Windows Pavement Analysis Software (WinPAS) Guide

Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures

WinPAS12 (SW03)

Windows Pavement Analysis Software (WinPAS) Guide

Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures

This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided herein, and who will accept total responsibility for the application of this information. The American Concrete Pavement Association DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the application of the information contained in this publication to the full extent permitted by law. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in a review written for inclusion in a magazine or newspaper.

2012 American Concrete Pavement Association

ACPA is the premier national association representing concrete pavement contractors, cement companies, equipment and materials manufacturers and suppliers. We are organized to address common needs, solve other problems, and accomplish goals related to research, promotion, and advancing best practices for design and construction of concrete pavements.

ii | P a g e

Pavement and Overlay Design Based on the 1993 AASHTO "Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures"
This publication is to help familiarize engineers on the basics of concrete pavement design. It gives the background information that is essential to effectively design concrete pavements and overlays using the "AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures - 1993"1 design procedure via the ACPA's WinPAS software. Still, ACPA encourages every pavement design engineer to purchase a copy of the complete 93 AASHTO Design Guide for a complete reference. This publication is broken down into four chapters. The first two describe concrete pavement thickness design and overlay design according to Parts II and III (Chapter 5) of the 93 AASHTO Design Guide. Part II is entitled "Pavement Design Procedures for New Construction or Reconstruction," and Chapter 5 of Part III is entitled "Rehabilitation Methods with Overlays."1 The third chapter of this publication describes life-cycle costing procedures for a project level analysis. Life-cycle costing is a procedure that economically compares two competing design alternatives considering all significant costs over the economic life of each alternative, expressed in equivalent dollars. It includes initial cost, rehabilitation costs, maintenance and operation costs, user costs and residual value.

AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures - 1993 The final chapter of this publication is the users guide for the WinPAS software. The software is capable of conducting concrete and asphalt pavement designs and analyses, traffic conversions, life cycle cost analyses, and overlay designs and analyses. It is important to note that thickness design is only one aspect of good concrete pavement design. Another is jointing. Proper jointing is essential to ensure that a concrete pavement will perform for its intended design life. Unfortunately, it is often overlooked. For more information on jointing of concrete pavements, please refer to other ACPA publications, including: Design and Construction Joints for Concrete Highways (TB010P) Intersection Joint Layout (IS006P) P a g e | iii

Design and Construction Joints for Concrete Streets (IS061P) Concrete Pavement Field Reference: Pre-Paving (EB237P) Concrete Pavement Field Reference: Paving (EB238P) Concrete Intersections: A Guide for Design and Construction (TB019P)

iv | P a g e

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 New Concrete Pavement Design................................................................. 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Concrete Pavement Basics ...................................................................................... 1 AASHO Road Test....................................................................................................... 3 AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design Equation ................................................................ 6 Thickness ................................................................................................................. 6 Serviceability ............................................................................................................ 7 Environmental Effects........................................................................................... 8 Traffic (ESALs) ......................................................................................................... 9 Rigid versus Flexible ESALs................................................................................. 9 Load Equivalency Factors .................................................................................. 10 Determining Load Equivalency Factors .............................................................. 11 Asphalt LEFs vs. Concrete LEFs ........................................................................ 12 Load Transfer ......................................................................................................... 13 Load Transfer Coefficient (J) .............................................................................. 14 Concrete Properties ............................................................................................... 15 Flexural Strength, S'C ......................................................................................... 15 Center Point Flexural Strength ........................................................................... 16 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................ 16 The Importance of Using Average Strength ....................................................... 17 Modulus of Elasticity ........................................................................................... 18 Subgrade Support .................................................................................................. 19 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value) ........................................................... 19 Loss of Support .................................................................................................. 20 Determining Subgrade Support for Design ......................................................... 20 AASHTO Procedure to Determine the k-Value ................................................... 21 Determine Resilient Modulus .......................................................................... 21 Page |v

Convert Resilient Modulus to k-Value ............................................................. 21 Adjust k-Value for Depth to Rigid Foundation ................................................. 23 Adjust k-Value for Loss of Support.................................................................. 23 Seasonal Adjustment to the k-Value ............................................................... 23 Problems with the AASHTO Procedure to Determine Subgrade Support .......... 24 Loss of Support ............................................................................................... 25 CBR and R-Value Relationships to Mr ............................................................ 25 Inconsistencies between Base and No Subbase Conditions .......................... 25 The Resulting k-Values are Unrealistic ........................................................... 26 Recommended Values for the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .......................... 26 ........................................................................................................................... 27 Recommended k-Values for Subbases .............................................................. 28 AASHTO and the Benefits of Subbases ............................................................. 28 Coefficient of Drainage (Cd) ................................................................................... 29 Reliability ................................................................................................................ 30 Reliability (R) ...................................................................................................... 31 Standard Deviation (so)....................................................................................... 31 How Reliability Works ......................................................................................... 32 How ZR Relates to R ........................................................................................... 32 The Iterative Process ............................................................................................. 34 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 34 Summary ................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 2 Concrete Overlay Design........................................................................... 39 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 39 The AASHTO Overlay Design Steps ......................................................................... 41 Step 1. Determine Existing Pavement Information ................................................. 41 Step 2. Predict Future ESALs ................................................................................ 41 Step 3. Perform Condition Survey .......................................................................... 42 Step 4. Perform Deflection Testing ........................................................................ 42 Step 5. Perform Coring/Material Testing ................................................................ 43 Step 6. Determine the Required Structural Capacity for Future Traffic (SCf) ......... 43 vi | P a g e

Step 7. Determine the Existing Structural Capacity (SCeff)..................................... 43 Problems with Remaining Life ............................................................................ 44 Step 8. Determine Required Structural Capacity of the Overlay (SCOL) ................. 45 Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ............................................................ 45 Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ........................................................ 47 Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite .................................... 48 Bonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite ........................................ 50 Other Considerations ................................................................................................. 50 Other Concrete Overlay Design Procedures/Software .............................................. 51 Chapter 3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) ................................................................. 53 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53 Comparable Sections ................................................................................................ 53 Performing an LCCA.................................................................................................. 54 Step 1 Select Analysis Period ................................................................................. 54 Step 2 Select Discount Rate ................................................................................... 55 Selecting an Interest Rate ...................................................................................... 55 Selecting an Inflation Rate ..................................................................................... 56 Calculating the Real Discount Rate........................................................................ 56 Step 3 Estimate Initial Agency Costs ...................................................................... 56 Step 4 Estimate User Costs .................................................................................... 57 Step 5 Estimate Future Agency Costs .................................................................... 58 Maintenance and Operation Costs ......................................................................... 58 Preservation and Rehabilitation Timing and Costs................................................. 58 Step 6 Estimate Residual Value ............................................................................. 59 Residual Value through Recycling (Salvage Value) ............................................... 59 Residual Value through Remaining Service Life .................................................... 59 Residual Value as a Support Layer ........................................................................ 60 Step 7 Compare Alternatives .................................................................................. 60 Cash Flow Diagrams .............................................................................................. 60 Present Worth Calculations .................................................................................... 61 Annual Worth Calculations ..................................................................................... 62 P a g e | vii

Analysis Methods ................................................................................................... 62 Accounting for Material Inflation ............................................................................. 63 Comparison of Results ........................................................................................... 64 More Information on LCCA ........................................................................................ 64 Chapter 4. WinPAS Users Guide ................................................................................. 65 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 65 Menu Options ............................................................................................................ 65 File Menu ............................................................................................................... 66 Units Menu ............................................................................................................. 66 Help Menu .............................................................................................................. 66 Main Menu ................................................................................................................. 66 Project Tab ................................................................................................................ 67 Estimate ESALs Tab.................................................................................................. 67 Total ESALs by Axle Data ...................................................................................... 68 Total ESALs by Vehicle Type ................................................................................. 69 Total ESALs by Truck Factor ................................................................................. 71 Design/Evaluation Tab............................................................................................... 72 Concrete Pavement Design/Analysis ..................................................................... 72 Asphalt Pavement Design/Analysis........................................................................ 76 Asphalt Layer Determination .............................................................................. 78 Both Concrete and Asphalt Design/Analysis (Side-by-Side) .................................. 79 Overlays Tab ............................................................................................................. 80 Existing Pavement Information............................................................................... 81 Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete................................................................ 82 Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ........................................................... 84 Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt (Conventional Whitetopping) ................ 85 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Backcalculation .................................................... 86 NDT Backcalculation for Concrete Pavements ................................................... 87 NDT Backcalculation for Asphalt Pavements ..................................................... 88 NDT Backcalculation for Composite Pavements ................................................ 89 Life-Cycle Costs Tab ................................................................................................. 89 viii | P a g e

Economic Factors .................................................................................................. 90 Cost Graphs ........................................................................................................... 90 Pavement Cost Information .................................................................................... 91 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Results............................................................................ 93 Reports Tab ............................................................................................................... 94 Problems or Questions .............................................................................................. 94 References .................................................................................................................... 95

P a g e | ix

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

x|Page

Chapter 1 New Concrete Pavement Design

Introduction
Over the last 100 years, the science of concrete pavement design has fallen into two basic categories: mechanistic and empirical. Mechanistic pavement design is based upon a fundamental understanding of the materials (i.e., the concrete and soils). It is a true attempt to describe how the pavement responds to loads. Unfortunately, until very recently, mechanistic equations did not consider a number of practical factors relating to pavement performance and have only given an estimate of what could be expected in the field. Empirical models are based on known field pavement performance. Empirical models started being used in the 1920's when engineers began to examine the adequacy of their pavement design methods. The search for answers to many of their questions led to the development of controlled experiments or "road tests" of actual in-place pavements. The most complete road test to date is the AASHO (American Association of State Highway Officials) Road Test.1 In recent years, mechanistic and empirical design methods have been combined in various design methods, including ACPAs StreetPave software and AASHTOs DARWinMETM.

Concrete Pavement Basics There are three basic types of concrete pavements built in the United States: jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP), jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP), and continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP). The primary design detail that distinguishes each concrete pavement type from each other is the jointing system used to control natural crack development (Figure 1 on next page). Jointed plain concrete pavements contain enough joints so that the natural cracks occur at the joints and not elsewhere in the slab. The spacing between transverse joints for highways is typically about 15 ft (4.5 m). JPCP typically has deformed steel tie bars at the longitudinal joints to hold the lanes together, but they do not contain any other mesh-steel reinforcement. Depending on the slab thickness, JPCP may contain smooth steel dowel bars at transverse joints to improve load transfer (load transfer is a slab's ability to share part of its load with its neighboring slab). For highways, dowels should be used in pavements that are greater than 8.0 in. (200 mm) thick because of the large amounts of truck traffic such pavements typically carry.

Page |1

dowels should be based on other criteria, such as whether or not the road will be in a residential or industrialized area. JRCP contain steel mesh reinforcement (sometimes called distributed steel). With JRCP, designers purposely increase the joint spacing, and use reinforcing steel to hold the mid-panel cracks that will develop together. The spacing between transverse joints is typically about 30 ft (9 m). In the past, some agencies used spacing as great as 100 ft (30 m), but this was found to be excessive. For JRCP to perform, the amount of distributed steel within the pavement needs to be between 0.10% and 0.25% of the cross-sectional area. If there is not at least this amount of steel, the steel can corrode or rupture and the cracks can start to open, move, and deteriorate.4 For this reason, ACPA does not recommend building JRCP. CRCP does not have transverse joints. Rather, it is designed with high amounts of steel reinforcement to hold the transverse cracks that do develop tightly together. The cracks usually develop at intervals of 3-5 ft (1-1.5 m). Determining the appropriate amount of steel to control the crack spacing is part of the design process for the pavement type. This type of pavement was not evaluated at the AASHTO Road Test. Today, the majority of U.S. state agencies build JPCP. CRCP is common in some states for high traffic applications. Very few states still employ JRCP designs.

Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)

Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP)

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP)

Figure 1. Concrete Pavement Types JPCP under 7.0 in. (150 mm) is usually built without dowels and depend upon "aggregate interlock" for load transfer. Aggregate interlock is the mechanical locking that forms between the fractured surfaces along the crack below the joint saw cut. Undoweled JPCP is generally used for low-volume and secondary roads. For pavements between 7.0 to 8.0 in. (150 and 200 mm), the use of 2|Page

AASHO Road Test

The AASHO Road Test took place in Ottawa, Illinois (approximately 80 miles [130 km] southwest of Chicago) between 1956 and 1960 (Figure 2). The primary purpose of the Road Test was to determine a relationship between axle loading and pavement performance. Other purposes were to determine a relationship between the performance of concrete and asphalt pavements and the pavement design variables (base courses, thickness, shoulders, etc.) and to establish a more equitable taxation basis for the vehicles that use the roadways.2

3 through 6 were the main test loops and carried the heaviest traffic. After the Road Test was complete, these loops were reconstructed into what is now Interstate 80. Figure 3 shows the layout for the loops 3 through 6. Each loop had a test tangent of 6,800 ft (2,070 m). The south tangents and west turnarounds were concrete designs and the north tangents and east turnarounds were asphalt designs. The centerlines divided the pavements into inside and outside lanes. Each lane carried a different vehicle type and so was a different test section.

Figure 3. AASHO Loop Layout for Loops 3 through 6 In the asphalt pavements, every 100 ft (30 m) was a different design and therefore a new structural section. For the concrete pavements, the design sections changed every 120 ft (36.5 m) or 240 ft (73 m), depending on the type of rigid pavement. Any design could be located at any place in its test track to provide randomization and certain designs were duplicated in the same test track to provide replication. Page |3

Figure 2. The AASHO Road Test (Ottawa, IL) The Road Test itself consisted of six loops. Each loop was constructed as a parallel segment of a four-lane divided highway with a turnaround at each end. Loop 1 was the environmental loop and was not trafficked. Loop 2 was the light traffic loop. Both of these loops were smaller than the main test loops. Loops

In total, there were 368 concrete test sections and 468 asphalt test sections. The design variables for the concrete and asphalt pavements are shown in Table 1. Figure 4 shows the typical test traffic on the pavement test sections. All test vehicles were trucks. The single axles loads ranged from 2,000 to 30,000 Ibs (900 to 13,600 kg) and tandem axles loads ranged from 24,000 to 48,000 Ibs (10,890 to 21,780 kg). It is important to note that front axles were not considered load axles except in loop 2. Traffic ran on the test loops from November 1958 to December 1960 (25 months). The test vehicles operated for 18 hours 40 minutes per day for 6 days a week.2

Figure 4. AASHO Test Traffic and Loading

Table 1: Design Variables at the AASHO Road Test2 Concrete Pavement Variables
Surface Thickness, in. (mm) Subbase Thickness, in. (mm) Subbase Type 2.5 (63), 3.5 (89), 5 (127), 6.5 (165), 8 (203), 9.5 (241), 11 (279), 12.5 (318) 0 (0), 3 (76), 6 (152), 9 (229) Sandy-Gravel Materials Yes or No

Asphalt Pavement Variables

Surface Thickness, in. (mm) Base Thickness Base Type 1 (25), 2 (51), 3 (76), 4 (102), 5 (127), 6 (152) 0 (0), 3 (76), 6 (152), 9 (229), 19 (483) Crushed Stone, Gravel, AsphaltTreated, CementTreated 0 (0), 4 (102), 8 (203), 12 (305), 16 (406) All Sandy-Gravel Materials Yes or No

Wire Reinforcement

Subbase Thickness, in. (mm) Paved Shoulder

Paved Shoulders

Yes or No

4|Page

The average speed on the test loops was 35 mph (56 km/hr). In total, there were 1,114,000 load applications during the 25 months of testing with over 17 million miles (27 million km) driven.2 Figure 5 summarizes the results for loops 3 through 6 at the Road Test. These plots show the number of sections remaining above a given present serviceability index (PSI) plotted against load applications. The PSI is a rating from 0 (very poor) to 5 (very good) that describes the condition of the pavement. At the Road Test, pavements were considered to have failed when the PSI dropped below 1.5. Sections with a PSI above 2.5 at the end of the test were considered to have performed "good.3 From the tremendous amount of data collected during the AASHO Road Test, the engineers and statisticians working on the project developed a series of equations relating axle loads to pavement performance. The equations represent the predicted performance for the conditions at the Road Test for concrete and asphalt pavements. After the Road Test, AASHO published the prediction equations in the "AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Rigid Pavement Structures" and "AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Flexible Pavement Structures." In 1972, AASHTO consolidated and updated these documents into the "AASHTO Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures." (AASHO's name was changed to AASHTO [American

Association of Highway and Transportation Officials] in the early seventies.) It was this document which underwent the largest distribution and use by highway engineers. In 1981, the concrete pavement portion of the guide again received some minor revisions. In 1986, the guide was extensively revised into the "AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures." The 1986 version included many changes, such as the way subgrade support is characterized. It also introduced many new concepts, such as reliability, lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA), and pavement management.

