Thickness Design For Concrete Pavement Roads and Streets

.
Publication List Book Contents

u
The author of thk engineering bulletin is Robert G.

Packard, 1? E., principal paving engineer, Paving
Transportation Department, Portland Cement
Association.
This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROF!3SIONAL

PERSONNEL who we competent to evaluate the si~ificance and
limitations of the information provided herein, and who wiff accept
total responsibility for the application of this information. The
Portland Cement Association DISCLAIMS any and all
RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the ap-
plication of the information contained in this publication to the fulf
extent permitted by law. w
0 Portland Cement Asscwiation 1984, reprinted 1$95

.—-
Thickness Design for
Concrete Highway and
Street Pavements
P
CONTENTS
Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... ...3 Aggregate Interlock or Doweled Joints . . . . . ...30
Applications of Design Procedures. . . .... . . ... ...3 User-Developed Design Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...30
Computer Programs Available . . . . . . .... . . ... ...4
Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... ...4 Appendix A. Development of Design
Metric Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... ...4 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...32
Analysis of Concrete Pavements . . . . . ..... . . . ...32
Chapter 2. Design Factora . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...5 Jointed Pavements .............. ..... . . . ...32
Flexural Strength of Concrete . . . .... . . .... . . . ...5 Continuously Reinforced Pavements .... . . . ...33
Subgrade and Subbase Support . .... . . .... . . . ...6 Truck-Load Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...33
Design Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...6 Variation in Concrete Strength . . . . . . ..... . . . ...34
Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...8 Concrete Strength Gain with Age . . . . . .. .. . . . ...34
Projection ................. .... . . .... . . .. . .8 Warping and Curling of Concrete . . . . ..... . . . ...34
Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...8 Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...34
ADTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . . ...8 Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ...35
Truck Dkectional Dktribution .... . . .... . . ...10
Axle-Load Dktribution ...... .... . . .... . . ...10 Appendix B. Daaign of Concrete Pavements
Load Safety Factors . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .... . . ...10 with Lean Concrete Lower Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
fsan Ccmcrete Subbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
Chapter 3. Design Procedure Monolithic Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
(Axle-Load Data Available) . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...11
Fatigue Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...11 Appendix C. Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads . . . . ...39
Erosion Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...11
Sample Problems . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . .. . ...13 Appendix D. Estimating Traffic Volume
by Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...42
Chapter 4. Simplified Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Not Available) . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...23 Appendix E. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...44
Sample Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...30
Comments on Simplified Procedure . . .... . . . . ...30 Daaign Worksheet for Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . ...47
Modulus of Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...30
Design Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . ...30

Figures 13b. Allowable ADT”f, Axle-Load Category 3—Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
1. Flexural strength, age, and design relationships, 14a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 4—Pave-
2. Approximate interrelationships of soil classifications ments with Doweled Joints
and bearing values. 14b. Allowable ADl_f, Axle-Load Category 4—Pave-
U
3. Proportion of tmcks in right lane of a multilane ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
divided highway. 15. Axle-Load Dktribution Used for Preparing Design
4, Design 1A. Tables 11 Through 14
5. Fatigue analysis—allowable load repetitions based Cl. Equivalent Stress — Tridems
on stress ratio factor (with and without concrete C2. Erosion Factors — Tridems — Doweled Joints
shoulders). C3. Erosion Factors — Tridems — Aggregate-Interlock
6a. Erosion analysis—allowable load repetitions based Joints
on erosion factor (without concrete shoulder). D 1. Design Capacities for Multilane Highways
6b. Erosion analysis—allowable load repetitions based D2. Design Capacities for Uninterrupted Flow on Two-
on erosion factor (with concrete shoulder). Lane Highways
7. Design 1D,
8. Design 2A.
A 1. Critical axle-load positions.
A2. Equivalent edge stress factor depends on percent of
trucks at edge. us.
3
A3. Fatigue relationships. customary Metric Conversion
unit unit coefficient
BI. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (lean
concrete subbase), in. mm 25.40
ft m 0.305
B2. Design chart for composite concrete pavement
lb kg 0.454
(monolithic with lean concrete lower layer).
lbf N 4.45
B3. Modulus of rupture versus compressive strength. kip kN 4.45
Cl. Analysis of tridems, lb/in.x kPa 6.89
lb/ in.x (k value) MPa/m 0.271
Tables
1. Effect of Untreated Subbase on k Values
2. Design k Values for Cement-Treated Subbase
3. Yearly Rates of Traffic Growth and Corresponding
Projection Factors
4. Percentages of Four-Tke Single Units and Trucks
(ADTT) on Various Highway Systems
5. Axle-Load Data
6a. Equivalent Stress-No Concrete Shoulder
6b. Equivalent Stress-Concrete Shoulder
7a. Erosion Factors—Doweled Joints, No Concrete
Shoulder
7b. Erosion Factors—Aggregate-Interlock Joints, No
Concrete Shoulder
8a. Erosion Factom—Doweled Joints, Concrete
Shoulder
8b. Erosion Factors—Aggregate-Interlock Joints,
Concrete Shoulder
9. Axle-Load Categories
10. Subgrade Soil Types and Approximate k Values
11. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 1—Pave-
12a. Allowable AD’IT, Axle-Load Category 2—Pave-
ments with Doweled Joints
12b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2—Pave-
13a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3—Pave- L-J
ments with Doweled Joints

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This bulletin deals with methods of determining slab Applications of Design Procedures
thicknesses adequate to carry traffic loads on concrete
streets, roads, and highways, The design procedures given in this text apply to the fol-
The design purpose is the same as for other engineered lowing types of concrete pavements: doweled,
plain, plain
structures—to find the minimum thickness that will re- reinforced, and continuously reinforced.
sult in the lowest annual cost as shown by both first cost Plain pavements are constructed without reinforcing
and maintenance costs. If the thickness is greater than steel or doweled joints. Load transfer at the joints is ob-
needed, tbe pavement will give good service with low tained by aggregate interlock between the cracked faces
maintenance costs, but first cost will be high. If the thick- below the joint saw cut or groove. For load transfer to be
ness is not adequate, premature and costly maintenance effective, it is necessary that short joint spacings be used.
and interruptions in traffic will more than offset the lower Plain-doweled pavements are built without reinforcing
P
first cost. Sound engineering requires thickness designs steeb however, smooth steel dowel bars are installed as
that properly balance first cost and maintenance costs. load transfer devices at each contraction joint and rela-
While this bulletin is confined to the topic of thickness tively short joint spacings are used to control cracking.
design, other design aspects are equally important to en- Reinforced pavements contain reinforcing steel and
sure the performance and long life of concrete pavements. dowel bars for load transfer at the contraction joints. The
These include— pavements are constructed with longer joint spacings
● Provision for reasonably uniform support. (See Sub- than used for unreinforced pavements. Between the joints,
grades ond Subbases for Concrete Pavements,*) one or more transverse cracks will usually develop; these
● Prevention of mud-pumping with a relatively thin are held tightly together by the reinforcing steel and good
untreated or cement-treated subbase on projects load transfer is provided.
where the expected truck traffic will be great enough Commonly used joint spacings that perform well are 15
to cause pumping. (The need for and requirements of ft for plain pavements,tt not more than 20 ft for plain-
subbase are also given in the booklet cited above. ) doweled pavements, and not more than about 40 ft for
reinforced pavements. Joint spacings greater than these
● Use of a joint design that will afford adequate load
have been used but sometimes greater spacing causes
transfeq enable joint sealants, if required, to be effec-
pavement distress at joints and intermediate cracks be-
tive; and prevent joint distress due to infiltration.
tween joints.
(See Joint Design for Concrete Highway and Street
Continuously reinforced pavements are built without
Pavements.** )
contraction joints, Due to the relatively heavy, continu-
● Use of a concrete mix design and aggregates that will ous-steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direction,
provide quality concrete with the strength and dura- these pavements develop transverse cracks at close inter-
bility needed for long fife under the actual exposure vals. A high degree of load transfer is developed at these
conditions. (See Design and Control of Concrete crack faces held tightly together by steel reinforcement.
Mixrf4re$.T) The design procedures given here cover design condi-
The thickness design criteria suggested are based on tions that have not been directly addressed before by
general pavement performance experience. If regional or
local specific performance experience becomes available
for more favorable or adverse conditions, the design cri- ‘Portland Cement As$o.iation publication 1S029F’
**portl..d @nent Association publication 1S059P.
P teria can be appropriately modified. This could be the tPortle.”d Cement Aswwiaticm publication EBOOIT.
case for particular climate, soil, or drainage conditions TtFor very thin pavements, a 15-ft joint spacing may beexcessive–sw
and future design innovations. the afor.sme”tioned PCA publication . . joint desigm

other procedures. These include recognition of— 1. Theoretical studies of pavement slab behavior by
1, The degree of load transfer at transverse joints pro- Westergaard,{ ‘-’)* Pickett and Ray,(G ‘land reCent]y
vided by the different pavement types described. developed finite-element computer analyses, one of
2. The effect of using a concrete shoulder adjacent to which is used as the basis for this design procedure. [81
the pavement; concrete shoulders reduce the flex- 2. Model and full-scale tests such as Arfington Tests(9]
and several research projects conducted b? PCA and ‘i-.’J
uraI stresses and deflections caused by veh]cle loads,
other agencies ofl$~$bases,( ‘*’S)joints( ’d- ‘]and con-
3. The effect of using a lean concrete (econocrete) sub-
crete shoulders.
base, which reduces pavement stresses and defect-
ions, provides considerable support when trucks 3. Experimental pavements subjected to controlled test
pass over joints, and provides resistance to subbase traffic, such as the Bates Test Road,[2’] the Pkts-
erosion caused by repeated pavement deflections. burg Test Highway~22) the Mar$and R6ad Test~231
the AASHO** Road Test, {24-2) and studies of in-
4. Two design criteria (a) fatigue, to keep pavement
service highway pavements made by various state
stresses due to repeated loads with]n safe limits and
departments of transportation.
thus prevent fatigue cracking and (b) erosion, to
limit the effects of pavement deflectionsat slab edges. 4. The performance of normally constructed pave-
joints, and corner; and thus control the erosio~ of ments subject to normal mixed traffic.
foundation and shoulder matefiak. The criterion for All these sources of knowledge are useful. However,
erosion is needed since some modes of pavement the knowledge gained from performance of normally
distress such as pumping, faulting, and shoulder constructed pavements is the most important. Accord-
distress are unrelated to fatigue, ingly, it is essential to examine the relationship between
5. Triple axles can be considered in design. While the the roles that performance and theory play in a design
conventional single-axle and tandem-axle config- procedure, Sophisticated theoretical methods developed
urations are still tbe predominant loads cm highways, in recent years permit the responses of the pavement—
use of triple axles (tridems) is increasing. They are stresses, deflections, pressures—to be more accurately
seen on some over-the-road trucks and on special modeled. This theoretical analysis is a necessary part of
mads used for hauling coal or other minerals. Tri- a mechanistic design procedure, for it allows considera-
dems may be more damaging from an erosion crite- tion of a full range of design-variable combkations. An
rion (deflection) than from a fatigue criterion, important second aspect of the design procedure is the
Selection of an adequate thickness is dependent upon criteria applied to the theoretically computed values—
the choice of other design features—jointing system, t ype the limiting or allowable values of stress, deflection, or
of subbase if needed, and shoulder type. presmre. Defining the criteria so that design results are
Wkh these additional design conditions, the thickmss related to pavement performance experience and research
requirements of design alternatives, which influence cost, data is critical in developing a design procedure, ‘u
can lx directly compared. The theoretical parts of the design procedures given
Chapter 2 describes how the factors needed for solving here are based on a comprehensive analysis of concrete
a design problem are determined. Chapter 3 details the stresses and deflections by a finite-element computer pro-
full design procedure that is used when specific axle-load- gram. co The program ~odcls the conventional design
distribution data are known or estimated. If detailed factors of concrete properties, foundation support, and
axle-load data are not available, the design can be accom- loadings, plus joint load transfer by dowels or aggregate
plished as described in Chapter 4, by the selection of one interlock and concrete shoulder, for axle-load placements
of several categories of data that represent a range of at slab interior, edge, joint, and corner.
pavement facilities varying from residential streets up to The criteria for the design procedures are based on the
busy interstate highways. pavement design, performance, and research experience
referenced above including relationships to performance
of avements at the AASHO Road Test{ z’) and to stud-
i~~~~ 29, of the faulting of pavements.
Computer Programs Available
More information on development and basis of the de-
Thickness design problems can be worked out by hand sign procedure is given in Appendix A and Reference 30.
with the tables and charts provided here or by computer
and microcomputer with programs that are available Metric Version
from Portland Cement Association.
A metric version of this publication is also available from
Portland Cement Association—publication EB209P.
Basis for Design
*Supemcript numbers in parentheses denote references at the end of
The thickness design methods presented here are based thk text.
on knowledge of pavement theory, performance, and re- **Nw the American Association of State Hishway and Transporta-
search experience from the following sources: tion Officials (AASHTO).

CHAPTER 2
Design Factors
After selection of the type of concrete pavement (plain The modulus of rupture can be found by cantilever,
pavement with or without dowels, reinforced jointed center-point, or third-point loading. An important dif-
pavement with dowels, or continuously reinforced pave- ference in these test methods is that the third-point test
ment), type of subbase if needed, and type of shoulder shows the minimum strength of the middle third of the
(with or without concrete shoulder, curb and gutter or test beam, while the other two methods show strength at
integral curb), thickness design is determined hased on only one point. The value determined by the more con-
four design factors: servative thkd-point method (American Society for Test-
1. Flexural strength of the concrete (modulus of rup- ing and Materials, ASTM C78)isused fordesign in this
ture, MR) procedure.*
Modulus of rupture tests are commonly made at 7, 14,
2. Strength of the subgrade, or subgrade and subbase
combination (k) 28, and90days. The 7-and 14daytest results arecom-
P
pared with specification requirements for job control and
3. The weights, frequencies, and types of truck axle
for determining when pavements can be opened to traffic.
loads that the pavement will carry
The 28-day test results have been commonly used for
4. D&ign period, which in this and other pavement de- thickness design of highway sand streets and are recom-
sign procedures is usually taken at 20 years, but may mended for use with this procedure; 90day results are
be more or less used forthedesign of airfields. These values are used be-
These design factors are discussed in more detail in the cause there arevery fewstress repetitions during the first
following sections. Other design considerations incorpo- 28 or 90 days of pavement life as compared to the millions
rated in the procedure are discussed in Appendix A. of stress repetitions that occur later.
Concrete continues to gain strength with age as shown
in Fig. 1. Strength gain isshown bythesolid curve, which
Flexural Strength of Concrete represents average MR values for several series by lab-
oratory tests, field-cured test beams, and sections of con-
Consideration of the flexural strength of the concrete is crete taken from pavements in service.
a,ppficable in the design procedure for the fatigue crite- fn this design procedure theeffects** ofvafiationsin
rion, which controls cracking of the pavement under concrete strength from point to point in the pavement
repetitive truck loadings. and gains in concrete strength with age are incorporated
Bending of a concrete pavement under axle loads pro- in the design charts and tables. The designer does not di-
duces both compressive and flexural stresses. However, rectly apply these effects but simply inputs the average
the ratios of compressive stresses to compressive strength 28-day strength value.
are too small to influence slab thickness design. Ratios of
flexural stress to flexural strength are much higher, often
exceeding values of 0.5. As a result, flexural stresses and
flexural strength of the concrete are used in thickness de-
sign. Flexural strength is determined by modulus of rup-
ture tests, usually made on 6x6x30-in. beams. *Fora standard 30-in. beam, c.nlcr-point-load inEtcst val.es will be
For specific projects, the concrete mix should be de- about 75 psi higher, and cantilever-loading 1.s1 values.bout 160 psi
signed to give both adequate durability and flexural higher than cticrd-p.int-loa$ i.g test values. Th.x higher values are not
i“te”ded tok.sdfor deszgnpurposts. Iftbese other test methods are
F- strength at the lowest possible cost. Mix design proce- used, adowmvard adjustment should be made byestabtisbing acorre-
dures are described in the Portland Cement Association lationto thtrd-poi.t-load test values.
publication Design and Control of Concrete A4ixt ures. ..’IIe,e effects are discussed in Appendix A.

