Design” TTC 17 1.03

6
What’s the Concern in ME? OUTPUTS, OUTPUTS, OUTPUTS!!!

Just as rigid and flexible ESALs are different

because of their different response…
Single, tandem and tridem axle groups (and at
differing loads) cause differing relative damages
Single-axles usually cause more fatigue damage
Tandem and tridem axles usually cause more erosion
damage

… so even within just rigid pavement design,

ESAL count for same traffic spectrum and #
of trucks in the design lane is really different
for each distress type modeled!?!

Simpler ME Option: MnDOT Drainage in ME Design

“The current state of the art is such that
conclusive remarks regarding the
effectiveness of pavement subsurface
drainage or the need for subsurface
drainage are not possible.”

… so we must rely on field studies:

• Subbase stiffness matters more than
drainage for JPCP performance
• Although excess moisture and poor
drainage was shown to be detrimental
to pavement performance in the past,
current designs are less susceptible to
moisture damage (thicker sections,
improved materials, widespread use of
dowels, etc.)

Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Top 10 ME Design Most Sensitive

Roadways in New Orleans

Louisiana DOT study looked at impact of flooding 1. Concrete Flexural Strength at 28-Days
and overloads from relief effort on pavements 2. Concrete Thickness
3. Surface Shortwave Absorptivity (SSA)
Used FWD, GPR, DCP, coring, etc. to assess 4. Joint Spacing
structure 5. Concrete Modulus of Elasticity at 28-Days
“…asphalt pavements had strength loss equivalent to 6. Design Lane Width with a 14 ft (4.3 m) Widened Slab
about two inches of new 7. Edge Support via Widened Slab
asphalt concrete…Very little relative 8. Concrete Thermal Conductivity
damage was detected for the 9. Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE)
PCC pavements.” 10. Concrete Unit Weight
Red = only ME Design input… the VALUE of the software!
Blue + Bold = common for all

7
Implementation in the US @ Jan 2014

Using Pavement-ME StreetPave/PCA Method

Nearing Implementation

Implementation work underway

Alaska
acpa.org/streetpave
Hawaii
No Plans / No information

8 states have either fully or partially implemented

MECHANISTIC -
StreetPave’s Origins EMPIRICAL From PCA Method to StreetPave

PCA thickness design methodology for JPCP StreetPave

first published in 1966 released in 2005 by ACPA
used slab stress/fatigue as tailored for streets and roads
the sole design criterion
for determining thickness
improvements included:
enhanced concrete fatigue model w/reliability component
updated in 1984
ability to analyze tridem axles in the traffic spectrum
failure by erosion (pumping)
new recommendations for dowel bars, joint spacing,
edge support subgrade/subbase moduli, etc.
side-by-side design comparison to asphalt sections

StreetPave12 Failure Modes Considered

StreetPave12
released in 2012 by ACPA
tailored for streets and roads
improvements included:
compatibility with 64-bit processors
force undoweled design
overlay designs
improvement of subgrade/subbase characterization
inclusion of fibers in all concrete designs
improved traffic characterization; save custom traffic spectrum
ACI 330 traffic spectrums
clarified help screens

8
Traffic Spectrum + Counts Traffic Loads Generate Stresses
Single Axles Tandem Axles
Axle Load (kip) Axles/1,000 Trucks Axle Load (kip) Axles/1,000 Trucks
34 0.19 60 0.57 Equivalent stress at the slab edge:
32 0.54 56 1.07
6∗
30 0.63 52 1.79 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
2 1 2 3 4 
28 1.78 48 3.03
26 3.52 44 3.52 Me = equivalent moment, psi; different for single, tandem, and tridem axles, with and
24 4.16 40 20.31 without edge support - func on radius of relative stiffness, which depends on
22 9.69 36 78.19 concrete modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and thickness and the k-value
20 41.82 32 109.54 hc = pavement thickness, in.
18 68.27 28 95.79 f1 = adjustment for the effect of axle loads and contact area
16 57.07 24 71.16 f2 = adjustment for a slab with no concrete shoulder
f3 = adjustment to account for the effect of truck (wheel) placement at the slab edge
Total trucks in design lane over the design life… f4 = adjustment to account for approximately 23.5% increase in concrete strength
calculated from trucks/day (2-way), traffic growth rate (%/yr), design life with age after the 28th day and reduction of one coefficient of variation (COV) to
(yrs), directional distribution (%) and design lane distribution (%) account for materials variability

Limit Stress Ratio to Allow Design Reps A Conservative Approach!

Stress Ratio (SR) = Stress / Concrete Strength StreetPave fatigue

StreetPave 1 calculation should be
makes slab 0.9
conservative relative
thicker to 0.8
Fatigue Data

StreetPave R=95%
to ME Design
limit stress because: …versus…
Stress Ratio

0.7

ratio low Size Effects – Slabs

enough to
0.6
have a greater fatigue
capacity than beams
achieve the 0.5
d=L/3

design traffic 0.4 Support – The beam

1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10 L/3
test has a k-value for
repetitions Span Length = L
Repetitions

Inference space normalized to SR support of 0 psi/in.!

