PORTLAND CEMENT

ASSOCIATION

Thickness Design for

C:r;c.-Zt Highway and
The author of this engineering bulletin is Robert G.
Packard, P. E., principal paving engineer, Paving
Transportation Department, Portland Cement
Association.
- -- -

This publication is intended SOLELY for use by PROFESSIONAL

PERSONNEL who are competent to evaluate the significance and
limitations of the information provided herein, and who will accept
total responsibility for the application of this information. The
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 full
extent permitted by law.

O Portland Cement Association 1984, reprinted 1995

 Thickness Design for
Concrete Highway and
Street Pavements
CONTENTS
.
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................... 3
Applications of Design Procedures ............... 3
Computer Programs Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Metric Version ................................ 4
Chapter 2. Design Factors ........................ 5
Flexural Strength of Concrete ................... 5
Subgrade and Subbase Support ................. 6
Design Period ................................ 6
Traffic ....................................... 8
Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.
ADTT ..................................... 8
Truck Directional Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Axle-Load Distribution ..................... 10
Load Safety Factors .......................... 10
Chapter 3. Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Available) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1
Fatigue Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
Erosion Analysis ............................. I I
Sample Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 4. Simplified Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Not Available) .................. 23
Sample Problems ............................30
Comments on Simplified Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Modulus of Rupture ........................ 30
Design Period ............................. 30
Aggregate Interlock or Doweled Joints ........ 30
User-Developed Design Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Appendix A . Development of Design
Procedure ..................................... 32
Analysis of Concrete Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Jointed Pavements ......................... 32
Continuously Reinforced Pavements .......... 33
Truck-Load Placement ........................ 33
Variation in Concrete Strength .................34
Concrete Strength Gain with Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Warping and Curling of Concrete ............... 34
Fatigue ..................................... 34
Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix B . Design of Concrete Pavements
with Lean Concrete Lower Course ................36
Lean Concrete Subbase .......................36
Monolithic Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix C . Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads ....... 39
Appendix D . Estimating Traffic Volume
by Capacity ................................... 42
Appendix E . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Design Worksheet for Reproduction .............. 47
Figures
1. Flexural strength, age, and design relationships.
2. Approximate interrelationships of soil classifications
and bearing values.
3. Proportion of trucks in right lane of a multilane
divided highway.
4. Design I A.
5. Fatigue analysis-allowable load repetitions based
on stress ratio factor (with and without concrete
13b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3-Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
14a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 4-Pave-
ments with Doweled Joints
14b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 4-Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
15. Axle-Load Distribution Used for Preparing Design
Tables 1 1 Through 14
C l . Equivalent Stress - Tridems
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 l . 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). an; Highways
7. Design 1 D.
8. Design 2A.
Al. Critical axle-load positions.
A2. Equivalent edge stress factor depends on percent of
trucks at edge.
A3. Fatigue relationships. customary Metric Conversion
unit unit coefficient
B1. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (lean
concrete subbase). in. rnrn 25.40
ft m 0.305
B2. Design chart for composite concrete pavement Ib 0.454
kg
(monolithic with lean concrete lower layer). Ibf N 4.45
B3. Modulus of rupture versus compressive strength. kip kN 4.45
C l . Analysis of tridems. Ib/in.2 kPa 6.89
Ib/in.-' (k value) MPal m 0.27 1

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-Tire 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 Factors-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-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
12a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2-Pave-
ments with Doweled Joints
12b. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 2-Pave-
ments with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
13a. Allowable ADTT, Axle-Load Category 3-Pave-
ments with Doweled Joints
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This bulletin deals with methods of determining slab
thicknesses adequate t o carry traffic loads on concrete
streets, roads, and highways.
The design purpose is the same as for other engineered
structures-to find the minimum thickness that will re-
sult in the lowest annual cost as shown by both first cost
and maintenance costs. If the thickness is greater than
needed, the pavement will give good service with low
maintenance costs, but first cost will be high. If the thick-
ness is not adequate, premature and costly maintenance
and interruptions in traffic will more than offset the lower
first cost. Sound engineering requires thickness designs
that properly balance first cost and maintenance costs.
While this bulletin is confined to the topic of thickness
design, other design aspects are equally important to en-
sure the performance and long life of concrete pavements.
These include-
Provision for reasonably uniform support. (See Sub-
grades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements.*)
Prevention of mud-pumping with a relatively thin
untreated o r cement-treated subbase on projects
where the expected truck traffic will be great enough
t o cause pumping. (The need for and requirements of
subbase are also given in the booklet cited above.)
Use of a joint design that will afford adequate load
transfer; enable joint sealants, if required, t o beeffec-
tive; and prevent joint distress due to infiltration.
(See Joint Design for Concrete Highway and Street
Pavements.**)
Use of a concrete mix design a n d aggregates that will
provide quality concrete with the strength and dura-
bility needed for long life under the actual exposure
conditions. (See Design and Control of Concrete
Mixtures.7)
The thickness design criteria suggested are based on
general pavement performance experience. If regional o r
local specific performance experience becomes available
for more favorable o r adverse conditions, the design cri-
teria can be appropriately modified. This could be the
case for particular climate, soil, o r drainage conditions
and future design innovations.
Applications of Design Procedures
The design procedures given in this text apply to the fol-
lowing types of concrete pavements: plain, plain doweled,
reinforced, and continuously reinforced.
Plain pavements are constructed without reinforcing
steel or doweled joints. Load transfer at the joints is ob-
tained by aggregate interlock between the cracked faces
below the joint saw cut o r groove. For load transfer to be
effective, it is necessary that short joint spacings be used.
Plain-doweled pavements are built without reinforcing
steel; however, smooth steel dowel bars are installed as
load transfer devices at each contraction joint and rela-
tively short joint spacings are used to control cracking.
Reinforced pavements contain reinforcing steel and
dowel bars for load transfer at the contractionjoints. The
pavements are constructed with longer joint spacings
than used for unreinforced pavements. Between thejoints,
one o r more transverse cracks will usually develop; these
are held tightly together by the reinforcing steel and good
load transfer is provided.
Commonly used joint spacings that perform well are 15
ft for plain pavements,tt not more than 20 ft for plain-
doweled pavements, and not more than about 40 ft for
reinforced pavements. Joint spacings greater than these
have been used but sometimes greater spacing causes
pavement distress at joints and intermediate cracks be-
tween joints.
Continuously reinforced pavements are built without
contraction joints. Due to the relatively heavy, continu-
ous-steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direction,
these pavements develop transverse cracks at close inter-
vals. A high degree of load transfer is developed at these
crack faces held tightly together by steel reinforcement.
The design procedures given here cover design condi-
tions that have not been directly addressed before by
*Portland Cement Associat~onpubl~cationIS029P.
**Portland Cement Association publication IS059P.
tPortland Cement Association publ~cationEB001T.
t t For very thin pavements,a 15-ftjoint spacing may beexcessive -see
the aforementioned PCA publication on joint design.
other procedures. These include recognition of-
1. The degree of load transfer a t transverse joints pro-
vided by the different pavement types described.
2. The effect of using a concrete shoulder adjacent to
the pavement; concrete shoulders reduce the flex-
ural stresses and deflections caused by vehicle loads.
3. The effect of using a lean concrete (econocrete) sub-
base, which reduces pavement stresses and deflec-
tions, provides considerable support when trucks
pass over joints, and provides resistance t o subbase
erosion caused by repeated pavement deflections.
4. Two design criteria: (a) fatigue, t o keep pavement
stresses due t o repeated loads within safe limits and
thus prevent fatigue cracking; and (b) erosion, to
limit the effects of pavement deflectionsat slabedges,
joints, and corners and thus control the erosion of
foundation and shoulder materials. The criterion for
erosion is needed since some modes of pavement
distress such as pumping, faulting, and shoulder
distress are unrelated t o fatigue.
5. Triple axles can be considered in design. While the
conventional single-axle and tandem-axle config-
urations are still the predominant loads on highways,
use of triple axles (tridems) is increasing. They are
seen on some over-the-road trucks and on special
roads used for hauling coal o r other minerals. Tri-
dems may be more damaging from a n erosion crite-
rion (deflection) than from a fatigue criterion.
Selection of an adequate thickness is dependent upon
the choice of other design features-jointing system, type
of subbase if needed, and shoulder type.
With these additional design conditions, the thickness
requirements of design alternatives, which influence cost,
can be directly compared.
Chapter 2describes how the factors needed for solving
a design problem are determined. Chapter 3 details the
full design procedure that is used when specific axle-load-
distribution data are known or estimated. If detailed
axle-load data are not available, the design can be accom-
plished a s described in Chapter 4, by the selection of one
of several categories of data that represent a range of
pavement facilities varying from residential streets up to
busy interstate highways.
Computer Programs Available
Thickness design problems can be worked out by hand
with the tables and charts provided here or by computer
and microcomputer with programs that are available
from Portland Cement Association.
Basis for Design
The thickness design methods presented here are based
on knowledge of pavement theory, performance, and re-
search experience from the following sources:
I . Theoretical studies of pavement slab behavior by
~ e s t e r ~ a a r d , " - ~Pickett
'* and ~ a ~"and , ' recently
~
developed finite-element computer analyses, one of
which is used as the basis for this design procedure.'8'
2. Model and full-scale tests such as Arlington ~ e s t s " '
and several research projects conducted b PCA and
other agencies on s~bbases,'~~~'~'joints"~ Y"andcon-
Crete shoulder^."^ 20'
3. Experimental pavements subjected to controlled test
traffic, such as the Bates Test ~ o a d , " " the Pitts-
burg Test ~ i ~ h w a the ~ , Mar
' ~ ~ land
' Rbad ~ e s t , " "
the AASHO** Road Test, ( 2 4 - 2 4 and studies of in-
service highway pavements made by various state
departments of transportation.
4. The performance of normally constructed pave-
ments subject to normal mixed traffic.
All these sources of knowledge are useful. However,
the knowledge gained from performance of normally
constructed pavements is the most important. Accord-
ingly, it is essential t o examine the relationship between
the roles that performance and theory play in a design
procedure. Sophisticated theoretical methods developed
in recent years permit the responses of the pavement-
stresses, deflections, pressures-to be more accurately
modeled. This theoretical analysis is a necessary part of
a mechanistic design procedure, for it allows considera-
tion of a full range of design-variable combinations. An
important second aspect of the design procedure is the
criteria applied t o the theoretically computed values-
the limiting or allowable values of stress, deflection, or
pressure. Defining the criteria so that design results are
related t o pavement performance experience and research
data is critical in developing a design procedure.
The theoretical parts of the design procedures given
here are based on a comprehensive analysis of concrete
stresses and deflections by a finite-element computer pro-
gram.'8' The program models the conventional design
factors of concrete properties, foundation support, and
loadings, plus joint load transfer by dowels or aggregate
interlock and concrete shoulder, for axle-load placements
at slab interior, edge, joint, and corner.
The criteria for the design procedures are based on the
pavement design, performance, and research experience
referenced above including relationships t o performance
of avements at the A A S H O Road ~ e s t 'and ~ ~ to
' stud-
ies'' ") of the faulting of pavements.
More information on development and basis of the de-
sign procedure is given in Appendix A and Reference 30.
Metric Version
A metric version of this publication is also available from
Portland Cement Association-publication EB209P.
*Superscript numbers In parentheses denote referencesat the end of
this text.
**Now the American Association of State Hlghway and Transporta-
tion Officials (AASHTO).
CHAPTER 2
Design Factors
After selection of the type of concrete pavement (plain
pavement with o r without dowels, reinforced jointed
pavement with dowels, o r continuously reinforced pave-
ment), type of subbase if needed, and type of shoulder
(with o r without concrete shoulder, curb and gutter o r
integral curb), thickness design is determined based on
four design factors:
1. Flexural strength of the concrete (modulus of rup-
ture, M R )
2. Strength of the subgrade, o r subgrade and subbase
combination (k)
3. The weights, frequencies, and types of truck axle
loads that the pavement will carry
4. Design period, which in this and other pavement de-
sign procedures is usually taken a t 20 years, but may
be more o r less
These design factors are discussed in more detail in the
following sections. Other design considerations incorpo-
rated in the procedure are discussed in Appendix A.
Flexural Strength of Concrete
Consideration of the flexural strength of the concrete is
applicable in the design procedure for the fatigue crite-
rion, which controls cracking of the pavement under
repetitive truck loadings.
Bending of a concrete pavement under axle loads pro-
duces both compressive and flexural stresses. However,
the ratios of compressive stresses to compressive strength
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 6 x 6 ~ 3 0 - i n .beams.
For specific projects, the concrete mix should be de-
signed to give both adequate durability and flexural
strength a t the lowest possible cost. Mix design proce-
dures are described in the Portland Cement Association
publication Design and Control of Concrete Mi.utures.
The modulus of rupture can be found by cantilever,
center-point, o r third-point loading. An important dif-
ference in these test methods is that the third-point test
shows the minimum strength of the middle third of the
test beam, while the other two methods show strength at
only one point. The value determined by the more con-
servative third-point method (American Society for Test-
ing and Materials, ASTM C78) is used for design in this
procedure.*
Modulus of rupture tests are commonly made at 7, 14,
28, and 90 days. The 7- and 1 4 d a y test results are com-
pared with specification requirements forjob control and
for determining when pavements can be opened to traffic.
The 28-day test results have been commonly used for
thickness design of highways and streets and are recom-
mended for use with this procedure; 9 0 d a y results are
used for the design of airfields. These values are used be-
cause there are very few stress repetitions during the first
28 o r 90days of pavement lifeas compared to the millions
of stress repetitions that occur later.
Concrete continues t o gain strength with age as shown
in Fig. I . Strength gain is shown by the solid curve, which
represents average M R values for several series by lab-
oratory tests, field-cured test beams, and sections of con-
crete taken from pavements in service.
In this design procedure the effects** of variations in
concrete strength from point t o point in the pavement
and gains in concrete strength with age are incorporated
in the design charts and tables. The designer does not di-
rectly apply these effects but simply inputs the average
28-day strength value.
* F o r a standard 3 0 - ~ n beam.
. center-polnt-loading test values will be
about 75 psi higher, and cantdever-loading test values about 160 p s ~
higher than thlrd-potnt-loading test values. These higher values are not
intended t o be used for design purposes. If these other lest methods are
used, a downward adjustment should be made by establishinga corre-
lation t o third-point-load test values.
**These effects a r e discussed In Appendix A.
 Table 1. Effect of Untreated Subbase
on k Values,
Subgrade S u b b a s e k value, pci
k value.
12 in