Table 1. Effect of Untreated Subbase
on kValues,
S.::;;$ Subbase k value, pci
pci ‘ 4 in, 6 in. I 9 i“. 12 in.
50 65 75 65 110 “O
100 130 140 160 190
200 220 230 270 320
300 320 330 370 430
Table 2. Design k Values for Cement-

Treated Subbases
Am
Fig. 1. Flexural strength, age, and design relationships.
Subgrade and Subbaae Support

Cement-treated subbases are widely used for heavy-
The support given to concrete pavements by the subgrade, duty concrete pavements. They are constructed from
and the subbase where used, is the second factor in thick- AASHTO Soil Classes A- 1, A-2-4, A-2-5, and A-3 gronu-
ness design. Subgrade and subbase support is defined in [ar materials. The cement content of cement-treated sub-
terms of the Westergaard modulus of subgrade reaction base is based on standard ASTM laboratory freeze-thaw
(k). It is equal to the load in pounds per square inch on a and wet-dry tests(~’ 35)and PCA weight-loss criteria. [36]
loaded area (a 30-in. diameter plate) divided by the de- Other procedures that give an equivalent qualit y of mate-
flection in inches for that load. The k values are expressed rial can be used. Design kvalues forcement-treated sub-
as pounds per square inch per inch (psi/ in,) or, more bases meeting these criteria are given in Table 2.
commonly, as pounds per cubic inch (pci). Equipment In recent years, the use of lean concrete subbases has
and procedures for determining k values are given in been ontheincrease. Thickness design ofconcretepave- ~
References 31 and 32. ments on these very stiff subbases represents a special
Since the plate-loading test is time consuming and ex- case that is covered in Appendix B.
pensive, the k value is usually estimated hy correlation to
simpler tests such as the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
or R-value tests. The result is valid became exact deter- Design Period
mination of the k value is not required; normal variations
from an estimated value will not appreciably affect pave- The term design period is used in this publication rather
ment thickness requirements. The relationships shown in than pavement lije, The latter is not subject to precise
Fig. 2 are satisfactory for design purposes, definition. Some engineers and highway agencies con-
The AASHO Road Test{ 241gave a convincing demo”. sider the life of a concrete pavement ended when the first
stration that the reduced subgrade support during thaw overlay is placed. The life of concrete pavements may
periods has little or no effect on the required thickness vary from less than 20 ycarson some projects that have
of concrete pavements. This is true because the brief per- carried more traffic than originally estimated or have had
iods when k values are low during spring thaws are more design, material, or construction defects to more than 40
than offset by the longer periods when tbe subgrade is years on other projects where defects are absent,
frozen and k values are much higher than assumed for The term design period is sometimes considered to be
design, To avoid the tedious methods required to design synonymous with the term traffic-malysis period, Since
for seasonal variations in k, normal summer- or fa[/- traffic can probably not be predicted with much accuracy
weaher k wlues are used as reasonable mea” values fora Iongerperiod, a design period of 20yearsiscom-
It is not economical to me wmeated subbases for the monly used in pavement design procedures. However,
sole purpose of increasing k values. Where a subbase is there are often cases where useofashorter orlonger de-
used,* there will be an increase in k that should be used sign period may be economically justified, such as a spe-
in the thickness design, If the subbase is an untreated cial haul road that will be used foro”ly afewyears, ora
granular material, the approximate increase in k can be
taken from Table 1.
The values shown in Table 1 are based on the Burmis-
*UW .fs.bbaseis xc. remended f.rpr.jects where conditions that .
ter[’3) analysis of two-layer systems and plate-loading would cause nmd-p.mpi”g prevaik for diwmim of whm subbases
tests made to determine k values on subgrades and sub- sh.uldbeuwda.d h.wthi.k they sh.uldb., se the PCAp.blicati.n, “u’
bases for full-scale test slabs.( ‘4] Subgrades ond Subbasesfor Ccmc,,,e Pavemenm.

Book Contents Publication List
%anlw. 6u!Jeaq pue su0!le3!#!ssep I!OSIO sd!qsuO!lelaJJatu!a)ew!xmddv z .6!j
v81 afied (9) UJ.L!aes (L)
‘2s1 .6.d ’22 WA ‘Z*61 6.!FW l....v p....s 4
-,4,”WJ .“, ,0 ,6”lpae30Jdp,.os L+U.awuAWW61H ,,s,”awm% Aem. rw ,0 “6!s.0 >., SK*L ,!0S, .UJe,llea 3 9 D“, SXoo.qelpp!klv L ea3 (9)
(..!wwe. 101..!8..>,.. qt!mUO!I.WO. I!I-WQ) ML ,.qwo ‘..!6.n
lsewm-.!w..w m.n ‘. O!W!.OSSV1.*uw D..wd ‘W.d.l pew!wd.. ,,’a.l.A w w. ..leA u . ..wa8 ..!lEleJ,.3,, ‘$..WW 3 (5)
(p.s. MO. .0!1e3!4!w3 o.!~!.n :U.!w!l!ssw vw Pas. 4wm#sw.~...d !lOd,!v w 1,..w
.6!s.0 WI u! w.!6 saw 6.!s” P. IEW!W 9,-1 L sefied 8@61 Atm ,X.uefiv uo!$e!.v Iew?ed a.JeuJu.3 JOw.wed.o w 6.!.,d !,.d,!v (?)
‘Z6$-9L$
sefied w WA %3, 6.!H3w !...w W-AI”.ML w JOs8.IPee30Jd WOE wease!d Aewufi!u ,,wb!Jawq eptufiqns Lemu6!H 10 UO!W9!J!SW3,,($)
Lwza UO!iW6!S.a vwv (z)
‘9CL-001$.6.d ‘ZZ WA ‘ZP6L‘6.!i..n
W.”W WOLWS.AJ”.A41
w i. s6.!Pee30Jd p,eOO weesan A.Mu61H ,,swaua.ed alq!xalj ,oi s.o!wunod,,Uauod r 0 ..s ,eap! a!s.q ato w (1)
X0L09ffi0b OCSZ 0Z51 0168 L9Gb c
08 01 09 0S O* Of SZ 02 S1 0168 L9Sb?
,,, W3-OIIW $Nluv3a vlNn0d11v3
premium facility for which a high level of performance Table 3. Yearly Rates of Trafffc
for a long time with little or no pavement maintenance is Growth and Corresponding
desired. Some engineers feel that thedesign period for Projection Factora’
rural and urban highways should heinthe range of Xtto
Yearly
35 years.
The design period selected affects thickness design
rate of
traffic Prg:;ecron L--’”
since it determines how many years, and thus how many gro;th,
trucks, thepavement must serve. Selection ofthcdesign 40 yea~s
period for a specific project is based on engineering judg- 1,1 1.2
ment and economic analysis of pavement costs and serv- 1~% 1.2 1.3
ice provided throughout the entire period. 2 1.2 1.5

2,% 1.3 1.6
3 1.3 1.8
3,% 1.4 2,0
Traffic 4 1.5 2.2
4M 1,6 2.4
Tbe numbers and weights ofheavy axle loads expected 5 1.6 2.7
during thedesign life are major factors in the thickness 5% 1.7 2.9
design of concrete pavement. These are derived from esti- 6 1.8 3.2
mates of
—ADT (average daily traffic in both directions, all ,Faclor. represent values at the middesig” period
that are widely used incurre”t pr.ctke, Another
vehicles) mtihod of cmnp.fing these factors is based on the
—ADTT (average daily truck traffic in both directions) averaae annual value. Differences (bothcompound
intere<t) between these two methods will ”rarely
—axle loads of trucks affect design.
Information on ADTis obtained from special traffic
counts or from state, county, or cit y traffic-volume maps.
This ADT is called the present or current ADT. The de.
sign ADT is then estimated by the commonly used meth.
ods discussed here. However, any other method that gives
a reasonable estimate of expected traffic during the design Where there is some question shout the rate of growth,
life can be used, it may be wise to use a fairly high rate. This is true on
intercity routes andon urban projects where ahigh rate
of urban growth maycause ahlgher-than-expected rate
Projection oftraftic growth. However, thegrowth oftruck volumes
“u’
may be less than that for passenger cars.
High growth rates do not apply on two-lane-rural roads
One method forgetting thetraftlc volume data (design
and residential streets where the primary function is land
ADT) needed is to use yearly rates of traffic growth and
useorabutting property service. Their growth rates may
traffic projection factors. Table 3 shows relationships be-
tween yearly rates of growth and projection factors for be below 2% per year (projection factors of 1.1 “to 1.3).
Snme engineers suggest that the use of simple interest
both 20- and 40-year design periods.
growth rates may be appropriate, rather than compound
In a design problem, the projection factor is multiplied
interest rates, which when used with a long design period
by the present ADT to obtain a design ADT representing
may predict unrealistically heavy future traffic.
theaverage value forthedcsign period. Insomeproce-
dures, this is called AADT (average annual daily traffic).
Capacity
The following fact ors influence yearly growth rates and
traffic projections: The other method of estimating design ADT is based on
1. Attracted or diverted traffic-the increase over exist- capacity—the maximum number of vehicles that can use
ing traffic because of improvement of an existing the pavement without unreasonable delay. Tbis method
road way. of estimating the volume of traffic is described in Appen-
2. Normal traffic growth—the increase due to increased dix D and should be checked for specific projects where
numbers and usage of motor vehicles. the projected traffic volume is high; more traffic lanes
may be needed if reasonable traffic flow is desired.
3. Generated traffic-the increase due to motor vehicle
trips that wnuld not have been made if the mw facil.
ity had not been constructed. ADTT
4. Development traffic-the increase due to changes in The average daily truck traffic in both directions (ADTT)
land use due to construction of the new facifity. is needed in the design procedure. It may be expressed as
The combined effects will cause annual growth rates of a percentage of ADT or as an actual value. The ADTT
about 2Yoto 6%. Tbeserates correspond to20-yeartraf- value includes only trucks with six tires or more and does
ficprojection factors of 1.2to 1.8asshown in Table3, not include panel and pickup trucks and other four-tire ._
The planning survey sections of state highway depart- vehicles.
merits are very use fulsources ofknowledge about traftic The data from state, county, or city traffic-volume ~
grnwth and projection factors. maps may include, in addition to ADT, the percentage of

trucks from which ADTT can be computed. It is important to keep in mind that the ADTT percent-
For design of major Interstate and primary system ages in Table 4 are average values computed from many
projects, the planning survey sections of state depart- projects in all sections of the country. For this reason,
ments of transportation usually make specific traffic sur- these percentages are only suitable for design of specific
p veys, These data are then used to determine the percent- projects where ADTT percentages are also about average.
age relationship between ADT’T and ADT. For design purposes, the total number of trucks in the
ADTT percentages and other essential traffic data can design period is needed. This is obtained by multiplying
also be obtained from surveys conducted by the highway design ADT by ADTT percentage divided by 100, times
department at specific locations on the state highway sys- the number of days in the design period (365 X design
tem. These locations, called Ioadometer stations, have period in years).
been carefully selected to give reliable information on For facilities of four lanes or more, the ADTT is ad-
traffic composition, truck weights, and axle loads. Sur- justed by the use of Fig, 3.
vey results are compiled into a set of tables from which
the ADTT percentage can be determined for the highway
classes within a state. This makes it possible to compute
the ADTT percentage for each station. For example, a
highway department Ioadometer table (Table w-3) for a
Midwestern state yields the following vehicle count for a
Ioadometer station on their Interstate rural system:
All vehicles—ADT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...9492
Trucks:
All single units and combinations . . . . . ...1645
Panels and pickups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Other four-tire single units . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Therefore, for this station:
T* = ]645 – (353 + 76) = 1216
1216
‘DTT ‘ ZY2x ’00= ‘3%
This ADTT percentage would be appropriate for de.
sign of a project where factors influencing the growth and
,0 composition of traffic are similar to those at this load-
ometer station.
Another source of information on ADTT ercentages
!’37)
is the National Truck Characteristic Report. Table 4,
PROPORTIONOF TRuCKS IN RIGHT LANE
which is taken from this study, shows the percentages of
four-tire single units and trucks on the major highway Fig. 3. Proportion of trucks in right lane of a multilane
systems in the United States. The current publication, divided highway. (Derived from Reference 3&)
which is updated periodically, shows that two-axle, four-
tire trucks comprise between 40’% to 65% of the total
number of trucks, with a national average of 49% It is
fikely that the lower values on urban routes are due to
larger volumes of passenger cars rather than fewer trucks. ‘Tr.cks-xcludes panels and pickups and other f. .r-ti r. vehiclcs.
Table 4. Percentage of Four-Tire Single Units and

Trucks (ADTT) on Varioua Highway Systems
.m
I Rural average daily traffic I Urban average daily traffic

Truck Directional Distribution Table 5. Axle-Load Data
In most design problems, it is assumed that the weights
and volumes of trucks traveling in each direction are fairly
equ81-50-50 distribution-the design essumes that pave-
ment in each dirsction carries half the total ADTT. Thk ~
L-J
may not be true in special cases where many of the trucks ~ngle axles
may be hauling full loads in one direction and returning 2a30 0.28 0.58 6,310
empty in the other direction. If such is the case, an appro- 2&28 0.65 1.35 14,690
priate adjustment is made. 24-26 1.33 2.77 30,140
22-24 2.84 5.92 64,410
Axie-Load Oiatribufion 2W22 4.72 9.83 106,900
Data on the axle-load distribution of the truck traffic is 1&20 10.40 21.67 235,800
needed to compute the numbers of single and tandem 16-18 13.56 28.24 307,200
axles* of various weights expected during the design per. 14-16 18.64 38,83 422,500
iod. These data can be determined in one of three ways: 12-14 25.69 53,94 586,900
(1) special traffic studies to establish the loadometerdata 1}12 81.05 168,85 ,637,000
for the specific project; (2) data from the state highway
Tandem axles
department’s Ioadometer weight stations (Table W4) or
48-52 I 0.94 I 1.96 21,320
weigh-in-motion studies on routes representing truck
44-48 1.89 3.94 42,670
weights and types that are expected to be similar to the
project under design; (3) when axle-load distribution 4s44 5.51 11,48 124,800
data are not available, methods described in Chapter 4 36-40 16.45 34.27 372,900
based on categories of representative data for different 32-36 39.06 81,42 885,800
types of pavement facilities. 28-32 41.06 65.54 930,700
The use of axle-load data is illustrated in Table 5 in 24-28 73,07 152.23 1,656,000
which Table W4 data have been grouped by 2-kip and 20-24 43.45 90.52 984,900
4-kip increments for single- and tandem-axle loads, re. 15-20 54,15 112.81 1,227,000
spectively. The data under the heading “Axles per 1000 12-16 59,85 124.69 1,356,000
Trucks” are in a convenient form for computing the axle-
Ioad distribution, However, an adjustment must be made, Columns 1 and 2derived from Ioadometer W-4 Table. This table al$oshows
13,215 tolal trucks coumed with 6,916 two-axle, four-tire trucks (52%].
Column 2 of Table 5 gives values for all trucks, including
Column 3 Column 2 values adjusted for two.wle, four-tire trucks equal
the unwanted values for panels, pickups, and other four- to Column 2/[1 52/100).
tire vehicles. To overcome this difficulty, the tabulated Column 4 = Col. rnn3X [tr.cksindesig” period ))1000. %esmnpleproblem,
values are adjusted as described in the Table 5 notes, Design 1, In which trucks in design period (onedirection) tolal 10,880,000,
Column 4 of Table 5 gives the repetitions of various

single- and tandem-axle loads expected during a 20-year-
design period for the Design 1 sample problem given in for such things as unpredicted truck overloads and nor-
Chapter 3. mal construction variations in material properties and
layer thicknesses. Above that basic level of conservatism
(LSF = 1.0), the load safety factors of 1.1 or 1,2 provide
a greater allowance for the possibility of unpredicted
Load Safety Factors heavy truck loads and volumes and a higher level of pave-
ment serviceability appropriate for higher type pave-
In the design procedure, the axle loads determined in the ment facilities.
previous section are multiplied by a load safety factor In special cases, the use of a load safet y factor as high as
(LSF). These load safety factors are recommended: 1.3 may be justified to maintain a higher-than-normal
● For Interstate and other multilane projects where level of pavement serviceability throughout the design
there will be uninterrupted traffic flow and high vol- period. An example is a very busy urban freeway with no
umes of truck traffic, LSF = 1.2. alternate detour routes for the traffic. Here, it may be
● For highways and arterial streets where there will be better to provide a premium facility to circumvent for a
moderate volumes of truck traffic, LSF = 1, 1. long time tbe need for any significant pavement main-
tenance that would disrupt traffic flow.
● For roads, residential streets, and other streets that
will carry small volumes of truck traffic, LSF = 1.0.
Aside from the load safety factors, a degree of conserv- *See Appendix C if it isexpected that trucks with tridem loads will be
atism is provided in the design procedure to compensate included i“ the traffk f.tecast.
10
CHAPTER 3
Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Available)
The methods in this chapter are used when detailed axle- ● Without concrete shoulder, use Table &z and Fig. 5
load distribution data have been determined or estimated . With concrete shoulder, use Table 6b and Fig. 5
as described in Chapter 2.* Procedure Steps:
Fig. 4 is a worksheet** showing the format for corn. 1. Enter as items 8 and 11 on the worksheet from the
pleting design problems.t It requires as input data the
aPPr~Priate table the equivalent stress factors de-
following design factors discussed in Chapter 2. pending on trial thickness and k value.
● Type of joint and shoulder
2, Divide these by the concrete modulus of rupture and
● Concrete flexural strength (MR) at 28 days enter as items 9 and 12.
● k value of the subgrade or subgrade and subbase 3. FII1 in Column 4, “Allowable Repetitions; deter.
combination? mined from Fig. 5.
● Load safety factor (LSF) 4. Compute Column 5 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
● Axle-load distribution (Column 1) umn 4, multiplying by 100 then total the fatigue at
P
● Expected number of axle-load repetitions during the bottom.
the design period (Column 3)
Both a fatigue analysis (to control fatigue cracking)
and an erosion analysis (to control foundation and shoul- Erosion Analysis
der erosion, pumping, and faulting) are shown on the de-
sign worksheet. Without concrete shoulder
The fatigue analysis will usually control the design of ● Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
light-traffic pavements (residential streets and secondary ments# —use Table 7a and Fig. 6a.
roads regardless of whether the joints are doweled or not) ● Aggregate-interlock joints—use Table 7b and Fig.
and medium traffic pavements with doweled joints. 6a,
The erosion analysis will usually control the design of
With concrete shoulder
medium- and heavy-traffic pavements with undoweled
● Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
(aggregate-interlock) joints and heavy-traffic pavements
with doweled joints. ments~—use Table 8a and Fig. 6b.
For pavements carrying a normal mix of axle weights, ● Aggregate-interlock joints—use Table 8band Fig, 6b.
single-axle loads are usually more severe in the fatigue Procedure Steps:
analys]s, and tandem-axle loads are more severe in the 1. Enter the erosion factors from the appropriate table
erosion analysis.
as items 10 and 13 in the worksheet.
The step-by-step design procedure is as follows: The
design input data shown at the top of Fig. 4 are estab- 2. FIO in Column 6, “Allowable Repetitions,” from
lished and Columns 1 and 3 are tilled out. The axle loads Fig. 6a or Fig. 6b.
are multiplied by the load safety factor for Column 2.
*% Chapter 4 when axle-load distribution data are unknown.

