Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 67

Common Thickness Design

Methods and How They Compare

Concrete Pavement
Design Seminar
December 18, 2014
Robert Rodden, P.E.
Senior Director of
Pavement Technology

Design Methods

Countries with Concrete Pavements


Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
France
Germany
Ghana

Guatemala
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Kingdom of Bahrain
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Poland

Portugal
Puerto Rico
Russia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Uruguay
United Kingdom
USA
ACPAs apps.acpa.org
has been accessed in over
140 countries!

Certainly we have many design methods!!!

SOME of the Design Variety


AASHTOWare Pavement ME

USA, Canada
USA, Canada, most of
AASHTO 93/WinPAS
South & Central America, etc.
TCPavements OptiPave
Chile, Guatemala, Peru
cncPave
South Africa
VENCON2.0
Belgium, Netherlands
Custom Catalog
Germany, India, Poland
Australia, Portugal, USA
ACPA StreetPave (previously the PCA
(approved in MN and VA),
Method)
Canada, Uruguay
IP-07/2004
Brazil
CHAUSSEE2
Canada
FAARFIELD, AirPave, ACI 330, BCOA,
USA
CO 6x6x6, custom method, etc.

US Practices are Changing


Summary of State Agency practice in 2005:
Design Method
Used

Percent of Responding
Agencies

AASHTO
72/86/93

85%

AASHTO MEPDG
PCA Method
State-Developed

4%
11%
7%

State Agency
AR, AZ, DE, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, MD,
MI, NV, NC, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT,
VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
MO
HI, IN, IA
IL, MT

At the end of 2013, 41 state agencies had performed


ME Design calibration and implementation efforts,
indicating a relatively quick shift from AASHTO 93.

U.S. Roadway Length (lane miles)


Other, 1%

Federal, 3%

State
Agency,
19%
Town, 32%

County,
44%

AASHTO tools are


being developed for
these owners
City, county, and other
local engineers need
to decide what to use
locally because
Pavement ME will not
trickle down due to its
cost and complexity!

Source: HM-10, 2012 FHWA Highway Statistics

Design Method Basis


Mechanistic Purely scientific and based on measured,
defendable scientific rules and laws
/

Empirical Based on observations or experimentation


and requires a lot of tests to connect all the relationships

U.S. JPCP Roadway Design Methods


AASHTOWare
Pavement ME
(previously known as
DARWin-ME and
MEPDG)

AASHTO 93
(software as
ACPA WinPAS)

ACPA
StreetPave

325 & 330

JRCP is not supported in the


modern design methods!

AASHTO 93/WinPAS
acpa.org/winpas

AASHO Road Test (1958-1960)


Included 368 concrete and 468 asphalt
sections | focus was highway pavement
Design first introduced in 62, revised
several times thereafter until 93 version

Typical AASHO Loop Layout


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

Subgrade = Clay Soil

AASHO Test Traffic


Max Single
Axle

Max Tandem
Axle

Performance Metric

Some AASHO Results Loop 2

1,114,000 load applications to end

Some AASHO Results Loop 2

Some AASHO Results Loop 4

Some AASHO Results Loop 4

Some AASHO Results Loop 6

Some AASHO Results Loop 6

Performance Estimated Subjectively


Present Serviceability Index (PSI)
4.0 5.0 = Very Good
3.0 4.0 = Good
2.0 3.0 = Fair
1.0 2.0 = Poor
0.0 1.0 = Very Poor

Failure at the Road Test


considered @ 1.5
Typical U.S. state agency
terminal serviceability
in practice = 2.5

Note on Inference Space of 93

PAVEMENT THICKNESS

Current design traffic


is far beyond AASHO
road test limits
Data
Limits
(AASHO
Road
Test)

<2
million

Current
Designs
>100
million

AXLE LOAD REPETITIONS

Dont Just Take My Word


The current design guide and its
predecessors were largely based on
design equations empirically derived
from the observations AASHTOs
predecessor made during road
performance tests completed in 195960. Several transportation experts have
criticized the empirical data thus derived
as outdated and inadequate for todays
highway system. In addition, a March
1994 DOT Office of Inspector General
report concluded that the design guide
was outdated and that pavement design
information it relied on could not be
supported and validated with systematic
comparisons to actual experience or
research.
this is why Pavement ME exists!