100 130 140 160 190

200 220 230 270 320
300 320 330 370 430

Table 2. Design k Values for Cernent-

Treated Subbases
Subgrade S u b b a s e k value, p c ~
Age k value,
pci 4 ~ n . 6 tn 8 in 10 In
Fig. 1. Flexural strength, age, and design relationships. 50 170 230 310 390
100 280 400 520 640
200 470 640 830 -

Subgrade and Subbase Support

The support given to concrete pavements by the subgrade,
and the subbase where used, is the second factor in thick-
ness design. Subgrade and subbase support is defined in
terms of the Westergaard modulus of subgrade reaction
(k). It is equal to the load in pounds per square inch on a
loaded area (a 30-in.diameter plate) divided by the de-
flection in inches for that load. The k values are expressed
a s pounds per square inch per inch (psilin.) or, more
commonly, as pounds per cubic inch (pci). Equipment
and procedures for determining k values are given in
References 3 1 and 32.
Since the plate-loading test is time consuming and ex-
pensive, the k value is usually estimated by correlation to
simpler tests such as the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
or R-value tests. The result is valid because exact deter-
mination of the k value is not required; normal variations
from a n estimated value will not appreciably affect pave-
ment thickness requirements. The relationships shown in
Fig. 2 are satisfactory for design purposes.
The A A S H O Road ~ e s t 'gave ~ ~ a' convincing demon-
stration that the reduced subgrade support during thaw
periods has little or no effect on the required thickness
of concrete pavements. This is true because the brief per-
iods when k values are low during spring thaws are more
than offset by the longer periods when the subgrade is
frozen and k values are much higher than assumed for
design. T o avoid the tedious methods required to design
for seasonal variations in k , normal summer- or .fall-
wealher k values are used as reasonable mean values.
It is not economical to use untreated subbases for the
sole purpose of increasing k values. Where a subbase is
used,* there will be a n increase in k that should be used
in the thickness design. If the subbase is a n untreated
granular material, the approximate increase in k can be
taken from Table 1.
The values shown in Table I are based on the Burmis-
ter'j3' analysis of two-layer systems and plate-loading
tests made to determine k values on subgrades and sub-
bases for full-scale test s ~ a b s . " ~ '
Cement-treated subbases are widely used for heavy-
duty concrete pavements. They are constructed from
A A S H T O Soil Classes A- I , A-2-4, A-2-5, and A-3granu-
lar materials. The cement content of cement-treated sub-
base is based on standard A S T M laboratory freeze-thaw
and wet-dry tests'j4 3 5 ' and PCA weight-loss riter ria.')^'
Other procedures that give a n equivalent quality of mate-
rial can be used. Design k values for cement-treated sub-
bases meeting these criteria are given in Table 2.
In recent years, the use of lean concrete subbases has
been on the increase. Thickness design of concrete pave-
ments on these very stiff subbases represents a special
case that is covered in Appendix B.
Design Period
The term design period is used in this publication rather
than pavement life. The latter is not subject to precise
definition. Some engineers and highway agencies con-
sider the life of a concrete pavement ended when the first
overlay is placed. The life of concrete pavements may
vary from less than 20 years on some projects that have
carried more traffic than originally estimated o r have had
design, material, o r construction defects t o more than 40
years on other projects where defects are absent.
The term design period is sometimes considered to be
synonymous with the term traffic-analysis period. Since
traffic can probably not be predicted with much accuracy
for a longer period, a design period of 20 years is com-
monly used in pavement design procedures. However,
there are often cases where use of a shorter o r longer de-
sign period may be economically justified, such as a spe-
cial haul road that will be used for only a few years, o r a
*Use of subbase is recommended for projects where condit~onsthat
would cause mud-pump~ngprevail; for discussion of when subbases
should be used and how thick they should be, see the PCA publication.
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements.
 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO- CBR("