Fatigue Analysis .* A b]a”k ~0 rkshect is provided as the M page Of thk bulletin for
p.rposes of reproduction and use in w=ific design problems.
Results of fatigue analysis, and thus the charts and figures f Computer programs for s.lving design problems are available fr.m
P.rtlmd Cement Ass.ciati.n.
~ used, are the same for pavements with doweled and un- ItSee Appendix B if lean concrete subbase is used.
doweled joints, and also for continuously reinforced $1. this design procedure, ccmtin”cwsly reinforced pavemems are
pavements.~ treated the same as dowdcd, jointed pavements—see Appendix A.
11

Calculation of Pavement Thickness
Project A/ 0~ /,4 &.#T- /QA e L7A?r./&/. P&z2/’
Trial thickness 9.5 in. Doweled joints: yes K no —
Subbase-subgrade k /.70 pci Concrete shoulder: yes —no~
Modulus of rupture, MR L5 o psi

Design period ~ years
Load safetv factor. LSF /. Z?
r Axle
I I I
L
load,
hips
8. Equivalent stress 206 10. Erosion factor 2.59

9. Stress rcatiofactor O ? 17
Single Axles
u’
11. Equivalent stress 192 13. Erosion factor z. T?

12. Stress ratio factor Z?Jl$K_
Tandem Axles
Fig. 4. Design 1A.

u
12

3. Compute Column 7 by dividing Column 3 by Col- Design lC: doweled joints, untreated subbase, concrete
umn 6, multiplying by lW, then total the erosion shoulder
damage at the bottom, Same as 1A except:
Concrete shoulder
In the use of the charts, precise interpolation of allow-
able repetitions is not required. If the intersection line Design ID: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
runs off the top of the chart, the allowable load repeti- subbase, no concrete shoulder
tions are considered to be unlimited. Same as 1B except:
The trial thickness is not an adequate design if either of Aggregate-interlock joints
the totals of fatigue or erosion damage are greater than Design lE: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
100%, A greater trial thickness should be selected for subbase, concrete shoulder
another run, * A lesser trial thickness is selected if the Same as 1D except:
totals are much lower than 100Yo. Concrete shoulder
Thickness Calculations:
A trial thickness is evaluated by completing the design
worksheettt shown in Fig. 4 for Design 1A using the
Sample Problems axle-load data from Table 5.
For Design 1A, Table 6a and Fig, 5 are used for the
Two sample problems are given to illustrate the steps in fatigue analysis and Table 7a and Fig. 6a are used for the
the design procedure and the effects of alternate designs. erosion analysis.
Design 1 is for a four-lane rural Interstate project; several
variations on the design—use of dowels or aggregate- Comments on Design 1
interlock joints, use of concrete shoulder, granular and
cement-treated subbases—are shown as Designs 1A For designs 1A through 1E, a subbase of one type or an-
through 1E. Design 2 is for a low-traffic secondary road, other is used as a recommended practice $onfine-textured
and variations are shown as Designs 2A and 2B. soil subgrades for pavements carrying an appreciable
number of heavy trucks.
In Design 1A: (1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion
Design 1 damage of 63% and 39%, respectively, show that the 9.5-
in. thickness is adequate for thedesign conditions. (2) This
Project and Traffic Data: design has 37% reserve capacity available for heavy-axle
Four-lane Interstate loads in addition to those estimated for design purposes.
Rolling terrain in rural location (3) Comments 1 and 2 raise the question of whethera 9.0-
Design period = 20 years in. thickness would be adequate for Design IA. Separate
Current ADT = 12,900 calculations showed that 9.0 in. is not adequate because
Projection factor = 1.5 of excessive fatigue consumption (245Yo). (4) Design 1A
ADTT = 19% of ADT is controlled by the fatigue analysis.
A design worksheet, Fig. 7, is shown for Design 1D to
Traffic Calculations:
illustrate the comb]ned effect of using aggregate-inter-
Desien ADT = 12.900 X 1.5 = 19,350 (9675 in one di- lock joints and a cement-treated subbase. In Design 1D:
re;tion) (1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion damage of l%t$ and
ADTT = 19,350 X0.19= 3680 (1840 in one direction) 97%, respectively, show that IO in. is adequate. (2) Sepa-
For 9675 one-direction ADT, Fig. 3 shows that the rate calculations show that 9.5 in. is not adequate because
proportion of trucks in the right lane is 0.81. Therefore, of excessive erosion damage ( 142Yo),and (3) ~sign 1D is
for a 20-yeardesign period, the total number of trucks in controlled by the erosion analysis.
one direction is
1840 X 0.81 X 365 X 20 = 10,880,000 trucks (continue donpage21)
Axle-load data from Table 5 are used in this design

example and have been entered in Fig. 4 under the maxi-
mum axle load for each group.
Values Used to Calculate Thickness:** *Some guidance is helpful in reducing the number of trial inns. The
effect of thickness on both the fatigue and erosion damage approxi-
Design 1A: doweled joints, untreated subbase, no con- mately follows a geometric progression. For example, if 33% and 17870
crete shoulder fatigue damage are determined at trial thicknessesof 10 and 8 in., r.-
Clay subgrade, k = 100 pci spectivdy, the approximate fatigue damage for t+thickness of 9 in. is
4-in. -untreated subbase cowl to .~ = 77%
:*com& MR. LS F. and submade k value, are tie WM. for DesiEns
Combined k = 130 pci (see Table 1) 1A through lE. -
LSF = 1.2 (see page 10) Weme.t-treamd subbase meeting requirements stated on page 6.
Concrete MR = 650 psi tTA blank worksheet is provided asthe last page of this bulletin for the
Design lB doweled joints, cement-treated subbase, no p.rp.ses .f =prodtiction and U= in sp=ific de$ign problems.
1S.. Subzr.de$ and Subbasesfor Concrete’ P.vetnents. Portland
concrete shoulder
Cement Aswxiatio” p“bfica.tio.
Same as 1A except: $1 For pavements with aggregate-interlock joints subjected to an ap-
4-in. cement-treated subbaset preciable num~r of truck% the fadw ,..M will .$.aW ..1 affect
Combined k = 280 pci (see Table 2) design.
13

Table 6a. Equivalent Streaa — No Concrete Shoulder
(Singla Axle/Tandam Axle)
Slab
k of Subgrade-subbase, pci
thickness,
In. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4
4.5
825[679 726/585 6711542 634/516 584/486 5231457 484/443 u
699/586 61 6/500 57f /460 540/435 498/406 4481378 417/363
5 602/51 6 531 /436 493/399 467/376 432/349 390/321 363/307
5.5 526/461 484/367 431/353 409/331 379/305 3431278 320/264
6 485/4f 6 4111348 382/31 6 362/296 336/271 304/246 285/232
6.5 41 7/380 367/31 7 341/286 324/267 300/244 2731220 256/207
7 375[349 331 /290 307/262 292/244 2711222 246/199 231/186
7.5 340/323 300/268 279/241 265/224 246/203 224/181 210/169
8 311 /300 2741249 255/223 242/208 2251188 205/167 192)1 55
8.5 285/281 252)232 234/206 222/1 93 206/174 186/154 177/143
9 264/264 232/21 6 216/195 205/181 190/1 63 1741744 163/1 33
9.5 245/248 215/205 200/183 190/1 70 176/153 161 /134 151/124
10 226/235 200/1 93 186/1 73 177/160 164/144 150/126 141/117
10.5 21 3/222 187/1 83 174[1 64 165/151 153/1 36 140/119 132/110
11 200/21 1 175/1 74 163/155 154/1 43 144/1 29 131/113 123/1 04
11.5 133/201 165/165 153/1 48 145/1 36 135/122 123/1 07 116/96
12 177/192 155/156 144/141 137/130 1271116 116/1 02 109/93
12,5 1681183 147/151 136/1 35 129/124 120/111 109/97 103/89
13 159/1 76 139/144 129/1 29 122/119 113/106 103/93 97[85
13.5 152/1 68 132/136 122/123 116/114 107/102 98/89 92/81
14 144/162 125/133 116/116 110/109 102/98 93[85 88/78
Table 6b. Equivalent Straaa — Concrete Shoulder

(Single Axle/Tandem Axle)
“w’
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thic;n~,
50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 640/534 559/466 51 7/439 489/422 452/403 409/388 363/384
4.5 547/461 479/400 4441372 421 /356 390/336 355/322 333/31 6
5 4751404 41 7/349 387[323 367/308 341 /290 311/274 294/267
5.5 41 6)360 366/309 342/285 324/271 302/254 276/236 261/231
6 3721325 3271277 304/255 269/241 270/225 247/210 2341203
6.5 334/295 294/251 274/230 260/218 243/203 223/1 88 21 2/180
7 302/270 266/230 248/21 O 236/1 98 220/1 84 203/170 192/162
7,5 275/250 243/21 1 226)1 93 215/182 201/168 185/155 176/148
8 252/232 222/196 207/1 79 197/168 185/155 170/142 162/135
8,5 232/21 6 205/1 62 191/166 182/156 170)1 44 157/131 150/1 25
9 215/202 190/171 177/1 55 169/146 158/1 34 146/1 22 139/1 16
9.5 200/1 90 176/160 164/146 157/137 1471126 136/114 129/1 08
10 186/1 79 164/151 153/137 146/129 137/116 127/107 121)101
10.5 174/170 154/143 144/130 137/121 128/711 119/101 1>3/95
11 164/161 144/1 35 135/1 23 129/1 15 1201105 112/95 106/90
11.5 154/153 136/1 28 1271117 121/109 113/100 105/90 100/65
12 145/146 128/1 22 120/111 114/104 107/95 99/86 95/81
12.5 137/1 39 121/117 113/106 106/99 101/91 94/82 90/77
13 130/1 33 *15)112 107/101 102/95 96/86 89/78 85173
13,5 124/1
27 10S/107 102/97 97/91 91183 85174 81 /70
14 I 118/122 104/103 97/93 93/87 87179 81/71 77167
“’U
14
10,000,0001
60--(--’20
58
Q 15
:-
/ 2-
56
110 1,ocwooo8—
54
6-
52 4-
[
50 100 0.2”
\ 2-
46
90 loo,ooo—
44 8-
+
“..3
42 6-
/- 2
0
40 80 4-
m i=
a
Z 38 ) 1=
.. —.— —— -——+ w
.—-— a.
c)” 36 — 2- w
a a
o 70
-1
34
w
-1 1o,ooQ—
32
z t 8-
6-
4-
26
50 “.s”
24 2-
22
i 0.(3”
20 40 looo—
8-
18 Q ?“
6-
16 0.80
30 4-
0. 9“
14
-1
I.”.
12
2
10 2“
i 1.s”
/ 100 ~
Fig. 5. Fatigue analysis—allowable toad repetitions based

on stress ratio factor (with and without concrete shoulder).
15

Table 7a. Erosion Fectora — Doweled Jointa, No Concrete Shoulder
(Single Axle/Tandem Axle)
thickness,
In. 50 100 200 300 500 700
<
4 I 3. 74/3.83 3.7313.79 3.7213.75 3.7113.73 3. 70/3.70 3.68/3.67
4.5 3.59/3. 70 3.5713.65 3.56/3.61 1 3. 55/3,58 3.5413.55 3.52/3.53
I
5 3. 45[3. 58 3.43/3.52 3.42/3. 48 3.41/3,45 3.40)3.42 3.38/3.40
5.5 iI 3.3313.47 3.31/3.41 3.29/3.36 3.28/3.33 3.27/3.30 3.26/3.28
6 I 3,2213.38 3.1 9/3, 31 3,18/3.26 3. 17/3.23 3.1 5/3. 20 3. 14/3,17
6.5 3,11 /3. 29 3.09/3, 22 3.07/3, 16 3,06/3. 13 3.05/3. 10 3. 03/3,07
7 I 3, 02/3.21 2.99/3.14 2,97/3,08 2. 96/3.05 2. 95/3.01 2. 94/2.98
7,5 2. 93/3.14 2.91/3,06 2. 86/3.00 2.6712.97 2.86/2, 93 2. 84/2.90
8 2. 85/3.07 2, 62/2.99 2.80/2.93 2.7912.89 2,7712.65 2.76/2.82
8.5 2.7713.01 2.7412.93 2. 72)2.86 2.7112.82 2,89/2.78 2. 68/2.75
9 2, 70/2.96 2. 67/2.87 2.65/2.80 2, 63/2,76 2.6212.71 2.61/2.68
9.5 2, 63)2.90 2. 60/2.81 2. 58/2.74 2.56/2,70 2.55/2.65 2.5412,62
10 2.5612,85 2.54/2. 76 2,51/2.68 2.50/2.64 2.46/2. 59 2.4712,56
10.5 2.50/2.81 2.47[2,71 2.4512.63 2,4412.59 2.4212.54 2.41/2.51
11 2.4412,76 2. 42/2.67 2. 39/2.58 2.38)2.54 2.36/2.49 2,35/2,45
11,5 2.36[2.72 2. 36/2,62 2.3312.54 2.32/2.49 2.30[2. 44 2.29/2.40
12 2.33/2. 68 2.30/2.58 2.28/2.49 2. 26/2,44 2,2512.39 2.23/2.38
12.5 2.2812.84 2. 25)2.54 2.2312.45 2.2112.40 2, 19/2.35 2. 18/2.31
13 2. 23[2. 61 2. 20/2.50 2.1812,41 2.1612.36 2. 14/2.30 2.1312.27
13.5 2,1612,57 2.t5/2 ,47 2.1312.37 2, 11/2.32 2.09/2.26 2. 08[2, 23
14 2. 13/2.54 2. 11/2,43 2. 06/2.34 2,07/2.29 2.05/2. 23 2.03/2. 19
Table 7b. Erosion Factors — Aggregate-Interlock Joints,

