Design Methods

• Highway Pavements
„ AASHTO
„ The Asphalt Institute
„ Portland Cement Association
• Airfield Pavements
„ FAA
„ The Asphalt Institute
„ Portland Cement Association
„ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Objectives of Pavement Design

To provide a surface that is:

• Strong
„ Surface strength
„ Moisture control

• Smooth
• Safe
„ Friction
„ Drainage

• Economical
„ Initial construction cost
„ Recurring maintenance cost

1
 Pavements are Designed
to Fail !!

Pavement Design Methodologies

• Experience
• Empirical
„ Statistical models from road tests
• Mechanistic-Empirical
„ Calculation of pavement stresses/strains/deformations
„ Empirical pavement performance models
• Mechanistic
„ Calculation of pavement stresses/strains/deformations
„ Mechanics-based pavement performance models

2
Empirical vs. Mechanistic Design

P
d Wood Floor Joist

Empirical “Rule of 2”:

L
d in inches= (L in feet / 2) + 2

PL
Mechanistic: σbending = ≤ σ allowable
4S

1993 Version

3
 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide
• Empirical design methodology
• Several versions:
„ 1961 (Interim Guide)
„ 1972
„ 1986
‹ Refined material characterization
‹ Version included in Huang (1993)
„ 1993
‹ More on rehabilitation
‹ More consistency between flexible, rigid designs
‹ Current version
„ 2002
‹ Under development
‹ Will be based on mechanistic-empirical approach

AASHO Road Test (late 1950’s)

(AASHO, 1961)

4
One Rainfall Zone...

(AASHO, 1961)

One Temperature Zone...

(AASHO, 1961)

5
One Subgrade...

A-6 / A-7-6 (Clay)

Poor Drainage

(AASHO, 1961)

Limited Set of Materials...

• One asphalt concrete
„ 3/4” surface course
„ 1” binder course
• One Portland cement concrete (3500 psi @ 14 days)
• Four base materials
„ Well-graded crushed limestone (main experiment)
„ Well-graded uncrushed gravel (special studies)
„ Bituminous-treated base (special studies)
„ Cement-treated base (special studies)
• One uniform sand/gravel subbase

6
 1950’s
Construction
Methods...

(AASHO, 1961)

(AASHO, 1961)

1950’s
Vehicle Loads...

7
Limited Traffic Volumes...

1.1M
1.1MAxles
Axles
Axle Loads (Thousands)

22Years
Years

Time (Months)

(AASHO, 1961)

1950’s
Data Analysis...

(AASHO, 1961)

8
 Some Failures...

(Some pavements too!)

(AASHO, 1961)

AASHTO Design Based

on Serviceability Decrease

(AASHTO, 1993)

9
What is Serviceability?
• Based upon Present
Serviceability Rating (PSR)
• Subjective rating by
individual/panel
„ Initial/post-construction
„ Various times after
construction
• 0 < PSR < 5
• PSR < ~2.5: Unacceptable

(AASHO, 1961)

Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

• PSR correlated to physical pavement measures via Present

Serviceability Index (PSI):

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

SV = slope variance (measure of roughness) Empirical!

RD = average rut depth (inches)
C + P = area of cracking and patching per 1000 ft 2
PSI ≈ PSR

10
AASHTO Design Guide (1993)

Part I: Pavement Design and Management

Principles
• Introduction and Background
• Design Related to Project Level Pavement Management
• Economic Evaluation of Alternative Design Strategies
• Reliability

AASHTO Design Guide (1993)

Part II: Pavement Design Procedures for New

Construction or Reconstruction
• Design Requirements
• Highway Pavement Structural Design
• Low-Volume Road Design

11
 AASHTO Design Guide (1993)

Part III: Pavement Design Procedures for

Rehabilitation of Existing Pavements
• Rehabilitation Concepts
• Guides for Field Data Collection
• Rehabilitation Methods Other Than Overlay
• Rehabilitation Methods With Overlays

Design Scenarios
Included in
AASHTO Guide

(AASHTO, 1993)

12
 AASHTO Design Based
on Serviceability Decrease

(AASHTO, 1993)

Flexible Pavements

13
Design Equation

log10 (W18 ) = Z R So + 9.36 log10 ( SN + 1) − 0.20

Structural Number
 ∆PSI 
log10 
 4.2 − 1.5  + 2.32 log M − 8.07
+ 10 ( R)
1094
0.40 +
( SN + 1)
5.19

W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs)

ZR = standard normal deviate
So = combined standard error of traffic and performance prediction
∆PSI = difference between initial and terminal serviceability index
MR = resilient modulus (psi)
SN = structural number

(AASHTO, 1993)

14
Traffic vs. Analysis Period

(AASHTO, 1993)

Analysis Period

(Also basis for life-cycle cost analysis)

(AASHTO, 1993)

15
Design Traffic (18K ESALs)

(AASHTO, 1993)