(1) For the basic Idea, see 0. J. Porter, "Foundations for Flex~blePavements," H~ghwayResearch Board Proceedfngs of the Twenty-second Annual
Meetfng, 1942, Vol 22, pages 100-136.
(2) ASTM Oes~gnatlon02487
(3) "Classif~cat~on of H~ghwaySubgrade Mater~als."Htghway Research Board Proceedfngs 01 the Twenty-111th Annual Meetmg. 1945. Vol 25, pages
376-392.
(4) Afrport Pavfng. U.S Department of Commerce. Federal A v ~ a t ~ oAgency,
n May 1948, pages 11-16 Est~mateduslng values gtven In FAA Desfgn
Manual for Afrport Pavements (Formerly used FAA Classif~catton.U n ~ f ~ eClassiflcatlon
d now used )
(5) C E Warnes. "Correlation Between R Value and k Value," unpubl~shedreport. Portland Cement Assoc~at~on. Rocky Mounta~n-Northwest
Reg~on.October 1971 (best-fit correlat~onwtth correction for saturat~on)
(6) See T. A M~ddlebrooksand G. E Bertram. "So11Tests for Design of Runway Pavements." Htghway Research Board Proceedtngs of the Twenty-
second Annual Meet~ng,1942, Vol 22, page 152
(7) See Item (6). page 184.

Fig. 2. Approximate interrelationships of soil classifications and bearing values.

premium facility for which a high level of performance
for a long time with little o r no pavement maintenance is
desired. Some engineers feel that the design period for
rural and urban highways should be in the range of 30 to
35 years.
The design period selected affects thickness design
since it determines how many years, and thus how many
trucks, the pavement must serve. Selection of the design
period for a specific project is based on engineering judg-
ment and economic analysis of pavement costs and serv-
ice provided throughout the entire period.
The numbers and weights of heavy axle loads expected
during the design life are major factors in the thickness
design of concrete pavement. These are derived from esti-
mates of
-ADT (average daily traffic in both directions, all
vehicles)
-ADTT (average daily truck traffic in bothdirections)
-axle loads of trucks
Information on A D T is obtained from special traffic
counts o r from state, county, o r city traffic-volume maps.
This A D T is called the present o r current ADT. The de-
sign A D T is then estimated by the commonly used meth-
ods discussed here. However, any other method that gives
a reasonable estimate of expected traffic duringthedesign
life can be used.
Projection
One method for getting the traffic volume data (design
ADT) needed is to use yearly rates of traffic growth and
traffic projection factors. Table 3 shows relationships be-
tween yearly rates of growth and projection factors for
both 20- and 40-year design periods.
In a design problem, the projection factor is multiplied
by the present A D T t o obtain a design ADTrepresenting
the average value for the design period. In some proce-
dures, this is called A A D T (average annual daily traffic).
The following factors influence yearly growth rates and
traffic projections:
I. Attracted o r diverted traffic-the increaseoverexist-
ing traffic because of improvement of a n existing
roadway.
2. Normal traffic growth-the increasedue to increased
numbers and usage of motor vehicles.
3. Generated traffic-the increase due to motor vehicle
trips that would not have been made if the new facil-
ity had not been constructed.
4. Development traffic-the increase due to changes in
land use due to construction of the new facility.
The combined effects will cause annual growth rates of
about 2% to 6%. These rates correspond to 20-year traf-
fic projection factors of 1.2 to 1.8 as shown in Table 3.
The planning survey sections of state highway depart-
ments are very useful sources of knowledge about traffic
growth and projection factors.
Table 3. Yearly Rates of Traffic
Growth and Corresponding
Projection Factors'
I I
Yearly I 1
rate of
traffic I Projection 1 ~roiection
O/O 1 factor.
20 years I factor.
40 years
'Factors represent values at the middesign period
that are widely used in current practice. Another
method of computing these factors is based on the
average annual value. Differences (both compound
interest) between these two methods w ~ l lrarely
affect design.
Where there is some question about the rate ofgrowth,
it may be wise t o use a fairly high rate. This is true on
intercity routes and on urban projects where a high rate
of urban growth may cause a higher-than-expected rate
of traffic growth. However, the growth of truck volumes
may be less than that for passenger cars.
High growth rates d o not apply on two-lane-ruralroads
and residential streets where the primary function is land
use o r abutting property service. Their growth rates may
be below 2% per year (projection factors of 1.1 to 1.3).
Some engineers suggest that the use of simple interest
growth rates may be appropriate, rather than compound
interest rates, which when used with a long design period
may predict unrealistically heavy future traffic.
Capacity
The other method of estimating design A D T is based on
capacity-the maximum number of vehicles that can use
the pavement without unreasonable delay. This method
of estimating the volume of traffic is described in Appen-
dix D and should be checked for specific projects where
the projected traffic volume is high; more traffic lanes
may be needed if reasonable traffic flow is desired.
ADTT
The average daily truck traffic in both directions (ADTT)
is needed in the design procedure. It may be expressed as
a percentage of A D T o r as a n actual value. The ADTT
value includes only trucks with six tires o r moreand does
not include panel and pickup trucks and other four-tire
vehicles.
The data from state, county, o r city traffic-volume
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
veys. These data are then used to determine the percent- projects where ADTT percentages are alsoabout average.
age relationship between ADTT 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 A D T 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 loadometer 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 loadometer table (Table W-3) for a
Midwestern state yields the following vehicle count for a
loadometer 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:

1216
ADTT = -
9492
x 100 = 13%

This ADTT percentage would be appropriate for de-

sign of a project where factors influencing the growth and
composition of traffic are similar to those at this load-
ometer station.
Another source of information on ADTT percentages
is the National Truck Characteristic ~ e ~ o r t . ' "Table
' 4,
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 38.)
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
likely that the lower values on urban routes are due to
larger volumes of passenger cars rather than fewer trucks. *Trucks-excludes panels and pickups and other four-tire vehicles.

Table 4. Percentages of Four-Tire Single Units and

Trucks (ADTT) on Various Highway Systems
I Rural average daily traffic I Urban average daily traffrc

Hlghway
system

Interstate
Other federal-
a~dprlmary
Federal-a~d
secondary
Truck Directional Distribution Table 5. Axle-Load Data
In most design problems, it is assumed that the weights (3)
Axles per
and volumes of trucks traveling in each directionare fairly Axles per 1000 Axles In
equal-50-50 distribution-the design assumes that pave- Axle load. 1000 trucks design
kips trucks (adjusted) period
ment in each direction carries half the total ADTT. This p- --