Figure 5. Present Serviceability Index Trends for the AASHO Road Test Page |5

The 1986 guide was also the first guide to contain an overlay design procedure. Unfortunately, the overlay procedure was deficient, complicated, and incomplete. This made it difficult to understand and use. In 1993, the overlay design procedure was completely revised. This revised procedure addressed the deficiencies in the 1986 overlay design procedure, is more comprehensive and adaptable to local agency calibration, and is much easier to use and understand.

po = Initial serviceability pt = Terminal serviceability S'c = Concrete modulus of rupture, psi (MPa) Cd = Drainage coefficient J = Load transfer coefficient Ec = Concrete modulus of elasticity, psi (MPa) k = Modulus of subgrade reaction, psi/in. (MPa/m) Though the equation looks long and complicated, when it is broken down it is found that there are eight basic concepts that affect the concrete pavement design. They are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Thickness Serviceability Traffic Load transfer Concrete properties Subgrade strength Drainage properties Reliability

AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design Equation

The current AASHTO Rigid Design Equation as published in the 1986 and 1993 guide is as follows: () = ZR so + 7.35 Log(D + 1) 0.06 PSI Log 4.5 1.5 + (4.22 0.32 p ) + t 1.624 107 1+ 8 . 46 (D + 1)

where:

Sc Cd (D0.75 1.132) Log 18.42 0 . 75 215.63 J D (Ec /k)0.25

ESAL = Allowable number of equivalent 18-kip (80 KN) single axles ZR = Standard normal deviate so = Overall standard deviation D = Concrete thickness, in. (mm) PSI = po - pt 6|Page

Understanding the importance of each of these allows the engineer to properly design concrete pavements. The remainder of this section will explain each of the above concepts. Thickness The pavement thickness (D) is expressed in in. (mm). At the Road Test, concrete pavement thickness ranged from 2.5 to 12.5 in. (63 to 320 mm) [see Table 1]. Therefore, the AASHTO rigid pavement design equation is only valid within this range. When the resulting

pavement thickness is outside of this range, it is important to check the design with another procedure (i.e., StreetPave).5 Occasionally the AASHTO design procedure produces a pavement less than 4 in. (100 mm) thick for light traffic streets. Except for overlays, ACPA recommends a minimum concrete pavement thickness of 4 in. (100 mm) for automobiles and 5 in. (125 mm) for limited truck traffic. Further guidance on minimum pavement thickness is available in other ACPA publications.5,6,7,8,9 Under some conditions, such as a bridge overpass, the thickness is constrained, thus it becomes a design feature. In such cases, the designer can solve for the allowable traffic, or the concrete strength required to carry the estimated traffic. Serviceability Serviceability, or the present serviceability index (PSI), is a pavement's "ability to serve the type of traffic that uses the facility (e.g., automobiles, trucks, buses, etc)". It is a scaled index from 0 to 5 that represents different levels of deterioration (Figure 6). All pavements lie somewhere on this scale.

Figure 6. The Present Serviceability Index (PSI) Corresponds to These Subjective Descriptions of Pavement Performance Pavements with PSI rating of 5 are in perfect condition, while pavements with a PSI rating of 0 are impassable. For all practical purposes, there are no pavements that have a rating of 5 or 0. The AASHTO Pavement Design is based on the predicted loss or drop in serviceability (PSI) that will occur over the lifetime of the pavement due to traffic levels, axle loadings, and environment (Figure 7). The PSI is the difference between initial and terminal serviceability (Po Pt). Initial serviceably (Po) is the condition immediately after construction. Terminal serviceability (Pt) corresponds to the condition at which a pavement requires some type of rehabilitation in order to remain in service.

Page |7

The AASHO Road Test pavements were taken out of service when the PSI reached 1.5. Table 2 provides the recommended terminal PSI values for interstates and major highways, primary and secondary roads, and secondary routes and rural residential roads. Table 2: Recommended Terminal Serviceability (pt) Values for Various Roadway Classifications Terminal Serviceability
2.50 2.25 2.00

Figure 7. The 93 AASHTO Design is Based on the Serviceability Loss over the Lifetime of the Pavement Concrete pavements were built to an initial serviceability of 4.5 at the AASHO Road Test. Flexible pavements were built to the initial PSI of about 4.2. If no other information on the initial serviceability is available, the designer should use 4.5 for concrete and 4.2 for asphalt. With current construction procedures, modern techniques/ materials, and improved smoothness specifications, concrete pavements can be built with an initial serviceability of 4.7 or 4.8. The smoother a pavement is built, the higher its initial serviceability. A higher initial serviceability results in a larger PSI. Thus, pavements built smoother will last longer because they extend the serviceability curve and allow the pavement to carry more traffic over its lifetime (see Figure 7). The terminal serviceability is typically based on the type of roadway and the type of traffic it carries. Generally, highspeed highway traffic requires pavement in better condition than low-volume county or municipal streets. 8|Page

Roadway Classification
Interstate; Major Highways or Arterials Prime Secondary Routes; Industrial and Commercial Streets Secondary Routes; Residential Streets; Parking Lots

Environmental Effects According to the 1986 and 1993 guides, the primary reason for allowing adjustment to the initial serviceability is so the designer can consider long-term environmental effects like expansive or frost susceptible soils. The Road Test was an accelerated program that lasted only two years. Consequently, the design equation is somewhat limited in its ability to consider long-term environmental effects. To make environmental adjustment, use the following equation: PSITR = PSI PSIENV

where:

PSITR = PSI loss due to traffic PSI = Total PSI loss over the design life (po pt) PSIENV = PSI loss due to soil displacement or other environmental factors Appendix G of the 1993 guide provides further guidance for selecting the value for PSIENV. Though it is not difficult to determine the proper PSIENV, it is complex and time consuming. Determining the value requires an initial estimate of the pavement thickness and design life, some information on soil permeability, knowledge of the roadbed soil types, and information on drainage conditions and freeze-thaw cycles. The procedure requires several iterations to recalculate traffic effects and evaluate the changes these effects have on PSIENV. The impact of PSIENV on projected performance is fairly low over much of the U.S. Therefore, in most cases, the value of PSIENV can be set to zero and PSITR will equal PSI. This represents the same conditions as at the AASHO Road Test. Even if you may suspect that setting PSIENV to zero does not represent your design conditions, the range of typical values that you might expect for PSIENV is only from 0.0 to 0.7. In the worst case scenario, the resultant increase in calculated pavement thickness to carry a given traffic volume will only be about seven percent.

Traffic (ESALs) ESALs are the number and weight of all axle loads from the anticipated vehicles expected during the pavement design life expressed in 18,000 lbs or 18 kip (80 kN) equivalent single axle loads. In actual practice, highway engineers work with a variety of axle weights and configurations in a mixed traffic stream. At the AASHO Road Test, the engineers theorized that they could compare the damage to a particular pavement section by different axle configurations and loads to the damage caused by a standard axle. With that idea, they developed the concept of the Equivalent Single Axle Load or ESAL. Simply put, the design ESALs is all the traffic, with different vehicle types, axle types, and tire configurations converted into an equivalent number of 18 kip (80 kN) single axle loads. At the Road Test, the total number of ESALs ranged from a few thousand to over 10 million flexible and 20 million rigid ESALs for the heaviest trafficked test loop. Rigid versus Flexible ESALs Though the concept of ESALs sounds simple, it can be very confusing because there is a difference between rigid ESALs and flexible ESALs. Flexible ESALs are generally about 1/3 less than rigid ESALs, though the exact ratio varies depending on traffic, pavement thickness, and terminal serviceability.

Page |9

Table 3: Rigid and Flexible ESALs Generated by a Mixed Traffic Stream Vehicle
Busses Panel Trucks Single Unit, 2 Axle Trucks Semi-Tractor Trailer, 3 Axles Semi-Tractor Trailer, 4 Axles Semi-Tractor Trailer, 5 Axles Automobile, Pick-up, Van TOTAL

Number
5 10 20 10 15 15 425 500

Rigid ESALs
13.55 10.89 6.38 20.06 39.43 57.33 1.88 149.52

Flexible ESALs
8.73 11.11 6.11 13.41 29.88 36.87 2.25 108.36

Typical street design: concrete thickness = 7 in. (175 mm), flexible structural number = 3.5, pt = 2.5

This difference in ESALs can be misleading, especially when attempting to compare concrete (rigid) and asphalt (flexible) designs. It often causes the misconception that concrete pavements are over designed when compared to asphalt pavements. However, this is not so. The different rigid and flexible ESALs each describe the same traffic stream. An example is shown in Table 3. In this table, the traffic stream is made up of a mix of multiple unit trucks, single unit trucks, panel trucks, buses, cars, etc. There are 500 vehicles total on the roadway for that day. When the traffic is converted to ESALs, there are 149 rigid ESALs and 108 flexible ESALs. Though the values are different, they both describe the same 500 vehicles. Therefore, the ESAL counts are equivalent. To understand why rigid ESALs and flexible ESALs are different, one needs to understand how the traffic is converted to ESALs. 10 | P a g e

Load Equivalency Factors Traffic is converted to ESALs by multiplying each load by a load equivalency factor (LEF) *. LEFs are the ratio of the damage of a specific axle load on pavement serviceability to the damage produced by an 18 kip (80 kN) single axle load at the AASHO Road Test. Basically, LEFs measure damage (serviceability loss). An 18 kip (80 kN) single axle load (SAL) has a LEF of 1.0 because it does one unit of damage. SALs less than 18 kip (80 kN) do less than one unit of damage and SALs greater than 18 kip (80 kN) do more than one unit of damage. Table 4 shows a typical set of LEFs for a pavement. From it, some general observations can be made (note that the 18 kip (80 kN) single axle LEF is 1.0).
*

Load equivalency factors vary depending on pavement type (rigid or flexible), thickness, and serviceability. For a listing of load equivalency factors for different axle loads, configurations, and pavement types, see Appendix D of the AASHTO Guide.

Table 4: Typical Load Equivalency Factors (Flexible Pavement with pt = 2.5) Axle Type Axle Load, kip (kN)
2 (8.9) 10 (44.5) 14 (62.3) 18 (80.9) 20 (89.0) 30 (133) 2 (8.9) 10 (44.5) 18 (80.9) 30 (133) 34 (151) 40 (178) 50 (222)

LEF
0.0003 0.118 0.399 1.00 1.49 7.90 0.0001 0.011 0.042 0.703 1.11 2.06 5.03

Single

Essentially, this analysis illustrates that cars do very little structural damage and that pavements must be designed to carry trucks. Furthermore, it illustrates that over-loaded vehicles cause much more damage than an 18 kip (80 kN) SAL. This can greatly impact our nation's infrastructure if axle load limitations are raised. Determining Load Equivalency Factors LEFs can be based on any response that measures the difference between any two loading conditions. The AASHTO design procedure bases its LEFs on equivalent serviceability loss for a given pavement structure. Though it is possible to explain LEFs using the AASHTO procedure, it easier to understand them when examined mechanistically. In a mechanistic procedure, load equivalency factors can be based on equivalent stress, strain, or deflection at a given location. Figures 8A and 8B show how LEFs are determined based on given level of stress, strain or deflection for a concrete pavement and an asphalt pavement. In Figure 8A, the concrete pavement is loaded with an 18 kip (80 kN) SAL. This produces a stress or strain at the bottom of the concrete layer or a deflection at the top of the concrete. Loading the pavement with another load (X kip [kN] load on axle type Y) produces a different stress, strain, or deflection. Dividing the stress, strain, or deflection of an X kip [kN] load on axle type Y by the stress, strain, or deflection of an 18 kip (80 kN) P a g e | 11

Tandem

The first observation is that an 18 kip (80 kN) SAL does about 3,333 times more damage that the 2 kip (8.9 kN) SAL (e.g., 1.0 / 0.003 = 3,333). A similar comparison shows that a 30 kip (133 kN) SAL does about eight times more damage than the 18 kip (80 kN) SAL. Comparing tandem axle loads to the SAL, it can be seen that the tandem axles spread out the load and minimize the damage to the pavement. A 30 kip (133 kN) tandem axle load does only about 0.7 times the damage of a 18 kip (80 kN) single axle load. Compared to the 30 kip (133 kN) SAL, the tandem axle load does only about 0.1 the amount of damage.

Figure 8A and 8B. Load Equivalency Factor Determination for Concrete and Asphalt Pavements SAL produces a LEF for that load. Doing the same thing with a flexible pavement produces the comparable flexible LEF (Figure 8B). When the asphalt pavement is loaded, it produces different stresses, strains, or deflections than does the concrete pavement. The responses to the same applied load are different because the different pavement types respond differently to the load. Consequently, the LEF values that are calculated for the same vehicles on each pavement type are different. When the same traffic is multiplied by different LEFs, the ESALs calculated for each pavement type are different. The AASHTO equations are based on the same principle, except that they use a given serviceability loss (PSI) as the measure of damage. The equation to determine the LEF for concrete pavement or asphalt pavement is:
Number of repetitions of axle load X on axle type Y needed to give the same serviceability loss Number of repetitions of an 18 kip (80 kN) single axle load to cause a given serviceability loss

Asphalt LEFs vs. Concrete LEFs Because AASHTO bases its design and its LEFs on serviceability loss (Figure 7), the LEFs can be used to compare the amount of loads needed to cause the same amount of damage on a concrete or asphalt pavement. That is, the LEFs tell how many loads are necessary to cause the same amount of serviceability loss in the two pavement types. Table 5 shows the LEF for two approximately equivalent pavement sections: an asphalt pavement with a structural number (SN) equal to 4.0 and a concrete pavement that is 8 in. (200 mm) thick. As shown, the concrete pavement's LEFs are always higher than the asphalt pavement's LEFs for axle loads greater than 18 kips (80 kN) and always less for axle loads less than 18 kips (80 kN). It takes more trucks on a concrete pavement to cause the same damage or loss in serviceability than it does on an asphalt pavement.

LEF =

12 | P a g e

Table 5: LEF for Two Equivalent Pavement Sections Axle Load, kip (kN)
2 (8.9) 6 (26.7) 10 (44.5) 14 (62.3) 18 (80.9) 22 (97.9) 26 (116) 30 (133) 34 (151) 38 (169)

Asphalt LEF
0.0002 0.013 0.102 0.388 1.00 1.47 2.89 5.21 11.3 18.1

Concrete LEF
0.0002 0.010 0.082 0.347 1.00 1.55 4.42 7.79 12.9 20.6

This analytical look at the LEFs shows that each load does more damage to asphalt pavement than it does to a concrete pavement. Real world verification can be found by looking at the performance curve of any two similar designed and trafficked concrete and asphalt pavements (Figure 9).

For example, on a concrete pavement, the LEF for a 26 kip (118 kN) SAL is 4.42. This means that it takes 4.42 18 kips (80 kN) single axles to cause the same damage (serviceability loss) of one 26 kip (118 kN) single axle. On the asphalt pavement, the LEF for the 26 kip (118 kN) SAL is 2.82, which means it takes just 2.82 18 kips (80 kN) single axles to cause the same damage of one 26 kip (118 kN) single axle. For axle loads less than 18 kips (80 kN), it is an inverse relationship, it takes 9.8 (1/0.102 = 9.8) 10 kip (45 kN) loads to cause the damage of one 18 kips (80 kN) single axle on an asphalt pavement while it takes 12.2 (1/0.82 = 12.2) 10 kip (45 kN) loads on a concrete pavement.

Figure 9. Typical Serviceability Curves for Concrete and Asphalt Pavements Load Transfer Load transfer is a slab's ability to transfer part of its load to its neighboring slab. A slab with 100% load transfer shares its load (deflection and stress) equally with its neighboring slab. A slab with 0% load transfer shares none of its load (Figure 10). Generally, pavements with good load transfer have minimized faulting, less corner breaking, and better performance. In the AASHTO design procedure, load transfer is affected by the type of concrete pavement, by the presence of dowels, and by the presence of edge support (e.g., tied concrete shoulder, tied curb and gutter, or an extended lane; not asphalt or granular shoulders).

P a g e | 13

Figure 10. Diagram Showing Slabs with Excellent and Poor Load Transfer Figure 11 illustrates how dowels and edge support improve pavement performance. The pavement on the right has good load transfer (doweled and edge support) and the one on the left has poor load transfer (undoweled and no edge support). Loading both these slabs in the middle with a given load will produce nearly identical internal deflections, i. Loading the undoweled pavement with the same load at the outside, unsupported corner would produce a deflection that is about five times greater than the internal deflection (e.g., 5*i). At the inside supported corner (due to the adjacent longitudinal lane), the deflection would be 3*i. In the doweled pavement, the deflection at the outside pavement edge would be about 3*i and at the inside, supported corner, it would be about 2*i.

Figure 11. Diagram Showing How Shoulders and Dowels Effect Deflections in a Slab Load Transfer Coefficient (J) In the AASHTO design procedure, load transfer is accounted for with the load transfer coefficient, or J-factor. The Jfactor is based on how stress is transferred across the joint or crack. It is used to minimize corner cracking and it does not control or account for faulting. Faulting is not a failure criterion in the AASHTO design procedure; the only failure criterion is serviceability loss. This means that the J-factor cannot be used to control faulting. Nevertheless, this does not mean that a better J-factor does not affect faulting. It simply means that it was not taken into account in the development of the design equation. Better J-factors do decrease deflections (Figure 11) and, thus, minimize the potential for faulting.

14 | P a g e

The J-factor is dependent on the type of pavement, edge support condition and how load transfer is provided at the joint (or crack). Jointed pavements with dowels provide a higher level of load transfer than those relying strictly on aggregate interlock. CRCPs generally provide the highest level of load transfer. Table 6 shows recommended J-factors for typical concrete pavement designs (lower J-factors mean better load transfer). The designer simply selects a J-factor that is consistent with the type of pavement and edge support condition for the design. The J-factor also varies slightly with the expected design traffic and indirectly with pavement classification (e.g., local streets and roads, arterials, and heavy highways). The 93 AASHTO Design Guide actually provides less specific guidance for selecting the J-factor than provided in Table 6. ACPA believes that the more specific guidance in Table 6 is

necessary for uniform application of the J-factor in design of concrete pavements. Both JPCP and JRCP designs were evaluated at the Road Test and produced roughly equivalent performance. The J-factor value for the Road Test conditions was 3.2. Concrete Properties There are two concrete properties that influence rigid pavement design in the AASHTO design procedure. They are: S'c Concrete flexural strength determined at 28-days using third-point loading Ec Concrete modulus of elasticity Flexural Strength, S'C The concrete strength used in the design of concrete pavements is based on AASHTO Test Method T97 or ASTM C78, Flexural Strength of Concrete using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading (Figure 12).11

Table 6: Load Transfer Coefficients (J-Factors) for Typical Designs10 ESALs (millions) Doweled JPCP and all JRCP
No 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Yes 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7

* Tied concrete shoulder, tied or integral curb and gutter, or a widened lane all provide the same support conditions according to AASHTO. Asphalt or granular shoulders and no shoulders provide no support and therefore no benefit.