No Concrete Shoulder (Single AxleiTandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbme, pci
thickness,
in. 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.94/4. 03 3.91/3.95 3. 68/3.89 3. 86/3.86 3.62/3, 83 3,77/3.80
4.5 3. 79/3.91 3.7613.82 3. 73/3.75 3.71 [3, 72 3.6813.68 3. 64/3.65
5 3. 86/3,81 3. 63/3,72 3, 60/3.64 3,5813.80 3.55[3 ,55 3. 52/3.52
5.5 3.54/3.72 3,51/3,62 3.4813,53 3.46/3.49 3.43/3.44 3.41 /3.40
6 3.44/3. 64 3. 40/3.53 3. 37[3. 44 3. 35/3.40 3.32/3.34 3.30/3, 30
6.5 3.34/3. 56 3.30/3.46 3.26/3.38 3. 25/3.31 3.22/3. 25 3.20/3, 21
7 3. 26/3.49 3.21/3.39 3. 17/3.29 3. 15/3.24 3,1 3/3. 17 3,11/3,13
7.5 3, 16/3,43 3. 13/3.32 3.09/3.22 3.07/3, 17 3. 04/3,1 o 3. 02/3.06
8 3.1 1/3.37 3.05/3.26 3.01/3.18 2.99/3. 10 2.96/3.03 2.94/2.99
8,5 3.04/3,32 2.96/3.21 2.93/3.10 2.81/3.04 2.S812.97 2.8712.!33
9 2. 98/3.27 2,91/3.16 2, 86/3,05 2. 84/2.99 2.81/2.92 2. 79/2.87
9.5 2. 92/3.22 2. 65/3.11 2. 60/3.00 2. 77/2.94 2.7512.86 2. 73/2.81
10 2.66/3. 18 2. 79/3.06 2.7412.95 2.71/2.89 2.68/2.81 2.66/2.76
10,5 2.81/3.14 2. 74/3.02 2. 66/2.91 2. 65/2.64 2.62/2.76 2,60/2,72
11 2.77[3. 10 2.69/2.98 2.63[2.86 2.60/2. 80 2,5712.72 2.54/2.67
11.5 2.7213,06 2. 64/2.94 2.58/2.82 2,5512.76 2.51/2,68 2.49/2.63
12 2. 68/3.03 2. 60/2,90 2.5312.78 2,5012.72 2. 46/2.64 2.44/2. 58
12.5 2.64/2.99 2,5512.87 2, 48[2. 75 2.4512,68 2.41/2.60 2.39/2.55
13 2.60/2.96 2.51/2.83 2.4412.71 2. 40/2.65 2.36/2.56 2.34/2.51
13.5 2.56/2.93 2.47/2.80 2.40/2. 68 2.36/2.61 2.32/2.53 2.30/2. 48
14 2.5312.90 2.4412.77 2.36/2.65 2.32/2.58 2, 28[2. 50 2,25[2.44
16

60 T I20 loo,cK)o,ooo8—
6-
—110 4-
50- — 100 2-
— 2.0
– 90 10,000,000 =
— 2.2 8-
6-
40 – – 80
4-
– 2.4
tio~ — — ~—
Y k 2.6 — ~._ 2-
~.+
30 – – 60 a – 2.8 I ,000,000:
g 8-
(/) u
u) a ~ 6-
Il. – 3.0
Z G
~ 4-
~- 25- – 50 ~“
m
a 0 o —3.2
o -1
J 5
u
w 2-
-1
i – 3.4
;
~ 20– — 40 :
w 100,000:
; n – 3.6 6-
~ la- . z1-
(n 35 6-
— 3.8
16- - 4-
– 30
— 4.0
14- - 2-
– 25
IQOOO -
t2- -
8-
6-
4-
lo- — 20
2-
9- - 18
8— 16 1000 —
Fig. 6a. Erosion analysis—allowable load repetitions

based on erosion factor (without concrete shoulder),
17

Table &. Erosion Factors — Doweled Joints, Concrete Shoulder
C3inale Axle/Tandem Axle)
Slab k of s. bgrade-subbase, pci
thic:ny,
50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.28/3.30 3. 24/3.20 3.21/3.13 3.1 9/3. 10 3.1 5/3.09 3. 12/3.08 ‘L--J
4.5 ! 3.13/3.19 3.09/3.08 3.08/3.00 3.04/9 !36 3 (11/793
7?),/7
Q,
5 I 3.0113.09 2.97/2.98 2.93/2.89 2.90/2.84 2.8712.79 7.35/7.77
5.5 2.90/3. 01 2.85/2. 89 2.81/2,79 2.7912.74 2.7612,68 2.7312.65
8 2,7912.93 2.7512,82 2,70/2.71 2,66/2.65 . . . . SR
76S/7 .. . 67/95A
7 .. . .
6.5 2. 70/2.66 2,6512.75 2.61/2,63 2.58[ 2.57 2.55/2.50 2.52)2.45
7 2.61/2.79 2.5612.66 2.52/2.56 2.49/2.50 2.46)2.42 2.43/2, 38
7.5 2.53/2.73 2.48/2.62 2.44/2.50 2.41 [2.44 2.38/2.36 2.35/2.31
8 2.46/2. 68 2.41/2.56 2.3612.44 2.33)2.38 2.30/2, 30 2.2712.24
8.5 2.39/2.62 2.34/2, 51 2. 29/2,39 2.26/2. 32 2,22/2,24 2.20/2, 18
+ 9 2.3212.57 2.2712,46 2.2212,34 2.1912.27 2, 16/2.19 2. 13/2.13

9.5 2. 26/2.52 2.21/2.41 2,16/2.29 2. 13/2.22 2,09/2, 14 2. 07/2.08
10 2.2012.47 2. 15[2. 36 2, 10/2.25 2.07/2, 16 2.03/2.09 2.01/2.03
10,5 2. 15/2,43 2. 09/2.32 2. 04/2.20 2.01/2.14 1.87/2.05 1.85/1.99
11 2. 10/2,39 2.04/2.28 1.99/2. 16 1.95/2.09 1.92/2.01 1.89/1.95
11.5 2. 05/2.35 1.99/2.24 1.93/2. 12 1.90/2.05 1.67/1.97 1.8411,91
12 2.00/2.31 1.94/2.20 1,88/2.09 1.6512.02 1.82/1.93 1.7911.87

12.5 1.95/2.27 1.69/2. 16 1.64/2.05 1.81/1.98 1.77/1.89 1.7411,84
13 1.91/2,23 1.85/2, 13 1.79/2.01 1.76/1.95 1,72/1.86 1.70/1.80
13.5 1.66/2.20 1,81/2.09 1.75/1.96 1.72/1.91 1.68/1.83 1.65/1.77
14 1.82/2, 17 1.76/2.06 1.71/1.95 1.67/1.88 1.64/1.80 1.61/1,74
Table 8b. Erosion Factors — Aggregate-Interlock Joints,

Concrete Shoulder (~;gl; AxleiTandem Axlej
slab
thickness,
k of S“bgrade-subbase, pci w
in. t 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3. 46/3,49 3. 42/3.39 3.3813.32 3. 36/3.29 3, 32/3.26 3.28/3.24
4,5 3. 32/3.39 3,28/3.28 3.2413.19 3,22/3. 16 3,1 9/3, 12 3.1 5/3. 09
5 i 3.20/3.30 3. 16/3.18 3, 12/3.09 31 0/3.05 3.07/3.00 3.04/?. 97
5,5 3.10/3.22 3.05/3, 10 3,01/3,00 2.99/2,95 2. 96/2,90 2. 93/2.66
6 3. 00/3.15 2.95/3,02 2. 90/2,92 2.68/2.87 2,66/2.61 2,6312.77
6.5 2.91/3,06 2. 86/2.96 2,81/2,85 2.79/2.79 2,7612.73 2.7412.66
7 2. 83/3.02 2,77/2.90 2.7312.78 2.7012.72 2. 68/2.66 2. 65/2.61
7.5 2.76/2,97 2,70/2.84 2.65/2.72 2,62/2.66 2. 60/2.59 2.5712.54
8 2. 69/2.92 2.63/2.79 2.5712.67 2.55/2.61 2. 52/2.53 2. 50/2.48
6.5 2. 63/2.88 2. 56/2.74 2.51/2.62 2.48/2. 55 2.4512.48 2.43/2.43
9 2. 57/2.83 2. 50/2.70 2.4412,57 2,42/2.51 2, 38/2.43 2. 36/2.38
9.5 2.51/2.79 2,4412,65 2. 38/2,53 2.36/2,46 2.3312.38 2, 30/2.33
10 2.46/2.75 2,39/2,61 2.33/2.49 2.30/2,42 2.27[2 ,34 2.24/2.26
10.5 2.41/2,72 2.33/2.58 2.2712.45 2,24/2.36 2,21/2,30 2.1 9/2.24
11 2.36/2. 66 2.26/2.54 2.22/2.41 2. 19/2.34 2. 16/2.26 2. 14/2.20
11.5 2.32/2.65 2.2412.51 2. 17!2.36 2.>4/2.31 2.11/2.22 2.09)2. 18
12 2.28/2.62 2. 19/2.48 2, 13/2.34 2. 10/2.27 2.06/2. 19 2.04/2.13
12.5 2,2412.59 2.15/2.45 2.09/2.31 2. 05/2.24 2.02/2, 15 1.99/2.10
13 2, 20/2.56 2. 11/2,42 2.04/2,26 2.01/2.21 1,98[2. 12 1,95/2,06
13.5 2. 16/2,5s 2.06/2.39 2.00/2,25 1.97/2, 18 1.93/2.09 1.91/2,03
14 2. 13/2.51 2,04/2.36 1.97/2.23 1.83/2. 15 1.89/2.06 1.87[2. 00
“-/’
18

60-1-120 IOO,OOQOOO
—1.6 ‘a
110
2-1
50 I 00
— 1.8
IQOOQOOO
61
90 —2.0
2
40 80
–2.2
I ,Ooo,ooo
8
70 6
a
—2.4
P 4
v i
30 60 2 – 2.6 i
/
~ 2- 2
(n g
: —2.8 ~
w 1-
W
100,000
—k
—3.0 8- :
a
6- 0
-1
—3.2
4- ?
m
4
g
— 3.4
J
2- 2
16
!
— 3.6
30
14 I Qooo—
8-
25
6-
12
r
10
8
20
18
16
Fig. 6b. Erosion analysis—allowable

based on erosion factor (with concrete
load repetitions
shoulder).
1000 1
2
19

Trial thickness— /A. & in. Doweled joints: yes _ no z

Concrete shoulder: yes _ no L u
Subbase-$ ubgrade h ~ Pci
Modulus of rupture, MR =~ psi
Design period =L years
Load safety factor, LSF /7
%%.. C&z?#’(+&&d5.A&
Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

Axle Multiplied Expected
load, by repetitions
kips. LSF Allowable Fatigue, Allowable Damage
repefitio”s percent repetitions percent
/. z
1 2 3 4 5 6 T
6. Equivalent sbess~ 10. Erosion factor z. 72

9. Stress ratio factor ~ 2.57
Single Axles
11. Equivalent stress. /@7 13. Erosion factor –~

12. Stress ratio factor ~
Tandem Axles
Total
0.6 I Total
%?/
L) —
Fig. 7. Design ID.
20

Worksheets for the other variations of Design 1 are not Design 2B: doweled joints,** no subbase, no concrete
shown here but the results are compared as follows: shoulder
Same as 2A except
Thickness Doweled joints
Umcrete q.i~emer. t,
Design Subbase Joints shoulder m. TMckness Calculations:
1A Gin. gm”ular doweled no 9.5 For Design 2A, a trial thickness of 6 in. is evaluated by
lB Gin. cement-treated doweled no 8.5
completing the worksheet shown in F]g. 8, according to
lc hi”, granular doweled yes 8.5
the procedure given on page 11. Table da and Fig. 5 are
used for the fatigue analysis and Table 7band Fig. .5aare
ID 4-in. cement-treated aggregate
interlock no 10.0 used for the erosion anal ysis.
lE 4+n. cement-treated aggregate
For Design 2B, a worksheet is not shown here but the
interlock yes 8.5 design was worked out for comparison with Design 2A.
I
Comments on Design 2
For Design 1 conditions, use of a cement-treated sub- For Design 2A: (1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion
base reduces the thickness requirement by 1,0 in. (Design damage of 89% and 8%, respectively, show that the 6.O-in.
1A versus 1B); and concrete shoulders reduce the thick- thickness is adequate. (2) Separate calculations show that
ness requirement by 1.0 to 1.5 in. (Designs 1A versus IC a 5.5-in. pavement would not be adequate because of
and I D versus 1E). Use of aggregate-interlock joints in- excessive fatigue consumption. (3) The thickness design
stead of dowels increases the thickness requirement by is controlled by the fatigue analysis-which is usually the
1.5 in. (Design 1B versus 1D). These effects will vary in case for light-truck-traffic facilities.
different design problems depending on the specific de- The calculations for Design 2B, which is the same as
sign conditions. Design 2A except the joints are doweled, show fatigue
and erosion values of 89% and 21%, respectively. Com-
Design 2 ments: (1) The th]ckness requirement of 6.0 in. is the same
Project and Traffic Data: as for Design 2A. (2) The fatigue-analysis values are ex-
actly the same as in Design 2A. T(3) Because of the dow-
Two-lane-secondary road
els, the erosion damage is reduced from 870 to 2%; how-
Design period = 40 years
ever, this is immaterial since the fatigue analysis controls
Current ADT = 600
the design.
Projection factor = 1.2
For the Design 2 situation, it is shown that doweled
P ADTT = 2.5% of ADT
joints are not required. This is borne out by pavement-
Traffic Calculations: performance experience on light-truck-traffic facilities
Design ADT = 600 X 1.2 = 720 such as residential streets and secondary roads and also
ADTT = 720 X 0.025 = 18 by studies 128w ~h~~i”gtheeffects of the number of trucks
on pavements with aggregate-interlock joints.
Truck traffic each way = $ = 9
For a 40-year design period:

9 X 365 X 40 = 131,400 trucks
Axle-load data are shown in Table 15, Category 1, and
the expected number of axle-load repetitions are shown *Performance experience has show” that subbasm me not required
in Fig, 8. whm truck traffic is very Iighc seethe PCA p.btication, S.bcmdesond
.subbmes f., CO..,,(, POVWWIII,.
Values Used to Calculate Thickness: :* Design 2B is sb,wm for illustrative purposes only. Doweled joints
Design 2A: aggregrate-interlock Joints, no subbase,* no are not needed where truck traffic is very lighq we the PCA publication
Join! Designfor Co.crele Highww and Srreel Pavemenn.
concrete shoulder
T The type of load transfer at the joim40wels, or aggregate inter-
Clay subgrade, k = 100pci lock4ces not affect the fatigue calculations sincethe critical axle-load
LSF = 1.0 position for stressand fatigue is where the axle loadsare placed at pave.
Concrete MR = 650 psi ment edge and mid panel, away from the joims. See Appendix A.
21

Project &&~l- 2A 7+9 -/cm. 5PczG@z&.t/ Lz?za+
Trial thickness 6.0 tn. Doweled joints: yes _ no &
Subbase-subgrade h ~– pci Concrete shoulder: yes _ no ~ ‘u

Modulus of rupture, MR —- ~ psi
Design period & years
Load safety factor, LSF /. o
nO SU/6&3c

Axle Multiplied Expected
load, by repetitions
kips LSF Allowable Fatigue, Allowable Damage,
repetitions percent repetitions percent
/. o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Equivalent stress v// 10. Erosio” factor &?. *D
9. Stress ratio factor ~

Single Axles
11. Equivalent stress_~ 13. Erosion factor ~—

12. Stress ratiOlactOr U. 535
Tandem Axles
w
Fig. 8. Design 2A.
22

P
CHAPTER 4
Simplified Design Procedure

(Axle-Load Data Not Available)
The design steps described in Chapter 3 include separate correspond to the four categories of traffic. Appropriate
calculations of fatigue consumption and erosion damage load safety factors of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2, respectively,
for each of several increments of single- and tandem-axle have been incorporated into the desigo tables for axle-
loads. This assumes that detailed axle-load data have Ioad Categories 1, 2,3, and 4. Tbe tables show data for a
been obtained from representative truck weigh stations, design period of 20 years. (See the section “Design
weigh-in-motion studies, or other sources. Period”, following.)
This chapter is for use when specific axle-load data are In these tables, subgrade-subbase strength is charac-
not available. Simple design tables have been generated terized by the descriptive words Low, Medium, High, and
based on composite axle-load distributions that repre- Very High. Fig. 2 shows relationships between various
P subgrade-bearing values, In the event that test date are
sent different categories of road and street types. A fairly
wide range of pavement facilities is covered by four cate- not available, Table 10 lists approximate k values for dif-
gories shown in Table 9.* ferent soil types. If a subbase is to be used—see Chapter 2
The designer does not directly use tbe axle-load data**
because the designs have been presolved by the methods
*On page 30, guidelines for preparing designtables for axle-load dis-
described in Chapter 3. For convenience in design use, tbe tributions d~ffemnt fmm th.se givem here are discussed.
results are presented in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14, which ** Axle.load data for the four categories are given in Table 15.
Table 9. de-Load Cat@goriea

afti c
ADTT.+ Maximum axle kinds, kips
Axle-load ADT
category Description % Per dav 3ingle axles Tandem axles
1 Residential streets
20C-800 t -3 up to 25 22 38
Rural and secondary roads (low to
medium’)
2 Collector streets
Rural and secondary roads (high,) 7oe-5ooo 5-18 40-1000 26 44
Arterial streets and primary roads (low,)
3 Arterial streets and primary roads 3000-12,CO0 3-30 500-50004 30 52

(medium.) 2 lane
Expressways and urban and rural 3000-50,000+
interstate (low to medium.) 4 lane or more
4 Arterial streets, primary roads, 3000-20,000 a-30 150&8000+ 34 60

expressways (high’) 2 lane
:~b~~ and rural Interstate (medium to 3000-1 50,000+
..=.. , 4 lane CMnmre
n I
,.r ‘The descript.m high, nwd. m, .r 1.$’+refer to the relative weights .1 ..1. loads for the type of street or road:
that Is, ,Tow, for a rural Interstate would represent heavier loads than low,, for a seco.d.,y mad,
‘Trucks —w-axle, four-tire Irwks excluded,
23