may not be true in special cases where many of the trucks S ~ n g l eaxles
may be hauling full loads in one direction and returning 28-30 0.28
empty in the other direction. If such is the case, an appro- 26-28 0.65
priate adjustment is made. 24-26 1.33
22-24 2.84
Axle-Load Distribution 20-22 4.72
Data on the axle-load distribution of the truck traffic is 18-20 10.40
needed to compute the numbers of single and tandem 16-18 13.56
axles* of various weights expected during the design per- 14-16 18 64
iod. These data can be determined in one of three ways: 12-14 25 89
(I) special traffic studies t o establish the Ioadometer data 10-12 81 05
for the specific project; (2) data from the state highway
Tandem axles
department's loadometer weight stations (Table W-4) or
weigh-in-motion studies on routes representing truck
weights and types that are expected to be similar to the
project under design; (3) when axle-load distribution
data are not available, methods described in Chapter 4
based on categories of representative data for different
types of pavement facilities.
The use of axle-load data is illustrated in Table 5 in
which Table W-4 data have been grouped by 2-kip and
4-kip increments for single- and tandem-axle loads, re-
spectively. The data under the heading "Axles per 1000
Trucks" are in a convenient form for computing the axle-
load distribution. However, an adjustment must be made. Columns 1 and 2der1vedfrom loadometer W-4 Table Thls tablealsoshows
13 215 total trucks counted wlth 6 918 two-axle four-tlre trucks (52%)
Column 2 of Table 5 gives values for all trucks, including
Column 3 Column 2 values adjusted for two-axle four-t~retrucks, equal
the unwanted values for panels, pickups, and other four- to Column 21(1 - 521100)
tire vehicles. T o overcome this difficulty, the tabulated Column 4 = C o l u m n 3 (trucks1ndes1gnper1od)l1000
~ Seesampleproblem
values are adjusted as described in the Table 5 notes. Des~gn1 In which trucks In deslgn pertod (oned~rectton) total 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 I 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 safety 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, L S F = 1.2. alternate detour routes for the traffic. Here, it may be
For highways and arterial streets where there will be better t o provide a premium facility to circumvent for a
moderate volumes of truck traffic, L S F = 1.1. long time the 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, L S F = 1.0.
Aside from the load safety factors, a degree of conserv- *See Appendix C i f i t isexpected that trucks with tridem loads will be
atism is provided in the design procedure to compensate ~ncludedin the traffic forecast.
CHAPTER 3
Design Procedure
(Axle-Load Data Available)
The methods in this chapter are used when detailed axle-
loaddistribution data have been determined or estimated
as described in Chapter 2.*
Fig. 4 is a worksheet** showing the format for com-
pleting design prob1ems.t It requires as input data the
following design factors discussed in Chapter 2.
Type of joint and shoulder
Concrete flexural strength (MR) at 28 days
k value of the subgrade or subgrade and subbase
combinationtt
Load safety factor (LSF)
Axle-load distribution (Column 1)
Expected number of axle-load repetitions during
the design period (Column 3)
Both a fatigue analysis (to control fatigue cracking)
and a n erosion analysis (to control foundation and shoul-
der erosion, pumping, and faulting) are shown on the de-
sign worksheet.
The fatigue analysis will usually control the design of
light-traffic pavements (residential streets and secondary
roads regardless of whether the joints are doweled or not)
and medium traffic pavements with doweled joints.
The erosion analysis will usually control the design of
medium- and heavy-traffic pavements with undoweled
(aggregate-interlock) joints and heavy-traffic pavements
with doweled joints.
For pavements carrying a normal mix of axle weights,
single-axle loads are usually more severe in the fatigue
analysis, and tandem-axle loads are more severe in the
erosion analysis.
The step-by-step design procedure is as follows: The
design input data shown at the top of Fig. 4 are estab-
lished and Columns I and 3 are filled out. The axle loads
are multiplied by the load safety factor for Column 2.
Fatigue Analysis
Results of fatigue analysis, and thus the charts and figures
used, are the same for pavements with doweled and un-
doweled joints, and also for continuously reinforced
pavements.$
Without concrete shoulder, use Table 6a and Fig. 5
With concrete shoulder, use Table 66 and Fig. 5
Procedure Steps:
1. Enter as items 8 and I I on the worksheet from the
appropriate table the equivalent stress factors de-
pending on trial thickness and k value.
2. Divide these by the concrete modulus of rupture and
enter as items 9 and 12.
3. Fill in Column 4, "Allowable Repetitions," deter-
mined from Fig. 5.
4. Compute Column 5 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
umn 4, multiplying by 100; then total the fatigue at
the bottom.
Erosion Analysis
Without concrete shoulder
Doweled joints or continuously reinforced pave-
ments$-use Table 7a and Fig. 6a.
Aggregate-interlock joints-use Table 76 and Fig.
60.
With concrete shoulder
Doweled joints o r continuously reinforced pave-
mentsf-use Table 8a and Fig. 66.
Aggregate-interlockjoints-use Tablegband Fig. 66.
Procedure Steps:
I. Enter the erosion factors from the appropriate table
as items 10 and 13 in the worksheet.
2. Fill in Column 6, "Allowable Repetitions," from
Fig. 60 or Fig. 6b.
-
*See Chapter 4 when axle-load distribution data are unknown.
**A blank worksheet is provided as the last page of this bulletin for
purposes of reproduction and use in specific design problems.
t Computer programs for solving design problems are available from
Port'and
t t S e e Appendix B if lean concrete subbase is used.
IIn this design procedure, continuously reinforced pavements are
treated the same as doweled, jointed pavements-see Appendix A
 Calculation of Pavement Thickness

T r ~ ath~ckness
l 9.5 ~n Doweled jo~nts yes no -

Subbase-subgrade k /?fl PC1 Concrete shoulder yes no J

M O ~ U I U S of rupture. MR 650 PSI

Load safety factor, LSF /. 2

Fat~gueanalys~s Eros~onanalys~s
Axle Mult~pl~ed Expected
load, by repet~t~ons
k~ps LSF Allowable Fat~gue. Allowable Damage
repetltlons percent repet~t~ons percent
/. 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
8. Equwalent stress 2 0& 10. Eros~onfactor 2.59
9. Stress ratlo factor 3 7
0.
Single Axles

11. Equ~valentstress 19 2 13. Eros~onfactor 2.74

Tandem Axles
12. Stress ratlo factor 4-5-

Fig. 4. Design 1A.

12
 3. Compute Column 7 by dividing Column 3 by Col-
umn 6, multiplying by 100; then total the erosion
damage at the bottom.
In the use of the charts, precise interpolation of allow-
able repetitions is not required. If the intersection line
runs off the top of the chart, the allowable load repeti-
tions are considered to be unlimited.
The trial thickness is not an adequate design if either of
the totals of fatigue or erosion damage are greater than
100%. A greater trial thickness should be selected for
another run.* A lesser trial thickness is selected if the
totals are much lower than 100%.
Sample Problems
Two sample problems are given to illustrate the steps in
the design procedure and the effects of alternate designs.
Design 1 is for a four-lane rural Interstate project; several
variations on the design-use of dowels or aggregate-
interlock joints, use of concrete shoulder, granular and
cement-treated subbases-are shown as Designs 1A
through 1E. Design 2 is for a low-traffic secondary road,
and variations are shown as Designs 2A and 2B.
Design 1
Project and Traffic Data:
Four-lane Interstate
Rolling terrain in rural location
Design period = 20 years
Current ADT = 12,900
Projection factor = 1.5
ADTT = 19% of ADT
Traffic Calculations:
Design ADT = 12,900 X 1.5 = 19,350 (9675 in one di-
rection)
ADTT = 19,350 X 0.19 = 3680 (1840 in one direction)
For 9675 one-direction ADT, Fig. 3 shows that the
proportion of trucks in the right lane is 0.81. Therefore,
for a 20-year-design period, the total number of trucks in
one direction is
1840 X 0.8 1 X 365 X 20 = 10,880,000 trucks
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:**
Design 1A: doweled joints, untreated subbase, no con-
crete shoulder
Clay subgrade, k = 100 pci
4-in.-untreated subbase
Combined k = 130 pci (see Table 1)
LSF = 1.2 (see page 10)
Concrete MR = 650 psi
Design 1B: doweled joints, cement-treated subbase, no
concrete shoulder
Same as 1A except:
4-in. cement-treated subbaset
Combined k = 280 pci (see Table 2)
Design 1C: doweled joints, untreated subbase, concrete
shoulder
Same as 1A except:
Concrete shoulder
Design ID: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
subbase, no concrete shoulder
Same as I B except:
Aggregate-interlock joints
Design 1E: aggregate-interlock joints, cement-treated
subbase, concrete shoulder
Same as I D except:
Concrete shoulder
Thickness Calculations:
A trial thickness is evaluated by completing the design
worksheettt shown in Fig. 4 for Design 1A using the
axle-load data from Table 5.
For Design lA, Table 6a and Fig. 5 are used for the
fatigue analysis and Table 7a and Fig. 6a are used for the
erosion analysis.
Comments on Design 1
For designs 1A through IE, a subbase of one type or an-
other is used as a recommended practice1 on fine-textured
soil subgrades for pavements carrying an appreciable
number of heavy trucks.
In Design IA: (I) Totals of fatigue use and erosion
damage of 63% and 39%, respectively, show that the 9.5-
in. thickness is adequate for thedesignconditions. (2) This
design has 37% reserve capacity available for heavy-axle
loads in addition to those estimated for design purposes.
(3) Comments 1 and 2 raise the question of whether a 9.0-
in. thickness would be adequate for Design IA. Separate
calculations showed that 9.0 in. is not adequate because
of excessive fatigue consumption (245%). (4) Design 1A
is controlled by the fatigue analysis.
A design worksheet, Fig. 7, is shown for Design I D to
illustrate the combined effect of using aggregate-inter-
lock joints and a cement-treated subbase. In Design 1D:
(1) Totals of fatigue use and erosion damage of I%$f and
97%, respectively, show that 10 in. is adequate. (2) Sepa-
rate calculations show that 9.5 in. is not adequate because
of excessive erosion damage (142%), and (3) Design 1D is
controlled by the erosion analysis.
(continued o n page 21)
'Some guidance is helpful in reducing the number of trial runs. The
effect of thickness on both the fatigue and erosion damage approxi-
mately follows a geometric progression. For example, if 33% and 178%
fatigue damage are determined at trial thicknesses of 10 and 8 in., re-
spectively, the approximate fatigue damage for a thickness of 9 in. is
equal to J33X178 = 77%.
**Concrete M R , LSF, and subgrade k valuesare thesame for Designs
I A through I E.
tCement-treated subbase meeting requirements stated on page 6.
t t A blank worksheet is provided as the last page of this bulletin for the
purposes of reproduction and use in specific design problems.
:See Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete Pavements. Portland
Cement Association publication
f f For pavements wlth aggregate-interlock joints subjected to an ap-
preciable number of trucks, the fatigue analysis will usually not affect
design.
 Table 6a. Equivalent Stress - No Concrete Shoulder
(Single Axlenandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thickness,
in. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 825/679 726/585 671 /542 634/516 584/486 523/457 484/443
4.5 699/586 616/500 571/460 540/435 498/406 448/378 41 7/363
5 602/516 531/436 493/399 467/376 432/349 390/321 363/307
5.5 526/461 464/387 431 /353 409/331 379/305 343/278 320/264
6 465/416 411/348 382/316 362/296 336/271 304/246 285/232
6.5 417/380 367/317 341/286 324/267 300/244 273/220 256/207
7 375/349 331 /290 307/262 292/244 271 /222 246/199 231 /I86
7.5 340/323 300/268 279/241 265/224 246/203 224/18 1 2 10/169