Design Traffic (18K ESALs)

• DD = 0.5 typically
• DL:

(AASHTO, 1993)

16
 Reliability

(AASHTO, 1993)

Recommended Values for

Standard Error So

• Rigid Pavements: 0.30 - 0.40

• Flexible Pavements: 0.40 - 0.50

17
Standard Normal Deviate ZR

(AASHTO, 1993)

Recommended Reliability Levels

(AASHTO, 1993)

18
 Serviceability

∆PSI = po − pt
• PSI = Pavement Serviceability Index, 1 < PSI < 5
• po = Initial Serviceability Index
„ Rigid pavements: 4.5
„ Flexible pavements: 4.2
• pt = Terminal Serviceability Index

(AASHTO, 1993)

Adjustment of
Roadbed (Subgrade)
MR for Seasonal
Variations

(AASHTO, 1993)

19
Structural Number

n
SN = a1 D1 + ∑ ai Di mi
i =2

SN = structural number = f (structural capacity)

ai = ith layer coefficient
Di = ith layer thickness (inches)
mi = ith layer drainage coefficient
n = number of layers (3, typically)

No Unique Solution!

(AASHTO, 1993)

20
Layer Coefficient a1: Asphalt Concrete

(AASHTO, 1993)

Layer Coefficient a2: Granular Base

a2 ≅ 0.249 ( log10 Ebase ) − 0.977

Ebase in psi

(AASHTO, 1993)

21
Layer Coefficient a2: Cement Treated Base

(AASHTO, 1993)

Layer Coefficient a2:

Bituminous Treated Base

(AASHTO, 1993)

22
Layer Coefficient a3: Granular Subbase

a3 = 0.227(log10 Esubbase ) − 0.839

Esubbase in psi

(AASHTO, 1993)

Quality of Drainage

(AASHTO, 1993)

23
Drainage Coefficient mi

mi increases/decreases the effective value for ai

(AASHTO, 1993)

Next Slide
(AASHTO, 1993)

24
Traffic vs. Analysis Period

(AASHTO, 1993)

(AASHTO, 1993)

25
 Effect of Frost
on Performance

PSI = Pavement
Servicability
Index

1 < PSI < 5

“Failure”: PSI < 2+

(AASHTO, 1993)

Frost Heave Rate φ

φ = f (-0.02mm)

(AASHTO, 1993)

26
 Maximum
Serviceability
Loss

∆PSImax =
f (frost depth,
drainage)

(AASHTO, 1993)

Effect of
Swelling on
Performance

PSI = Pavement
Servicability
Index

1 < PSI < 5

“Failure”: PSI < 2+

(AASHTO, 1993)

27
 Swell Rate Constant θ

θ = f (moisture supply,
soil fabric)

(AASHTO, 1993)

Maximum Potential
Heave VR

VR = f (PI, compaction, thickness)

(AASHTO, 1993)

28
 Rigid Pavements

Design Equation
log10 (W18 ) = Z R So + 7.35log10 ( D + 1) − 0.06
PCC Thickness
 
 ∆PSI   
log10 
 4.5 − 1.5   S c Cd ( D − 1.132 )
' 0.75

+ + ( 4.22 − 0.32 pt ) log10  
1.64x107   18.42  
1+ 215.63 J  D 0.75
− 
( D + 1)  0.25 
8.46

 
 ( Ec / k ) 
 

W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs) Sc’ = modulus of rupture (psi) for Portland cement
ZR = standard normal deviate concrete

So = combined standard error of traffic and J = load transfer coefficient

performance prediction
D = thickness (inches) of pavement slab
∆PSI = difference between initial and terminal
serviceability indices
pt = terminal serviceability value
Cd = drainage coefficient
Ec = modulus of elasticity (psi) for Portland
cement concrete
k = modulus of subgrade reaction (pci)

29
(AASHTO, 1993)

(AASHTO, 1993)

30
Design Inputs
W18 = design traffic (18-kip ESALs)
ZR = standard normal deviate
So = combined standard error of traffic and performance prediction
∆PSI = difference between initial and terminal serviceability indices
pt = terminal serviceability index (implicit in flexible design)

All consistent with flexible pavements!

Additional Design Inputs

• S′c = modulus of rupture for concrete
• J = joint load transfer coefficient
• Cd = drainage coefficient (similar in concept to flexible
pavement terms)
• Ec = modulus of elasticity for concrete
• k = modulus of subgrade reaction

Additional inputs reflect differences in

materials and structural behavior.