Up to 0.3 0.3 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 10 10 to 30 Over 30

Edge Support* No Yes 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.1 3.8 3.2 4.1 3.4 4.3 3.6

JPCP with Aggregate Interlock

CRCP
No ---2.9 3.0 3.1 Yes ---2.5 2.6 2.6

Pavement Class

Local Streets and Roads Arterials and Highways

P a g e | 15

Figure 12. Flexural Strength of Concrete using Third-Point Loading It is important that the third point loading 28-day flexural strength be used in the AASHTO equation. If the strength value is measured using some other test method, it must be converted to the 28day third-point strength. Center Point Flexural Strength Some agencies use the center-point flexural test (AASHTO T177 or ASTM C293) to determine their concrete strength (Figure 13).12 Center-point loading forces the beam to fail directly under the center of the loading. This may not be the weakest point in the beam. In third point loading, the entire middle one-third of the beam is stressed uniformly and thus the beam fails at its weakest point in the middle one-third of the beam. By forcing the beam to fail at the center, the center point flexural test results are somewhat higher than the third-point test results. Typically, center point results are about 15% greater. Though this relationship is not exact, it does provide a reasonable estimate of the concrete's average strength. 16 | P a g e

Figure 13. Flexural Strength of Concrete using Center-Point Loading Compressive Strength Many agencies use compressive strength of concrete cylinders (AASHTO T22 or ASTM C39)13 as an alternative to flexural strength testing. Several simple conversion equations, such as the one below, can convert 28-day compressive strengths to 28-day third point flexural strengths.
Sc = C

where:

S'c = Average 28-day thirdpoint flexural strength, psi (MPa) f'c = Average 28-day compressive strength, psi (MPa) C = Constant assumed to be between 8 and 10 for U.S. standard units (0.7 to 0.8 for metric units) for typical paving concrete; for U.S. units, the value of 9 (0.75) typically produces reasonable results for most designs

Table 7 shows typical value ranges for compressive strength, third point loading flexural strength, and center point loading flexural strengths for conventional concrete paving mixtures. A free strength converter app is available at http://apps.acpa.org. Table 7: Typical Comparison Values for Compressive Strength and Third Point and Center Point Flexural Strengths Comp, psi (MPa)
2,000 (13.8) 2,500 (17.2) 3,000 (20.7) 3,500 (24.1) 4,000 (27.6) 4,500 (31.0) 5,000 (34.5) 5,500 (37.9) 6,000 (41.4) 6,500 (44.8) 7,000 (48.3)

strength will cause the pavement to be too overdesigned. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the specified minimum strength to the design strength using the equation below:
Sc = Sc + z

where:

S'c = Estimated average in-field flexural strength Sc = Specified minimum flexural strength = Estimated standard deviation of the strength z = Standard normal deviate corresponding to the percent of results which can be below the specified strength To use this equation, the designer must know or have estimate values of: 1. The percent of strength tests permitted below the specified level. The standard deviation of the strength tests.

Third Point Flex, psi (MPa)

402 (2.78) 450 (3.10) 493 (3.40) 532 (3.67) 569 (3.92) 604 (4.16) 636 (4.39) 667 (4.60) 697 (4.81) 726 (5.00) 753 (5.19)

Center Point Flex, psi (MPa)

463 (3.19) 518 (3.57) 567 (3.91) 612 (4.22) 655 (4.51) 694 (4.79) 732 (5.05) 768 (5.29) 802 (5.53) 834 (5.75) 866 (5.97)

2.

The Importance of Using Average Strength Because of the way the 93 AASHTO Design Procedure uses reliability, it is strongly recommended that the expected average, in-field 28-day flexural strength (S'c) of the concrete be used in the design procedure (AASHTO T97 or ASTM C78). Using the specified minimum construction

The values for z are derived from basic statistics and are shown in Table 8. The standard deviation () of the strength test results depends upon the variability of the concrete and accuracy of the testing. Contractors generally use either central-mix or ready-mix plants to produce concrete. These plants are capable of providing very uniform concrete. P a g e | 17

Historically, the standard deviation for ready-mixed concrete is about 7 to 13 percent of the average strength. The standard deviation for central-mixed concrete is from 5 to 12 percent of the average strength. Generally, records of the standard deviation from past plant operations are available. Table 8: Values of the Standard Normal Deviate (z) corresponding to the Percent of Tests below the Specified Strength (Sc) z
0.841 1.037 1.282 1.645 2.327

Example: Suppose that you want to design a small street project. You know that several local operators supply most of the concrete in your area using ready-mixed concrete. You also know that you will specify concrete with a minimum 28-day flexural strength of 550 psi (3.79 MPa) and your specification will permit 10 percent of tests to fall below that level. What strength do you use in the AASHTO design equation? Step 1: Estimate the strength as 9 percent of the flexible strength or call several ready mix operators to determine the value. Since you do not know the actual average strength, use the specified value for S'c (it will be fairly close). The value for then becomes: = 0.09*550 psi = 49.5 psi Step 2: Estimate the design strength to use in the equation. Apply the correction for a 10 percent failure rate (z = 1.282 from Table 8): Sc = 550 + 1.282*49.5 Sc =613 psi (4.22 MPa) Thus, 613 psi (4.22 MPa) is used in the design equations.
Note: The same principle applies if compressive strengths are used. The corrected compressive strength would be converted to third-point flexural strength using the relationship previously shown.

Percent of Specimens Below the Specified Value

20 15 10 5 1

The example to the right demonstrates the above procedure to account for the average in-field 28-day flexural strength. Modulus of Elasticity The other concrete property in the AASHTO design procedure is the modulus of elasticity, Ec. Ec indicates how much the concrete will compress under load. Concretes with a very high Ec are very rigid and do not compress much. Concrete with a lower Ec compresses more under load. In the concrete pavement equation, Ec is the most insensitive parameter and has only a minor impact on thickness design or projected performance. 18 | P a g e

Although Ec can be tested using ASTM Test Method C469,14 or an equivalent, it is rarely done in practice. It is usually estimated from either the flexural or the compressive strength. The following two equations are from the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and provide reasonable estimates.15 To get Ec from flexural strength:
Ec () = 6,750 Sc ()

Subgrade Support In all pavements, the load is eventually transmitted to the subgrade. Though bases, subbases, and soil modifications are used to increase the support strength and protect the subgrade, it is the natural subgrade that must be used as the starting point for support characterization. For concrete pavements, the primary requirement of the subgrade is that it be uniform. This is the fundamental reason for specifications on subgrade compaction. A good quality subgrade will improve the performance of the pavement. In the AASHTO design procedure for concrete pavements, the strength of the soil is described by two subgrade properties: 1. 2. Modulus of subgrade reaction, or k-value Loss of support factor (LOS)

To get Ec from compressive strength:

Ec ( ) = 57,000 c ( )

The free strength converter app available at http://apps.acpa.org also can convert to modulus of elasticity in both U.S. and metric units. As was the case with the previous correlation equations for strength, the above correlation is not exact. It is a close estimate and can be relied on to evaluate projected performance within a reasonable margin of error. The ranges of values for Ec that are reasonable depend largely on the strength of the concrete. Typical values are from 3.5 to 5 million psi (21,400 to 34,500 MPa). The average Ec obtained at the Road Test was 4.2 million psi (29,000 MPa) and is an acceptable value for design.

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value) The modulus of subgrade reaction is determined by the plate load test (AASHTO T235 or ASTM D1194).16 The plate load test models the subgrade as a bed of springs and the k-value is analogous to a spring constant. In fact, the k-value is sometimes referred to as the subgrade "spring constant."

P a g e | 19

The test involves placing a 30 in. (762 mm) diameter plate on the subgrade and loading it with a very heavy load. The plate distributes the load to the subgrade via the pressure of the plate (Figure 14). The k-value is found by dividing the plate pressure by plate deflection under the load. The units for k-value are psi/in. (MPa/m).

Subbases can be made from either unbound granular materials or stabilized materials. Stabilized subbases include lean concrete (econocrete) subbase, cement-treated subbase, asphalttreated subbase, and lime-fly ash stabilized subbase. When a subbase is used, the k-value for design is increased to a "composite k" (kc) to account for the additional support provided by the subbase. Loss of Support The loss of support (LOS) accounts for the expected erosion and differential movements of the subbase or subgrade over the life of the pavement. Essentially, it reduces the k-value based on the size of the void that may develop beneath the slab. A LOS factor of 0 is equivalent to the conditions at the AASHO Road Test and the predominant JPCP and JRCP failure mode at the Road Test was pumping/faulting due to the clay soils at the site; thus, using a LOS of 0 is conservative. Determining Subgrade Support for Design Though the k-value is determined by the plate load test, this test is rarely performed in the field. It is an expensive and very slow test. Furthermore, it does not give much information. It only tells what the k-value is at a single point. A change in soil type, depth to bedrock, moisture conditions, location along the grade, etc. will change the results.

Figure 14. Photo of a Plate Load Test In all but low volume applications, the pavement is constructed on some type of subbase placed over the subgrade. The subbase material is used to provide a uniform support layer and a strong construction platform. Typically it is less erodible than the subgrade, which limits the pumping of material from beneath the slabs. 20 | P a g e

The 93 AASHTO Design Guide recognized this and developed the following multi-step procedure, detailed in Part II of the 93 Guide, to estimate kvalue. It is based on the soil resilient modulus, Mr, used in the asphalt pavement design. The procedure is: 1. Determine Mr a. AASHTO T29417 b. Correlate to CBR18 or Rvalue19 2. Convert Mr to k-value 3. Adjust for effects of a rigid foundation 4. Adjust for LOS ACPA does not recommend following this procedure because it produces unrealistic results. If followed, the procedure increases the k-value to unreasonably high values and then reduces it back to unreasonably low values using the loss of support. Still, it is important to understand the basic procedure and issues with it. The next section will describe how to determine the k-value using the above procedure as well as the errors in it. Following it, we will show what we consider to be more realistic values for the design of concrete pavements. AASHTO Procedure to Determine the kValue Determine Resilient Modulus The resilient modulus measures the recoverable deformation of a dynamically loaded test specimen at any stress level. Like the modulus of

subgrade reaction (k-value), Mr indicates the stiffness of the layer immediately under the pavement. The Mr is determined from AASHTO T294, Resilient Modulus of Unbound Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils. However, it is recognized that many agencies do not have the equipment to perform this test. Therefore, AASHTO recommends the following correlation equations to relate the resilient modulus to the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or the R-value. Mr(psi) = 1,500*(CBR) Mr(psi) = 1000 + 555*(R-value) Convert Resilient Modulus to k-Value Once Mr is determined or estimated, it is converted to a k-value by one of two ways, depending on whether a subbase is present or not. If there is no subbase the k-value is calculated as: k-value = Mr/19.4 If there is a subbase, Figure 3.3 from part 2 of the AASHTO guide is used (reproduced here as Figure 15). This figure estimates the "composite k-value" (kc), which represents the additional strength provided by the subbase.

Lime treated soils should be considered as a base course. The subgrade k-value used for design is a "composite kvalue" starting with the k-value of the actual subgrade and not the modified soil. This applies to asphalt pavements as well, although resilient modulus is used instead of k-value. In no case should the subgrade soil be ignored in design.

P a g e | 21

Figure 15. Chart for Estimating Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, Assuming a Subgrade Depth Greater than 10 ft (3 m) [Figure 3.3, part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide]

22 | P a g e

Adjust k-Value for Depth to Rigid Foundation This step accounts for the proximity of the pavement to bedrock. When a pavement is within 10 ft (3 m) of the bedrock, the confining pressure of the bedrock causes the subgrade support to increase. This step is disregarded when the depth to the rigid foundation is greater than 10 ft (3 m). To adjust for the depth to a rigid foundation, Figure 3.4 from part 2 of the AASHTO guide is used (reproduced here as Figure 16)

Adjust k-Value for Loss of Support After the k-value is calculated, it is adjusted for LOS using Figure 3.6 from part 2 of the AASHTO guide (reproduced here as Figure 17). A LOS of 0 represents Road Test conditions. Seasonal Adjustment to the k-Value AASHTO also recommends doing this procedure for each month of the year to reflect seasonal changes. However, because the Road Test ran year round for several seasons, impacts of seasonal changes of the k-value are inherent in the AASHTO equations.

Figure 16. Chart to Modify k-Value to Consider Effects if Foundation is within 10 ft (3 m) of the Surface [Figure 3.4, part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide]

P a g e | 23

Furthermore, for concrete pavement, these adjustments have very little effect on the final results. For this reason, seasonal adjustments have not been included in WinPAS. For further information, consult the AASHTO guide. Problems with the AASHTO Procedure to Determine Subgrade Support As mentioned, there are several problems with the current AASHTO procedure to determine the subgrade

support values. The most glaring errors deal with: 1. 2. 3. The LOS factor, The accuracy of the CBR and R-value relationships to Mr, Inconsistencies with the relationships between k-value and Mr for base and no subbase that occur with high in-situ Mr values, and Unrealistic resulting k-values.

4.

Figure 17. Correction of Effective k-Value for Potential Loss off Support [Figure 3.6, part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide]

24 | P a g e

Loss of Support This factor reduces the k-value for an expected loss of support by subgrade erosion. A LOS = 0 models the soil conditions at the AASHO Road Test. A closer look at the soils at the Road Test show that it consisted of three feet of embankment with these properties: AASHO A-6 (clay) Group Index = 9-13 Plastic Index = 11-15 Liquid Limit = 27-32 80-85% passing the #200 (75 m) sieve Figure 18. Relationships between Resilient Modulus and CBR or R-value [from ACPAs MC016P, WinPAS Pavement Analysis Software] ACPA has developed two non-linear relationships, based on NCHRP Report 128, Evaluation of the AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures,20 to more accurately estimate Mr from CBR or R-value: Mr () = 1941.488 CBR0.6844709

Loss of support was the primary failure mode of concrete pavements at the AASHO road test. The pumping of subbase fines from underneath the slabs preceded all cracking. Therefore, the effects of LOS are inherent in the equation that predicts concrete pavement performance or serviceability loss. As a result, this additional factor is unnecessary. ACPA recommends setting the loss of support factor to 0 for all designs. Necessary improvements in subgrade or subbase support should be made using an improved subbase material or improved drainage design. CBR and R-Value Relationships to Mr The AASHTO CBR and R-value to Mr relationships are considered reasonable only for fine-grained soils (e.g., CBR less than 10 or R-value less than 20). These two equations greatly over estimate Mr values at higher CBRs and R-values (Figure 18).

As shown in Figure 18, these equations better follow the actual values, leading to better prediction or correlation. Inconsistencies between Base and No Subbase Conditions The relationships between k and Mr for the base and no subbase can give inconsistent values, especially with high in-situ Mr values. P a g e | 25

Mr ( ) = 2165.935 e0.0343507Rvalue

For example, assume that a soil has been tested and has a Mr of 12,000 psi (82.7 MPa). In the case with no base, the subgrade k-value is calculated in the AASHTO method by: k-value = Mr /19.4 = 12,000 psi/19.4 = 619 psi/in. When a 6 in. (150 mm) unstabilized (granular) subbase with a resilient modulus of 25,000 psi (173 MPa) is placed over this soil, the composite kvalue decreases: k = 572 psi/in. (from Fig 15) This is obviously not correct. The subbase course is stronger, provides better support, and will improve the pavement's performance. This inconsistency in the AASHTO method becomes greater as the Mr value increases. The Resulting k-Values are Unrealistic Probably the most compelling reason not to follow the AASHTO procedure to estimate k-values is that it does not produce realistic results. Historical and theoretical values for the types of subgrades and subbases found under concrete pavements typically are in the range of 50 to 550 psi/in. (13 to 150 MPa/m). Using the AASHTO procedure, it is possible to get values as high as 2,000 psi/in. (540 MPa/m). Furthermore, the ranges that can be derived can be extremely large.

Table 9 shows a comparison of historical and AASHTO derived values for different types of subgrades and subbases. As can be inferred, this disparity can affect designs greatly. Table 9: Comparison of Historical and AASHTO derived k-Values Layer Type
Silts & Clays Granular AsphaltTreated CementTreated

Historical k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)

60-100 (16-30) 150-250 (40-68) 300-400 (80-108) 405-550 (110-150)

AASHTO k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)

10-20 (2.7-5.4) 12-73 (3.5-20) 95-128 (25-35) 128-400 (35-110)

Recommended Values for the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Though the AASHTO procedure does not produce reasonable k-values, the basic premise of relating it to other soil properties is reasonable. Furthermore, an exact value is not required. Normal variations from an estimated value will not appreciably affect pavement thickness (e.g., an error in the k-value of 100 percent only increases or decreases a typical pavement thickness by about 0.4 in. [10 mm]). Figure 19 shows relationships that are satisfactory for design purposes.