Table 6b. Equivalent Stress - Concrete Shoulder

(Single AxleITandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, p c ~
thickness, .
~n. 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
 SINGLE A X L E LOAD, KlPS
- - 2 : k g g g 8 g g
C D 0 r u 5 ; a , m
1 I I I I I
- I 1 I I I I I I I
" N u P 6, CD - ru
o o o 8 o 2I o (o
0 o
0 0 0
I
TANDEM A X L E LOAD, KlPS

.o
1 -
0,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 - -
- I 80
- - P s 8 -0
0 I '0 0
0 0 0
0 P nl P "co 8
h) m c o o nl P m c o nl P ma30 nl Pb,
I
8 8
ALLOWABLE L O A D REPETITIONS
Table 7a. Erosion Factors - Doweled Joints, No Concrete Shoulder
(Single Axlenandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, p c ~
th~ckness.
in. 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.74/3.83 3.73/3.79 3.72/3.75 3.71/3.73 3 70/3.70 3 68/3 67
4.5 3.59/3.70 3.57/3.65 3.56/3.61 3.55/3.58 3 54/3.55 3 52/3.53
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
55 3.33/3.47 3.31/3.41 3.29/3 36 3 28/3.33 3.27/3.30 3 26/3.28

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

No Concrete Shoulder (Single Axle/Tandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pcl
th~ckness,
~n 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.94/4.03 3.91/3.95 3.88/3.89 3.8W3.86 382/3.83 3.7713.80
4.5 3.79/3.91 3.76/3.82 3.73/3.75 3 71/3.72 3 68/3.68 3.64/3.65
 SINGLE A X L E LOAD, KlPS
- - - - - 10 IU W P 0 0,
a, (D
0 h) P m aD
0 0 0 0 0 0
t
- I -I , I I I ~ I ~ I ~ I i I I ~I r , r ~p lw~: , ~ l ~ II l A l ~ II' I ' I1 '
m m - - -
N N W W P 0 0, (I, (0 0 -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o g
TANDEM A X L E LOAD, KlPS aiTI
I
I'
EROSION FACTOR
I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l r 1 1 1 1 1 1
P cEl W cJ W cJ N N N N N
o OD in P N o in in P iu o

I
I
I
I

ALL0WABL.E LOAD REPETITIONS

Table 8a. Erosion Factors - Doweled Joints, Concrete Shoulder
(Single AxleITandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
th~ckness,
in. 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 3.28/3.30 3.24/3.20 3.21/3.13 3.19/3.10 315/3.09 3.12/3.08
4.5 3.13/3.19 3.09/3.08 3.06/3.00 3. 04/2. 96 3.01/2.93 2.98/2.91

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

Concrete Shoulder (Single AxleITandem Axle)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
th~ckness,
~n. 50 100 200 300 500 700
Fig. 6b. Erosion analysis-allowable load repetitions
based on erosion factor (with concrete shoulder).
 Calculation of Pavement Thickness

l -
T r ~ a th~ckness /fl. in Doweled j o ~ n t s yes n o v
Subbase-subgrade k A pcl Concrete shoulder yes no a
Modulus of rupture, MR - M L PSI
Des~gnp e r ~ o d2 0 years
Load safety factor, LSF /. 2

Fatlgue analys~s Eros~onanalys~s

Axle Mult~pl~ed Expected
load. by repet~t~ons
k~ps LSF Allowable Fat~gue. Allowable Damage
repetltfons percent repetltlons percent
1-Z
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Equivalent stress- 10. Eros~onfactor 2.72

9. Stress ratlo factor m T
Single Axles

11. Equ~valents t r e s s . / C L = 13. Eros~onfactor -2.90

12. Stress ratlo factor
Tandem Axles

Fig. 7. Design I D .
 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
Concrete requirement,
Design Subbase Joints shoulder in. Thickness Calculations:
1A 4-in. g r a n u l a r doweled For Design 2A, a trial thickness of 6 in. is evaluated by
IB 4-in. cement-treated doweled completing the worksheet shown in Fig. 8, according t o
the procedure given on page 1 1. Table 6a and Fig. 5 are
1C 4-in. g r a n u l a r doweled
used for the fatigue analysis and Table 76 and Fig. 6a are
ID 4-in. cement-treated aggregate
interlock used for the erosion analysis.
1E 4-in. cement-treated aggregate
For Design 2B, a worksheet is not shown here but the
interlock design was worked out for comparison with Design 2A.

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 6.0-in.
1 A versus I B); 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 1C a 5.5-in. pavement would not be adequate because of
and 1 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 1 B 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 296, respectively. Com-
Design 2 ments: (1) The thickness 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. (3) Because of the dow-
Two-lane-secondary road els, the erosion damage is reduced from 8% t o 2%; how-
Design period = 40 years ever, this is immaterial since the fatigue analysis controls
Current ADT = 600 the design.
Projection factor = 1.2
ADTT = 2.5% of A D T -
For the Design 2 situation, it is shown that doweled
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'2829' showing the effects of the number oftrucks
18 on pavements with aggregate-interlock joints.
Truck traffic each way = - = 9
2
For a 40-year design period:
9 X 365 X 40 = 13 1,400 trucks
Axle-load data are shown in Table 15, Category I , and
the expected number of axle-load repetitions are shown *Performance experience has shown that subbases are not requ~red
in Fig. 8. when truck traffic 1s very Ilght; see the PCA publicatlon, Subgradesand
Subbases for Concrete Pavemenrs.
Values Used t o Calculate Thickness: **Design 2B is shown for illustrative purposes only. Doweledjolnts
Design 2A: aggregrate-interlock joints, no subbase,* no are not needed where truck traffic 1s very I~ght;see the PCA publication
concrete shoulder Joinr Des~gnfor Concrete Hrghwav und Streer Pavements.
Clay subgrade, k = 100 pci t The type of load transfer at thejoints--dowels, or aggregate inter-
lock-does not affect the fatigue calculations since the critical axle-load
L S F = 1.0 position for stress and fatigue is where the axle loads are placed at pave-
Concrete M R = 650 psi ment edge and midpanel, away from the joints. See Appendix A.
 Calculation of Pavement Thickness

Trtal th~ckness '4.0 ~n Doweled joints yes no r/

Subbase-subgrade k /DO - pc~ Concrete shoulder yes no r/
Modulus of rupture. MR ps~
Deslgn perlod %years
Load safety factor, LSF /. 0
no J ~ ~ L Z S P

Fat~gueanalys~s Eros~onanalys~s
Axle Mult~plied Expected
load, by repet~tions
klps LSF Allowable Fatlgue. Allowable Damage.
repetit~ons percent repet~t~ons percent
1.L 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Equivalent stress y// 10. Eros~onfactor 3.F D

9. Stress ratlo factor
Single Axles

11. Equlvalent stress-*!?.

12. Stress ratlo factor 0-5 3 5
13. Eroslon factor -=-
Tandem Axles

Fig. 8. Design 2A.

CHAPTER 4

Simplified Design Procedure

(Axle-Load Data Not Available)

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

Table 9. Axle-Load Cate~ories

Traffic
I ADTT" Maximum axle loads, kips
Axle-load
category Description
ADT 1
7 Per day Single axles Tandem axles

I Residential streets
Rural and secondary roads (low to
medium')
Collector streets

1
2
Rural and secondary roads (high')
Arterial streets and primary roads (low')
3 Arterial streets and primary roads 3000-12,000 8-30
(medium') 2 lane
Expressways and urban and rural 3000-50.000+
lnterstate (low to medium') 4 lane or more
4 Arterial streets, primary roads. 3000-20,000 8-30
expressways (high') 2 lane
Urban and rural lnterstate (medium to 3000-150,000+
high') 4 lane or more

'The descriptors high, m e d ~ u mor, low refer to the relat~vewe~ghtsof axle loads for the type of street or road.
that IS. "low" for a rural lnterstate would represent heavier loads than "low" for a secondary road
'Trucks -two-axle, four-tire trucks excluded.
Table 10. Subgrade Soil Types and discussion under "Comments on Simplified Pro-
Approximate k Values cedure," 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 Support
axle-load category-the data are shown only to illustrate
Fine-gramed soils in which silt and typical values. Instead, it is correct to rely more on the
Low 75-1 20
clay-size particles predominate
word descriptions given or to select a category based on
Sands and sand-gravel mixtures with Medium 13C-170 the expected values of maximum-axle loads.
1
moderate amounts of silt and clay
The ADTT design value should be obtained by a truck
Sands and sand-gravel mixtures
relatively free of plastic fines
Cement-treated subbases (see page 6)
I
1
High

Very high 1
188220

25C-400
under "Subgrade and Subbase Supportw-the estimated
k value is increased according to Table I or Table 2.
The design steps are as follows:
1. Estimate ADTT* (average daily truck traffic, two
directions, excluding two-axle, four-tire trucks)
2. Select axle-load Category I, 2, 3, or 4.
3. Find slab thickness requirement in the appropriate
Table I I, 12, 13, or 14. (In the use of these tables, see
classification count for the facility or for another with a
similar composition of traffic. Other methods of estimat-
ing ADT and ADTT are discussed on pages 8 and 9.
The allowable ADTT values (two directions)listed in
the tables include only two-axle, six-tire trucks, and
single or combination units with three axles or more.
Excluded are panel and pickup trucks and other two-axle,
four-tire trucks. Therefore, the number of allowable
trucks ofall types will begreaterthanthe tabulated ADTT
(continued on page 30)
*For facilities of four lanes or more, the ADTT IS adjusted by the use
of Fig. 3.