Faulting Design in StreetPave StreetPave in MN

If dowels used, faulting mitigated & fails by cracks

No faulting data collected at the AASHO road test
so model developed in 1980s using field
performance data from WI, MN, ND, GA, and CA
Similar to cracking models, the pavement is made
thicker, as necessary, until faulting model predicts
that the pavement will not fail by faulting during
the design life
StreetPave’s http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/admin/memos/12-sa-03.pdf
weak point http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/documents/201210.pdf

9
And Its Use is Growing! StreetPave – Asphalt Design

Also “approved” in VA and many other state, city, Per Asphalt Institute’s MS-1
and county engineers are using it in the U.S. Reliability considered as modifier of
StreetPave used in design tables in: soil strength (see ACPA’s R&T
ACI 325 and 330 documents Update 9.01, “StreetPave’s Equivalent
Dr. Norb Delatte’s textbook Concrete Pavement Design, Design of Asphalt – Proof of the
Construction, and Performance Accuracy of StreetPave’s Asphalt
Internationally, used in Australia, Portugal, Module”)
Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, etc. Failure predefined according to
Asphalt Institute at 20% cracking in
the wheelpaths

Example with ME Design “defaults”

JPCP w/ 6 in. (150 mm) crushed stone on a A-7-6

subgrade with defaults except subbase thickness
All traffic @ default values Passes with 1.5” (38
Weather @ Chicago (ORD) mm) dowels

Comparison of Software
@ Phoenix (PHX)

Example with ME Design “defaults” Example with “defaults” - DOWELED

14 350

13 325
Conducted WinPAS/AASHTO 93 and StreetPave 12 300
designs alongside for comparison
Required Thickness (mm)
Required Thickness (in.)

11 275
Used “default” values from ME Design as inputs where 10 250
possible 9 225

If ME Design variable not available, used typical “default” 8 200

AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
In ME, also turned “Sealant” on and Erodibility Index to 2 7
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
175

6 150
For k-value, used ½ dynamic k-value to get static k-value AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
5 ACPA StreetPave 125

4 100
 ‐  10,000,000  20,000,000  30,000,000  40,000,000  50,000,000
Design Lane ESALs

remember AASHTO 93 limit?

10
Example with “defaults” - UNDOWELED The Value of Dowel Bars!
14 350

13 325
7 175
12 300 AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)

Thickness Reduction w/Dowels  (mm)
Required Thickness (mm)

Thickness Reduction w/Dowels (in.)
Required Thickness (in.)

6 AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD 150
11 275
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
10 250 5 125
ACPA StreetPave
9 225
4 100
8 200
AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
7 175 3 75
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
6 150
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX 2 50
5 ACPA StreetPave 125

4 100 1 25
 ‐  10,000,000  20,000,000  30,000,000  40,000,000  50,000,000
Design Lane ESALs 0 0
 ‐  10,000,000  20,000,000  30,000,000  40,000,000  50,000,000
Design Lane ESALs

Top 10 ME Design Most Sensitive Flexural Strength Sensitivity

1. Concrete Flexural Strength at 28-Days 14 350

2. Concrete Thickness 13 325

3. Surface Shortwave Absorptivity (SSA) 12 300

Required Thickness (mm)
4. Joint Spacing
Required Thickness (in.)

11 275

5. Concrete Modulus of Elasticity at 28-Days 10 250

6. Design Lane Width with a 14 ft (4.3 m) Widened Slab 9 225

7. Edge Support via Widened Slab 8 AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS) 200

AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
8. Concrete Thermal Conductivity 7 175
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
9. Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) 6 ACPA StreetPave 150

10. Concrete Unit Weight 5 125

4 100
Red = only ME Design input… the VALUE of the software!  400  450  500  550  600  650  700  750  800
Blue + Bold = common for all (2.75 MPa) Concrete Flexural Strength (psi) (5.5 MPa)

Modulus of Elasticity Sensitivity Thickness Reduction w/ Edge Support

14 350
4 100
Thickness Reduction w/Edge Support  (mm)

13 325
Thickness Reduction w/Edge Support (in.)

12 300 3.5 AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)

AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
Required Thickness (mm)
Required Thickness (in.)

11 275 3 75
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
10 250 ACPA StreetPave
2.5
9 225
2 50
8 200
AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS) 1.5
7 175
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
6 150 1 25
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
5 ACPA StreetPave 125 0.5
4 100
0 0
 3,000,000  3,500,000  4,000,000  4,500,000  5,000,000  5,500,000  6,000,000
 ‐  10,000,000  20,000,000  30,000,000  40,000,000  50,000,000
(20.7 GPa) Modulus of Elasticity (psi) (41.4 GPa)
Design Lane ESALs
… in reality, need to change strength too…

11
Reliability is Very Different for Each Reliability Sensitivity

14 350

Distress
13 325

12 300

Required Thickness (mm)
Required Thickness (in.)
11 275

10 250
Damage
9 225
1
8 200
0.9 AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
Fatigue Data 7 175
StreetPave R=95%
0.8 PCA AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
6 150
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
Stress Ratio

0.7

0.6
5 ACPA StreetPave 125

0.5 4 100
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0.4
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10
Repetitions
Reliability

Increasing k-value Doesn’t Greatly k-value Sensitivity

Decrease the Required Thickness 14 350
AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
Concrete pavement design thickness is relatively insensitive to 13 325
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
support stiffness (modulus of subgrade reaction), so it is improper 12 300
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
engineering to make a subgrade/subbase stronger or thicker in an

Required Thickness (mm)
Required Thickness (in.)

11 275
attempt to decrease concrete pavement thickness… ACPA StreetPave
10 250

9 225

8 Very few 200

designed
7 for < 100 175
psi/in.
Analyses 6 150
(27
conducted in
5 MPa/m)? 125
StreetPave

4 100
0 100 200 300 400 500
(136 MPa/m)
Static k‐value (psi)

Get Your Software Loaded Up!

Thank you.
Questions? FEEDBACK!

Robert Rodden, P.E.

Senior Director of Pavement Technology
American Concrete Pavement Association
rrodden@acpa.org | 847.423.8706

Main Website | acpa.org

Concrete Wiki | wiki.acpa.org
App Library | apps.acpa.org
Desktop Software | software.acpa.org
Resources | resources.acpa.org
On-Demand Training | ondemand.acpa.org
Live Online Training | webinars.acpa.org
Your Local Contact | local.acpa.org

12