26 | P a g e

Figure 19. Approximate Interrelationships of Soil Classifications and Bearing Values [from ACPA EB109P, Thickness Design for Concrete Highways and Street Pavements] P a g e | 27

Because Figure 19 does not contain Mr, ACPA has developed a correlation equation for Mr to k-value that, when used in conjunction with the previously mentioned ACPA correlations from CBR or R-value to Mr, will result in k-values that match those in Figure 19. The Mr to k-value correlation equation is: If Mr 15,089: k = Mr 0.0000001155 Mr 2 0.0004683533 Mr + 41.1348117373 k = Mr 0.0000000106 Mr 2 0.0007608054 Mr + 69.4602909796

Table 10: Approximate Composite kValues (kc) for Various Subbase Types and Thickness Unstabilized (Granular) Subbase Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)
Subgrade k-value, pci/in. (MPa/m) 50 (14) 100 (27) 150 (41) 200 (54) 4 in. (100 mm) 65.2 (17.6) 130 (35.1) 175 (47.3) 220 (59.4) 6 in. (150 mm) 75.2 (20.3) 140 (37.8) 185 (50.0) 230 (62.1) 9 in. (230 mm) 85.2 (23.0) 160 (43.2) 215 (58.1) 270 (72.9) 12 in. (305 mm) 110 (29.7) 190 (51.3) 255 (68.9) 320 (86.4)

If Mr > 15,089:

Asphalt-Treated Subbase Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)

Subgrade k-value, pci/in. (MPa/m) 50 (14) 100 (27) 150 (41) 200 (54) 4 in. (100 mm) 85.2 (23.0) 152 (41.0) 217 (58.6) 280 (75.6) 6 in. (150 mm) 112 (30.2) 194 (52.4) 271 (73.2) 345 (93.2) 9 in. (230 mm) 155 (41.9) 259 (69.9) 353 (95.3) 441 (119) 12 in. (305 mm) 200 (54.0) 325 (87.8) 437 (118) 541 (146)

See http://apps.acpa.org for free apps to easily convert CBR or R-value to Mr and then to k-value. Recommended k-Values for Subbases When a subbase is used, there is an increase in the k-value. The magnitude of the increase depends on whether the subbase is stabilized (treated) or unstabilized (untreated). Table 10 shows an approximate increase of k-value based on the type of subbase and its thickness. A composite k-value calculator also is available at http://apps.acpa.org. AASHTO and the Benefits of Subbases It is not economical to use a base or subbases for the sole purpose of increasing the k-value. An increase of kvalue from 90 psi/in. (25 MPa/m) to 500 psi/in. (135 MPa/m) will only decrease thickness by about 10 percent. 28 | P a g e

Cement-Treated Subbase Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)

Subgrade k-value, pci/in. (MPa/m) 50 (14) 100 (27) 150 (41) 200 (54) 4 in. (100 mm) 103 (27.8) 185 (50.0) 263 (71.0) 348 (94.0) 6 in. (150 mm) 148 (40.0) 257 (69.4) 357 (96.4) 454 (123) 9 in. (230 mm) 222 (59.9) 372 (100) 506 (137) 634 (171) 12 in. (305 mm) 304 (82.1) 496 (134) 664 (179) 823 (222)

Subbases and bases are primarily used to prevent the pumping of fines from underneath the slab. Secondarily, they are used to help control frost heave and swelling soils, provide a drainage layer when needed, and provide a working platform for construction. The current AASHTO design does not model the contribution of subbases accurately. At the AASHO Road Test, it was found that the concrete pavements with any granular subbase could carry about 30% more traffic. The current design procedure allows concrete pavements built with granular bases to carry only about 5 to 8% more traffic. This indicates that concrete pavements built with granular subbases should perform better than predicted by the AASHTO design equations. Coefficient of Drainage (Cd) Trapped water within a pavement structure is one of the primary contributors to pavement distresses. It can lead to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Reduced strength of unbound granular materials. Reduced strength of subgrade soils. Pumping of fines. Differential heaving/swelling of soils. Loss of structural support. Pavement settlement and/or faulting.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Subgrade soil that will go into suspension. Free water between slab and subgrade. Frequent heavy wheel loads with large deflections. Poor load transfer between slabs.

Controlling any one of these items will minimize pumping. Edge drains and free-draining subbase layers help minimize the free water between the slab and subgrade and thus minimize the amount of pumping. Dowels and edge support also minimize pumping by controlling the deflections of heavy wheel loads. The use of improved drainage, dowels, and edge support will definitely lead to improved performance. In the AASHTO design procedure, drainage is accounted for by use of the drainage coefficient (Cd). The drainage coefficient accounts for improved or decreased quality of drainage over those conditions at the Road Test. Table 11, taken from the AASHTO guide, provides recommended Cd values. The value of Cd depends on the quality of drainage and percent of time the pavement is exposed to moisture levels approaching saturation. Because the Cd value depends on the saturation of the subgrade/subbase, it is possible for a pavement in a dry environment with poor drainage to perform as well as a pavement in a wet environment with excellent drainage.
As mentioned, the subgrade soil at the AASHTO Road Test was very poor (clay). Though the pavement was designed with elevated cross-sections and drainage ditches, edge drains were not used. Thus, the subgrade below the Road Test pavements was not welldrained.

For concrete pavements, the major item that drainage control is the pumping of fines. The conditions that lead to pumping are:

P a g e | 29

Table 11: Recommended Values of the Drainage Coefficient (Cd) for Concrete Pavement Design Quality of Drainage
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Percent of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed to Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation

< 1% 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 0.90 1% - 5% 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.80 5% - 25% 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 > 25% 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70

Appendix DD of Volume II of the 1993 guide offers the following definitions for quality of drainage: Excellent Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 2 hours. Good Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 1 day. Fair Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 7 days. Poor Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 1 month. Very Poor Drainage - Soil does not drain.

As a basis for comparison, a Cd value of 1.00 represents conditions at the AASHTO Road Test. Thus, a Cd value of 1.00 has no impact on the design. Lower Cd values increase the required pavement thickness and higher values decrease the required thickness. Caution is recommended when using drainage coefficients of less than 1.00. Because the subgrade soils at the Road Test were very poorly draining soils, the AASHTO design equations already account for a large degree of poor drainage. Values less than 1.00 would indicate conditions worse than that of the AASHO Road Test. Open-graded, free-draining subbases and freedraining soils which can be maintained can be modeled with a drainage coefficient greater than 1.00.

Reliability Reliability (R) accounts for the chance variation in traffic predictions, performance predictions, concrete material properties, subgrade support conditions, etc. It incorporates some degree of certainty into the design process to ensure that the pavements will survive the analysis period for which they are designed. In the AASHTO design procedure there are two basic statistical factors that make up reliability: 1. 2. Reliability (R) Standard deviation (s0)

30 | P a g e

It is important to note that by treating reliability and standard deviation as separate design factors, conservative estimates for all the other design inputs should no longer be used. Rather, all input values should be input as the best estimate of the average in-place, in-field values. The selected level of reliability and overall standard deviation will account for the combined effect of the variation of all the other design variables. Reliability (R) Reliability is the statistical probability that the pavement will meet its design life. Essentially, reliability tells how much of the pavement will be operative at the end of its design life. For example, a pavement designed with 90% reliability will have 90% of the pavement in operational condition at the end of the design period, and only 10% of the pavement will have "failed." Evaluating the acceptable level of risk for the design is necessary when choosing an appropriate reliability. High levels of reliability, or low risk, are appropriate for high traffic volume pavements in urban areas where future repairs are difficult and undesirable. Medium or low levels of reliability are appropriate for lower levels of traffic or rural areas where repairs pose little difficulty and more risk is tolerable. The lowest reliability level, 50%, corresponds to local roads.

Table 12 presents recommended levels of reliability for different roadway classifications. When comparing two different pavement sections (e.g., a new concrete section to a new asphalt section, two different concrete sections, or two different asphalt sections), the same level of reliability for each must be used. When an existing pavement is being analyzed, it must be evaluated with the reliability equal to 50%. Table 12: Suggested Reliability Levels for Various Functional Roadway Classifications Recommended Reliability (R), % Urban
85 99.9 80 99 80 95 50 80

Classification
Interstate & Other Freeways Principal Arterials Collectors Local

Rural
80 99.9 75 99 75 95 50 80

Standard Deviation (so) Standard deviation is the amount of statistical error present in the design equations due to the variability in the materials, construction, etc. It represents the amount of scatter between predicted performance and actual performance. To determine the true value of s0 requires knowledge of the individual s0 values of each parameter (strength, elasticity, soil support, etc.). Obtaining this information is fairly difficult.

P a g e | 31

A typical range of s0 values for each pavement type are published in the 93 AASHTO Design Guide: Concrete Pavements: 0.30 < s0 < 0.40 Asphalt Pavements: 0.40 < s0 < 0.50 The actual s0 value for concrete pavements at the Road Test, where the conditions were controlled and exactly known, was 0.25. AASHTO recommends increasing the s0 value to account for error in traffic projections. When lacking better information on the value of s0 for a particular situation, 0.35 and 0.45 are appropriate values for concrete and asphalt pavement design, respectively. How Reliability Works Understanding reliability requires understanding the design curve and its relationship to the performance curve. In Figure 20, the performance curve represents the average pavement performance at the AASHO Road Test. The AASHTO concrete pavement design equation defines its shape and its intersection with the various PSl levels for all combinations of concrete sections tested at the Road Test. This curve passes through the average Road Test PSl values and represents a reliability level of 50 percent. Figure 20. How Reliability Shifts Performance Curve to Obtain a Design Curve The design curve is offset from the performance curve based on the specified reliability chosen by the user. Essentially, the design curve is shifted from the performance curve by an amount equal to s0 multiplied by the standard normal deviate (ZR) for a given level of reliability (ZR is the standard normal deviate for the normal distribution at a given value of reliability). How ZR Relates to R ZR is the degree of offset from the average PSl value, as shown in Figure 21. Basically, it describes the area under the curve, which is the probability of success or failure. Using statistics and the standard normal distribution curve, the ZR value is selected so that the percentage of the area enclosed by the curve is the desired level of reliability, R (the area to the right of the offset).

32 | P a g e

Table 13: Standard Normal Deviate (ZR) Values Corresponding to Selected Levels of Reliability Reliability (R), %
50 75 80 90 95 97 99 99.9

Standard Normal Deviate (ZR)

0.000 -0.674 -0.841 -1.282 -1.645 -1.881 -2.327 -3.090

Figure 21. Standard Normal Curve The engineer selects the appropriate ZR value after choosing the desired level of reliability. For example, a 50% level of reliability corresponds to a ZR of 0.0 (50% of the area under the curve is to the right of the average or mean value). At a higher level of reliability (e.g., 95%) the appropriate ZR value is chosen so that 95 percent of the area under the curve is to the right of the average value. An engineer can choose ZR values for any desired reliability. ZR values are available in most statistics textbooks. Typical values used for pavement design are shown in Table 13. Once the R and s0 values are known, the offset between the design and performance curve is established. The end result is basically a load safety factor or a multiplier of the allowable ESALs. The predicted design ESALs in the AASHTO equation are multiplied by the safety factor in order to ensure the design performance is met.

For example, when a pavement is designed at 50 percent reliability, the predicted design ESALs are multiplied by a safety factor of 1.0 (no safety factor). When designed at 80% reliability, the predicted ESALs are multiplied by a safety factor of 1.97. Essentially, the pavement will be able to carry about 100 percent more ESALs than the predicted design ESALs. A pavement with a 95 percent level of reliability will, on average, carry about 3.75 times more ESALs than that for which it is designed (e.g., the predicted ESALs using all the same inputs but a reliability of 50% such that the AASHO performance curve is followed). For more information on reliability, see Chapter 4 in the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide.

P a g e | 33

The Iterative Process The AASHTO design procedure is an iterative process. It requires the designer to know the volume and types of axle loads, the desired terminal serviceability (pt), an estimate of the required pavement thickness, etc. If you do not have a "feel" for the probable range of thicknesses for your design traffic, start with a concrete surface course thickness of 9 in. (230 mm). After determining the design pavement thickness using the estimated values, the designer should check the results against the ESAL calculations. If the assumed pavement thickness is within five percent of the design pavement thickness, the results are reasonable. However, if the computed pavement thickness is greater than five percent, the design ESALs should be recalculated using the last design thickness, and the whole design re-run. In practice, ESAL recalculation will probably not significantly affect the new pavement thickness. However, the iterative process is technically correct. Sensitivity Analysis One of the frequent pieces of information missing in a pavement design is which variables will most influence the required thickness. Figure 22 shows the change in thickness over the typical range of each design variable. These graphs illustrate the relative importance of each variable and how a change in each design input will affect the final design for this set of inputs. 34 | P a g e

If a change in a variable produces a steep slope in the graph, the required thickness is sensitive to changes in that variable. If the slope is relatively flat, the required thickness is not very sensitive to the variable. The baseline design for generation of the plots in Figure 22 was: Design ESALs: 6,142,000 Reliability (R): 80% Overall standard deviation (s0): 0.34 Modulus of rupture (Sc): 600 psi (4.14 MPa) Modulus of elasticity (Ec): 4,000,000 psi (27.6 MPa) Load transfer (J): 3.2 (e.g., doweled w/o edge support) Modulus of support (k-value): 200 psi/in. (54 MPa/m) Drainage Coefficient: 1.0 Initial Serviceability: 4 Terminal Serviceability: 2

These basic inputs resulted in a required concrete pavement thickness of 9 in. (230 mm). It is important to note that, while the general trends will remain true, the magnitude in change of required thickness shown in these sensitivity plots is unique to this set of inputs.
Note: If a reliability of 50% had instead been used, ZR would have been zero and the ZR*s0 term will drop from the AASHTO concrete pavement design equation. In such cases, as is the case with analysis of an existing pavement, the thickness is completely unchanged by changes in the overall standard deviation.

Figure 22. Charts Illustrating the Sensitivity of each Variable in the AASHTO Design Equation on Design Thickness (in inches)

P a g e | 35

As shown, the variables with the largest effect on the required thickness are reliability, load transfer, drainage coefficient, and flexural strength. It is critical that proper thought be given to each of these variables in the design. Under- or over-estimating their actual value can impact the design greatly. The least sensitive variables are the standard deviation and concrete modulus of elasticity. While the designer might investigate the sensitivity of the design on variables such as load transfer, drainage coefficient, standard deviation and initial/final serviceability, many of these variables typically are standardized based on local practice and experience. Thus, the remaining design variables oftentimes are the focus of a designer who is looking to optimize the design. Most of the effects shown in the reliability sensitivity chart do occur over a small range of very high reliability levels (e.g., 95% to 99.9%); at levels below 95%, the impact of reliability drops considerably. For this reason, caution is recommended when deciding what reliability factor to use. When choosing a high reliability, all the design procedure does is increase the thickness. However, most concrete pavements do not fail because of inadequate thickness; rather, they typically fail because of poor jointing or material problems. Therefore, using a high reliability can cause the design to be overly conservative. 36 | P a g e

Modulus of rupture (flexural strength) and modulus of elasticity go hand-inhand. If the designer chooses to increase the flexural strength to see if the required thickness can be decreased, the modulus of elasticity must also be increased because stronger concrete mixtures generally also are more rigid. Regardless, the designer should consider ancillary effects of increased strength (e.g., fracture toughness typically is decreased [and, thus, crack propagation occurs more quickly] in stronger, stiffer concrete mixtures). For most designers, the k-value is the design element in concrete pavement design that tends to garner the most focus when the goal is to optimize the pavement structure. However, as can be seen on the chart, composite k-value has relatively little impact on the required thickness. From a design perspective **, an engineer really only needs to know if the pavement is going to be built on the natural subgrade (k-value 100 psi/in.
**

This does not mean the condition of the subgrade is unimportant. For concrete pavements, the most important objective of the subgrade support is that it be uniform throughout the pavement's life. Proper subgrade design and construction are absolutely necessary if the pavement is to perform. Likewise, poor subgrade/subbase preparation cannot be overcome with thickness increases. Any concrete pavement, of any thickness, will have problems on a poorly designed and constructed subgrade or subbase. For more information on subgrades and subbases, see ACPAs EB204P, Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements.

[25 MPa/m]), an unstabilized/granular subbase (k-value 150 psi/in. [40 MPa/m]), an asphalt-treated subbase (kvalue 200 psi/in. [54 MPa/m]), a cement-treated subbase (k-value 250 psi/in. [68 MPa/m]), or a lean concrete subbase (k 500 psi/in. [125 MPa/m]). Any changes in thickness that may result from a better estimate of the actual k-value, due to better information, are most likely not worth the effort/cost. It is better to concentrate on other design inputs.

Seasonal Variation of Subgrade Support are also inherent in the equation that predicts concrete pavement performance because the Road Test ran year round for several seasons. The pavements and subgrade materials underwent seasonal variations during the testing time. Therefore, the 93 AASHTO Design Guide's recommended procedure to the adjust subgrade support for seasonal variation in the concrete pavement design is unnecessary. Traffic Equivalency Factors used in the design of concrete pavements are not appropriate for modern pavements. These factors were established only for unstabilized subbases. No adjustment is provided for the now more-common stabilized support layers. This biases the results of the ESAL determination in favor of other pavement types. For these reasons, the industry heartily endorses the efforts by AASHTO to move in the direction of improved mechanistic methods, such as the recently released mechanistic- and empirical-based AASHTO DARWinMETM.

Summary
There have been many welcome additions in the 1993 Design Guide, such as the improved overlay and lowvolume road design. However, items that the concrete industry feels are still in question include: Loss of Support Factor was the primary failure mode of rigid pavement sections in the Road Test. Many of the failed sections were the result of the migration and pumping of subbase fines from underneath the pavement. Therefore, loss of support is inherent in the equation that predicts concrete pavement performance. The 1986 and 1993 revisions to the Guide provide no manner to improve the support value for non-erodable subbases. Many modern concrete pavement designs include such subbases. It is logical that some factor should be available for the engineer to improve the support characterization to the pavement for a non-erodable base.

P a g e | 37

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

38 | P a g e

Chapter 2 Concrete Overlay Design

Introduction
The 1986 AASHTO "Guide for Design of Pavement Structures" added a new section on concrete overlay design. Unfortunately, this procedure was incomplete, hard to understand, and difficult to calibrate to local conditions. The 93 AASHTO Design Guide adopted a revised concrete overlay design procedure that facilitates rational and sound overlay designs. The revised AASHTO concrete overlay design procedures are used to design structural overlays. Structural overlays address conditions that adversely affect the load carrying capacity of the pavement structure (i.e., inadequate thickness, cracking, distortion, and disintegration). Functional overlays address conditions such as surface polishing, hydroplaning, rutting, faulting, settlements and heaves, etc. These conditions adversely affect the highway user and may cause unsafe operating conditions, but do not affect the pavement structure. The WinPAS program and this manual only include structural overlays. For more information on functional overlays, see Chapter 4, Part II, of the 93 AASHTO Design Guide.