Table 11. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Categpry 1

Pavements with Aggregate-Interlock Joints (Dowels not needed)
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb
I

Slab Subgrade-subbase support

thickness,
in. ' 1 Low Medium Hiah ~n. Low Medium High

Note: Fatigue analysis controls the des~gn

Note: A fractional ADTT Indicates that the pavement can carry unlim~tedpassenger cars and two-axle, four-
tire trucks, but only a few heavy trucks per week (ADTT of 0.3 x 7 days ind~catestwo heavy trucks per week.)
'ADTT excludes two-axle, f o u r - t ~ r etrucks, so total number of trucks allowed w ~ l be
l greater-see text
Table 12a. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 2 - Pavements with Doweled Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb

Slab
thickness.
Subgrade-subbase support Slab
thickness,
I Subgrade-subbase support

in. Low Medium Hlgh Very high ~n. Low Medlum High Very hlgh
I 5 3 9 42

Note. Fatlgue analysis controls the deslgn. 'ADTT excludes two-axle, four-t~retrucks so total number of trucks allowed w ~ l be
l greater-see text

Table 126. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 2 - Pavements with Aggregate-Interlock Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb

thickness,
~n. I Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Medium Hlgh Very high
Slab
th~ckness.
~n
5
Low
Subgrade-subbase support

Medium
3
Hlgh
9
Very high
42
5.5 9 42 120 450
6 96 380 700" 970''
6.5 650" 1000" 1400" 2100"
7 1100" 1900"

'ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tlre trucks, total number of trucks allowed w ~ l be

l greater-see text
"Eros~on analys~scontrols the des~gn,otherwse fatlgue analys~scontrols
Table 1%. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 3- Pavements with Doweled Joints

No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb

Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab Subgrade-subbase support

hickness, thickness,
in. Low Medium High Very high in. I Low Medium High Very high

7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5

'ADTT excludes two-axle, four-tire trucks; total number of trucks ailowed wtll be greater-see text.
"Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fat~gueanalysis controls.
Table 13b. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 3 - Pavements with Aggregate Interlock Joints
No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb
I
thickness.
slab
~n. I Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Medium High Very high
th~ckness,
in. I Low
Subgrade-subbase support
Medium High Very high

'ADTT excludes two-axle, four-t~retrucks; total number of trucks allowed w ~ l be

l greater-see text.
"Fat~gue analysis controls the design, otherw~seeroslon analysis controls.
Table 14a. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 4 - Pavements with Doweled Joints

No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb

I Slab
Ith~c:~ness,
I1 Subgrade-subbase support Slab
th~ckness.
II Low
Subgrade-subbase support

Low Med~um Hlqh Very hlqh ~n. Medium H~oh Verv hiah

'ADTT excludes two-axle four-t~retrucks total number of trucks allowed wlll be greater-see text
.Eros~onanalys~scontrols the d e s ~ g notherwise fat~gueanalys~scontrols
Table 14b. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 4 - Pavements with Aggregate-Interlock Joints

No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb

I I
Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab Subgrade-subbase support
th~ckness. thickness.
in. Low Medium Hiah Verv hiah tn. Low Medium High Very high

7 100" 400"
7.5 240" 620" 910
8 330" 770 1,100 1,700
8.5 720 1,300 1.900 3,100
9 1,100 2.100 3.200 5.7CO
9.5 1.700 3.400 5.500 10,200

'ADTT excludes two-axle, four-t~retrucks, total number of trucks allowed w ~ l be

l greater-see text
"Fat~gue analys~scontrols the des~gn,otherw~seeroslon analys~scontrols
values by about double for many highways on up toabout
triple or more for streets and secondary roads.
Tables 1 1 through 14 include designs for pavements
with and without concrete shoulders or curbs. Forpark-
ing lots, adjacent lanes provide edge support similar to
that of a concrete shoulder or curb so the right-hand side
of Tables 1 1 through 14 are used.
Sample Problems
Two sample problems follow to illustrate use of the sim-
plified design procedure.
Design 3
Arterial street, two lanes
Design ADT = 6200
Total trucks per day = 1440
ADTT = 630
Clay subgrade
4-in. untreated subbase
Subgrade-subbase support = low
Concrete M R = 650 psi*
Doweled joints, curb and gutter
Since it is expected that axle-load magnitudes will be
about the average carried by arterial streets, not unusual-
ly heavy or light, Category 3 from Table 9 is selected.
Accordingly, Table 13a is used for design purposes.
(Table 13a is for doweled joints, Table 13h is for aggre-
gate-interlock joints.)
For a subgrade-subbase support conservatively classed
as low, Table 13a, under the concrete shoulder or curb
portion, shows an allowable ADTT of 1600 for an 8-in.-
slab thickness and 320 for a 7.5-in. thickness.
This indicates that, for a concrete strength of 650 psi,
the 8-in. thickness is adequate to carry the required de-
sign ADTT of 630.
Design 4
Residential street, two lanes
ADT = 410
Total trucks per day = 21
ADTT = 8
Clay subgrade (no subbase), subgrade support = low
Concrete M R = 600 psi*
Aggregate-interlock joints (no dowels)
Integral curb
In this problem, Table 11 representing axle-load
Category 1 is selected for design use. In the table
under "Concrete Shoulder or Curb," the following
allowable ADTT are indicated:
Slab Thickness. in. 1 ADTT
Therefore, a 5.5-in.-slab thickness is selected to meet
the required design ADTT value of 8.
Comments on Simplified Procedure
Modulus of Rupture
Concrete used for paving should be of high quality** and
have adequate durability, scale resistance, and flexural
strength (modulus of rupture). In reference to Tables I I
through 14, the upper portions of the tables represent
concretes made with normal aggregates that usually pro-
duce good quality concretes with flexural strengths in the
area of 600 to 650 psi. Thus, the upper portions of these
tables are intended for general design use in this simpli-
fied design procedure.
The lower portions of the tables, showing a concrete
modulus of rupture of 550 psi, are intended for design use
only for special cases. In some areas of the country, the
aggregates are such that concretes of good quality and
durability produce strengths of only about 550 psi.
Design Period
The tables list the allowable ADTTs for a 20-year design
period. For other design periods, multiply the estimated
ADTT by the appropriate ratio to obtain an adjusted
value for use in the tables.
For example, if a 30-year design period is desired in-
stead of 20 years, the estimated ADTTvalue is multiplied
by 30120. In general, the effect of the design period on
slab thickness will be greater for pavements carrying
larger volumes of truck traffic and where aggregate-inter-
lock joints are used.
Aggregate-Interlock or Doweled Joints
Tables 12 through 14 are divided into two parts, a and b,
to show data for doweled and aggregate-interlockjoints,t
respectively. In Table 11, thickness requirements are the
same for pavements withdoweled and aggregate-interlock
joints; doweled joints are not needed for the low truck
traffic volumes tabulated for Category 1. Whenever
dowels are not used, joint spacings should be short-see
discussion on page 3.
User-Developed Design Tables
The purpose of this section is to describe how the simpli-
fied design tables were developed so that the design engi-
neer who wishes to can develop a separate set of design
tables based on an axle-load category different from those
given in this chapter. Some appropriate situations include
*See discussion under "Comments on Simplified Procedure-Mod-
ulus of Rupture," above.
**See Portland Cement Association publication Design and Control
of Concrete Mixtures.
When fatigue analys~scontrols the design (see footnotes of Tables
12 through 14). it will be noted that the ADTTvalues for doweled joints
and for aggregate-interlock joints are the same (see topic "Jointed Pave-
ments" in Appendix A). If erosion analys~scontrols, concrete modulus
of rupture will have no effect on the allowable ADTT.
(1) preparation of standard sections from which a pave-
ment thickness is selected based on amount of traffic and
other design conditions, (2) unusual axle-load distribu-
tions that may be carried on a special haul road or other
special pavement facility, and (3) an increase in legal axle
loads that would cause axle-load distribution to change.
Axle-load distributions for Categories 1 through 4 are
shown in Table 15. Each of these is a composite of data
averaged from several state loadometer (W-4) tables rep-
resenting pavement facilities in the appropriate category.
Also, at the high axle-load range, loads heavier than those
listed on state department of transportation W-4 tables
were estimated based on extrapolation. These two steps
were desired for obtaining a more representative general
distribution and smoothing irregularities that occur in
individual W-4 tables. The steps are considered appropri-
ate for the design use of these particular categories de-
scribed earlier in this chapter.
As described in Chapter 2, the data is adjusted to ex-
clude two-axle, four-tire trucks, and then the data are
partitioned into 2000- and 4000-lb axle-load increments.
To prepare design tables, design problems are solved
with the given axle-load distribution by computer with
the desired load safety factor at different thicknesses and
subbase-subgrade k values.
Allowable ADTT values to be listed in design tables are
easily calculated when a constant, arbitrary ADTT is in-
put in the design problems as follows: assume input
ADTT is 1000 and that 45.6% fatigue consumption is
calculated in a particular design problem, then