1986-93 Concrete Pavement


Equation
Standard
Normal Deviate

Overall
Standard Deviation

Change in Serviceability
Thickness

PSI
Log 4.5 1.5

Log ( ESAL) Z R * so 7.35 * Log ( D 1) 0.06


7
1.624 *10
Traffic
1 ( D 1)8.46

Terminal
Serviceability

Modulus of
Drainage
Rupture
Coefficient

'
0.75
S c * Cd * ( D 1.132)

(4.22 0.32 * pt ) * Log

0.75
18.42
215.63 * J * D
0.25
(
E
/
k
)


Load
Transfer

Modulus
of Elasticity

10
Inputs.
Solve
for 11th

Modulus of
Subgrade Reaction

WinPAS Makes it Easy

MEPDG / DARWin-ME /
AASHTOWare Pavement ME

AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design


15+ years in the making
Design method and software not perfect; not
intended to be a final product
Complex and relatively costly
Models not for streets, roads, parking lots, etc.

+
Mechanistic
Elements

Empirical
Elements

Pavement
Performance
Prediction

JPCP Calibration BIG INF. SPACE!

LTPP GPS-3 & RPPR JPCP Sections

LTPP SPS-2, MnROAD, & AASHO JPCP Sections

AASHTO 93 vs. ME
Wide range of structural and
rehabilitation designs

50+ million load reps

Limited structural sections

1.1 million load reps

AASHTO 93
AASHTO Pavement ME

1 climate/2 years

All climates over 20-50 years

1 set of materials

New and diverse materials

Sounds Easy Enough,

MECHANISTIC Right? EMPIRICAL

INPUTS, INPUTS, INPUTS!!!!

INPUTS, INPUTS, INPUTS!!!!

Notes on ME ESALs
Output in a .txt file and
not included on report
TRB 2014:
Approaches to Relate
Cumulative Traffic
Loading to Performance
for Pavements Designed
Using MEPDG
Investigation of ESALs
vs. Load Spectra for
Rigid Pavement Design

TTC 1
TTC 2
TTC 3
TTC 4
TTC 5
TTC 6
TTC 7
TTC 8
TTC 9
TTC 10
TTC 11
TTC 12
TTC 13
TTC 14
TTC 15
TTC 16
TTC 17

ESALs/Truck
1.69
1.57
1.82
1.43
1.90
1.26
1.63
1.83
1.16
1.46
1.85
1.05
1.55
0.83
1.04
1.33
1.03

Whats the Concern in ME?


Just as rigid and flexible ESALs are different
because of their different response
Single, tandem and tridem axle groups (and at
differing loads) cause differing relative damages
Single-axles usually cause more fatigue damage
Tandem and tridem axles usually cause more erosion
damage
so even within just rigid pavement design,
ESAL count for same traffic spectrum and #
of trucks in the design lane is really different
for each distress type modeled!?!

OUTPUTS, OUTPUTS, OUTPUTS!!!

Simpler ME Option: MnDOT

Drainage in ME Design
The current state of the art is such that
conclusive remarks regarding the
effectiveness of pavement subsurface
drainage or the need for subsurface
drainage are not possible.

so we must rely on field studies:

Subbase stiffness matters more than


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

Top 10 ME Design Most Sensitive


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Concrete Flexural Strength at 28-Days


Concrete Thickness
Surface Shortwave Absorptivity (SSA)
Joint Spacing
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity at 28-Days
Design Lane Width with a 14 ft (4.3 m) Widened Slab
Edge Support via Widened Slab
Concrete Thermal Conductivity
Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE)
Concrete Unit Weight
Red = only ME Design input the VALUE of the software!
Blue + Bold = common for all

Implementation in the US @ Jan 2014

Using Pavement-ME
Nearing Implementation
Implementation work underway

Alaska
Hawaii

No Plans / No information

8 states have either fully or partially implemented

StreetPave/PCA Method
acpa.org/streetpave

StreetPaves Origins
PCA thickness design methodology for JPCP
first published in 1966
used slab stress/fatigue as
the sole design criterion
for determining thickness

updated in 1984
failure by erosion (pumping)
edge support

ACPA Has Advanced the Design


StreetPave
Tailored for streets and roads
Improvements included:
Enhanced concrete fatigue model w/reliability component
Ability to analyze tridem axles in the traffic spectrum
Side-by-side design comparison to asphalt sections (MS-1)
Inclusion of fibers in all concrete designs
ACI 330 traffic spectrums
Overlay designs
..