This revised procedure uses the concept of structural deficiency and required future structural capacity, as determined from the AASHTO design equations, to calculate the required overlay thicknesses. This maintains compatibility between the new and overlay portions of the Guide. The structural deficiency approach determines the structural capacity (SC) of the overlay by subtracting the effective structural capacity (SCeff) of the existing pavement from the future structural capacity (SCf) required by the AASHTO design equations. Figure 23 illustrates the concept of structural deficiency and effective structural capacity. For concrete pavements, structural capacity is equal to the thickness of the pavement, D. For flexible pavements, the structural number expresses structural capacity. In Figure 23, SC0 denotes the pavement's initial structural capacity. As traffic and time act upon the pavement, the structural capacity declines until it is evaluated for an overlay. The capacity at this point is the SCeff. If the structural capacity required for the future traffic is SCf, the overlay structural capacity, SCOL is the difference between the two (e.g., SCOL = SCf - SCeff).

P a g e | 39

Figure 23. Illustration of Structural Capacity Loss with Traffic and over Time The revised overlay design procedure actually consists of seven separate, stand-alone design procedures, each laid out in eight steps. The seven overlay design procedures are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Bonded concrete overlay on concrete. Unbonded concrete overlay on concrete. Unbonded concrete overlay on asphalt (whitetopping). Asphalt on asphalt. Asphalt on concrete. Asphalt on break/crack and seat or rubblized concrete. Second asphalt overlay on concrete. 1. Determine existing pavement design/construction information, including subgrade soil details. Predict future ESALs in the design lane for the design period. Perform condition survey of the existing pavement to determine the type, severity, and quantity of distresses present. The specific distress types evaluated will depend on the pavement type. Perform deflection testing to estimate pavement and material properties (due to limitations, this may not always be done). Perform coring/material testing to estimate pavement and material properties (due to limitations, this may not always be done). Determine the required structural capacity for future traffic (SCf). Determine the existing structural capacity (SCeff) of the pavement. Determine the required structural capacity of the overlay (SCOL) and required thickness based on the specific type of overlay being designed.

2. 3.

4.

5.

Though each design procedure is unique, they are all designed according to the follow eight steps. It is recommended that all eight steps of the design procedure be followed; however, it is recognized that money and equipment limitations may preclude all activities from being done. The eight steps in the overlay thickness design process are as follows: 40 | P a g e

6. 7. 8.

The AASHTO Overlay Design Steps

Step 1. Determine Existing Pavement Information The existing pavement information tells the engineer exactly with what he or she is working. The design data includes the pavement type (materials, strengths, and thickness), joint design and load transfer, shoulder design, base and subbase information, soils information, drainage system design, etc. It should also include any previous overlay or maintenance and rehabilitation work performed on the pavement, as well as any that will be performed before the overlay is placed. Construction data, if available, is particularly useful in determining how the as-built pavement might vary in strength, thickness, etc. from the design; construction data also can provide insight into potential causes of pavement distress. Step 2. Predict Future ESALs The predicted future 18 kip (80 kN) ESALs is the design traffic for the design lane expected over the life of the overlay. It is the same basic input that is used in the design of new concrete or asphalt pavements. There is one slight difference in the ESALs for overlay design as compared to new pavement design. In the overlay design, the type of ESALs used depends on the pavement performance model used in the development of the design procedure; Table 15 shows which ESALs to use.

Table 15: AASHTO ESAL Loadings for Overlay Design Existing Pavement
Concrete Asphalt Composite Concrete Asphalt Composite Fractured Concrete

Overlay Type
Concrete Concrete Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt

ESALs to Use
Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible

Essentially, if there is intact concrete anywhere in the pavement structure, rigid ESALs are used in the design. The only times flexible ESALs are used is when an asphalt pavement is overlaid with asphalt or when an existing concrete pavement is fractured (break or crack and seat, or rubblized) and overlaid with asphalt. In the overlay design procedure, AASHTO states that rigid ESALs can be converted to flexible ESALs by multiplying rigid ESALs by 0.67. For example, 15 million rigid ESALs would equal 10 million flexible ESALs and 5 million flexible ESALs would equal 7.5 million rigid ESALs. As can be inferred, large errors in the final overlay design can occur if the correct ESALs are not used.

P a g e | 41

Step 3. Perform Condition Survey The visual condition survey examines the type, amount, and severity of distresses in the pavement. The specific distress types evaluated will change depending on pavement type (Table 16). The examination should begin with obtaining and reviewing original design and construction documents, and when possible, maintenance records. Table 16: Key Distress Types Concrete Pavements Asphalt Pavements
Fatigue and alligator cracking Rutting Transverse and longitudinal cracking Localized failing areas where underlying areas are disintegrating

Step 4. Perform Deflection Testing Non-destructive testing (NDT) data, in the form of falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing, can provide a vast amount of information at a reasonable amount of time and money. However, the analysis can be quite sensitive to unknown conditions and therefore must be performed by knowledgeable and experienced personnel. For concrete pavements, FWD data is used for three purposes: 1. 2. 3. To estimate load transfer efficiency at joints. To estimate the concrete modulus of elasticity (Ec). To estimate the modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value).

Deteriorating transverse or longitudinal joints Corner breaks Localized failing areas where the concrete slab is disintegrating Localized punchouts (CRCP)

For asphalt pavements, it is used to: 1. 2. Estimate the roadbed resilient modulus (Mr). Estimate the effective structural number for the pavement structure (SNeff).

A drainage survey should also be performed during the condition survey to identify moisture-related problems and locations where drainage improvements may be effective in increasing the performance of the overlay.

FWD data cannot be used to give estimates for the moduli values of individual layers because this implies a level of sophistication that does not exist with the structural number approach to pavement design. Finally, for both types of pavements, FWD data is used to quantify variability along the project and subdivide it into similar structural segments.

42 | P a g e

Step 5. Perform Coring/Material Testing Ideally, the materials testing program is used in concert with the visual distress survey and non-destructive deflection testing to verify layer thickness, obtain material properties, and investigate the causes of observed distresses. For asphalt pavements, coring/material testing is used to determine the resilient modulus of the subgrade (Mr) and to examine the asphalt layers for stripping, degradation, erosion, and contamination. For concrete pavements, coring/ materials testing is mainly used to determine the in-place concrete modulus of rupture, S'c. For this, AASHTO recommends cutting 6 in. (15.2 mm) diameter cores from the middle of the slab and testing them in indirect tension (AASHTO T198 or ASTM C49621). From the indirect tension results, the S'c is estimated using the following equation:
Sc = 210 + 1.02 IT

Step 6. Determine the Required Structural Capacity for Future Traffic (SCf) The structural capacity for future traffic is the structural capacity needed to carry the future traffic loadings. Essentially, it is the design thickness for a new pavement. It takes into account all the same factors used in a new design (serviceability, traffic, load transfer, concrete properties, subgrade strength, drainage, and reliability). The only change in determining the required structural capacity that AASHTO recommends is increasing the standard deviation (s0). AASHTO recommends using an s0 of 0.39 for any type of overlay where concrete is in the pavement structure and 0.49 for an asphalt overlay of an asphalt pavement or fractured concrete slabs. Step 7. Determine the Existing Structural Capacity (SCeff) The most difficult part of the overlay design procedure is determining SCeff. AASHTO uses three approaches to characterize the SCeff: 1. 2. Visual condition survey and materials testing. Non-destructive deflection testing and backcalculation procedures. Remaining life.

where:

S'c = concrete modulus of rupture (psi) IT = Indirect tensile strength of 6 in. diameter cores (psi) The free strength converter app available at http://apps.acpa.org also can conduct this conversion.

3.

P a g e | 43

Because of the uncertainties associated with determining SCeff, each approach will give different results. Furthermore, because all of the overlays are affected differently by the underlying pavement, the effective structural capacity of an existing pavement is calculated differently for each overlay type. More detailed information on determining SCeff for each overlay type will be described in next section. AASHTO recommends that the designer uses all three approaches and choose the best "estimate" based on his or her judgment. However, ACPA does not recommend using the remaining life approach because of some deficiencies associated with its use (see below). Because of these problems, ACPA has not included the remaining life approach in the WinPAS program. Still, ACPA recommends that the designer use both approaches 1 and 2 and choose the best "estimate" from these values based on his or her judgment. Problems with Remaining Life The remaining life approach follows the fatigue damage concept that repeated loads gradually damage the pavement and reduce the remaining number of loads that the pavement can carry before failure occurs. At any time, there may be little or no visible damage, but there is a reduction in structural capacity based on the remaining, future loadcarrying capability.

To use remaining life, the designer must be able to determine the actual amount of traffic the pavement has carried to date and the total amount of traffic the pavement is expected to carry to "failure". The following equation determines remaining life: No 10 RL = 100 1 Nf RL = Remaining life

where:

N0 = Total traffic to date Nf = Total traffic to failure Once the remaining life has been determined, a condition factor (CF) is established from the remaining life. The SCeff is calculated by multiplying the original structural capacity (SC0) by the CF (e.g., SCeff = SC0*CF). Unfortunately, the remaining life approach has some serious deficiencies associated with it such that it may give erroneous results. The major deficiencies of this procedure are: 1. 2. The predictive capability of the AASHTO equations. The large variation in observed performance, even among pavements of seemingly identical designs. Estimation of past ESALs. Inability to account for the amount of pre-overlay repair. Cannot be applied to previously overlaid pavements or pavements that will have preoverlay repairs.

3. 4. 5.

44 | P a g e

These deficiencies can produce two extreme errors. The first is that a pavement with little load-related distress may be perceived to have a very low remaining life because it has carried a very large amount of traffic; in actuality, such a pavement section might have a considerably longer remaining life. Any pavement without cracking has substantial remaining life, regardless of past traffic. The other extreme error occurs when a pavement is severely distressed but is rated to have a high remaining life because it has carried only a small amount of traffic. Because it is severely distressed, it really has little remaining life. As shown by these two extremes, the remaining life computed from past traffic may not reflect a pavement's true condition. Step 8. Determine Required Structural Capacity of the Overlay (SCOL) For concrete overlays, the structural capacity of the overlay is equal to the overlay thickness (e.g., SCOL = DOL). However, because of the interactions between the existing pavement and the overlay, the exact equation to determine the SCOL is dependent on the type of overlay. The following sections will describe the procedure for unbonded and bonded concrete overlays on concrete or asphalt/composite. Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete Bonded concrete overlays on concrete are generally used when the existing pavement is in relatively good condition and requires little pre-overlay repair.

Bonded concrete overlays on concrete are not recommended when: 1. The amount of deteriorated slab cracking and joint spalling is so great that a substantial amount of removal and replacement of the existing surface is required before overlaying. Significant deterioration of concrete slabs has occurred due to durability problems (e.g., "D" cracking or reactive aggregates).

2.

For more information on the feasibility of a bonded overlay on concrete, see ACPAs TB007P, "Guidelines for Bonded Concrete Overlays,"8 and the CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete Overlays.22 The required bonded overlay thickness (DOL) is the difference of the required future thickness (Df) and the effective thickness of the existing pavement (Deff): DOL = Df - Deff The effective thickness is the actual inplace concrete pavement thickness reduced by adjustment factors to account for joint and crack condition, durability, and fatigue: Deff = Fjc*Fdur*Ffat*D where: Fjc = adjustment factor based on joint and crack condition of the existing pavement

P a g e | 45

Fdur = adjustment factor based on durability condition of the existing pavement Ffat = adjustment factor based on the fatigue characteristics of the existing pavement D = existing pavement thckness

Using the information from the condition survey, the Fdur is determined as follows: 1.00: No durability problems 0.96-0.99: Durability cracking exists, no spalling 0.80-0.95: Both cracking and spalling exist

Fjc adjusts for extra loss in serviceability caused by deteriorated reflective cracks in the overlay that could result from any unrepaired deteriorated joints and cracks in the existing slab. It is recommended all deteriorated joints and cracks be repaired so that Fjc = 1.0. If it is not possible to repair all the deteriorated areas, Figure 24 (Figure 5.12 from the 93 AASHTO Guide) is used to determine Fjc. The information needed to use this chart is: Number of deteriorated transverse joints per mile. Number of deteriorated transverse cracks per mile. Number of existing expansion joints, exceptionally wide joints (>1 in.), or full-depth asphalt patches.

Note: Bonded concrete overlays are not recommended when Fdur is less than 0.95. Ffat adjusts for past fatigue damage that may exist in the slab. It is based on the amount of transverse cracking (JPCP and JRCP) or punchouts (CRCP) due to repeated loadings in the design lane. AASHTO recommends the following guidelines to determine Ffat: 0.97-1.00: Few cracks/punchouts JPCP: < 5% slabs cracked JRCP: < 25% working cracks/mi CRCP: < 4 punchouts/mi 0.94-0.96: Significant cracking/ punchouts JPCP: 5-15% slabs cracked JRCP: 26-75% working cracks/mi CRCP: 4-12 punchouts/mi 0.90-0.94: Extensive cracking/ punchouts JPCP: >15% slabs cracked JRCP: >75% working cracks/mi CRCP: >12 punchouts/mi

Fdur adjusts for extra loss in serviceability of the overlay when the existing slab has durability problems such as D-cracking or reactive aggregates. If a joint or crack is deteriorated due to a durability problem, the adjustment to the pavement thickness is made with Fdur and not Fjc. This avoids adjusting the thickness twice. 46 | P a g e

Figure 24. Chart to Estimate Fjc for Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete [Figure 5.12 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width asphalt patches per mile Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete Unbonded concrete overlays can be used under practically all conditions; they are, however, most cost-effective when the existing concrete pavement is badly deteriorated. The major advantage of unbonded overlays is that they require little, if any, preoverlay repair before construction. Conditions under which an unbonded concrete overlay may not be feasible include: 1. The amount of slab cracking and joint spalling is not large so other alternatives (e.g., concrete pavement preservation or a bonded overlay) may be more economical. 2. Vertical clearance at bridges is inadequate for the required overlay thickness. This may be addressed by reconstructing the pavement under the bridges or by raising the bridges. 3. The existing pavement is susceptible to large heaves or settlements.

P a g e | 47

For more information the feasibility of unbonded overlays, see ACPAs TB005P, "Guidelines for Unbonded Concrete Overlays,"7 and the CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete Overlays.22 The required unbonded overlay thickness (DOL) is the square root of difference of the required future thickness (Df) squared and the effective thickness (Deff) squared: DOL = Df 2 Deff 2

Number of existing expansion joints, exceptionally wide joints (>1 in.), or full-depth asphalt patches.

The Fjcu adjustment factor is different than the Fjc adjustment factor used in a bonded concrete overlay on concrete design. The Fjcu factor makes a smaller adjustment to the existing slab thickness because an unbonded overlay is less sensitive to the condition of the underlying slab than is a bonded overlay. Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite Also known as conventional whitetopping, unbonded concrete overlays of existing asphalt or composite pavements can be used to improve both structural capacity and functional conditions. The major advantage of whitetopping is that minimal amount of pre-overlay repair is required. Conditions under which a whitetopping overlay may not be feasible include: 1. The amount of deterioration is not large and other alternatives may be more economical. Vertical clearance at bridges is inadequate for the required overlay thickness. This may be addressed by reconstructing the pavement under the bridges or by raising the bridges. The existing pavement is susceptible to large heaves or settlements.

The effective thickness is the actual inplace concrete pavement thickness reduced by an adjustment factor to account for joint and crack condition: Deff = Fjcu*D where: Fjcu = adjustment factor based on joint and crack condition of the existing pavement Fjcu adjusts for extra loss in serviceability caused by deteriorated reflective cracks in the overlay that could result from any unrepaired deteriorated joints and cracks or punchouts in the existing slab. Generally, very little such loss has been observed in unbonded overlays. The following information and Figure 25 are needed to determine Fjcu: Number of deteriorated transverse joints per mile. Number of deteriorated transverse cracks per mile.

2.

3.

48 | P a g e

Figure 25. Chart to Estimate Fjcu for Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete [Figure 5.13 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width asphalt patches per mile For more information on the feasibility of whitetopping of asphalt or composite pavements, see ACPAs EB210P, "Whitetopping The State of the Practice,"9 and the CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete Overlays.22 The design for a whitetopping overlay of an existing asphalt or composite pavement is the same as designing a new concrete pavement on an asphalt stabilized base. The overlay thickness (DOL) is the thickness for a new pavement (Df): DOL = Df The most difficult item to determine in the design of a conventional whitetopping is the k-value of the asphalt or composite pavement. There are two possible methods to estimate kvalue: 1. Base the k-value on soils data and pavement layers type, such as is done with stabilized bases in new designs. For more information, see the Subgrade Support section and Part II, Section 3.2 of the 93 AASHTO Design Guide. P a g e | 49

2.

Estimate the dynamic k-value using a backcalculated Mr and effective pavement modulus (obtained through FWD testing), the existing asphalt thickness (Dac), and Figure 15 (Figure 3.3 of the Guide). Static k-value is the dynamic k-value divided by 2.