31
 Modulus of Rupture
Sc’

(AASHTO, 1993)

Joint Load Transfer Coefficient J

Pavement Type J
(no tied shoulders)
JCP/JRCP 3.2
w/ load transfer devices
JCP/JRCP 3.8-4.4
w/out load transfer devices
CRCP 2.9

32
Joint Load Transfer Coefficient J

Additional benefits of tied shoulders:

(AASHTO, 1993)

Drainage Coefficient Cd

• Two effects:
„ Subbase and subgrade strength/stiffness
„ Joint load transfer effectiveness

(AASHTO, 1993)

33
PCC Modulus of Elasticity Ec
• Measure directly per ASTM C469
• Correlation w/ compressive strength:

Ec = 57,000 (fc’)0.5

Ec = elastic modulus (psi)

fc’ = compressive strength (psi) per AASHTO T22, T140, or ASTM
C39

Effective Subgrade Modulus k

• Depends on:
„ Roadbed (subgrade) resilient modulus, MR
„ Subbase resilient modulus, ESB
• Both vary by season

34
Determining Effective k (See Table 3.2)

• Identify:
„ Subbase types
„ Subbase thicknesses
„ Loss of support, LS (erosion potential of subbase)
„ Depth to rigid foundation (feet)
• Assign roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) for each season
• Assign subbase resilient modulus (ESB) for each season
„ 15,000 psi (spring thaw) < ESB < 50,000 psi (winter freeze)
„ ESB < 4(MR)

(AASHTO, 1993)

35
 Determining Effective k (cont’d)

• Determine composite k for each season

„ For DSB = 0: k = MR/19.4
„ For DSB > 0: Use Figure 3.3
• If depth to rigid foundation < 10 feet, correct k for effect of
rigid foundation near the surface (Figure 3.4)
• Estimate required thickness of slab (Figure 3.5) and
determine relative damage ur for each season
• Use average ur to determine effective k (Figure 3.5)
• Correct k for potential loss of support LS (Figure 3.6)

Composite Modulus
of Subgrade Reaction

k = f (MR , ESB , DSB )

(AASHTO, 1993)

36
 Rigid Foundation
Correction

(AASHTO, 1993)

Relative Damage

ur = f ( k, D)

(AASHTO, 1993)

37
 (AASHTO, 1993)

Loss of Support, LS

Subbase/subgrade
erosion at joints causes
Loss of Support,
impairs load transfer.

(AASHTO, 1993)

38
Loss of Support

(AASHTO, 1993)

(AASHTO, 1993)

39
 Next Slide

Consistent with flexible pavement approach!

(AASHTO, 1993)

Traffic vs. Analysis Period

(AASHTO,
(AASHTO,1993)
1993)

40
Joint Design

• Joint Types
„ Contraction
„ Expansion
„ Construction
„ Longitudinal
• Joint Geometry
„ Spacing
„ Layout (e.g., regular, skewed, randomized)
„ Dimensions
• Joint Sealant Dimensions

Types of Joints

• Contraction
„ Transverse
„ For relief of tensile stresses
• Expansion
„ Transverse
„ For relief of compressive stresses
„ Used primarily between pavement and structures (e.g., bridge)
• Construction
• Longitudinal
„ For relief of curling and warping stresses

41
Typical Contraction Joint Details

(Huang, 1993)

Typical Expansion Joint Detail

(Huang, 1993)

42
Typical Construction Joint Detail

(Huang, 1993)

Typical Longitudinal Joint Detail

Full Width Construction

(Huang, 1993)

43
Typical Longitudinal Joint Detail

Lane-at-a-Time Construction

(Huang, 1993)

Joint Spacing
• Local experience is best guide
• Rules of thumb:
„ JCP joint spacing (feet) < 2D (inches)
„ W/L < 1.25

44
 Joint Dimensions
• Width controlled by joint sealant extension
• Depths:
„ Contraction joints: D/4
„ Longitudinal joints: D/3
• Joints may be formed by:
„ Sawing
„ Inserts
„ Forming

Joint Sealant
Dimension

Governed by
expected joint
movement,
sealant resilience

(AASHTO, 1993)

45
Design Inputs

Z αc

(AASHTO, 1993)

Reinforcement Design (JRCP)

• Purpose of reinforcement is not to prevent cracking, but to hold tightly

closed any cracks that may form
• Physical mechanisms:
„ Thermal/moisture contraction
„ Friction resistance from underlying material
• Design based on friction stress analysis
(Huang, 1993)

46
Dowel Bars: Transverse Joint Load Transfer

• “…size and spacing should be determined by the local

agency’s procedures and/or experience.”
• Guidelines:
„ Dowel bar diameter = D/8 (inches)
„ Dowel spacing: 12 inches
„ Dowel length: 18 inches

Friction Stresses

Induces tensile stresses in concrete

Causes opening of transverse joints

(Huang, 1993)

47
 Applies to both longitudinal
and transverse steel reinforcement
(Generally, Ps=0 for L< ~15 feet)

(AASHTO, 1993)

Friction Factor

(AASHTO, 1993)

48
 Steel Working Stress

Based on preventing fracture and limiting permanent deformation.

(AASHTO, 1993)

Transverse
Tie Bars

(AASHTO, 1993)

49
 Transverse
Tie Bars

(AASHTO, 1993)

50