Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design
Steve Waalkes
Director of Engineering & Rehabilitation
American Concrete Pavement Association
swaalkes@pavement.com
1
1986-93 Rigid Pavement
Design Equation
Change in Serviceability
Overall
Standard ⎡ ⎡ ∆ PSI ⎤ ⎤
Standard Deviation
Normal Deviate Depth
⎢ Log ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎣ 4.5 - 1.5 ⎥⎦ ⎥
Log(ESALs) = Z R * s o+7.35 * Log(D+1)- 0.06+
⎢ 1.624 * 10 7 ⎥
⎢1+ 8.46 ⎥
Modulus of
Rupture
Drainage ⎢ ⎣ (D + 1) ⎥⎦
Terminal Coefficient
Serviceability
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
+(4.22- 0.32pt )*Log ⎢
⎢ [
S'c * C d * D 0.75 − 1.132 ] ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎡ 0.75 18.42 ⎤ ⎥
⎢215.63* J * ⎢D - 0.25 ⎥ ⎥
⎣ Load ⎢
⎣ (E c / k) ⎥⎦ ⎦
Transfer Modulus Modulus of
of Elasticity Subgrade Reaction
2
Serviceability
Initial Serviceability Present Serviceability Index
4.5 concrete (PSI)
4.2 asphalt 5.0
Very Good
4.0
Terminal Serviceability Good
3.0
2.5 Interstates, Arterials Fair
2.25 Collectors 2.0
Poor
2.0 Residential Streets 1.0
1.5 Failure Very Poor
0.0
Traffic - ESALs
3
Load Transfer (J)
L= x
• A slab’s ability to share its
load with neighboring U= 0
slabs
Poor Load Transfer
– Dowels
– Aggregate Interlock
– Concrete Shoulders L= x/2 U = x/2
• Tied Concrete, curb &
gutter, and extended lane
have same effect
Good Load Transfer
Doweled Undoweled
4
Concrete Properties
5
Subgrade / Subbase Strength
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k
Reaction
Stacked Plates
6
Loss of Support
Accounts for the expected loss of support by subbase
/ subgrade erosion and differential movements.
Decreases the effective or composite k-value for a
subbase / subgrade based on the size of void that
may develop beneath the slab.
LOS Values = 0, 1, 2, 3
LOS = 0 models the conditions at the AASHO road test.
Subgrade Strength
The current procedure
increases the k-value to
unreasonably high values,
and then reduces k back
using Loss of Support
(LOS).
7
k-Value Determination
The current design procedure uses the k-value
for design, but basis the soils characterization
on the Resilient Modulus, MR.
1. Determine MR
AASHTO Test Method TP 46-94
Correlation to CBR or R-values
2. Convert MR to K-value
8
Subgrade Soil Relationships
Resilient M odulus, M R (psi)
160,000
140,000 AASHTO
120,000 Actual
100,000 ACPA
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CBR (%)
Data: NCHRP Report 128.
AASHTO
50,000
Actual
40,000 ACPA
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
R-Value
Data: NCHRP Report 128.
9
k-Value Determination
No subbase
K (psi/in) = MR/19.4
Subbase
Fig. 3.3 from Part II
k-Value Determination
3,000
AASHTO Mr/19.4
2,500
Backcalculated
k-value (psi/in.)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, Mr (ksi)
Data: NCHRP Report 1-30.
10
k-Value Determination
The relationships For Example,
between k and MR Assume MR = 12,000 psi
(base - no base) give with no-base
k = MR /19.4 = 619 psi/in
inconsistent results with with 6” granular base
high in-situ MR Values. k = 574 psi/in (from Fig
3.3)
As the MR value increases, the
difference becomes greater.
Neither value is very realistic.
Historical values are 150-250
psi/in.
Loss of Support
11
Loss of Support
Historical AASHTOk-value
TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0 LOS=1 LOS=2 LOS=3
Silts & 3,000 100 -- -- 22 11
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 -- 79 29 13
Loss of Support
12
Loss of Support
Historical AASHTO
TYPE Modulus k-value LOS=0
Silts & 3,000 100 155
Clays
Granular 30,000 150-250 244
Subgrade Strength
Typical Soil Relationships
13
Subgrade Strength
If designing a roadway on a clay
soil that you intend to lime stabilize
Start with the in- 6 inches deep:
situ subgrade soil FIRST: Determine k and Mr for in-
(not a stabilized situ clay:
-typical clay; k = 100 psi/in
soil) -Mr = k * 19.4 = 1940 psi
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage , Cd
Recommended Values for Drainage Coefficient
Percent of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed to
Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation
Quality of Less than Greater than
Drainage 1% 1 - 5% 5 - 25% 25%
Excellent 1.25 - 1.20 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10
Good 1.20 - 1.15 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00
Fair 1.15 - 1.10 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90
Poor 1.10 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80
Very Poor 1.00 - 0.90 0.90 - 0.80 0.80 - 0.70 0.70
14
AASHTO DESIGN
Drainage , Cd
Use Drainage Coeff >
The subgrade soil at the
1.0 (otherwise using a AASHO road test was a
huge fudge factor) very poorly draining clay
soil.
Modern open-graded
bases and more free-
draining soils are design
options which can be
modeled with Cd > 1.0
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended Reliability Values for Design
Recommended Level
of Reliability
Functional Classification Urban Rural
Interstate / Freeways 85-99.9 80-99.9
Principal Arteials 80-99 75-99
Collectors 80-95 75-95
Local 50-80 50-80
15
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
ZR
Reliability standard normal
(R) deviate
50 -0.000
75 -0.674
90 -1.282
95 -1.645
99 -2.327
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Recommended so Values for Design
Concrete Asphalt
Ranges 0.30 − 0.40 0.40 − 0.50
Use
New Construction 0.35 0.45
Overlays 0.39 0.49
16
AASHTO DESIGN
Reliability
Never compare designs Another way to think about
at different reliabilities reliability is to consider that at
90% reliability, only 10% of the
(reliability = factor of pavement will have “failed” by
safety) the end of the design period.
WinPAS
Sensitivity Analysis
• Purpose: To identify those inputs that
have a significant effect on the slab
thickness
• These are the inputs that must be
carefully derived and selected
17
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change 320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
50 60 70 80 90 100
Reliability, R
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
30,000,000
280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4
Edge Support, J
18
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change
320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Drainage Coefficient, Cd
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness Change
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
19
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
ESAL Change 360
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change
320
ESALs
30,000,000
280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
10 30 50 70 90 110 130
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
20
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
40,000,000 Thickness Change 320
ESALs
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42
Sensitivity Analysis
50,000,000
360
ESAL Change
Thickness (mm)
30,000,000 280
20,000,000 240
10,000,000 200
0 160
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
21
www.pavement.com
swaalkes@pavement.com
QUESTIONS??
22