Other Considerations
In the design of an overlay, many important items, besides thickness, need to be considered. Some of the items that should be considered are outlined in Table 17. The Guide gives general and detailed guidelines for each of these in the overlay design procedures and the CP Tech Centers Guide to Concrete Overlays22 contains more up-to-date guidance on such considerations. Table 17: Other Important Considerations in Overlay Design
Structural versus functional overlay Overlay feasibility Traffic loadings Subdrainage Concrete overlay joints Pre-overlay repairs Existing concrete durability Concrete overlay bonding and separation layers Overlay design reliability and overall standard deviation Shoulders and edge support Pavement widening Concrete overlay reinforcement Reflection crack control Milling of asphalt pavement Rutting in asphalt pavement Recycling of the existing pavement

For more information, see step 4 and 6 in section 5.10.5 of the Design Guide. For practical purposes, the k-value can be estimated from Table 10, the k-value calculator built into WinPAS or the kvalue calculator at http://apps.acpa.org. Any change in thickness that may result from a better estimate of the actual kvalue due to better information is most likely not worth the effort/cost to collect it (see Figure 22 and referencing text). Bonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite AASHTO does not have a procedure to design bonded concrete overlays on asphalt or composite pavements, also known as ultra-thin whitetopping (UTW). For more information, see ACPAs EB210P, "Whitetopping - The State of the Practice,"9 the CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete Overlays,22 and the free bonded concrete overlay on asphalt (BCOA) calculator at http://apps.acpa.org.

50 | P a g e

Other Concrete Overlay Design Procedures/Software

The CP Tech Centers, Design of Concrete Overlays Using Existing Methodologies,23 details the use of the 93 AASHTO Design Guide, the DARWinMETM, and the ACPAs BCOA. Since the CP Tech Center publication was published, ACPAs StreetPave software has been updated to also include overlay design for each overlay type.

P a g e | 51

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

52 | P a g e

Chapter 3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

NOTE: This Chapter contains excerpts from ACPAs EB011, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better Pavement Investment and Engineering Decisions. See EB011 for more complete details on pavement LCCAs and example LCCAs.

Comparable Sections
In order to perform a realistic and reliable life-cycle cost analysis, the two alternates must have equivalent and comparable designs and should provide similar results over the analysis period. That is, they should be designed for the same: Structural (traffic-carrying) capacity Reliability Subgrade properties Terminal condition

Introduction
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is an analysis technique, based on wellfounded economic principles, used to evaluate the overall long-term economic efficiency between competing alternate investment options. LCCA is typically used as a means to evaluate and then compare the cost to the agency of any number of alternate pavement alternatives, including variations of concrete and asphalt pavement solutions. When done correctly, a lifecycle cost analysis of pavement design or preservation/rehabilitation strategy alternatives identifies the strategy that will yield the best value by providing the desired performance at the lowest cost over the analysis period. This does not mean that engineering is not an important part of the LCCA. An engineering analysis must be used with the LCCA to ensure that each alternate provides similar results. If the two alternates do not provide similar results then the economic assessment between them is not possible, realistic, or reliable.

Furthermore, they need to provide the same or reasonably similar levels of service over the analysis period. If the two designs being compared do not have these same characteristics over the analysis period, the resulting LCCA is erroneous. Unfortunately, this is difficult because of the complexity in: 1. 2. Accurately calculating performance over time. Quantifying the difference in performance between alternates.

P a g e | 53

Currently, the only three national design procedures that allow for quick and easy design of comparable designs are: 1. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures WinPAS is based on the 1993 version of this guide. AASHTOs DARWin-METM ACPAs StreetPave

The FHWAs Report No. FHWA-SA-98079, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design In Search of Better Investment Decisions, identifies the following procedural steps involved in conducting an LCCA: 1. Establish alternative pavement design strategies for the analysis period. Determine performance periods and activity timing. Estimate agency costs. Estimate user costs. Develop expenditure stream diagrams. Compute net present value. Analyze results. Reevaluate design strategies.

2. 3.

Performing an LCCA
The actual mechanics of performing an LCCA are not too complicated. It is simply a mathematical calculation of the present worth or equivalent uniform annual cost of anticipated expenditure flows over time. Though a computer program or spreadsheet is helpful in performing the calculations, LCCA does not require a computer program. There is no such thing as a concrete LCCA or asphalt LCCA. The procedure cannot tell whether the calculated values are for a concrete pavement, an asphalt pavement, or something else. This chapter focuses on the inputs to an LCCA and presents the following steps in a typical LCCA of pavement design or rehabilitation alternatives: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Select the analysis period. Select a discount rate. Estimate initial agency costs. Estimate user costs. Estimate future agency costs. Estimate residual value. Compare alternatives.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

While ACPA agrees with the FHWAs suggested procedural steps (and, in fact, each of the ACPAs seven steps can be rolled up into just a few of these FHWA steps), the intent of this chapter is to focus on the individual inputs of an LCCA more than the LCCA process itself. The ACPA seven steps also assume that equivalent alternate pavement designs are selected as a prerequisite to conducting an LCCA of the alternates.

Step 1 Select Analysis Period

The analysis period is the timeframe over which the alternative strategies/ treatments are compared. This timeframe must be long enough to reflect significant differences in performance among the alternatives being compared. This is best

54 | P a g e

accomplished by selecting an analysis period that encompasses the initial performance period and at least one major follow-up preservation/ rehabilitation activity for each strategy. For this reason, the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWAs) policy statement on LCCA24 recommends an analysis period of at least 35 years for all pavement projects. ACPA recommends an analysis period of 4550+ years so that at least one major rehabilitation effort is captured for each alternate because common practice in many states is to design the concrete pavement alternate for 30+ years.

The real discount rate is given by the following equation25:

d = 1 + 1 1 +

Where:

d = the real discount rate, % iint = the interest rate, % iinf = the inflation rate, % The appropriate interest and inflation rates to use in calculating the real discount rate for the evaluation of public-sector investments, such as road projects, are the subject of much debate. Oftentimes, a single standard real discount rate might be used to avoid the complexities in calculating a local or material-specific real discount rate, but this practice can lead to the selection of an alternate that is not the most cost-effective.26 Selecting an Interest Rate An abundance of conflicting opinion and guidance exists on the subject of choosing an interest rate for use in LCCA of pavement alternatives. Funds for paving projects are obtained by 1) levying taxes, 2) borrowing money (i.e., selling bonds), and/or 3) charging users for services (e.g., toll revenue). The interest rate assumed for the LCCA of a project should reflect the type of entity raising the money and the method(s) used to raise it.

Step 2 Select Discount Rate

The term real discount rate, also known as the real interest rate, is commonly used in engineering economics to refer to the rate of change over time in the true value of money, taking into account fluctuations in both investment interest rates and the rate of inflation. This value differs from a nominal discount rate, which reflects expected inflation and is used to discount inflated dollars or nominal benefits and costs (e.g., real discount rate nominal discount rate inflation rate). That is to say, todays costs can be used as proxies for future costs only if the real discount rate is used in the LCCA. All state highway agencies currently use todays costs (e.g., non-inflated dollars) and real discount rates in their LCCAs.

P a g e | 55

Selecting an Inflation Rate The inflation rate chosen for use in a life-cycle cost analysis of pavement alternatives may be 1) a single value if it is assumed that all components of future costs inflate at a uniform rate or 2) several different values for various cost components when there are significant differences in inflation among the cost components. Several general inflation indices are compiled regularly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the U.S. Department of Labor, including the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Highway and Street Construction (BHWY) Producer Price Index (PPI). The BHWY PPI was, however, discontinued in 2010. The PPI for all commodities also can be used as a general inflation index or combined with the BHWY PPI to extend the BHWY PPI from 2010 to present. Calculating the Real Discount Rate To avoid all of the complexities in calculating a real discount rate for general use in LCCAs, many state agencies elect to use real discount rates published annually by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If local interest and inflation rates are not readily available to develop a local real discount rate, ACPA supports the use of this OMB real discount rate. If there is concern with the variability in the OMB real discount rates, a moving average of the value can be considered.

Step 3 Estimate Initial Agency Costs

Agency costs are all the costs incurred by the agency over the analysis period. These costs include: Initial design and construction/inspection costs, Preservation/rehabilitation costs (including engineering and traffic control), Operation and maintenance costs (including staffing), Either demolition/removal costs or the residual value of the pavement structure, Costs associated with material price escalators, and Direct savings associated with sustainable benefits of a particular pavement type.

Only those initial agency costs that are different among the various alternatives need to be considered for reasonably similar alternates. Engineering and administrative costs (public hearings, informational meetings, permits, real estate and land development, legal fees, etc.) may be excluded from the initial agency cost if they are the same for all alternatives. Initial agency costs can be divided into pavement and non pavement costs: Pavement costs include items such as subgrade preparation costs; base, subbase, and surface material costs; associated labor and equipment costs; etc.

56 | P a g e

Non pavement costs are costs that affect the overall cost of the project but are not directly related to the pavement structure, such as extra fill or cut due to different grade elevations, traffic control, median and fill slopes, utilities, guardrail and sign adjustments, lighting requirements, overhead structures, at-grade structures, culvert extensions, associated labor and equipment costs, etc.

Step 4 Estimate User Costs

User costs are intentionally separated from other bidding components because user costs are not agency costs and should not be treated as such (e.g., user costs have a discount rate based on user interest and inflation rates). User costs tell a different story than the other components and oftentimes are weighted differently than agency costs in the pavement type selection process. If user costs are significantly larger than other cost components, the agency should investigate why this is the case. User costs are all those costs associated with the alternative that are incurred by users of the roadway over the analysis period. The users to be considered are both the actual users and the would-be users; that is, those who cannot use the roadway because of either a detour imposed by the highway agency or the users self-imposed selection of an alternate route. Any user costs that differ significantly among the alternatives being compared should be considered alongside the agency costs in an LCCA. However, each agency must decide which user cost components it expects to differ among different alternatives, and which it is able to estimate reasonably well. Even if the user costs are considered equivalent between alternates, the time value of money and frequency of future activities cause the net result of work zone user costs to be different between alternates.

When historical bid prices are used to estimate the initial agency cost of current designs, it is important to consider the impact of material price escalators, payment practices (e.g., payment for concrete in fixed quantities, such as square yards, versus payment for asphalt by the ton, which may result in overages), and bidding practices (e.g., bid shifting to lower costs of some items [pavement items] while artificially increasing other costs [non-pavement items] to cover the difference). Past bid prices may not accurately represent final project costs if escalators significantly increased the actual construction cost of the project or if material quantity estimates were low. Thus, all project costs (pavement and non-pavement) from past projects must be examined to include any cost overruns when using past projects for current initial agency cost estimates.

P a g e | 57

Failure to consider user costs may lead in some cases to the selection of undesirably short-lived alternatives. For example, it is not good practice to recommend major rehabilitation of a busy urban freeway every seven years; traffic handling and delays in the future might be a significantly greater cost than constructing a long-lived alternative now. Without quantitative consideration of work zone user costs, however, it may be difficult to determine that a longlived solution is best in such a scenario. WinPASs LCCA procedure does not include user costs at this time. Separate software are available, however, to calculate the user costs, such as the Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies (CA4PRS) software.

Future activities are dependent on the initial pavement design. Thus, both (and their cost impact on each other) must be considered when designing the pavement structure. Maintenance and Operation Costs The daily costs associated with keeping the pavement at a given level of service are termed maintenance and operating costs. These include contracts, materials and equipment, deicing, staff salaries, etc. for the maintenance of the pavement surface, shoulders, striping, drainage, etc. Several billion dollars are spent each year on pavement maintenance by highway agencies in the U.S. As such, most state highway agencies include maintenance costs in their life-cycle cost analyses for pavements. Preservation and Rehabilitation Timing and Costs Preservation/rehabilitation costs are large future agency costs associated with improving the condition of the pavement or extending its service life. Preservation and rehabilitation activities and their timing should be based on the distresses that are predicted to develop in the pavement. That is, in the design phase, the engineer should estimate the rates of distress development in the pavement, determine the years in which critical level of distress are reached, and assign the appropriate preservation or rehabilitation activities for those distresses at the appropriate times.

Step 5 Estimate Future Agency Costs

While the initial agency costs can exclude cost components that are similar for each alternate being considered, all cost components must be considered in future agency costs because the present value of costs associated with engineering, administrative, and traffic control (detours, lane closures, work hours, etc.) in the future are impacted by when the costs are projected to take place and by the selected discount rate (which may vary with paving material type).

58 | P a g e

The best approach to developing pavement performance predictions is to rely on local performance history data to the maximum extent possible; pavement feedback loops are an ideal means of updating such predictions as better designs are created. Predicting the performance of preservation or rehabilitation activities involves, at a minimum, predicting the time (either in years or accumulated axle loadings) at which each strategy will reach a level of condition requiring follow-up preservation or rehabilitation. Typical expected performance period ranges for new construction and various preservation/rehabilitation activities are summarized in ACPAs EB011.

Residual Value through Recycling (Salvage Value) If it is assumed that the pavement is to be recycled at the end of the analysis period, the salvage value is the monetary value of the recycled materials minus the costs of removal and recycling. The salvage value of the pavement structure as recycled materials may be different for the different alternates. It is important to not double-count the salvage value; that is to say, it should not be included as both a residual value credit at the end of the LCCA of a pavement section and then as a reduction in cost at the beginning of the next LCCA on the same section. Thus, if the pavement is to be recycled, salvage value oftentimes is not considered at the end of the analysis period (where the value is extremely discounted) but rather is considered as a reduction in cost for a new pavement (where the value of the reduction is better known and fully appreciated) in the next LCCA of the section. Residual Value through Remaining Service Life The residual value of a pavement that is likely to be rehabilitated rather than demolished at the end of the analysis period can be based on its contribution to the structural capacity of the rehabilitated pavement structure. The FHWA currently recommends that the residual value be determined as the portion of the cost of the last P a g e | 59

Step 6 Estimate Residual Value

The residual value typically is defined in one of three ways: 1) the net value that the pavement would have in the marketplace if it is recycled at the end of its life (also known as salvage value), 2) the value of the remaining service life (RSL) at the end of the analysis, and 3) the value of the existing pavement as a support layer for an overlay at the end of the analysis period. Whichever way residual value is defined for rehabilitation strategy alternatives, it must be defined the same way for all alternatives, and should reflect what the agency realistically expects to do with the pavement structure at the end of the analysis period.

rehabilitation equal to the portion of the remaining life of the last rehabilitation.27 However, this method of defining residual value attributes worth only to the last rehabilitation application, rather than to the pavement structure as a whole. It may also have the undesired consequence of attributing greater worth to a pavement design or rehabilitation strategy alternative that costs more, performs poorly and requires frequent follow-up rehabilitation than to an alternative with better long-term performance that requires less frequent rehabilitation. Residual Value as a Support Layer When all alternatives are predicted to reach minimum acceptable condition at the end of the analysis period and require rehabilitation at that time, another option is to determine what contribution the existing pavement structure will make to the structural capacity of the rehabilitated pavement structure. The residual value of each alternative could be quantified as the portion of the future rehabilitation cost that will be reduced by the contribution of the existing pavement structure. When one or more alternatives are predicted to reach minimum acceptable condition beyond the end of the analysis period, the residual values could be defined in terms of how long each alternative delays the next required rehabilitation. The residual value could be quantified as the difference between the cost of rehabilitation if it is performed at the end of the analysis period and the 60 | P a g e

discounted cost of the same type of rehabilitation if it is deferred some years into the future. Thus, an alternative with more remaining structural capacity at the end of the analysis period would yield a larger difference between immediate and deferred rehabilitation costs, and therefore a higher residual value.

Step 7 Compare Alternatives

Alternatives considered in an LCCA must be compared using a common measure of economic worth. The economic worth of an investment may be measured in a number of ways. Investment alternatives such as pavement strategies are most commonly compared on the basis of present worth (also called net present value [NPV]) or annual worth (also called equivalent uniform annual cost [EUAC]). Cash Flow Diagrams A cash flow diagram (Figure 26) helps in the development and visualization of strategies. A cash flow diagram shows the inflow and outflow of cash due to construction, maintenance, and preservation/ rehabilitation, expressed in terms of either present worth or annual costs. Up arrows indicate major cash expenditures (e.g., construction, preservation, etc.) and down arrows show cash inflows (e.g., residual or salvage value). The length of the arrow indicates the magnitude of the expenditure.

d = the real discount rate (e.g., 0.03 for 3 percent) t = the year in which the one-time future cost or benefit occurs Costs that are expected to accrue annually at a uniform value (e.g., routine maintenance costs) can also be expressed in terms of their present worth. Such costs should be taken into consideration in the LCCA whenever they are expected to differ significantly for the alternatives being considered. The formula for the present value or worth ($P) of an annual future cost or benefit ($A) that first occurs in year 1 is:
(1 + d)n 1 $ = $ (1 + d)n

Figure 26. Example of a Cash Flow Diagram for an Unbonded Concrete Overlay Present Worth Calculations For a present worth style analysis, all costs and benefits over the analysis period are expressed in terms of their equivalent (e.g., discounted) value at the beginning of the analysis period in a present worth style analysis. All initial agency costs are assumed to occur at time t = 0 and are not discounted (i.e., they are counted at full and actual value). All future costs (e.g., future maintenance and preservation/ rehabilitation costs) and future benefits or reductions in cost (e.g., residual value at the end of the analysis period) are discounted to their equivalent present values and are summed with the initial costs to yield the net present value (NPV). The formula for the present value or worth ($P) of a one-time future cost or benefit ($F) is:
$ = $ 1 (1 + d)t

where:

n = number of years over which the annual future cost reoccurs The conversion of nonuniform future annual costs requires: 1. Identification of subperiods during which the annual costs are uniform, 2. Converting these uniform annual costs to present worths in the beginning years of the subperiods, and 3. Converting these present worths in given future years to equivalent present worths at the beginning of the analysis period.

where:

P a g e | 61

For example, suppose a uniform annual maintenance cost is expected to be incurred starting in year 16 of a 25-year analysis. The present worth incurred between years 16 and 25 would be calculated by first converting the annual maintenance costs in years 16 to 25 (N = 10) to an equivalent present worth at the beginning of year 16, which is also the end of year 15, and then discounting this equivalent present worth back 15 years to time zero. Annual Worth Calculations For an annual worth style analysis, all costs and benefits in a given analysis period can also be expressed in terms of an equivalent series of annual cash flows of uniform value over every year of the analysis period in an annual worth or equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) analysis. The formula for the equivalent uniform annual value ($A) of a cost ($P) incurred at the beginning of the analysis period (t = 0):
(1 + d) $ = $ (1 + d) 1

Annual costs that are uniform throughout the analysis period require no conversion before being added to other equivalent uniform annual costs. Annual costs that are not uniform over the analysis period (e.g., annual maintenance costs forecasted for some subperiod within the analysis period) must be: 1. Converted to present worth at the beginning of the first year of the subperiod, 2. Converted to a present worth at the beginning of the analysis period (e.g., t = 0), and 3. Converted to equivalent uniform annual cost over the entire analysis period. Analysis Methods The present and annual worth calculations discussed thus far describe a deterministic approach to LCCA comparisons because a single defined value is assumed and used for each activity (e.g., initial construction cost, preservation/rehabilitation cost and timing, etc.). There is, of course, inherent variability (and, thus, risk) in each and every input used in an LCCA (e.g., forecasted future material costs, forecasted activity timing, expected service life of preservation techniques, etc.) that is not accounted for in a deterministic analysis. Such variability can, however, be accounted for through a probabilistic analysis.