Tabla 10. Subarade Soil Types and discussion under “Comments on Simplified Pro-
App;oximate k Values ccdure,” page 30.)
k values In the correct use of Table 9, the ADT and ADTT val-
range, ues are not used as the primary criteria for selecting the .....
Type of soil SUppofl pcl
axle-load category—the data are shown only to illustrate
Fine-grained soils in which silt and u
Low typical values. Instead, it is correct to rely more on the
clay-size pariicles predominate I I 7s120 word descriptions given or to select a category based on
Sands and sand-gravel mixtures with 13&170
Medium the expected values of maximum-axle loads.
moderate amounts of silt and clay
The ADTT design value should be obtained by a truck
sands and sand-gravel mixtures High 180-220
relatively free of plastic fines
classification count for the facility or for another with a
Very high 25&400
similar composition of tmffic. Other methods of estimat-
Cement-treated subbasOS (see page 6)
ing ADT and ADTT are discussed on pages 8 and 9,
The allowable ADTT values (two dircctions)fisted in
under “Subgrade and Subbase Support’’—the estimated the tables include only two-axle, six-tire trucks, and
k value is increased according to Table 1 or Table 2. single or combination units with three axles or more.
The design steps are as follows Excluded are panel and pickup trucks and other two-exle,
four-tire trucks. Therefore, the number of allowabIe
1. Estimate ADTT* (average daily truck traffic, two
trucks of alI types will begrcaterthanthe tabulated ADTT
directions, excluding two-axle, four-tire trucks)
(continued on page 30)
2. Select axle-load Category 1, 2, 3, or 4.
3. Fkrd slab thickness requirement in the appropriate *For facilities of four lanes or more, the ADTT is adjusted by the use
Table 11, 12, 13, or 14. (In the usc of these tables, see of Fig. 3.
Table 11. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Cate@ry 1

Pavements with Aggregate-lntertock Joints (Dowels not needed)
No Concrete ehoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb
Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab Subgrade-subbase support

thickness, thick#r+s% ,..
in. LrJW Medium High Low Medium High
4 0.2 0.9
4.5 0,) 4.5 2 8 25
L-J
.-
: ~ 5 30 130 330
0.1 0.8 3
z 5.5 3 15 45 5.5 320
.
(,
40 1S0 430
c 6
z 6.5 330
.- 5 0.1 0,4 4 0.1

E 5.5 0.5 3 9 4.5 0.2 1 5
s 6 8 36 98 5 6 27 75
6.5 76 300 760 5.5 73 2eo 730
K
z y 520 6 610
.- 5,5 0.1 0.3 1 4.5 0.2 0.6

1 6 16 5 0.6 4 13
: ;,5
13 60 160 5.5 13 57 150
K 7 110 403 6 130 460

z 7,5 620
Note Fatigue analysis controls the design.

Note: A fractional ADTT indicates that the pavement can carry unlimited passenger cars and two-axle, four-
the trucks, but only a few heavy trucks per week (ADTT of 0.3 x 7 days indicates two heavy trucks per week.)
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks, so total number of trucks allowed will be greater—see text.
24

Table 12s. Allowable ADTT,” Axle-Load Category 2 — Pavements with Doweled Joints
No Concrete S’houl&r or Curb Concrete ahouldec or Curb
Slab Subgrade-subbase support Subgrade-subbase s“ppmt

Slab I
thickness,
thickness,
in. Low Medium Hiah Verv hioh In. Low Medium High Very high
5 3 9 42
5.5 9 42 120 450
6 96 360 970 3400
6.5 710 26Q0
7 4200
w
.-
E
5’
1,
5.5 I 3 17
6 3 14 41 lSU
6.5 29 120 320 1100
7 210 770 1900
7,5 1100 4000
I
Note: Fatigue analysis controls the design. .ADTT exd”des two-axle, four-tire trucks so mtel number.1 tr.cks allowed wilt be greater–see text.
Table 12b. Allowable ADTT.” Axle-Load Cateaorv

-. 2- Pavements with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
No Concrete shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb
thic~~, thickness,
Low Medium High Very high m. Low Medium High Very high
I 5 3 9 42
5.5 9 42 120 450
Jm..
6 e6 380 97W .
6,5 650. - 1000” 1400,’ 21OIY.
7 1100-. 1900”
w
8 13W. 19CW
6 19 64 220 610
6.5 I&l 620 1400.. 2100,,
I
7 1000 1900,.
6.5 4 19
.-
~ 7 I 11 34 150
WE===’
.ADTT excludes two-axle, I..,-tire trucks total ““mbw of tr.cks allowed will be greater—see text,
‘+Erosio” analysis controls the design: otherwise fatigue analysis controls.
25

Table 13s. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 3- Pavementa with Doweled Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb
~ ““”
Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab Subgrade-subbase support u
thickness, thic$~,
in. Low Medium High Very high Low Medium High Very high
a===
=
z
I 7.5 I 250
s 130 350 1,300
z. 8.5 i ,600 6,200
lea 640
,,
a 9 700 2,700 7,000 11,500,,
z 9.5 2,7CQ 10,800
10 9,900
6.5 I 67
7 120 440
7,5 270 8s0 2,300
8 I 370 1,300 3,200 10.s00
6.5 1,600 5,800 14,100
9 6,&10
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire truck% total number of trucks allowed will be greater—see text.
.. Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fatigue analysis comrols. ‘u
v’
26

Table 13b. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 3— Pavements with Aggregate Interlock Jointa
ConcreteShoulderor Curb
n Slab
thic;~
Subgrade-subbase support Slab
thickness,
Subgrade-subbase support
Low Medium High Very high tn. Low Medium High Very high
I
7,5 ~o..
25W .
8 130- 350- 830
,@y,
.- 8,5 640,, 900 1,300
% 9 680 1,000 1,300 2,000
z 9.5 960 1,500 2,000 2,900
.
10 1,3CC 2,1C!U 2,800 4,300
K
10.5 1,800 2,900 4,000 6,300 10.5 5,300
z
11 2,500 4,000 5,700 9,200 11 8,100
11.5 3,300 5,500 7,900
12 4,400 7,500
8 73..
310++
8.5, 14W. 380”’ 1,300
. 9 160,. 640. - 1,300 2,000
a 9.5 63W + 1,503 2,000 2,900
~ ,0
. 1,300 2,100 2,800 4,300
,,
cc
10.5 1,8CU 2,900 4,000 6,3oo 9.5 I 2,300 4.700 S.om
~ 11 2,500 4,000 5,700 9,200 10 I 3,500 7,700
11.5 3,300 5,500 7,900 10.5 I 5.300
12 4,400 7,500 11 S,loo
1 1
8 56” 7 62’,
6.5 70..
,. 300>+ 1,5 130,. 460’ +
.— 120,, 1,300,. 67..
9 340., 8 270., 670.. 2,301Y+
% 9.5 12W+ 520., 2,900 8,5 330” 1,200., 2,700 4,700
l,3cKl-
z ,0
0 460,, 1,9CW, 2.800 4,300 9 1,400%, 2,900 4,6oo 8,700
10,5 1,600,+ 2,91Y3 4;000 6,300 9.5 2,30+1 4,700 8,000
E
~ 11 I 2,500 4,000 5,700 9,2oo 10 3,500 7,700
11,5 3,300 5,500 7,9C+I 10.5 5,30U
12 I 4.400 7,500 11 8,1OQ
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks total number 0{ trucks allowed will be greater—see text.
,. Fatigue analysis controls the design, otherwise erosion analysis controls.
27

Table 14s. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 4 — Pavements with Doweled Joints
No ConcreteShoulderor Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb

I I I
thickness, thickness, w
In. Low Medium High Very high 0.. Low Medium High Very high
8 270 7 400
8.5 120 340 1,300 7,5 240 620 2,100
. 9 140 580 1,500 5,W0 8 330 1,200 3,000 9,800
I
E
9.5 570 2,300 5,900 14,70W. 8.5 I 1,500 5,300 12,700 41,100’,
E
. 10 2,000 8,200 18,701% 25,80W. 9 5,90+3 21,400 44,900 -
10.5 6,700 24,100’. 31 ,801Y. 45,801Y, 9.5 22,503 52,000’”
cc
+3=
z tl 21,800 39,800” 10 45,20W.
11.5 39,70W,
—
8.5 300 7.5 130 490

,- 9 120 340 1,300 8 270 690 2,3oo
% 9.5 120 530 1,400 5,200 S.5 340 1,300 3,000 9,900
z ,0 480 1,900 5,1W i 9,300 9 t,40+3 5,000 12,000 40,200
m
10.5 1,600 6,503 17,500 45,900,, 9.5 I 5,2’&3 18,800 45,900
cc
> 11 4,900 21,400 53, 8W ‘ 10 18,41XI
11.5 14,500 65,000” ‘ 1
12 44,000
9 260 8 130 480

9.5 280 1,100 8.5 250 620 2,100
‘: I
9 280 1,000 2,5CW 8,200
9.5 1,100 3,900 9,300 30,700
10 3,800 13,600 32,800
10.5 12,400 48,2C0 ,
12 8,200 40,000 11 40,400
‘u
.ADTT excludes two-axle fmr-tire trucks total number of Imck$ allowed will be greater—see text.
.+Erosion melysi$ c.ntrols the design; otherwise fatigue analysis controls,
28

Table 14b. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 4 — Pavemente with Aggregate-interlock Joints
No ConcreteShoulderor Cub ConcreteShoulderor Curb

- I I I
(.
Slab Subgrade-subbase supporl
thickness,
In. Low Medium High Very high
10 ] 2,800 5,500 9,200 ,,,,00
11 5,900 13,600 24,200
=$===== 8.5
9 120’” 340”
30W+
1,30W.
12
I
12,800
9.5 120,, 530,. 1,400,, 2,300

r
10 2,600 5,500 9,200 17,900

I
I
11 5,900 13,600 24,200
12 ] 12,800
1 1 I
8 130.. 48W ,
8.5 25W , 620” 2,101Y.
9 260,. 1,000.. 2,500.. 5,700

9.5 1,1OQ., 3,4cm 5,500 10,200
a ,, I,ow. 3,300 4,50Q 7,200 10 2,600 5,500 9,200 17,900
8 11.5 2,700 4,500 6,300 10,400
.0
K
12 3,600 6,100 8,800 14,900 11 5,900 13,6W 24,200
~ 13 6,300 11,100 16,800 12 12,800
14 10.800
.ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks; total number of trucks allowed w(II be greater—see text.
,. Fatigue analysis controls !he design; otherwise erosion analysis controls.
29

values by about double for many highways on up to about Comments on Simplified Procedure
triple or more for streets and secondary roads.
Tables 11 through 14 include designs for pavements Modulus of Rupture
with and without concrete shoulders or curbs. For park-
ing lots, adjacent lanes provide edge support similar to Cnncrete used for paving should be of high quality** and
that of a concrete shoulder or curb so the right-hand side have adequate durability, scale resistance, and flexural w
of Tables 11 through 14 are used. strength (modulus of rupture). In reference to Tables 11
through 14, the upper pnrtions of the tables represent
concretes made with normal aggregates that usually pro-
duce good quality concretes with flexural strengths in the
Sample Problems area of 600 to 650 psi. Thus, the upper portions of these
tables are intended for general design use in this simpli-
Two sample problems follow to illustrate use of the sim- fied design procedure.
plified design procedure. The lower portions of the tables, showing a concrete
modulus of rupture of 550 psi, are intended for design use
Design 3 only fm special cases. In some areas nf the country, the
Arterial street, twn lanes aggregates are such that concretes of good quality and
Design ADT = 6200 durability produce strengths of only about 550 psi.
Total trucks per day = 1440
ADTT = 630 Design Period
Clay subgrade The tables list the allowable ADTl% for a 20-year design
4-in. untreated subbase period. Fnr other design periods, multiply the estimated
Subgrade-subbase support = low ADTT by the appropriate ratio to obtain an adjusted
Concrete M R = 650 psi* value fnr use in the tables.
Doweled joints, curb and gutter For example, if a 30-year design period is desired in-
Since it is expected that axle-load magnitudes will be stead of 20 years, the estimated ADTT value is multiplied
about the average carried by arterial streets, not unusual- by 30/20. In general, the effect of the design period on
ly heavy or light, Category 3 from Table 9 is selected, slab thickness will be greater for pavements carrying
Accordingly, Table 13a is used for design purposes, larger volumes of tfuck traffic and where aggregate-inter-
(Table 13a is for doweled joints, Table 13b is for aggre- lock joints are used.
gate-interlock joints.)
For a subgrade-subbase support conservatively classed Aggregate-Interlock or Doweled Joints
as low, Table 13a, under the concrete shoulder or curb
portion, shows an allowable ADTT of 1600 for an 8-in.- Tables 12 through 14 are divided into two parts, a and b, u’
slab thickness and 320 for a 7.5-in. thickness. to show data for doweled and aggregate-interlockj oints,t
Thk indicates that, for a concrete strength of 650 psi, respectively. In Table 11, thickness requirements are the
the 8-in. thickness is adequate to carry the required de- same for pavements with doweled and aggregate-interlock
sign ADTT of 630. jointy doweled joints are not needed for the low truck
traffic volumes tabulated for Category 1. Whenever
Design 4 dowels are not used, joint spacings should be short—see
discussion on page 3.
Residential street, two lanes
ADT = 410
Total trucks per day = 21
User-Developed Design Tables
ADTT = 8
Clay subgrade (no subbase), subgrade suppnrt = low
The purpose of this section is to describe hnw the simpli-
Concrete MR = 600 psi*
fied design tables were develnped so that the design engi-
Aggregate-interlock joints (no dowels)
neer who wishes to can develop a separate set of design
Integral curb
tables based on an axle-load category different from those
in this problem, Table 11 representing axle-load given in this chapter. Some appropriate situations include
Category 1 is selected for design use. In the table
under “Concrete Shoulder or Curb,” the following
allowable ADTT are indicated:
*See disc.wion under ‘Comments on Simplified Pmcedum—M.d-

“1”S of Rupture,- above
**See pofila”,j cenm.t Awociat i.. p.b)icat ion Design and Control
of Concrete Mi.wre$.
T When fatigue analysis controls the dcsiEn(see footnotes of Tables
12through 14), it will be noted that tbe ADTTvalues fmd.weled joints
and for aggregate-interlock joints are the sane (we topic ..Jointed Pave-
Therefore, a 5.5-in. -slab thickness is selected to meet d
nmnts- in Appendix A). If emsi.% analysis controls, c.ncmt. modulus
the required design ADTT value of 8. of rupture will have no effect m the .dlmvable ADTT.
30

(1) preparation of standard sections from which a pave- Table 15. Axle-Load Distributions Used for
ment thickness is selected based on amount of traffic and Preparing Design Tablss 11 Through 14
other design conditions, (2) unusual axle-load distribu- Axle Axles per 1000 trucks,
,n tions that may be carried on a special haul road or other load,
special pavement facility, and (3) an increase in legal axle kips Category 1 :ategory 2 Category 3 Category 4
loads that would cause axle-load distribution to change. 3ingle :Ies
Axle-1oad distributions for Categories 1 through 4 are —~ 4
shown in Table 15. Each of these is a composite of data 6 732.26
averaged from several state Ioadometer (W-4) tables rep- 8 483,10 233.6o
10 204,96 142.70
resenting pavement facilities in the appropriate category.
12 124.00 116,76 182.02
Also, at the high axle-load range, loads heavier than those 14 56.11 47,76 47.73
listed on state department of transportation Wq tables 16 38.02 23,88 31.82 57.07
were estimated based on extrapolation. These two steps 18 15.81 16.61 25.15 68.27
were desired for obtaining a more representative general 20 4.23 6.63 16.33 41,82
distribution and smoothing irregularities that occur in 22 0.96 2,60 7.85 9.69
individual W-4 tables. The steps are considered appropri- 24 1.60 5,21 4,16
ate for the design use of these particular categories de- 26 0.07 1.78 3.52
scribed earlier in thk chapter. 28 0.85 1.78
30 0,45 0.63
As described in Chapter 2, the data is adjusted to ex-
32 0.54
clude two-axle, four-tire trucks, and then the data are
34 0.19
partitioned into 2000- and 4000-lb axle-load. increments.
To prepare design tables, design problems are solved m axles
with the given axle-load distribution by computer with 4 31,90
8 85.59 47.01
the desired load safety factor at different thicknesses and
12 139,30 91,15
subbase-subgrade k values, 16 75.02 59.25 99.34
Allowable ADTTvalues to be listed in design tables are 20 57.10 45,00 65.94
easily calculated when a constant, arbkrary ADTT is in. 24 39.18 30.74 72.54 71,16
put in the design problems as follows: assume input 28 68.48 44.43 121.22 95.78
ADTT is 1000 and that 45.6% fatigue consumption is 32 69.59 54.76 103,63 109.54
calculated in a particular design problem, then 36 4.19 38.79 56.25 78,18
40 7.76 21.31 20,31
100 X (input ADTT) 44 1.16 8.01 3.52
Allowable ADTT =
n % fatigue or erosion damage 48 2.91 3.03
52 1.18 1.79
— 100(1000) _ 2193 56 1,07
45.6 60 0.57
.Excludng all two-axle, Iour-tire trucks.
31