Failure Modes Considered

FAULTING

CRACKING

Traffic Loads + # of Repetitions


Single Axles

Tandem Axles

Axle Load (kip)

Axles/1,000 Trucks

Axle Load (kip)

Axles/1,000 Trucks

34

0.19

60

0.57

32

0.54

56

1.07

30

0.63

52

1.79

28

1.78

48

3.03

26

3.52

44

3.52

24

4.16

40

20.31

22

9.69

36

78.19

20

41.82

32

109.54

18

68.27

28

95.79

16

57.07

24

71.16

Total trucks in design lane over the design life


calculated from trucks/day (2-way), traffic growth rate (%/yr), design life
(yrs), directional distribution (%) and design lane distribution (%)

Traffic Loads Generate Stresses


Equivalent stress at the slab edge:
2

Me = equivalent moment, psi; different for single, tandem, and tridem axles, with and
without edge support - func on radius of relative stiffness, which depends on
concrete modulus, Poissons ratio, and thickness and the k-value
hc = pavement thickness, in.
f1 = adjustment for the effect of axle loads and contact area
f2 = adjustment for a slab with no concrete shoulder
f3 = adjustment to account for the effect of truck (wheel) placement at the slab edge
f4 = adjustment to account for approximately 23.5% increase in concrete strength
with age after the 28th day and reduction of one coefficient of variation (COV) to
account for materials variability

Meet Design Reps by Limiting Stress Ratio

Stress Ratio (SR) = Stress / Concrete Strength


StreetPave
makes slab
thicker to
limit stress
ratio low
enough to
achieve the
design traffic
repetitions
1

0.9

Fatigue Data
StreetPave R=95%

Stress Ratio

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

1.E+09

1.E+10

Repetitions

Inference space normalized to SR

A Conservative Approach!
StreetPave fatigue
calculation should be
conservative relative
to ME Design
because:
Size Effects Slabs
have a greater fatigue
capacity than beams
Support The beam
test has a k-value for
support of 0 psi/in.!

versus

d=L/3
L/3
Span Length = L

Faulting Design in StreetPave


If dowels used, faulting mitigated & fails by cracks
No faulting data collected at the AASHO road test
so model developed in 1980s using field
performance data from WI, MN, ND, GA, and CA
Similar to cracking models, the pavement is made
thicker, as necessary, until faulting model predicts
that the pavement will not fail by faulting during
the design life
StreetPaves
weak point

StreetPave in MN

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/admin/memos/12-sa-03.pdf
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/documents/201210.pdf

And Its Use is Growing!


Also approved in VA and many other state, city,
and county engineers are using it in the U.S.
StreetPave used in design tables in:
ACI 325 and 330 documents
Dr. Norb Delattes textbook Concrete Pavement Design,
Construction, and Performance

Internationally, used in Australia, Portugal,


Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, etc.

StreetPave Asphalt Design


Per Asphalt Institutes MS-1
Reliability considered as modifier of
soil strength (see ACPAs R&T
Update 9.01, StreetPaves Equivalent
Design of Asphalt Proof of the
Accuracy of StreetPaves Asphalt
Module)
Failure predefined according to
Asphalt Institute at 20% cracking in
the wheelpaths

Comparison of Software

Example with ME Design defaults


JPCP w/ 6 in. (150 mm) crushed stone on a A-7-6
subgrade with defaults except subbase thickness
All traffic @ default values Passes with 1.5 (38
Weather @ Chicago (ORD) mm) dowels

@ Phoenix (PHX)

Example with ME Design defaults


Conducted WinPAS/AASHTO 93 and StreetPave
designs alongside for comparison
Used default values from ME Design as inputs where
possible
If ME Design variable not available, used typical default
In ME, also turned Sealant on and Erodibility Index to 2
For k-value, used dynamic k-value to get static k-value

14

350

13

325

12

300

11

275

10

250

225

200
AASHTO93(ACPAWinPAS)

175

AASHTOWarePavementME@ORD

AASHTOWarePavementME@PHX

ACPAStreetPave

150
125
100

10,000,000

20,000,000 30,000,000
DesignLaneESALs

40,000,000

remember AASHTO 93 limit?