Allowable ADTT =
100 X (input ADTT)
% fatigue or erosion damage
'
Table 15. Axle-Load Distributions Used for

load,

10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34

8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
m
Preparing Design Tables 11 Through 14

Single axles
4
6
8

Tande axles
4

L
1693.31
732.28
483.10
204.96
124.00
56.11
38.02
15.81
4.23
0.96

31.90
85.59
139.30
75.02
57.10
39.18
68.48
69.59
4.19
Axles per 1000 trucks*
Category 2

'Exclud~ngall two-axle, four-t~retrucks

Category 3 Category 4
APPENDIX A
Development of Design Procedure
The thickness design procedure presented here was pre- the critical placements shown in Fig. A l wereestablished
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- I . The most critical pavement stresses occur when the
dressed. These include: truck wheels are placed a t o r near the pavement edge
Pavements with different types of load transfer at and midway between the joints, Fig. A I(a). Since the
transverse joints o r cracks joints are at some distance from this location, trans-
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- flexural 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 o r aggregate interlock)
A new aspect of the procedure is the erosion criterion at transverse joints. When a concrete shoulder is tied
that is applied in addition to the stress-fatigue criterion.
The erosion criterion recognizes that pavements can fail
from excessive pumping, erosion 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.

Analysis of Concrete Pavements

The design procedure is based on a comprehensive anal- (01 Axle - lood p o s ~ f ~ ofor
n c r ~ t i c o lflexural stresses
ysis of concrete stresses and deflections at pavement
joints. corners, and edges by a finite-element computer
program.'x' It allows considerations of slabs with finite
dimensions, variable axle-load placement, and the mod-
eling of load transfer at transverse joints Or cracks and
load transfer at the joint between pavement and concrete
shoulder. For doweled joints, dowel properties such as
diameter and modulus of elasticity are used directly. For
aggregate interlock, keyway joints, and cracks in contin-
uously reinforced pavements, a spring stiffness value is
Free edge or
shoulder lolnf
I
-Transverse

2Concrete shoulder
~omt
-

I
I
I
1 Troff~c
lo"e

used to represent the load-deflection characteristics of I ( ~ used)

f
I I
such joints based o n field and laboratory tests.