,.
‘u
APPENDIX A
Development of Design Procedure

The thickness design procedure presented here was pre- the critical placements shown in Fig. A I were established
pared to recognize current practices in concrete pavement with the following conclusions:
construction ‘and performance experience with concrete
pavements that previous design procedures have not ad- 1 The most critical Davement stresses occur when the
dressed. These include: truck wheels are placed at or near the pavement edge
and midway between the joints, Fig. A l(a). Since the
● Pavements with different types of load transfer at
joints are at some distance from this location, trans-
transverse joints or cracks
verse joint spacing and type of load transfer have
● Lean concrete subbases under concrete pavements
very little effect on the magnitude of stress. In the
● Concrete shoulders design procedure, therefore, the analysis based on
● Modes of distress, primarily due to erosion of pave- fk”ral stresses and fatigue yield the same values fOr _.
ment foundations, that are unrelated to the tradi- different joint spacings and different types of load
tional criteria used in previous design procedures transfer mechanisms (dowels or aggregate interlock) U“
A new aspect of the procedure is the erosion criterion at transverse joints. When a concrete shoulder is tied
that is amlied in addition to the stress-fatieue criterion.
The ero~~n criterion recognizes that pave~ents can fail
from excessive pumping, e%sion of foundation, and joint
faulting. The stress criterion recognizes that pavements
can crack in fatigue from excessive load repetitions.
This appendix explains the basis for these criteria and
the development of the design procedure. References 30
and 57 give a more detailed account of the topic.
I I I
Analysis of Concrete Pavements
L–––––––L–––––_J
The design procedure is based on a comprehensive anai- (.) Axle. I.od p.sil ion for criticolf lexw.1 stresses
ysis of concrete stresses and deflections at pavement
joints, corners, and edges by a finite-element computer
m
program. IN ,t ~I]ow~ ~o”~iderations of slabs with finite
dimensions, variable axle-load placement, and the mod-
eling of load transfer at transverse joints 6r cracks and
load transfer at the joint between pavement and concrete
Troffic
shoulder. For doweled joints, dowel properties such as lone
diameter and modulus of elastic it y are used direct] y. For
aggregate, interlock, keyway joints, and cracks in comim Freeedgem i i
shoulder joint
uously reinforced pavements, a spring stiffness value is
used to represent the load-deflection characteristics of > Concrete shoulder
, (,F medl
such joints based on field and laboratory tests.
L–––____J__——–––– .
(b) Axle load pmitio. for critic.! deflections
Jointed Pavements
d
After analysis of different axle-load positions on the slab, Fig. Al. Critical axle-load positions.
32

on to the mainline pavement, the magnitude of the Truck Load Placement
critical stresses is considerably reduced.
2. The most critical pavement deflections occur at the Truck wheel loads placed at the outside pavement edge
slab corner when an axle load is placed at the joint create more severe conditions than any other load posi-
with the wheels at or near the corner, Fig. A I(b). * tion. As the truck placement moves inward a few inches
In this situation, transverse joint spacing has no ef- from the edge, the effects decrease substantially.(”)
fect on the magnitude of corner deflections but the Only a small fraction of all the trucks run with their
type of load transfer mechanism has a substantial nutside wheels placed at the edge. Most of the trucks trav-
effect. This means that design results based on the eling the pavement are driven with their outside wheel
erosion criteria (deflections) may be substantially placed abnut 2 ft from the edge, Taragin’s(40] studies re-
affected by the type of load transfer selected, espe- ported in 1958, showed very little truck encroachment at
cially when large numbers of trucks are being de- pavement edge for 12-ft lanes for pavements with un-
signed for. A concrete shoulder reduces corner de- paved shoulders. More recent studies by Emery(”) shnwed
flections considerably. more trucks at edge, Other recent studies”’] showed fewer
trucks at edge than Emery. Fnr this design prncedure, the
Continuously Reinforced Pavements most severe conditinn, 6c%of trucks at edge, * is assumed
so as to be on the safe side and to take account of recent
A continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) changes in United States law permitting wider trucks.
is one with no transverse joints and, due to the heavy,
At increasing distances inward from the pavement
continuous steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direc-
edge, the frequency of lnad applications increases while
tion, the pavement develops cracks at close intervals. the magnitudes of stress and deflecting decrease. Data
These crack spacings on a given project are variable, run-
on truck placement distribution and distributing of stress
ning generally from 3 to 10 ft with averages of 4 to 5 ft. and deflection due to loads placed at and near the pave-
In the finite-element computer analysis, a high degree
ment edge are difficult to use directly in a design proce-
of load transfer was assigned at the cracks of CRCP and dure. As a result, the distributions were analyzed and
the crack spacing was varied. The critical load positions more easily applied techniques were prepared for design
established were the same as those for jointed pavements.
purposes.
For the longer crack spacings, edge stresses for loads
For stress-fatigue analysis, fatigue was computed in-
placed midway between cracks are of about the same
crementally at fractions of inches inward fmm the slab
magnitude as those for jointed pavements. For the aver-
edge for different truck-placement distributions; this
age and shorter crack spacings, the edge stresses are less
gave the equivalent edge-stress factors shown in Fig. A2.
than those for jointed pavements, because there is not
(This factor, when multiplied by edge-load stress, gives
P enough length of untracked pavement to develop as much
the same degree of fatigue consumption that would result
bending moment. from a given truck placement distribution,) The mnst
For the longer crack spacings, corner deflections are
severe condition, 6T0 truck encroachment, has been in-
somewhat less than those for jointed pavements with
corporated in the design tables.
doweled transverse joints. For average to long crack
spacings, corner deflections are about the same as those
for jointed, doweled pavements. For short crack spacings
of 3 or 4 ft, corner deflections are somewhat greater than
those for jointed, doweled pavements, especially for tan-
dem-axle loads.
Considering natural variations in crack spacing that
occur in one stretch of pavement, the following compari-
son of continuously reinforced pavements with jointed,
dnweled pavements is made. Edge stresses will sometimes
be the same and sometimes less, while corner deflections
will sometimes be less, the same, andgreater at different
areas of the pavement depending on crack spacing.
The average of these pavement responses is neither
0:ME2!&ia
substantially better nor worse than those for jointed,
doweled pavements. As a result, in this design procedure,
the same pavement responses and criteria are applied to
continuously reinforced pavements as those used with
cc 0123 4567a
jointed, doweled pavements. This recommendation is
consistent with pavement performance experience. Most PERCENT TRuCKS AT EDGE
design agencies suggest that the thickness of continuously

reinforced pavements should be about the same as the Fig. A2. Equivalent edge stress factor depends on
thickness nfdoweled-jointed pavements. percent of trucks at edge.
P *As used hm, the term ‘<percenttrucks at edge,, is defined as the

*The greatest deflections for tridwm occur when two axles are placed percent of totat tmcks that a= travetiw with the outside of the con~ct
at one side of the ioint and me axle at the other side. area of the outside tire at or beyond the pavement edge.
33

For erosion analysis, which involves deflection at the effect is influenced greatly by creep.
slab corner, the most severe case (6% of trucks at edge) is Curling refers to slab behavior due to variations of
again assumed. Where there is no concrete shoulder, cor- temperature. During the day, when the tnp surface is
ner loadings (6% of trucks) are critical; and where there warmer thanthe bottom, tensile-restraint stresses develop
is a concrete shoulder, the greater number of loadings at the slab bottom. During the night, the temperature dis-
inward from the pavement corner (94’% of trucks) are tribution isreversed andtensile restraint stresses develop ~
critical. These factors are incorporated into the design at the slab surhce. Temperature distribution is usually
charts as follows: nonlinear and constantly changing, Alsn, maximum day-
Percent erosion damage = 100 Xn (C/ Ni) time and nighttime temperature differentials exist for
short durations,
where n, = expected number of axle-load
Usually the combined effect of curling and warping
repetitions for axle-group i
stresses are subtractive from load stresses because the
Ni = allowable number of repeti- moisture content and temperature at the bottom of the
tions for axle-group i slab exceed that at the top more than the reverse.
C = 0.06 for pavements without The complex situation ofdifferential conditions ata
shoulder, and slab’s top and bottom plus the uncertainty of the zero-
0.94 for pavements with stress position make it difficult tocompute or measure
shoulder the restraint stresses with any degree of confidence or
To save a design calculation step, the effects of (C/NiI verification. At present, the information available on
are incorporated in Figs. 6a and 6b of Chapter 3 and actual magnitudes of restraint stresses does not warrant
Tables 11 through 14 of Chapter 4. incorporation of the items in this design procedure.
As for the lnss of support, this is considered indirectly
in tbe erodibility criterion, which is derived from actual
Variation in Concrete Strength field performance and therefore incorporates normal loss
of support conditions,
Recognition of the variations in concrete strength is con- Calculated stress increase due to loss of support varies
sidered a realistic addition to the design procedure. Ex- from about 5%to 15%Thisth eoreticalst ressincreaseis
pected ranges of variations in the concrete’s modulus of counteracted in the real case because a portion of the load
rupture have far greater effect than the usual variations is dissipated in bringing the dab edges back in contact
in the properties of other materials, such as subgrade and with the support. Thus, the incremental load stress due to
subbase strength, and layer thicknesses. Variation in con- a warping-type loss of support is not incorporated in this
crete strength is introduced by reducing the modulus of design procedure, .
rupture by one coefficient of variation.
For design purposes, a coefficient of variation of 15%
is assumed and is incorporated into the design charts and Fatigue
tables. The user does not directly apply this effect, fie
value of 15% represents fair-to-good quality control, and, The flexural fatigue criterion used in the procedure pre-
combined with other effects discussed elsewhere in this sented here is shown in Fig, A3. It issimilar to that used
appendix, was selected as being realistic and giving rea- in the previous PCAmethndi4’] based conservativelyon
sonable design results.
Concrete Strength Gain With Age

0,9
The 28day flexural strength (modulus of rupture) is used
as the design strength. This design procedure, however,
incorporates the effect of concrete strength gain after 28 0.8
days. This modification is based on an analysis that incre- Curve by Hil,do,f And Kesler Wh
mented strength gain and load repetitions month by Constant Pmb,tdl;ty 0.05
Q
month for 20-year and 40-year design periods. The effect $ a7
is included in the design charts and tables so the user m Pc& curve
simply inputs the 28-day value as the design strength. :
: 0.6
m
Warping and Curling of Concrete

0.5
In addition to traffic Ioadi”g, concrete slabs am also ~~b. Extended C.,,, >._
jetted to warping and curling. Warping is the upward
concave deformation of the slab due to variations in mois- 0,4-
ture content with slab depth. The effect of warping is two- ,.2 ,.3 104 , ,y ,@ , ~,
fold: It results in loss of support along the slab edges and LOAD REPETITIONS
also in compressive restraint stresses in the slab bottom, u--”
Since warping isalong-term phenomenon, itsres”ltam Fig. A3. Fatigue relationships.
34

studies of fatigue research[4s-”9) except that it is applied to A successful correlation with road test performance was
edge-load stresses that are of higher magnitude. A modi- obtained with this parameter,
fication in the high-load-repetition range has been made The development of the erosion criterion was also gen-
to eliminate the discontinuity in the previous curve that erally related to studies on joint faulting. [2* 29) These
sometimes causes unrealistic effects, studies included pavements in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
The allowable number of load repetitions for a given North Dakota, Georgia, and California, and included a
axle load is determined based on the stress ratio (flexural range of variables not found at the AASHO Road Test,
stress divided by the 28-day modulus of rupture). The such as a greater number of trucks, undoweled pave-
fatigue curve is incorporated into the design charts for ments, a wide range of years of pavement service, and
use by the designer. stabilized subbases.
Use of the fatigue criterion is made on the Miner hy- Brokaw’s studies (2o of ““doweled pavements suggest
pothes]s 140that fatigue ~e~istance not consumed by rePe- that climate or drainage is a significant factor in pave-
titions of one load is available for repetitions of other ment performance. So far, this aspect of design has not
loads. In a design problem, the total fatigue consumed been included in the design procedure. but it deserves
should not exceed 100%. further study. Investigations of the effects of climate on
Combined with the effect of reducing the design mod- design and performance of concrete pavements have also
ulus of rupture by one coefficient of variation, the fatigue been reported by Darter. [”]
criterion is considered to be conservative for thickness The erosion criterion is suggested for use as a guideline.
design purposes. It can be modified according to local experience since
cfimate, drainage, local factors, and design innovations
may have an influence. Accordingly, the 100% erosion-
damage criterion, an index number correlated with gen-
Erosion eral performance experience, can be increased or de-
creased based on specific performance data gathered in
Previous mechanistic design procedures for concrete the future for more favorable or more adverse conditions.
pavements are based on the principle of limiting the ffex-
ural stresses in a slab to safe values. This is done to avoid
flexural fatigue cracks due to load repetitions.
It has been apparent that there is an important mode
of distress in addition to fatigue cracking that needs to
be addressed in the design process. T& is the erosion of
material beneath and beside the slab.
,P Many repetitions of heavy axle loads at slab corners
and edges cause pumping; erosion of subgrade, subbase,
and shoulder materialy voids under and adjacent to the
slab; and faulting of pavement joints, especially in pave-
ments with undoweled joints.
These particular pavement distresses are considered to
be more closely related to pavement deflections than to
flexural stresses.
Correlations of deflections computed from the finite-
element analysis(a] with AASHO Road Test{ 24]perform-
ance data were not completely satisfactory for design
purposes. (The principal mode of failure of concrete
pavements at the AASHO Road Test was pumping or
erosion of the granular subbase from under the slabs.) It
was found that to be able to predict the AASHO Road
Test performance, different values of deflection criteria
would have to be applied to different slab thicknesses,
and to a small extent, different foundation moduli (k
values),
More useful correlation was obtained by multiplying
the computed corner deflection values (w) by computed
pressure values (.P) at the slab-foundation interface, Pow-
er, or rate of work, with which an axle load deflects the
slab is the parameter used for the erosion criterion—for a
unit area, the product of pressure and deflection divided
by a measure of the length of the deflection basin (l—
radius of relative stiffness, in inches). The concept is that
a thin pavement with its shorter deflection basin receives
~ a faster load punch than a thicker slab. That is, at equal
pw’s and equal truck speed, the thinner slab is subjected
to a faster rate of work or power (inch-pound per second).
35

b’
APPENDIX B
Design of Concrete Pavements with Lean

Concrete Lower Course
Following is the thickness design procedure for compos- ness about twice the subbase thickness; for example, 9 in.
ite concrete pavements incorporating a lower layer of of concrete on a 4- or 5-in. subbase.
lean concrete, either as a suhhase constructed separately Fig. B 1 shows the surface and subbase thickness re-
or as a lower layer in monolithic construction. Design quirements set to be equivalent to a given thickness of
considerations and construction practices for such pave- normal concrete without a lean concrete subbase.
ments are discussed in References 50 through 52. A sample problem is given to illustrate the design pro-
Lean concrete is stronger than conventional subbase cedure. From laboratory tests, concrete mix designs have
materials and is considered to be nonerodable, Recogni- been selected that give moduli of rupture of 650 and 200
tion of its superior structural properties can be taken by psi~*respectively, for the surface concrete and the lean
a reduction in thickness design requirements. concrete subbase. Assume that a I&In.-thickness require-
Analysis of composite concrete pavements is a special ment has been determined for a pavement without lean ,..
case where the conventional two-layer theory (single slab concrete subbase as set forth in Chapter 3 or 4.
on a foundation) is not strictly applicable. As shown by the dashed example line in Fig. BI, de- W’
The design procedure indicates a thickness for a two- signs equivalent to the 10-in. pavement are (1) 7.7-in.
layer concrete pavement equivalent to a given thickness concrete on a 5-in. lean concrete subbase, and (2) 8. l-in.
of normal concrete. The latter is determined by the pro- concfcte on a &]n. lean concrete subbase.
cedures described in Chapters 3 and 4. The equivalence
is based on providing thickness for a two-layer concrete
pavement that will have the same margin of safety* for
fatigue and erosion as a single-layer normal concrete Monolithic Pavement
pavement.
In the design charts, Fig. B] and Fig, B2, the required In some areas, a relatively thin concrete surface course is
layer thicknesses depend on the flexural strengths of the constructed monolithically with a lean concrete lower
two concrete materials as determined by ASTM C78. layer. Local or recycled aggregates can be used for the
Since the quality of lean concrete is often specified on the lean concrete, resulting in cost savings and conservation
basis of compressive strength, Fig. B3 can be used to con- of bighqualit y aggregates.
vert this to an estimated flexural strength (modulus of
rupture) for usc in preliminary design calculations.
●ll. criteria are that (1) stressratios in either of the two concrete
Lean Concrete Subbase layers not exceed that of the reference pavement and (2)erosion values
at the s.bbase-s.bgrade interface not exceed those of the reference pave-
The largest paving use of lean concrete has been as a sub- ment. Rational. for the criteria is give. in Reference 50 plus two ad&l-
base under a conventional concrete pavement, This is timal considerations: (1) erosion criteria is included in addition to the
nonmonolithic construction where the surface course of fatigue approach given in the referencq and (2) for nonmonolithic con-
struction, some structural benefit C141is added because the subbase is
normal concrete is placed on a hardened lean concrete constructed wider than the pavement.
subbase. Usually, the lean concrete subbase is built at . . F1.xural wemgth of !..” comxete m be used as a subbase is usually
least 2 ft wider than the pavement on each side to support selected to be between i50 to 250 psi (compressive Wength, 750 to 1200
the tracks of the sfipform paver. This extra width is struc- psih these relatively low strengths are used to minimize reflective crack- ,,.
ing from tbe unjointed subbase (.s..1 practice is to leave the s.hhm.
turally beneficial for wheel loads applied at pavement .“jointed) through the concrete surface. lf, c.ntmry toc.rrem practic.,
edge. joints are placed in the subbase, the stcmgth of the 1..” comrete would u
The normal practice has been to select a surface thick- “.1 have to b. restricted m the lower m “ge.
36