50,000,000

RequiredThickness(mm)

RequiredThickness(in.)

Example with defaults - DOWELED

14

350

13

325

12

300

11

275

10

250

225

200
AASHTO93(ACPAWinPAS)

175

AASHTOWarePavementME@ORD

AASHTOWarePavementME@PHX

ACPAStreetPave

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

DesignLaneESALs

40,000,000

150
125

100
50,000,000

RequiredThickness(mm)

RequiredThickness(in.)

Example with defaults - UNDOWELED

Top 10 ME Design Most Sensitive


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Concrete Flexural Strength at 28-Days


Concrete Thickness
Surface Shortwave Absorptivity (SSA)
Joint Spacing
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity at 28-Days
Design Lane Width with a 14 ft (4.3 m) Widened Slab
Edge Support via Widened Slab
Concrete Thermal Conductivity
Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE)
Concrete Unit Weight
Red = only ME Design input the VALUE of the software!
Blue + Bold = common for all

14

350

13

325

12

300

11

275

10

250

225
AASHTO93(ACPAWinPAS)

200

AASHTOWarePavementME@ORD

175

AASHTOWarePavementME@PHX

150

ACPAStreetPave

125

100
400

(2.75 MPa)

450

500

550

600

650

ConcreteFlexuralStrength(psi)

700

750

800
(5.5 MPa)

RequiredThickness(mm)

RequiredThickness(in.)

Flexural Strength Sensitivity

14

350

13

325

12

300

11

275

10

250

225

200
AASHTO93(ACPAWinPAS)

175

AASHTOWarePavementME@ORD
6

AASHTOWarePavementME@PHX

5
4
3,000,000
(20.7 GPa)

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

ModulusofElasticity(psi)

150
125

ACPAStreetPave
3,500,000

RequiredThickness(mm)

RequiredThickness(in.)

Modulus of Elasticity Sensitivity

5,500,000

100
6,000,000
(41.4 GPa)

in reality, need to change strength too!

ThicknessReductionw/EdgeSupport(in.)

100
AASHTO93(ACPAWinPAS)

3.5

AASHTOWarePavementME@ORD

75

AASHTOWarePavementME@PHX
ACPAStreetPave

2.5
2

50

1.5
1

25

0.5
0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

DesignLaneESALs

40,000,000

0
50,000,000

ThicknessReductionw/EdgeSupport (mm)

Thickness Reduction w/ Edge Support

Distress

Reliability is Very Different for Each

Damage
1

0.9
Fatigue Data
StreetPave R=95%

Stress Ratio

0.8

PCA

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10

Repetitions

14

350

13

325

12

300

11

275

10

250

225

200
AASHTO93(ACPAWinPAS)

AASHTOWarePavementME@ORD

AASHTOWarePavementME@PHX

175
150
125

ACPAStreetPave

100
50%

60%

70%

80%

Reliability

90%

100%

RequiredThickness(mm)

RequiredThickness(in.)

Reliability Sensitivity

Increasing k-value Doesnt Greatly


Decrease the Required Thickness
Concrete pavement design thickness is relatively insensitive to
support stiffness (modulus of subgrade reaction), so it is improper
engineering to make a subgrade/subbase stronger or thicker in an
attempt to decrease concrete pavement thickness

Analyses
conducted in
StreetPave

k-value Sensitivity
350

14
AASHTO93(ACPAWinPAS)

13

325

AASHTOWarePavementME@ORD
300

AASHTOWarePavementME@PHX

11

275

ACPAStreetPave

10

250

225

8
7
6
5

Very few
designed
for < 100
psi/in.
(27
MPa/m)?

200
175
150
125
100

4
0

100

200

300

Statickvalue(psi)

400

500

(136 MPa/m)

RequiredThickness(mm)

RequiredThickness(in.)

12

Get Your Software Loaded Up!

Thank you.
Questions? FEEDBACK!
Robert Rodden, P.E.
Senior Director of Pavement Technology
American Concrete Pavement Association
rrodden@acpa.org | 847.423.8706
Main Website | acpa.org
Concrete Wiki | wiki.acpa.org
App Library | apps.acpa.org
Desktop Software | software.acpa.org
Resources | resources.acpa.org
On-Demand Training | ondemand.acpa.org
Live Online Training | webinars.acpa.org
Your Local Contact | local.acpa.org