To express a one-time future cost (e.g., follow-up preservation/rehabilitation) or benefit (e.g., salvage value) in terms of its equivalent uniform annual cost over the analysis period, it must first be converted to its equivalent present worth at t = 0, and then converted to its equivalent uniform annual cost.

62 | P a g e

The FHWAs probabilistic LCCA procedure, as used in their RealCost LCCA software, relies on Monte Carlo simulations to select a random value for each input variable from its probability distribution and then compute the NPV or EUAC for the selected values. This process is repeated many times in order to generate a probability distribution of LCCAs for each alternative being considered. WinPAS conducts a deterministic analysis, so the remainder of this chapter will focus on this analysis method. ACPA does, however, recommend the use of FHWAs RealCost software to account for the variability in the LCCA inputs. Accounting for Material Inflation Although asphalt cement makes up only about 5-8% of the weight of a typical asphalt paving mixture and cement comprises about 8 percent of a typical concrete paving mixture, the binders typically are the most expensive components of paving mixtures. Thus, a comprehensive LCCA comparing these two pavement types should consider any significant differences in inflation between these two materials. Material-specific real discount rates are one method of accounting for situations when one or more materials are expected to inflate at a rate significantly greater (or less) than that of the inflation rate used in the calculation of the general real discount rate.

Other methods of accounting for differences in material inflation are 1) by escalating the future value of an item before calculating its present or annual worth or 2) adjusting the present or annual worth of the item. For example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation recently began applying an Asphalt Adjustment Multiplier (AAM)28 to adjust asphalt bid prices to better reflect the price paid for asphalt over a life cycle; their current AAM factor is 1.7419, which effectively inflates all future agency asphalt costs by almost 75% before the costs are discounted. Another method of escalating future costs has recently been suggested by researchers at MIT.29 Through stochastic simulation using the BLSs PPIs for steel, lumber, concrete, and asphalt and the CPI, they have proposed real price escalation factors that are dependent on the year in the LCCA in which the activity is conducted. These factors account for just the difference between the material inflation and general inflation so that the standard (e.g., not material-specific) real discount rate can still be used, making this process very easy to apply to individual expenditures.

P a g e | 63

For example, and because inflation has outpaced the cost of concrete, a concrete overlay in year 30 of an LCCA would be escalated by a real price adjustment of 87%, such that $1,000,000 of concrete overlay pavement today would have a real price of $870,000 30 years from now; this $870,000 at year 30 would then be used to calculate the present or annual worth of that activity using the standard real discount rate. Comparison of Results After the LCCA has been conducted for each alternate, it is necessary to analyze and compare the results. Because different components of the total life-cycle cost indicate different things about the alternates (e.g., the relative impacts of initial and future agency costs or user costs), the components typically are viewed both separately and together to aid in interpretation and evaluation of the results.30 Probabilistic analyses provide a means of evaluating the relative economic (cost) risk of competing alternatives, but the process can be complex. A simple way to examine the cost estimation risk (i.e., variability in the estimated LCCA)

of competing alternatives using only deterministic analysis techniques is to take the ratio of initial costs to the net present value (of EUAC) for each alternate . Higher values of this ratio indicate that more of the LCCA is due to initial costs, which are relatively better known, so the reliability of the LCCA estimate is higher than for alternatives with lower values of this ratio. When two alternatives have very similar net present values over the analysis period, it is advisable to choose the less risky alternative (i.e., the one with the higher proportion of the net present value attributable to initial costs). Depending on the level of cost estimation risk considered acceptable, it may even be preferable to select the alternative with the somewhat higher present worth of costs.

More Information on LCCA

ACPAs recently published EB011, LifeCycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better Pavement Investment and Engineering Decision, provides detailed discussion on all aspects of a comprehensive LCCA. This document is readily available in the ACPA online bookstore at: http://acpa.org/bookstore/

64 | P a g e

Chapter 4. WinPAS Users Guide

Introduction
WinPAS is a menu-driven computer program for designing and analyzing pavement systems using the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. It is a stand-alone program consisting of the following modules: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Project identification, Traffic analysis, Pavement design and evaluation, Overlay design and evaluation, Life-cycle cost analysis, and Reporting.

WinPAS contains many help screens that explain input variables and suggested, reasonable ranges for input values. To access help, place the cursor on the input variable about which help information is desired and click on the help button in the active window. WinPAS is intended as a tool for professional personnel knowledgeable in the field of pavement engineering and who are able to evaluate the significance and limitations of the results. The persons using this program are solely responsible for its proper use and application. The American Concrete Pavement Association and the individuals associated with developing the program disclaim any and all responsibility for improper use or application of the program, or for the accuracy of any of the sources upon which the program is based.

Menu Options
The menu at the top-left of the WinPAS window has three options: File Units Help

P a g e | 65

File Menu The File menu has four options: New initiates the design or analysis of a new pavement project in WinPAS. Open reopens a project previously created in WinPAS. Save saves the current project. Exit will close the WinPAS software.

Units Menu The Units menu has two options, permitting you to select the units (English or Metric) in which you wish to work. This selection should be made before inputting project details because switching the units may cause input values to reset to default levels. Help Menu The Help menu has two options. About WinPAS identifies the version of WinPAS that you are using. WinPAS 12 Guide links to this document, which provides additional help and discussion for many of the design inputs, overlays, and LCCA. In addition to this document, to access input specific help details from within the software, place the cursor on the input variable about which help information is desired and click on the help button in the active window.

Main Menu
The Main Menu is the strip of tabs that allow you to access each module included in the software. To select one of the modules, click on its tab using the mouse. The Project tab is the default tab selected when the program is opened. To open an existing project, go to the File menu and select Open Project.

66 | P a g e

Project Tab
The Project tab allows you to input general information for your project. It is not necessary for you to provide information for every field. WinPAS displays the general information from this screen at the top of all printed reports.

Estimate ESALs Tab

The traffic module converts mixed traffic into ESALs according to the AASHTO procedure. You can determine the design ESALs using axle data, vehicle type data, or traffic factor data. However, to determine ESALs by any of these methods, you must first provide some information on the General ESAL Calculation Inputs screen (i.e., you cannot determine ESALS until information is placed into the General ESAL Calculation Inputs). A preliminary estimate of the required concrete slab thickness and/or asphalt pavement Structural Number, as well as the terminal serviceability, is needed to select the appropriate rigid and flexible pavement load equivalency factors (LEFs) for use in P a g e | 67

calculating ESALs. The design life and ESAL growth rate are needed to calculate the total ESALs over the design life. Note that the AASHTO design procedure is based on vehicles in the design lane. WinPAS allows you to either input traffic as design lane, or as total traffic.

If total traffic is chosen, you must also indicate whether it is 1 or 2 way traffic, and also give the design lane and directional distributions.

Total ESALs by Axle Data This screen requires the following inputs: Axle types (single, tandem, or tridem). Axle weights (in kips [kN]). Number of axles for each axle type (in the first day, month, or year, depending on the initial time interval indicated on the General ESAL Calculation Inputs screen).

WinPAS calculates the total rigid and flexible ESALs over the design life for each combination of axle type and weight entered, and sums them at the bottom of the screen.

68 | P a g e

Total ESALs by Vehicle Type This screen requires the following inputs: Vehicle types. Type and weight of each axle of each vehicle. Number of each vehicle (in the first day, month, or year, depending on the initial time interval indicated on the General ESAL Calculation Inputs screen).

Place the information next to the diagram corresponding to the appropriate vehicle. WinPAS automatically displays typical maximum legal values for axle types and weights for several different types of vehicles. You may modify these axle types and weight values. (Note: On average, vehicles are not fully loaded. ESALs calculated with these values will be conservative.) The total rigid and flexible ESALs for the life of the pavement are summed at the bottom. P a g e | 69

Note: The pictures of vehicles above are for graphical purposes only. Changing Axle Loads & Axle Type will not change the picture.

For special vehicles and design problems we suggest that you check your design with another design procedure, such as ACPA's AirPave software or some other design procedures.

70 | P a g e

Total ESALs by Truck Factor This screen requires the following inputs: Either the average daily truck traffic (ADTT) or Average daily traffic (ADT) and percent trucks. Rigid and flexible pavement truck factors (e.g., average ESALs/truck).

For traffic input using truck factors, knowledge of the average ESALs/truck must be known. Many state agencies have calculated this factor based on the average vehicle types and weights in use in the state, and by roadway classification. For more information contact your state Department of Transportation (DOT). For more information on ESALs, see the appropriate help screens in WinPAS, the appropriate sections earlier in this document, or the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

P a g e | 71

Design/Evaluation Tab
WinPAS's pavement design and evaluation module can design new pavements or analyze existing pavements. Concrete and asphalt pavements can be designed separately, or side-by-side. Upon first loading the WinPAS software, all inputs are blank. You may notice that the Solve For button does not state to solve specifically for thickness like many pavement thickness design software might. This is because the closed-form AASHTO solutions allow you to quickly solve for any of the various design variables after all other variables have been entered. When you press the Solve For button, WinPAS will solve for the variable highlighted by your cursor. To use Solve For, you must first input a value for all variables except the variable you are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). After pressing Solve For, WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in the Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell. You can change the value for any variable(s), reposition your cursor, and press Solve For again. The Solve For box will again display the answer. By allowing the flexibility to solve for any input, you can quickly calculate thickness or Structural Number, ESALs, reliability, flexural strength, or any of the other design variables. If you receive an 'ERROR,' it means one or more of your inputs are outside the equation bounds. Check each input to make sure it is a reasonable value.

Concrete Pavement Design/Analysis This screen displays and solves for the inputs in the AASHTO concrete pavement performance equation. Information needed includes concrete slab thickness (D), total rigid ESALs, reliability (R), overall standard deviation (s0), 28-day mean flexural strength (fc), 28-day mean modulus of elasticity (Ec), load transfer coefficient (J), mean static modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), drainage coefficient (Cd), and initial and terminal serviceability (Po and Pt). The concrete pavement slabs at the AASHO Road Test were between 2.5 and 12.5 in. (64 and 318 mm) thick. ACPA recommends a minimum concrete slab thickness of 5 in. (127 mm) for streets and 4 in. (102 mm) for parking lots not subject to truck traffic. The minimum and maximum allowable input for thickness in this program is 4 in. and 20 in. (102 mm and 508 mm), respectively. The Total Rigid ESALs input comes from the Estimate ESALs tab in WinPAS, although you may overwrite this value and solve for the allowable ESALs for a given slab thickness and other inputs. 72 | P a g e

The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor for which a pavement is designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations.

P a g e | 73

The overall standard deviation reflects: 1. 2. The error associated with estimation of each of the inputs. The error associated with the quality of fit of the model to the data on which it is based, and the replication error (differences in performance of seemingly identical pavement sections under identical conditions).

The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For concrete pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.30 and 0.40. Typically, 0.35 is used. The required flexural strength input is the average 28-day in-place flexural strength of the concrete in third-point loading. In design, AASHTO recommends you increase the minimum specified flexural strength (Sc) by a z' factor multiplied by the standard deviation (SD) of the flexural strength to get a design flexural strength (Sc). Sc(design) = Sc + z(SD) The 'z' factor is a function of the percentage of tests allowed below the minimum specified value. For more information on this, see the appropriate section earlier in this document or section 2.3.4 of Part II of the AASHTO Design Guide. The required modulus of elasticity input is the average 28-day in-place modulus of elasticity. This may be difficult to determine directly, but can be estimated from correlations with flexural or compressive strength. Some correlations from the American Concrete Institute (ACI) are provided on the help screen for this input and others are available in a free online strength converter app at http://apps.acpa.org. The load transfer coefficient (J factor) is intended to reflect the effects of transverse joint load transfer (e.g., aggregate interlock versus dowels) and longitudinal edge support (e.g., asphalt shoulder versus tied concrete shoulder) on slab corner deflection. A J factor of 3.2 reflects the corner support conditions at the AASHO Road Test (doweled joints, asphalt shoulders). J factors less than 3.2 indicate even better support conditions (e.g., concrete shoulder and/or continuously reinforced concrete pavement). J factors greater than 3.2 reflect worse corner support conditions (e.g., asphalt shoulders and undoweled joints). The J factor help screen displays the ACPA's J factor recommendations. The recommended ranges fall within the ranges recommended in the AASHTO Design Guide.

74 | P a g e

The required subgrade/subbase input is the average static modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value). The modulus of subgrade reaction help screen provides a procedure, from the AASHTO Design Guide and ACPA-developed correlations, for estimating the design composite k-value as a function of the resilient modulus of the subgrade and subbase, the thickness of the subbase, and the depth below the subgrade to a rigid foundation. An additional help screen provides correlations between subgrade resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and R-value. It should be noted that the correlations are intended to estimate resilient modulus from either CBR or R value, not to relate CBR to R value. The drainage coefficient (Cd) is intended to reflect the quality of drainage to the pavement structure. The baseline value of 1.00 corresponds to AASHO Road Test conditions, which were extremely poor. Pavement structures with better drainage would have a Cd value greater than 1.00, while pavement structures with worse drainage would have a Cd value less than 1.00. Note: because these values are based on soil conditions found at the AASHO Road Test, care must be taken when assigning Cd values less than 1.0. Pavement performance is quantified in the AASHTO methodology in terms of serviceability, which is the ability of the pavement to serve its function, from the viewpoint of the users. To users of a pavement, serviceability is primarily a function of ride quality (i.e., smoothness/roughness), which in turn depends on the type, quantity, and severity of distress(es) present. At the AASHO Road Test, a scale from 0 to 5 was developed for the user assessment of ride quality, or Present Serviceability Rating (PSR). Equations were then developed to estimate the PSR by a Present Serviceability Index (PSI), which can be calculated as a function of measured roughness and distress. The AASHTO design equations predict the change in PSI as a function of the design ESALs and other design inputs. The required initial serviceability input is the expected PSI of the pavement when opened to traffic, which depends on the initial smoothness of the pavement. The average initial PSI values at the AASHO Road Test were 4.5 and 4.2 for concrete and asphalt pavements, respectively However, with modern construction equipment and practices, initial smoothness levels corresponding to PSI values of 4.5 are easily achievable for both concrete and asphalt pavements. The required terminal serviceability input is the PSI at which the pavement is expected to need replacement or major preservation/rehabilitation. The appropriate terminal serviceability level for a given design situation depends on the functional class and the location (urban or rural) of the roadway.

P a g e | 75

For AASHTO recommended values on any of these inputs, see the help screen for any input in WinPAS, see the appropriate section earlier in this document, or consult the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

Asphalt Pavement Design/Analysis This screen displays and solves for the AASHTO asphalt pavement performance equation inputs, including: Structural number. Total flexible ESALs. Reliability. Overall standard deviation. Subgrade resilient modulus. Initial and terminal serviceability.

76 | P a g e

The Asphalt Structural Number reflects the required structural capacity of all asphalt pavement structure layers above the subgrade (i.e., the asphalt concrete surface course, base(s), and subbase(s)). The Total Flexible ESAL input comes from the Estimate ESALs tab in WinPAS, although you may overwrite this value and solve for the allowable ESALs for a given Structural Number and other inputs. The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor, for which a pavement is designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations. The overall standard deviation reflects: 1. 2. The error associated with estimation of each of the inputs. The error associated with the quality of fit of the model to the data on which it is based, and the replication error (differences in performance of seemingly identical pavement sections under identical conditions).

The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For asphalt pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.40 and 0.50. Typically, 0.45 is used. The subgrade resilient modulus is used to describe the subgrade strength for asphalt pavements. Typical values range from about 1,000 psi (6.9 MPa) for soft, marshy soils to about 40,000 psi (276 MPa) for granular soils. The resilient modulus help screen provides correlations between subgrade resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and R-value. It should be noted that the correlations are intended to estimate resilient modulus from either CBR or R-value, not to relate CBR to R value. Pavement performance is quantified in the AASHTO methodology in terms of serviceability, which is the ability of the pavement to serve its function, from the viewpoint of the users. To users of a pavement, serviceability is primarily a function of ride quality (i.e., smoothness/roughness), which in turn depends on the type, quantity, and severity of distress(es) present. At the AASHO Road Test, a scale from 0 to 5 was developed for the user assessment of ride quality, or Present Serviceability Rating (PSR). Equations were then developed to estimate the PSR by a Present Serviceability Index (PSI), which can be calculated as a function of measured roughness and distress. The AASHTO design equations predict the change in PSI as a function of the design ESALs and other design inputs. P a g e | 77

The required initial serviceability input is the expected PSI of the pavement when opened to traffic, which depends on the initial smoothness of the pavement. The average initial PSI values at the AASHO Road Test were 4.5 and 4.2 for concrete pavements and asphalt pavements, respectively. However, with modern construction equipment and practices, initial smoothness levels corresponding to PSI values of 4.5 are easily achievable for both concrete and asphalt pavements. The required terminal serviceability input is the PSI at which the pavement is expected to need replacement or major preservation/rehabilitation. The appropriate terminal serviceability level for a given design situation depends on the functional class and the location (urban or rural) of the roadway.