Modulus of Rupture of Leon Concrete, psi
350 450 I50 250 350 450
250.
<
14
450 /
I 50 14 _
350
< .< “%
13
250 .. / ‘
,0 / ‘
/
I50 ;
12
/ ‘
6). / /
II / ‘ /
d
/ )
0
I 0(.++ ~ –;
9 r
9
are thicknesses of concrete
surface course
Fig. B1. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (lean concrete subbase),
37

Modulus of Rupture of Lean Concrete, psi
450 150 250 350 450
14
350
/,
13 -
12
“l- t+htl+’tft
‘0+--wH--tf7b%4
3“ Surface 4“ Surface
Fig. B2, Design chart for composite concrete pavement (monolithic with lean concrde Iowef layer).
Unlike the lean concrete subbases discussed in the pre-

vious section, the lower layer of lean concrete is placed
at the same width as the surface course, and joints are
sawed deep enough to induce fulldepth cracking through
both layers at the joint locations.
Fig. B2 is the design chart for monolithic pavements.
To illustrate its use, assume that the design strengths of
the two concretes are 650 and 350 psi, and that the design
procedures of Chapter 3 or 4 indicate a thickness require-
ment of 10 in. for fulldepth normal concrete.
As shown by the dashed example fine in Fig. B2, mono-
lithic designs equivalent to the IO-in. pavement are (1)4-
in. concrete surface on 8.3-in. lean concrete, or (2) 3-in.
surface on 9.3-in. lean concrete.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI
Fig. B3. Modulus of rupture versus compressive strength

(from Reference 50).
38

APPENDIX C
Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads

Tridem loads* can be included along with single- and Design 1A (9:5-in. pavement, combined k of 130 pci) is a
tandem-axle loads in the design analysis by use of data pavement with doweled joints and no concrete shoulder,
given in this appendix. Tables Cl and C2 are used to determine the equivalent
The same design steps and format outlined in Chapter stress and erosion factors, Items 1 I and 13 on the work-
3 are followed except that Tables C I through C3 are used. sheet.
From these tables for tridems, equivalent stress and ero- For this example, Fig. 5 is used to determine allowable
sion factors are entered in an extra design worksheet. load repetitions for the fatigue analvsis and l%. 6a is used
Then Fig. 5 and Fig. ti or 6b are used to determine al- for tbe”erosion analysis. - - -
lowable numbers of load repetitions. Fatigue and erosion The tridem loads of 54,000 lb are multiplied by t he load
damage totals for tridems are added to those for single- safety factor for Design 1A of 1.2, giving a design axle
and tandem-axle loads, load of 64,800 lb. Before using the charts for allowable
P
An extension of the sample problem, Design 1A given load repetitions, the tridem load (3 axles) is divided by
in Chapter 3, is used here to illustrate the procedure for three (64,800/3 = 21,600 lb) so that the load scale for
tridem loads. Assume that, in addition to the single- and single axles can be used, **
tandem-axle loads, a section of the highway is to carry a As show” in Fig, Cl, the tridem causes only 9.3% ero-
fleet of special coal-hauling trucks equipped with tridems sion damage and 0% fatigue damage. These results, added
at the rate of about 100 per working day for an estimated to the effects of the single and tandem axles shown in Fig.
period of 10 year> so: 4 are not sufficient to require a design thickness increase.
100 trucks X 250 days X 10 years = 250,000 total trucks
*A trid.m or triple axle isa set of three axles each sp.ced at 48 to 54in.
The trucks in one direction are normally all loaded to apart. These am used on special heavy-duty haul trucks.
their capacity of 54,000-lb tridem load plus 7000-lb steer- ..Thl$ is not to say th.tatridcm hasthe~meeff=t asthrec singieaxles.
ing-axle (single-axle) load. (When it is examined, the The damaging effects of tridem, tandem, and single axles are incorpo-
steering axles are not heavy enough to affect the design rated into their rqmtive equivalent stress and emsicm factor tables,
which i“ the sequeme of the design steps is taken into accmmt before
results.)
the charm for allowable-load repetitions arc entered. This divisicm by
Fig. C 1 represents a portion of tbe extra design work- three for tridetm is made just to avoid the complexity of adding a third
sheet needed to evaluate tbe effects of these tridems. Since scale on the charts for allowable-load qxtitio.s,
39

7f T.
/ Z??,(L D
Trial thickness 5?5- (n: Doweled joints yes’+.0 — -.
S.bbase-sub.arade k L.?o .,i concrete sh.w ldw yes _ no X
Modulus .1 nmt”re, MR ~ psi

C9sig” Period ~ yea,,
L-J
Load safely factor, LSF 1 z

Axle M“!tiPlied ExPect&
load, ~gYF repetition,
I@ Allowable Fatigue, Allowable Damage,
repetition, percent repetitions percent
/7
111213/4 1516 171
1 1 1 [ I I
I
I 1 1 I I I I
Total Total
o 7.3
74 be ZzdJ& X6 4224 SAw’7 /> 6++

Fig. Cl. Analysis of tridems.
,.-
u’
Tabla Cl. Equivalent Stress-Tridems
(Without Concrete Shouldar/With Concrete Shoulder)
Slab k of subgrsde.subbase, pcl
thickness,
in. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 51W431 456/392 4371377 428/369 419/362 41 4/360 41 2/359
4,5 439/365 380/328 359/31 3 349/305 339/297 331/392 32S/291
5 367/317 328/281 305/266 293/258 282/250 272[244 269/242
5.5 347[279 290/246 266/231 253/223 240/214 230/206 226/206
8 315[249 261/218 237/204 223/1 96 209/187 198/1 80 193/1 78
6.5 289/225 238/1 96 214/163 201/175 186/1 66 173/159 168/1 56
7 267/304 219/178 196/1 65 183/1 58 167/1 49 154/142 148/1 38
7.5 247/1 87 203/1 62 181/151 166/1 43 153/135 139/1 27 132(124
6 230/172 189/1 49 168/1 36 156/131 141/123 126/116 120/112
6.5 215/159 177[1 36 1561126 145/121 131/113 116/106 109/102
9 2W147 166/ 128 148/119 136/112 122/105 108/98 101/94
9.5 1871137 157/120 140/111 129/1 05 115/98 101/91 93/87
10 1741127 148/112 133/104 122/98 106/91 95/64 87/61
10.5 183/119 140/105 125/97 115/92 103/86 89/79 82/78
11 153/111 133/89 119/92 110/87 98/81 S5174 78177
11.5 142/104 125/93 113/86 104/82 93{76 80/70 74/67
12 133/97 119/83 106/82 100[78 89/72 77/66 70/63
12.5 123/91 113/33 103/78 95/74 85/66 73[63 67/847
13 114/85 107/79 98/74 91/70 81/65 70/80 64/57 ,..
13.5 105/80 101/75 93/70 87/67 78[62 67[57 61/54
14 97175 98/71 89/67 83/63 75/59 65/54 59/51 L/”
40

Table CZ. Eroalon Factors-Tridema-Doweled Joints
(Without Concrete Shoulder/With Concrete !Woulder)
thickness,
p ,., 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.8913.33 3.82/3.20 3.7513.13 3.70/3.10 3,61,13.05 3.53/3.00
4,5 3.7813.24 3.69/3,10 3.62./2.99 3.57/2.95 3.50,(2.91 3.4412.87
5 3,68/3.16 3.56/3,01 3.50/2.89 3.4612.83 3.4012.79 3.3412.75
5.5 3.59/3.09 3.49/2.94 3.40/2.80 3,36/2.74 3.3012.67 3.2512.84
6 3.51/3.03 3,40/2.87 3.3112.73 3.28/2.66 3.2112.58 3.16/2.54
6.5 3,44/2,97 3.33/2.82 3.23/2.67 3.18/2.59 3.12(2,50 3.08/2.45
7 3,37[2,92 3.26/2.76 3,18/2.61 3.10/2.53 3.04!2.43 3.00/2.37
7.5 3.31/2,87 3.20/2.72 3,09/2.56 3.03/2.47 2.97/2.37 2.93/2.31
6 3.26/2,83 3.14/2.67 3,03/2.51 2.97/2.42 2.80/2.32 2.86/2,25
8,5 3.20/2.79 3.09/2.63 2.9712.47 2.91/2,38 2.84,(2.27 2.79/2,20
9 3.15/2.75 3.04/2.59 2.92/2.43 2.66/2,34 2.7612,23 2.73t2.15
9.5 3.11/2.71 2.99/2.55 2.67/2,39 2.81/2.30 2.73/2.18 2,68/2. 11
10 3.08/2.67 2.94/2.51 2.83/2.35 2.76/2,26 2.68,/2.15 2,63/2,07
10.5 3.02/2.64 2.90/2.48 2,78/2.32 2.7.2/2.23 2.64/2.1 1 2.58/2.04
11 2.98/2.60 2.86/2.45 2.74/2.29 2.68/2,20 2,59/2.08 2.54/2.00
11.5 2.94/2.57 2.82/2.42 2.70/2.26 2.64/2.16 2.55,,2.05 2.50/1.97
12 2.91/2.54 2.79/2.39 2.67/2.23 2.60/2.13 2.51/2.02 2.48/1.94
12.5 2.6712.53 2.75/2,36 2.63/2.20 2.56/2.11 2.48,{1 .99 2.42/1.91
13 2,8412.48 2.72/2.33 2.6012.17 2.53/2.06 2.44,{1.96 2.39/1.88
13,5 2,61/2,46 2,68/2.30 2.56/2.14 2.49/2.05 2,41,(1 .93 2.35/1.86
14 2.78/2.43 2.6512.28 2.53/2.12 2.46/2.03 2.38,(1 .91 2.32/1 .83
P
Table C3. Erosion Fectors—Tridems-Aggregate-interlock Joints
(Without Concrete Shoulder/With Concrete :~oulder)
thic;.,
50 100 200 300 5130 700
4 4.06/3.50 3.97[3.36 3.68/3.30 3.62/3.25 3.7413.21 3.6713.16
4.5 3.9513.40 3.8513.26 3,78/3.16 3.70/3.13 3.63/3.08 3.58/3.04
5 I 3,85[3,32 3.75/3.19 3.66/3.06 3.60/3.03 3.52/2.97 3.46/2.93
5.5 3,76/3,26 3,66/3.11 3.56/3.00 3.51[2.94 3.4312.67 3.37[2 .83
6 I 3,68/3,20 3.58/3.05 3.4LV2.92 3,42/2.66 3.35,/2.79 3.29/2.74
6.5 3.61/3.14 3.50/2.99 3.40/2.86 3.34/2.79 3.27,/2.72 3.21/2.67
7 3.54/3.09 3.43/2.94 3.33/2.80 3.27/2.73 3.20/2,65 3,14/2.60
7.5 3.48/3.05 3.3712.89 3.2612.75 3.20/2.67 3.13/2.59 3.06/2.54
8 3.42/3.01 3.31/2,84 3,20/2.70 3.14/2.62 3.07/2.54 3.01/2.46
8.5 3.3712.97 3.25/2.80 3.15/2.65 3.09/2.58 3.01/2,49 2.96/2.43
9 3.32/2.94 3.20/2.77 3.09/2.61 3.03/2.53 2,95/2,44 2.90/2.38
9.5 3.2712.91 3.15/2.73 3.0412.56 2.98/2.49 2.90/2.40 2.85/2.34
10 3.22/2.88 3.11/2,70 3.00/2.54 2.93/2.46 2.85/2.36 2.60/2,29

10.5 3.f 8/2.85 3.06/2.67 2.95/2.51 2.89/2.42 2.8112.32 2.76[2 .26
11 3.14/2.83 3.02/2.85 2.91/2.48 2.8412.39 2.7712.29 2.71/2.22
11.5 3.10/2.80 2,98/2.62 2.8712.45 2.80/2.36 2.72/2.26 2.67/2.19
41

APPENDIX D
Estimating Traffic Volume by Capacity

(Note: At the time of preparing this bulletin, information Table D1. Design Capacities for
on highway capacity is under extensive revision and com- Multilane Highways
putational methods and results may be substantially Design capacity:
changed. New publications of AASHTO and theFHWA passenger cars
Type of highway pe;;r2ftJne
“Highway Capacity Manual,” expected to be published
in 1984 and 1985, should be used when available and they
rreew.ys vm. w access comm
will replace the methods and references presented in this
appendix.)
‘Suburt )an freeways with full access control
In Chapter 2, the traffic volume (ADTI is estimated by ,.. . .
a method based cm the projected rates of traffic growth.
‘Rural freeways with Wll or p
When the projected traffic volume is relatively high for a ~
control
specifk project, this method should be checked by the
Rural major highway!
capacity method described here. cross traffic and road.,..
The practical capacity of a pavement facility is defined
Rural major highways with c
as the maximum number of vehicles per lane per hour cross traffic and roadside Inwrmrerwe
that can pass a given point under prevailing road and I
traffic conditions without unreasonable delay or restrict- ,AIso includes panels, pickups, and other four-tire oxnrnerci.1 vehicles
ed freedom to maneuver. Prevailing conditions include that function a. passenger cars in terms of traffic capacity. Values are
taken from References 53 and 54,
composition of traffic, vehicle speeds, weather, align-
ment, proffle, number and width of lanes, and area.
The termproctical capacity is commonly used in refer-
j = ~“mber Of passenger cars equivalent tO One
ence to existing highways, and the term design capaciry
is used. for design purposes. Where traffic flow is uninter- truck
rupted-or nearly so—practical capacity and design = 4 in rolling terrain
capacity are numerically equel and have essentially the = 2 in level terrain
same meaning. In accordance with AAS HTO usage1s3 ’41 K = design hour volume, DHV, expressed as a
the term design capacity is used in this text. Design capac- percentage of ADT
ities for various kinds of multilane highways are sum- = 15% for rural freeways in this text
marized in Table DI. = 12% for urban freeways in thk text**
D = traffic, percent, in direction of heaviest travel
during peak hours—about 5070 to 75%
AD T Capacity of Multilane Highways
= 67% for rural freeways in this text
For thickness design it is necessary to convert the pas-
= 6090 for urban freeways in this text
aenger cars per hour in Table D1 to average daily traffic
in both directions, ADT, For multilane highways with
uninterrupted flow tbe following formula is used:
100P 5000N
ADT =
100+ Tpd- 1) x KD
where P = passenger cars* per lane per hour (from
Table D 1)
N = number of lanes—total both directions
T,, = trucks, percent, during peak hours ‘See f..tn.te at bottom of Table D!.
= 2/3 ADT_f in this booklet **s,, Reference 54, pa.~e$96 m 98, and Reference 56.
42

Detailed discussions of this formula will be found in
References 53, 54, and 55. As presented here, the symbol
for one term, T, of the formula, T,~, differs from the sym-
bol for this term in the references. In this text:
p T = trucks—includes only single units with more
than four tires and all combinations. (Does
not include panels, pickups, and other single
units with only four tires.)
ADTT = average daily truck traffic in both direc-
tions—may be expressed as a percentage of
ADT or as an actual value.
Capacity of Two-Lane Highways
Important factors in the design capacit y of two-lane high-
ways are (1) the percent of total project length where sight
distance is less than 1500 ft, and (2) lane widths of less
than 12 ft.* The design capacity in vehicles per hour (vph)
for unintermpted flow on two-lane highways is shown
in Table D2.
It is good practice to use both traffic projection fac-
tors and design capacity for thickness design of specific
projects. For example, if an existing two-lane route is car-
rying 4000 ADT and the projection factor is 2.7, the pro-
jected ADT would be 10,800. This is more than 4000
vehicles per day (vpd) greater than the design capacity of
virtually all two-kme highways.** On the other hand,
10,800 ADT is below the design capacity of most four-
lane highways.t Hence, the design should be made for
10,800 ADT on a four-lane roadway, Design capacity
should not be used where it shows a greater ADT than
shown by traffic projection.
p
*Lane widths of lessthan 12ft are rarely used in current pract i.., ex-
cept for very lightly traveled two-lam roads where land serviceis a pri-
mary function.
**SW Table D2.
?S.. Refermct 53, Table 11-14.
Table D2. De$ign Capacities for Uninterrupted Flow on Two-Lsne Highways’

Design Capacity, both directions, in vph,-
==
40 800 7Cnl 620
I o I 900 640 500 k:~

40 800 570
Rolling
80 720 510
80 620 440
‘KHx!uui
Source: Reference 53, Table 11-10,P.39e88.

‘. T.b.lar ..1..s apply where lateral clearance is not mstri.led. Where clearance is less th.” 6 H
apply factors In Reference 53, Table IIF 7, page 89.
VTr.cks, does not include four-tire vehicle..
43

w’
APPENDIX E
References
1. Westergaard, H. M., “Computation of Stresses in 41;, also PCA Development Department Bulletin
Concrete Roads,” High way Research Board pro. DXOI1.
ceedings, Fifth Annual Meeting, 1925, Part 1, pages 11. Childs., L. D., and Kapernick, J. W., “Tests of Con-
90 to 112. crete Pavement Slabs on Gravel Subbases,” Proceed-
2. Westergaard, H. M., “Stresses in Concrete Pavements ings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 84
Computed by Theoretical Analysis,” Public Roads, (HW-3), October 195fi also PCA Development De-
Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1926, pages 25 to 35. partment Bulletin DX021.
3. Westergaard, H. M., “Analysis of Stresses in Con- 12. Childs. ,, L. D.. and Kanernick.
. . J. W... “Tests of Con-
crete Roads Caused by Variations in Temperature,” crete Pavements on Crushed Stone Subbases,” Pro-
Public Roads, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 1927, pages 201 to ceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
215. Proc. Paper No. 3497, Vol. 89 (H W- 1), April 1963, z “’
4. Westergaard, H. M., “Theory of Concrete Pavement pages 57 to 8@ also PCA Development Department ‘~
Design; High way Research Board Proceedings, Bulletin DX065.
Seventh Annual Meeting, 1927, Part 1, pages 175 to 13. Childs, L. D., “Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on
181. Cement-Treated Subbases,” Highway Research Rec-
5. Westergaard, H. M., “Analytical Tools for Judging ord 60, Highway Research Board, 1963, pages 39 to
Results of Structural Tests of Concrete Pavements? 58; also PCA Development Department Bulletin
Public Roads, Vol. 14, No. 10, December 1933, pages DX086.
185 to 188. 14. Childs, L. D., “Cement-Treated Subbases for Con-
6. P1ckett, Gerald; Ravine, Milton E.; Jones, WMam C.; crete Pavements,” Highway Research Record 189,
and McCormick, Frank J., “Deflections, Moments Highway Research Board, 1967, pages 19 to 43; also
and Reactive Pressures for Concrete pavements,” PCA Development Department Bulletin DX125.
Kansas State College Bulletin No. 65, October 1951. 15. Childs, L. D., and Nussbaum, P. J,, “Repetitive Load
7. Pickett, Gerald, and Ray, Gordon K., “Influence Tests of Concrete Slabs on Cement-Treated Sub-
Charts for Concrete Pavements? American Society bases,” RD025P, Portland Cement Association, 1975.
of Civil Engineers Transactions, Paper No. 2425, Vol. 16. Tayabji, S. D., and Coney, B. E,, “Improved Rigid
116, 1951, pages 49 to 73. Pavement Joints,” paper presented at Annual Meeting
8. Tayabji, S. D., and Coney, B. E., “Analysis of Jointed of Transportation Research Board, January 1983 (to
Concrete Pavements,” report prepared by the Con- be published in 1984).
struction Technology Laboratories of the Portland 17. Childs, L. D., and Ball, C. G., “Tests of Joints for
Cement Association for the Federal Highway Ad- Concrete Pavements,” RD026P, Portland Cement
ministration, October 1981. Association, 1975.
9. Teller, L. W., and Sutherland, E. C., “The Structural 18. Coney, B. E., and Humphrey, H. A., “Aggregate in-
Design of Concrete Pavements,” Public Roads, Vol. terlock at Joints in Concrete Pavements,” Highway
16, Nos. 8, 9, and 10 (1935) Vol. 17, Nos. 7 and 8 Research Board Record No. 189, Transportation Re-
(1936); Vol. 23, No. 8 (1943). search Board, 1967, pages I to 18.
10. Childs, L. D., Coney, B. E., and Kapernick, J. W., 19. Coney, B. E., Ball, C. G., and Arriyavat, P., “Evalua- ....
“Tests to Evaluate Concrete Pavement Subbases,” tiOn Of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders or ‘
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Widened Lanes,” Transportation Research Record ‘~
Paper No. 1297, Vol. 83 (H W-3), July 1957, pages 1 to 666, Transportation Research Board, 1978; also Pmt-
44

land Cement Association, Research and Develop- 37. “National Truck Characteristic Report, 1975- 1979,”
ment Bulletin RD065P, 1980. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High-
20. Sawan, J. S., Darter, M. L, and Dempsey, B. J., way Administration, Washington, D. C,, June 1981.
“Structural Analysis and Design of PCC Shoulders,” 38. Becker, J. M., Darter, M. I., Snyder, M. B., and
Report No. FH WA-RD-8 1-122, Federal Highway Smith, R. E., “COPES Data Collection Procedure—
Administration, April 1982. Appendix A,” June 1983, Appendix to final report of
21. Older, Clifford, “Highway Research in Illinois,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Project 1-19, Concrete Pavement Evaluation System,
February 1924, pages 175 to 217. draft submitted to Transportation Research Board.
22. Aldrich, Lloyd, and Leonard, Ino B., “Report of 39. Load Stress at Pavement Edge, Portland Cement
Highway Research at Pittsb”rg, California, 19zI- Association publication IS030P, 1969.
1922,” California State Pri”ti”g office, 40. Taragin, Asriel, “Lateral Placement of Trucks on
23. Road Test One-MD, Highway Research Board Spe- Two-Lane and Four-Lane D]vided Highways,” Pub-
cial Report No. 4, 1952. /it Roads, Vol. 30, No. 3, August 1958, pages71 to 75,
24. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board 41. Emery, D. K., Jr,, “Paved Shoulder Encroachment
Special Report No. 6 I E, 1962. and Transverse Lane Displacement for Design Trucks
25. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board on Rural Freeway s,” a report presented to the Com-
Special Report No. 73, 1962. mittee on Shoulder Design, Transportation Research
26. AA SHTO Inlerim Guide for Design of Pavement Board, January 13, 1975.
Structures, /972, Chapter 111 Revised, 1981, Ameri- 42, “Vehicle Shoulder Encroachment and Lateral Place-
can Association of State Highway and Transporta- ment Study,” Federal Highway Administration Re-
tion Officials, 1981, port No. FH WA/ MN-80/6, Minnesota Department
27. Fordyce, Phil, and Teske, W. E,, “Some Relation- of Transportation, Research and Development Of-
fice, July 1980.
ships of tbe AASHO Road Test to Concrete Pave-
ment Design,” High way Research Board Record No, 43. Darter, M, 1,, “Structural Design for Heavily Traf-
44, 1963, pages 35 to 70. ficked Plain-Jointed Comrete Pavement Based o“
Serviceability Performance,” TRR 671, Analysis of
28. Brokaw, M. P., “Effect of Serviceability and Rough-
Pavement Systems, Transportation Research Board,
ness at Transverse Joints on Performance and De-
1978, pages 1 to 8.
sign of Plain Concrete Pavement,” Highway Research
Board Record 471, Transportation Research Board, 44. Thickness Design for Concrete Pavemenls, Portland
p 1973. Cement Association publication 1S0 IOP, 1974.
29. Packard, R. G., “Design Considerations For Control 45, Kesler, Clyde E., “Fatigue and Fracture of Concrete,”
of Joint Faulting of Undoweled Pavements,” F70- Stanton Wolker Lecture Series of the Malerials Sci-
ceedings of International Conference on Concrete ences, National Sand and Gravel Association and Na-
Pavement Design, Purdue University, February 1977. tional Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 1970,
30. Packard, R. G., and Tayabji, S. D., “Mechanistic De- 46. Fordyce, Phil, and Yrjanson, W. A,, “Modern Design
sign of Concrete Pavements to Control Joint Faulting of Concrete Pavements; American Society of Civil
and Subbase Erosion,” International Seminar on Engineers, Transportation Engineering Journal, Vol.
Drainage and Erodability at the Concrete Slab-Sub- 95, No. TE3, Proceedings Paper 6726, August 1969,
base-Shoulder Interfaces, Paris, France, March 1983. pages 407 to 438.
31. Standard Method for Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load 47. Ballinger, Craig A., “The Cumulative Fatigue Dam-
Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, age Characteristics of Plain Concrete,” Highway Re-
for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and search Record 370, Highway Research Board, 1971,
Highway Pavements, American Society for Testing pages 48 to 60.
and Materials, Designation D 1196. 48. Miner, M. A., “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,”
32. “Rigid Airfield Pavements,” Corps of Engineers, U.S. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Trans-
Army Manual, EM 1110-45-303, Feb. 3, 1958, actions, Vol. 67, 1945, page A 159.
33. Burmister, D. M., “The Theory of Stresses and Dis. 49. Klaiber, F. W., Thomas, T. L., and Lee, D. Y., “Fa-
placements in Layered Systems and Applications to tigue Behavior of Air-Entrained Concrete: Phase 11,”
Design of Airport Runway s,” Highway Research Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State Univer-
Board Proceedings, Vol. 23, 1943, pages 126 to 148. sity, February 1979.
34. Standard Methods for Freezing-and-Thawing Tests 50. Packard, R. G., “Structural Design of Concrete Pave-
of Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, American So- ments with Lean Concrete Lower Course,” Proceed-
ciety for Testing and Materials, Designation D560. ings of Second International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design, Purdue University, April 1981.
35. Standard Methods for Wetting-and-Drying Tests of
Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, American Society 51. Yrjanson, W. A., and Packard, R. G., “Econocrete
for Testing and Materials, Designation D559. Pavements—Current Practices,” Transportation Re-
P search Record 741, Performance of Pavements De-
36. Soil- Cement Laboratory Handbook, Portland Ce-
signed with Low-Cost Materials, Transportation Re-
ment Association publication EB052S, 1971.
search Board, 1980, pages 6 to 13.
45

52. Ruth, B. E., and Larsen, T. J., “Save Money with
Econocrete Pavement Systems,” Concrete Inrer.
national, American Concrete Institute, May 1983.
53. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways,
American Association of State Highway Officials,
Washington, D. C., 1954.
54. A Policy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas,
American Association of State Highway Officials,
Washington, D. C., 1957.
55. Highway Capacity Manual, Bureau of Public Roads,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.,
1966.
56. Schuster, J. J., and Michael, H. L., “Vehicular Trip
Estimation in Urban Areas; Engineering Bulletin of
Purdue University, Vol. XLWII, No. 4, July 1964,
pages 67 to 92.
57. Packard, R. G., and Tayabji, S. D., “New PCA

T’lickness Design Procedure for Concrete Highway
and Street Pavements,” Proceedings of Third Inter-
national Conference on Concrete Pavement Design
and Rehabilitation, Purdue University, April 1985.
‘u’
7..
“u
46

p
Project
Trial thickness m. Doweled joints: yes _ no _

Subbase-subgrade k pci Concrete shoulder: yes _ no _
Modulus of rupture, MR psi

Di!sign period _ years
Load safety factor, LSF
Axle
load,
hips
8. Equivalent stress 10. Erosion factor
9. Stress ratio factor

Single Axles
,p
11. Equivalent stress 13. Erosion factor

12. Stress ratio factor
Tandem Axles
P’
Total Total

/-.. ,,
‘u
Microcomputer Program for Thickness Design of

Concrete Highways, Streets, and Parking Lots
PCAPA V—the low-cost software for concrete pavement design
PCAPA V’s easy-to-use,

● High-speed solutions
menu-driven
to pavement
routine
thickness
offers
design problems
u
● Pavement fatigue and subbase erosion calculations
“ Comprehensive theory
● Realistic design criteria
The computer program design procedures, based on this manual and verified by
performance, consider !oad transfer at transverse and longitudinal joints (doweled
or undoweled), concrete shoulders, curbs and gutters, and adjacent parking-lot
Ianee.
Traffic load considerations are simplified. Any designer can choose a stored
traffic load category to fit the situation. Or available traffic load data can be input.
The software runs on IBM personal computers and compatibles(128K, DOS 2.0
or later), and the package includes a floppy diskette, the user’s manual, and this
design manual, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements.
To order PCAPA~(MCO03), contact the Portland Cement Association, Order
Processing Department, 5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1083,
(800)888-6733
An .rganizati.m.( .em..t ma.. facl.r.m

PORTLAND
t. improve .nd
CEMENT
exte+a the uses d po,tla.d mme.t
ml I I ASSOCIATION
and concrete through rn.cket development, engineert.g, reyea.ch, education, md Public.(faim work.
,7-~..
‘u
5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, Illinois 60077-1083

Printed in U.S.A. Eel 09.01 P

Thickness Design For Concrete Pavement Roads and Streets

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thickness Design For Concrete Pavement Roads and Streets

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

.

Publication List Book Contents

The author of thk engineering bulletin is Robert G.

This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROF!3SIONAL

Publication List Book Contents

Publication List Book Contents

Publication List Book Contents

Publication List Book Contents

Publication List Book Contents

Publication List Book Contents

Table 2. Design k Values for Cement-

Fig. 1. Flexural strength, age, and design relationships.

Subgrade and Subbaae Support

Publication List Book Contents

ice provided throughout the entire period. 2 1.2 1.5

Publication List Book Contents

Table 4. Percentage of Four-Tire Single Units and

Publication List Book Contents

Column 4 of Table 5 gives the repetitions of various

*% Chapter 4 when axle-load distribution data are unknown.

Publication List Book Contents

Project A/ 0~ /,4 &.#T- /QA e L7A?r./&/. P&z2/’

Trial thickness 9.5 in. Doweled joints: yes K no —

Subbase-subgrade k /.70 pci Concrete shoulder: yes —no~

Modulus of rupture, MR L5 o psi

8. Equivalent stress 206 10. Erosion factor 2.59

11. Equivalent stress 192 13. Erosion factor z. T?

Fig. 4. Design 1A.

Publication List Book Contents

Axle-load data from Table 5 are used in this design

Publication List Book Contents

Table 6b. Equivalent Straaa — Concrete Shoulder

14 I 118/122 104/103 97/93 93/87 87179 81/71 77167

Fig. 5. Fatigue analysis—allowable toad repetitions based

Publication List Book Contents

Table 7b. Erosion Factors — Aggregate-Interlock Joints,

Publication List Book Contents

Fig. 6a. Erosion analysis—allowable load repetitions

Publication List Book Contents

+ 9 2.3212.57 2.2712,46 2.2212,34 2.1912.27 2, 16/2.19 2. 13/2.13

12 2.00/2.31 1.94/2.20 1,88/2.09 1.6512.02 1.82/1.93 1.7911.87

Table 8b. Erosion Factors — Aggregate-Interlock Joints,

Publication List Book Contents

Fig. 6b. Erosion analysis—allowable

Publication List Book Contents

Trial thickness— /A. & in. Doweled joints: yes _ no z

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

6. Equivalent sbess~ 10. Erosion factor z. 72

11. Equivalent stress. /@7 13. Erosion factor –~

Publication List Book Contents

For a 40-year design period:

Publication List Book Contents

Project &&~l- 2A 7+9 -/cm. 5PczG@z&.t/ Lz?za+

Trial thickness 6.0 tn. Doweled joints: yes _ no &

Subbase-subgrade h ~– pci Concrete shoulder: yes _ no ~ ‘u

Fatigue analysis Erosion analysis

8. Equivalent stress v// 10. Erosio” factor &?. *D

9. Stress ratio factor ~

11. Equivalent stress_~ 13. Erosion factor ~—

Publication List Book Contents

Simplified Design Procedure

Table 9. de-Load Cat@goriea

3 Arterial streets and primary roads 3000-12,CO0 3-30 500-50004 30 52