Asphalt Layer Determination An additional step is necessary to complete an asphalt pavement design. After determining the Structural Number, it is necessary to determine layer thicknesses that, when combined, will provide the required SN. This is accomplished by pressing the Calculate Asphalt Structural Number button. It provides a simple spreadsheet format for trying different combinations of layers and materials. In an asphalt pavement design, a coefficient is assigned to each layer and this coefficient converts the actual layer thickness to a layer SN. The coefficients are indicative of the relative contributions of the layers to the structural capacity of the pavement. The sum of all the layer structural numbers must equal or exceed the required SN from the AASHTO equation.

The contributions of the individual layers to the total pavement Structural Number are expressed by the following formula: SN = a1t1 + a2t2m2 + a3t3m3 +

78 | P a g e

Where ai are the layer coefficients corresponding to the surface, base, subbase, and other layers above the subgrade and ti are their respective thicknesses. Drainage coefficients (mi) may be applied only to granular base and subbase layers. Typical layer coefficient values for several types of materials can be found in the help screen. For more information, see section 2.3.5 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. Guidelines for selection of drainage coefficient values for asphalt pavement base and subbase materials can be found in the help screen and in section 2.4.2 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. The Additional Thickness needed column on the right-hand side of the Layer Thickness Determination screen provides a check to see if the Structural Number of the layer materials and thicknesses selected satisfies the required Structural Number. The column displays how much additional thickness is needed to meet the total SN for the layer/material on which the cursor rests. You may use the value WinPAS displays to adjust the layer thicknesses and optimize your design.

Both Concrete and Asphalt Design/Analysis (Side-by-Side) This screen performs the same functions as the Concrete Pavement Design/Analysis and Asphalt Pavement Design/Analysis screens. It allows you to develop concrete and asphalt pavement designs side-by-side, so that you can easily make comparisons of the two alternate pavement designs. Note that when using this screen for side-by-side concrete and asphalt pavement designs, you must press the Solve For buttons on either sides of the screen to determine the required concrete pavement slab thickness or asphalt pavement Structural Number.

P a g e | 79

Overlays Tab
The overlay design and evaluation module is based on Chapter 5 of Part III of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. It consists of three concrete overlay design procedures. For more information on the theory used in these procedures, see Chapter 5 of the Guide and the appropriate sections earlier in this document. To use the overlay design module, you must first provide information about the existing pavement and then some information for the type of overlay you wish to design. The overlay design module also provides screens for backcalculation of some of the overlay design inputs from nondestructive testing (NDT) deflection (e.g., FWD) measurements.

80 | P a g e

Similar to the new pavement design section, the overlay design modules employ the Solve For button to solve for any design input. To use Solve For, input all variables except the variable you are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). Next place the cursor in the variable you would like to solve, and click on the Solve For button. WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in the Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell.

Existing Pavement Information The existing pavement information needed depends on the existing pavement type (i.e., concrete, asphalt, or composite pavement). For an existing concrete pavement, the following information is necessary to perform an overlay design: Concrete thickness, Flexural strength, Modulus of elasticity, Load transfer coefficient, Modulus of subgrade reaction, and Drainage coefficient. P a g e | 81

For an existing asphalt pavement, the following information is necessary to perform an overlay design: Existing soil resilient modulus and Either the existing layer properties (material type, thickness, drainage coefficient, and layer coefficient) or the effective modulus of the pavement (Ep)

The Ep is a composite elastic modulus of the existing pavement structure (all layers above the subgrade), as if it were all composed of one material. Ep may be determined from nondestructive deflection testing with a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) or similar device. The in-situ (field) resilient modulus of the subgrade soil (Mr) may also be determined from nondestructive deflection testing, and then used to estimate the design (laboratory) resilient modulus. More information on determining Ep and Mr is given in the appropriate section of this document and in Part III, Chapter 5, of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. When FWD testing is not possible, the effective Structural Number of the existing pavement must be estimated using the existing layer thicknesses and assigning layer coefficients that reflect the degree of deterioration in the existing pavement. For an existing composite (asphalt over concrete) pavement, the following information is necessary to perform an overlay design: Asphalt surface thickness, Concrete slab thickness, Concrete flexural strength, Concrete modulus of elasticity, Concrete pavement load transfer coefficient, Modulus of subgrade reaction, and Drainage coefficient.

Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete Bonded concrete overlays on concrete are generally used when the existing concrete pavement is in relatively good condition, requiring little pre-overlay repair. For more information on the feasibility of such overlays and the design equations used by WinPAS, see Chapter 2 of this document.

82 | P a g e

The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a function of the future total rigid ESALs and other AASHTO concrete pavement design equation inputs. The values for flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, load transfer, and modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen (they are transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen). Because the original pavement properties do not change with an overlay, these values have been locked to prevent accidental changes. The effective existing concrete slab thickness (Deff) is generally less than the actual slab thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the actual existing slab thickness and three adjustment factors that reflect the extent of deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation of Deff.

P a g e | 83

Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete Unbonded concrete overlays on concrete are generally most cost effective when the existing concrete pavement is badly deteriorated and would require extensive preoverlay repair for a bonded concrete or asphalt overlay. For more information on the feasibility of such overlays and the design equations used by WinPAS, see Chapter 2 of this document.

The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a function of the design ESALs and other AASHTO rigid pavement design equation inputs. On this screen, other input values cannot be determined with the Solve For key. The value for the modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen because it is transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen and cannot be changed with an overlay. The values entered on this screen for the other inputs (including the flexural strength, elastic modulus, and load transfer coefficient) apply to the unbonded overlay, not the existing pavement.

84 | P a g e

The effective existing slab thickness (Deff) is generally less than the actual slab thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the actual existing slab thickness and one adjustment factor that reflects the extent of deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation of Deff.

Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt (Conventional Whitetopping) The design for an unbonded concrete overlay on an asphalt pavement, also known as a conventional whitetopping) is similar to designing a new concrete pavement on an asphalt-stabilized subbase. The AASHTO overlay design procedure requires inputs for future thickness, future ESALs, reliability, overall deviation, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), drainage coefficient, and initial and terminal serviceability.

P a g e | 85

The most difficult input to determine in the design of conventional whitetopping is the appropriate k-value to use to represent the existing asphalt pavement structure and foundation. There are two methods to estimate the k-vale: 1) Compute a composite k-value from the soil and pavement layer strengths. This is a similar procedure as that used for stabilized subbase materials in new concrete pavement designs. See Part II, Section 3.2 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide for more details. 2) Determine the dynamic k-value from FWD testing and backcalculation. This requires backcalculating the subgrade modulus (Mr) and the effective pavement modulus (Ep), and determining the existing asphalt layer thickness (Dac), which can be done using WinPAS's NDT backcalculation procedure). For more information on conventional whitetopping for asphalt pavements, see Section 5.10 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide, ACPAs EB210P, "Whitetopping - The State of the Practice," or the CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete Overlays,22

Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Backcalculation WinPAS provides easy-to-use backcalculation routines for analysis of nondestructive deflection testing data. More information on these backcalculation routines is provided in Part III, Chapter 5 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. Nondestructive deflection testing can be an extremely valuable and rapid form of testing. FWD testing provides very useful information for a reasonable investment of time, effort, and money. However, analysis of FWD data can be quite sensitive to site conditions and therefore requires knowledgeable and experienced personnel. For concrete pavements, NDT is useful for examining load transfer at joints and cracks, estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), and estimating the concrete modulus of elasticity. For asphalt pavements, NDT provides data for estimating the soil resilient modulus and the effective Structural Number of the pavement. NDT cannot be used to estimate moduli values of individual layers of a flexible pavement system. For composite pavements, NDT can be used to determine load transfer efficiency at joints and cracks, estimate effective k-value, estimate concrete strength, and examine resilient modulus of asphalt layers. Still for all three pavement types, one of the most important things NDT can do is quantify variability along the project.

86 | P a g e

NDT Backcalculation for Concrete Pavements To determine the subgrade k-value and the elastic modulus of the concrete slab, WinPAS requires inputs for the existing concrete slab thickness, the Poisson's ratio of the concrete (typically 0.15 to 0.20), the radius of the FWD load plate (5.9 in. [150 mm]), and load and deflection data. WinPAS uses the existing concrete slab thickness from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen in the NDT module. The load input is the measured load magnitude that corresponds to the deflections measured at the pavement surface. The deflections d0, d12, d24, and d36 are measured directly under the load (e.g., 0 in.) and at 12, 24, and 36 in. (305, 610, and 914 mm) from the center of the load plate. WinPAS provides more information on these inputs on the help screen. WinPAS calculates the deflection basin (AREA), radius of relative stiffness (l), dynamic and static modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), and concrete modulus (Ec) from the load and deflection data and the slab thickness. The static k-values are estimated by dividing the dynamic k-values by 2. The mean static kvalue is the appropriate input for inclusion in the appropriate overlay design procedures.

P a g e | 87

NDT Backcalculation for Asphalt Pavements To determine the in-situ (field) subgrade resilient modulus and the effective Structural Number of an existing flexible pavement, WinPAS requires inputs for existing asphalt pavement thickness (all layers above the subgrade), the radius of the FWD load plate (5.9 in. [150 mm]), and load and deflection data. A correction factor (C) is required to estimate the design (laboratory) resilient modulus of the subgrade from the in-situ resilient modulus. For design of asphalt overlays on asphalt pavements, a C value no greater than 0.33 is recommended. For design of asphalt overlays on fractured slabs, a C value of 0.25 is suggested. The distance (r) from the center of the load plate to the deflection (dr) used in calculation of the subgrade resilient modulus is typically at least 24 in. (610 mm). The effective modulus of the existing pavement is calculated from the backcalculated (unadjusted) subgrade resilient modulus, the deflection d0 at the center of the load plate, and the total thickness of the existing pavement above the subgrade.

88 | P a g e

NDT Backcalculation for Composite Pavements WinPAS will estimate the subgrade k-value and approximate concrete elastic modulus from deflections measured on a composite pavement by essentially the same backcalculation method used in NDT backcalculation for concrete pavements. To account for the presence of the existing asphalt layer, you must also enter the asphalt thickness, an estimate of the asphalt elastic modulus at the time of deflection testing, and assume whether the asphalt and concrete layers are bonded or unbonded. Examination of cores may be helpful in making the bonded versus unbonded determination.

Life-Cycle Costs Tab

WinPAS's life-cycle cost analysis tab allows you to account for the total costs involved in constructing, maintaining, and rehabilitating both concrete and asphalt pavement systems, although the analysis is not limited to the comparison of concrete and asphalt pavements.

P a g e | 89

Any pavement cross-section can be assigned for the life-cycle cost analysis. WinPAS calculates both the present worth and the equivalent uniform annual cost of the cross-section. For more information on life-cycle cost analysis, see Chapter 3 of this publication and ACPAs EB011, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better Pavement Investment and Engineering Decisions. Economic Factors The economic factors account for the effects of interest and inflation over a defined period of time (e.g., the analysis period). WinPAS requires input for the analysis period for each pavement, the interest rate, and the inflation rate. The discount rate, which is used to characterize the effects of fluctuating interest and inflation rates, is calculated as a function of the interest and inflation rates.

Cost Graphs A graphical output is available to show the economic analysis results, comparing the pavements in the life-cycle cost module. You may display plots in terms of initial costs, maintenance costs, rehabilitation costs, present worth value, or equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) for each pavement type.

90 | P a g e

Pavement Cost Information Cost information for Pavement A and B is entered on three subtabs (each pavement type's cost information screens are exactly alike). The subtab is for general pavement information, while the second and third subtabs are cost calculation screens. The second subtab provides lines for up to 35 initial cost items. The third subtab is for entry of maintenance and rehabilitation cost items. On the first subtab, enter general details of the project: layer types, widths, thicknesses, material unit weights, shoulders or curb and gutter, project length, joint spacing, etc. When activate, the drop down menu buttons that appear when the cursor is in a specific column give a list of possible items.

The second subtab calculates the initial cost for the pavement, considering up to 35 initial cost items. Any project details initially entered on the previous subtab are automatically transferred to the second subtab. You must make adjustments to the information on the second subtab manually. Again, the drop down menu identifies possible items for the columns. Furthermore, in the quantity column, the drop down menu can be used to calculate quantities and establish units based on the information from the first subtab. Item cost is the initial cost per item and automatically calculated from the Unit Cost and Quantity.

P a g e | 91

The third subtab calculates maintenance and rehabilitation costs for the pavement. Once more, maintenance items and quantities are capable of being tied to the general info on the first subtab. Item cost is the maintenance cost per item in today's dollars. The total item cost is summed at the bottom of the page. The year input is the year the maintenance will be performed. Present worth is calculated for each item based on the year of the maintenance to account for the time value of money and all present worths are totaled at the bottom of the page.

92 | P a g e

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Results This screen has no inputs. It displays a summary of the results of the economic analysis. Initial Cost and Maintenance and Rehabilitation Costs are the total amounts spent on each activity for each pavement type. Total Expenditures is the sum of initial costs and maintenance and rehabilitation costs. It is the actual dollar outlay of the life of the project. Present Worth is the sum of initial cost and future cost, discounted to account for both inflation and interest. Annual Cost is the total expenditures amortized over the analysis period; this is the same as EUAC. Note: Pavements with different analysis periods should be compared using equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) only. Comparisons in terms of present worth are not appropriate for comparison of pavements with different analysis periods.

P a g e | 93

Reports Tab
The Reports tab permits you to print or save the results of analyses conducted with WinPAS. Customized reports on new pavement designs, overlay designs, rigid and flexible ESAL calculations, or life-cycle cost analysis can be printed. In these reports, all pertinent information will be printed. To print a report, select the reports you would like to print on the Reports tab and hit Load. WinPAS will display the reports. Within that new window, you can toggle between reports and print the reports. You can also export the reports so that they can be used in other formats (e.g., MS Word).

Problems or Questions
If you are having problems with the operation of this program, please contact ACPA at 847.966.2272. If you have general questions about concrete pavements and concrete pavement design, please contact your local ACPA Chapter or State Paving Association (see the My Locator on the ACPA homepage) or visit ACPA online at www.acpa.org.

94 | P a g e

References
1. "AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures," American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1993. "The AASHO Road Test, Special Reports 61A-61G," Highway Research Board National Academy of SciencesNational Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1961-1962. "National Road Test Performance Study" Portland Cement Association, R164, Skokie, IL, 1962. Performance of Concrete Pavements, Vol. Ill - Improving Concrete Pavement Performance, Yu, H.T., Darter M.I., Smith K.D., Jiang J., and Khazanovich L., Report No. FHWA-RD-95-111, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1997 Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements, EB109P, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1984. Design of Concrete Pavements for City Streets, IS184P, American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1992. Guidelines for Unbonded Concrete Overlays, TB005P, American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1990. Guidelines for Bonded Concrete Overlays, TB007P, American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1990. Whitetopping - State of the Practice, EB210P, American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1998. Comments on the Proposed "AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures," March 1985, Portland Cement Association, Presented at May 14, 1985 Public Hearings, Washington, D.C. 11. "Flexural Strength of Concrete Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading," AASHTO Test Method T97, Washington, D.C. or ASTM C78, American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. "Flexural Strength of Concrete using Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading," AASHTO Test Method T177, Washington, D.C. or ASTM C93, American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. "Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens," AASHTO Test Method T22, Washington, D.C. or ASTM C39, American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. "Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio of Concrete in Compression," ASTM C469, American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. "High Strength Concrete," ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1, Materials and General Properties of Concrete, ACI 363R-84, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Ml, 1990. "Bearing Capacity of Soil for Static Load on Spread Footing," AASHTO Test Method T-235, Washington, D.C. or ASTM D1194, American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. "Resilient Modulus of Unbound Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils," AASHTO Test Method T294, Washington, D.C. "The California Bearing Ratio," AASHTO Test Method T193, Washington, D.C. "Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils," AASHTO Test Method T190, Washington, D.C. or ASTM D2844, American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

2.

12.

3.

4.

13.

14.

5.

15.

6.

7.

16.

8.

9.

17.

10.

18. 19.

P a g e | 95

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

"Evaluation of the AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures," NCHRP Project 128, Washington, D.C. "Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens," AASHTO Test Method T198, Washington, D.C. or ASTM C496, American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Guide to Concrete Overlays, National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Ames, IA, 2008. Design of Concrete Overlays Using Existing Methodologies, National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Ames, IA, 2011. LCC Final Policy Statement, Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 182, September 18, 1996, p. 35404. Engineering Economy, Thuesen, G. J. and Fabrycky, W. J., sixth edition, copyright by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Revisited: The Discount Rate, Concrete Conveyer, Volume 8, Issue 4, Concrete Paving Association of Minnesota, 2008. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design In Search of Better Investment Decisions, Federal Highway Administration, Interim Technical Bulletin, Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079, 1998. Asphalt Adjustment Multiplier Memo, July 8, 2011, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 2011. The Effects of Inflation and Its Volatility on the Choice of Construction Alternatives, Concrete Sustainability Hub, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lindsey, L., Schmalensee, R., and Sacher, A., 2011. Guide for Pavement-Type Selection, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 703, 2011.

96 | P a g e

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

P a g e | 97

Windows Pavement Analysis Software (WinPAS) Guide

Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures

This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided herein, and who will accept total responsibility for the application of this information. The American Concrete Pavement Association DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the application of the information contained in this publication to the full extent permitted by law.

American Concrete Pavement Association 9450 Bryn Mawr, Suite 150 Rosemont, IL 60018 www.acpa.org

WinPAS12 (SW03)