Jointed Pavements
After analysis of different axle-load positions on the slab, Fig. A l . Critical axle-load positions.
 on to the mainline pavement, the magnitude of the
critical stresses is considerably reduced.
2. The most critical pavement deflections occur at the
slab corner when a n axle load is placed a t the joint
with the wheels a t or near the corner, Fig. Al(b).*
In this situation, transverse joint spacing has no ef-
fect on the magnitude of corner deflections but the
type of load transfer mechanism has a substantial
effect. This means that design results based on the
erosion criteria (deflections) may be substantially
affected by the type of load transfer selected, espe-
cially when large numbers of trucks are being de-
signed for. A concrete shoulder reduces corner de-
flections considerably.
Continuously Reinforced Pavements
A continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP)
is one with no transverse joints and, due to the heavy,
continuous steel reinforcement in the longitudinal direc-
tion, the pavement develops cracks at close intervals.
These crack spacings on a given project are variable, run-
ning generally from 3 to 10 ft with averages of 4 to 5 ft.
In the finiteelement computer analysis, a high degree
of load transfer was assigned at the cracks of C R C P and
the crack spacing was varied. The critical load positions
established were the same as those forjointed pavements.
For the longer crack spacings, edge stresses for loads
placed midway between cracks are of about the same
magnitude as those for jointed pavements. For the aver-
age and shorter crack spacings, the edge stresses are less
than those for jointed pavements, because there is not
enough length of uncracked pavement to developas much
bending moment.
For the longer crack spacings, corner deflections are
somewhat less than those for jointed pavements with
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 o r 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,
doweled pavements is made. Edge stresses will sometimes
be the same and sometimes less. while corner deflections
will sometimes be less, the same, and greater at different
areas of the pavement depending on crack spacing.
The average of these pavement responses is neither
substantially better nor worse than those for jointed,
doweled pavements. As a result, in thisdesign procedure,
the same pavement responses and criteria are applied to
continuously reinforced pavements as those used with
jointed, doweled pavements. This recommendation is
consistent with pavement performance experience. Most
design agencies suggest that the thickness of continuously
reinforced pavements should be about the same as the
thickness of doweled-jointed pavements.
*The greatest deflect~onsfor t r ~ d e m occur
s when two axles are placed
at one s ~ d eof the jolnt and one axle at the other s ~ d e
Truck Load Placement
Truck wheel loads placed at the outside pavement edge
create more severe conditions than any other load posi-
tion. As the truck placement moves inward a few inches
from the edge, the effects decrease s u b ~ t a n t i a l l ~ . " ~ '
Only a small fraction of all the trucks run with their
outside wheels placed at the edge. Most of the trucks trav-
eling the pavement are driven with their outside wheel
placed about 2 ft from the edge. ~ a r a g i n ' s ' ~studies
" re-
ported in 1958, showed very little truck encroachment at
pavement edge for 12-ft lanes for pavements with un-
paved shoulders. More recent studies by ~ m e r ~ ' " " s h o w e d
more trucks at edge. Other recent s t ~ d i e s ' ~showed
" fewer
trucks at edge than Emery. For this design procedure, the
most severe condition, 6% of trucks at edge,* is assumed
so as to be on the safe side and to take account of recent
changes in United States law permitting wider trucks.
At increasing distances inward from the pavement
edge, the frequency of load applications increases while
the magnitudes of stress and deflection decrease. Data
on truck placement distribution and distribution of stress
and deflection due to loads placed at and near the pave-
ment edge are difficult to use directly in a design proce-
dure. As a result, the distributions were analyzed and
more easily applied techniques were prepared for design
purposes.
For stress-fatigue analysis, fatigue was computed in-
crementally at fractions of inches inward from the slab
edge for different truck-placement distributions: this
gave the equivalent edge-stress factors shown in Fig. A2.
(This factor, when multiplied by edge-load stress, gives
the same degree of fatigue consumption that would result
from a given truck placement distribution.) The most
severe condition, 6% truck encroachment, has been in-
corporated in the design tables.
Percent trucks
of or off edge
Taragm 2 lone 04 6
Emery (paved shoulder) 600
- - -- - - -
PERCENT TRUCKS AT EDGE
Fig. A2. Equivalent edge stress factor depends on
percent of trucks at edge.
*As used here, the term "percent trucks at edge" is defined as the
percent of total trucks that are traveling with the outside of the contact
area of the outside tire at or beyond the pavement edge.
 For erosion analysis, which involves deflection at the
slab corner, the most severe case (6% of trucks at edge) is
again assumed. Where there is no concrete shoulder, cor-
ner loadings (6% of trucks) are critical; and where there
is a concrete shoulder, the greater number of loadings
inward from the pavement corner (94% of trucks) are
critical. These factors are incorporated into the design
charts as follows:
Percent erosion damage = 100 Cn, (C/ Ni)
where: n, = expected number of axle-load
repetitions for axle-group i
Ni = allowable number of repeti-
tions for axle-group i
C = 0.06 for pavements without
shoulder, and
0.94 for pavements with
shoulder
T o save a design calculation step, the effects of (C/Ni]
are incorporated in Figs. 6a and 6b of Chapter 3 and
Tables 11 through 14 of Chapter 4.
Variation in Concrete Strength
Recognition of the variations in concrete strength is con-
sidered a realistic addition to the design procedure. Ex-
pected ranges of variations in the concrete's modulus of
rupture have far greater effect than the usual variations
in the properties of other materials, such a s subgrade and
subbase strength, and layer thicknesses. Variation in con-
crete strength is introduced by reducing the modulus of
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
tables. The user does not directly apply this effect. The
value of 15% represents fair-to-good quality control, and,
combined with other effects discussed elsewhere in this
appendix, was selected as being realistic and giving rea-
sonable design results.
Concrete Strength Gain With Age
The 2 8 d a y flexural strength (modulus of rupture) is used
a s the design strength. This design procedure, however,
incorporates the effect of concrete strength gain after 28
days. This modification is based on a n analysis that incre-
mented strength gain and load repetitions month by
month for 20-year and 40-year design periods. The effect
is included in the design charts and tables so the user
simply inputs the 28-day value a s the design strength.
Warping and Curling of Concrete
In addition to traffic loading, concrete slabs are also sub-
jected to warping and curling. Warping is the upward
concavedeformation of the slab due to variationsin mois-
ture content with slab depth. The effect of warping is two-
fold: It results in loss of support along the slab edges and
also in compressive restraint stresses in the slab bottom.
Since warping is a long-term phenomenon, its resultant
effect is influenced greatly by creep.
Curling refers to slab behavior due to variations of
temperature. During the day, when the top surface is
warmer than the bottom, tensile-restraint stressesdevelop
a t the slab bottom. During the night, the temperature dis-
tribution is reversed and tensile restraint stresses develop
a t the slab surface. Temperature distribution is usually
nonlinear and constantly changing. Also, maximum day-
time and nighttime temperature differentials exist for
short durations.
Usually the combined effect of curling and warping
stresses are subtractive from load stresses because the
moisture content and temperature a t the bottom of the
slab exceed that a t the top more than the reverse.
The complex situation of differential conditions at a
slab's top and bottom plus the uncertainty of the zero-
stress position make it difficult to compute o r measure
the restraint stresses with any degree of confidence or
verification. At present, the information available on
actual magnitudes of restraint stresses does not warrant
incorporation of the items in this design procedure.
As for the loss of support, this is considered indirectly
in the erodibility criterion, which is derived from actual
field performance and therefore incorporates normal loss
of support conditions.
Calculated stress increase due to loss of support varies
from about 5% to 15%. This theoretical stress increase is
counteracted in the real case because a portion of the load
is dissipated in bringing the slab edges back in contact
with the support. Thus, the incremental load stressdue to
a warping-type loss of support is not incorporated in this
design procedure.
Fatigue
The flexural fatigue criterion used in the procedure pre-
sented here is shown in Fig. A3. It is similar to that used
in the previous PCA method'j4' based conservatively on
-
04
lo2 lo3 I o4 I o5 I o6 10'
LOAD REPETITIONS
Fig. A3. Fatigue relationships.
 (45-49)
studies of fatigue research 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-
t o eliminate the discontinuity in the previous curve that erally related t o studies on joint f a ~ l t i n g . " ~ 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 a t the A A S H O 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 ~ t u d i e s ' ~ 'of
' undoweled pavements suggest
pothesis'48' that fatigue resistance not consumed by repe- that climate o r drainage is a significant factor in pave-
titions of one load is available for repetitions of other ment performance. S o far, this aspect of design has not
loads. In a design problem, the total fatigue consumed been i'ncluded in the design procedure, but it deserves
should not exceed 100%. further studv. 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 ~ a r t e r . ' ~ ~ '
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 t o local experience since
climate, drainage, local factors, and design innovations
may have a n influence. Accordingly, the 100% erosion-
damage criterion, a n index number correlated with gen-
Erosion eral performance experience, can be increased or de-
creased based o n specific performance data gathered in
Previous mechanistic design procedures for concrete the future for more favorable o r more adverse conditions.
pavements are based on the principle of limiting the flex-
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 a n important mode
of distress in addition t o fatigue cracking that needs t o
be addressed in the design process. This is the erosion of
material beneath and beside the slab.
Many repetitions of heavy axle loads at slab corners
and edges cause pumping; erosion of subgrade, subbase,
and shoulder materials; 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'x' with A A S H O Road ~ e s t 'perform-
~~'
ance data were not completely satisfactory for design
purposes. (The principal mode of failure of concrete
pavements at the A A S H O Road Test was pumping o r
erosion of the granular subbase from under the slabs.) It
was found that to be able to predict the A A S H O 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, o r rate of work, with which a n 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 (f---
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).
APPENDIX B
Design of Concrete Pavements with Lean
Concrete Lower Course
Following is the thickness design procedure for compos-
ite concrete pavements incorporating a lower layer of
lean concrete, either as a subbase constructed separately
or as a lower layer in monolithic construction. Design
considerations and construction practices for such pave-
ments are discussed in References 50 through 52.
Lean concrete is stronger than conventional subbase
materials and is considered to be nonerodable. Recogni-
tion of its superior structural properties can be taken by
a reduction in thickness design requirements.
Analysis of composite concrete pavements is a special
case where the conventional two-layer theory (single slab
on a foundation) is not strictly applicable.
The design procedure indicates a thickness for a two-
layer concrete pavement equivalent to a given thickness
of normal concrete. The latter is determined by the pro-
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
pavement.
In the design charts, Fig. B1 and Fig. B2, the required
layer thicknesses depend on the flexural strengths of the
two concrete materials as determined by ASTM C78.
Since the quality of lean concrete is often specified on the
basis of compressive strength, Fig. B3 can be used to con-
vert this t o a n estimated flexural strength (modulus of
rupture) for use in preliminary design calculations.
Lean Concrete Subbase
The largest paving use of lean concrete has been as a sub-
base under a conventional concrete pavement. This is
nonmonolithic construction where the surface course of
normal concrete is placed on a hardened lean concrete
subbase. Usually, the lean concrete subbase is built at
least 2 ft wider than the pavement on each side to support
the tracks of the slipform paver. Thisextra width is struc-
turally beneficial for wheel loads applied a t pavement
edge.
The normal practice has been to select a surface thick-
ness about twice the subbase thickness; for example, 9 in.
of concrete on a 4- o r 5-in. subbase.
Fig. Bl shows the surface and subbase thickness re-
quirements set t o be equivalent to a given thickness of
normal concrete without a lean concrete subbase.
A sample problem is given t o illustrate the design pro-
cedure. From laboratory tests, concrete mix designs have
been selected that give moduli of rupture of 650 and 200
psi,**respectively, for the surface concrete and the lean
concrete subbase. Assume that a 10-in.-thickness require-
ment has been determined for a pavement without lean
concrete subbase a s set forth in Chapter 3 or 4.
As shown by the dashed example line in Fig. B1, de-
signs equivalent t o the 10-in. pavement are (1) 7.7-in.
concrete on a 5-in. lean concrete subbase, and (2) 8.1-in.
concrete o n a 4-in. lean concrete subbase.
Monolithic Pavement
In some areas, a relatively thin concrete surface course is
constructed monolithically with a lean concrete lower
layer. Local o r recycled aggregates can be used for the
lean concrete, resulting in cost savings and conservation
of high-quality aggregates.
*The criterla are that (I) stress ratios in either of the two concrete
layers not exceed that of the reference pavement; and (2)erosionvalues
at the subbase-subgrade interface not exceed those ofthereferencepave-
rnent. Rationale for the criteria is given in Reference 50 plus two addi-
tional considerations: (I) erosion criteria is included in addition to the
fatigue approach given in the reference; and (2) for nonmonolithiccon-
struction, some structural benefit (I4) is added because the subbase is
constructed wider than the pavement.
** Flexural strength of lean concrete to be used as a subbase is usually
selected to be between 150 to 250 p s ~(compressive strength, 750 to 1200
PSI);these relatively low strengths are used to rn~nlmizereflectlvecrack-
Ing from the unjolnted subbase (usual practice is to leave the subbase
unjolnted) through the concrete surface. If, contrary tocurrent practice.
jolnts are placed in the subbase, the strength of the lean concrete would
not have to be restricted to the lower range.
 Modulus of Rupture of L e a n Concrete, p s i
350 450 150 250 350 450
I
250 ../ /

14

- 13

--

- 12

- II

10

5" Sub base

Dimensions shown on curves 9

4" Subbase
are thicknesses of concrete
surface course
Fig. B1. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (lean concrete subbase).
 Modulus of Rupture of Lean Concrete, psi
450 150 250 3 5 0 4 5 0

3" Surface 4" Surface

Fig. 82. Design chart for composite concrete pavement (monolithic with lean concrete lower 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 full-depth cracking through
both layers at the joint locations.
Fig. B2 is the design chart for monolithic pavements.
T o 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 line in Fig. B2, mono-
lithic designs equivalent to the 10-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. 83. Modulus of rupture versus compressive strength
(from Reference 50).
APPENDIX C
Analysis of Tridem Axle Loads
Tridem loads* can be included along with single- and
tandem-axle loads in the design analysis by use of data
given in this appendix.
The same design steps and format outlined in Chapter
3 are followed except that Tables C I through C 3 are used.
From these tables for tridems, equivalent stress and ero-
sion factors are entered in an extra design worksheet.
Then Fig. 5 and Fig. 6a o r 66 are used to determine al-
lowable numbers of load repetitions. Fatigue and erosion
damage totals for tridems are added t o those for single-
and tandem-axle loads.
An extension of the sample problem, Design I A given
in Chapter 3, is used here to illustrate the procedure for
tridem loads. Assume that, in addition to the single- and
tandem-axle loads, a section of the highway is to carry a
fleet of special coal-hauling trucks equipped with tridems
at the rate of about 100 per working day for a n estimated
period of 10 years; so:
100 trucks X 250 days X 10 years = 250,000 total trucks
The trucks in one direction are normally all loaded t o
their capacity of 54,000-lb tridem load plus 7000-lb steer-
ing-axle (single-axle) load. (When it is examined, the
steering axles are not heavy enough to affect the design
results.)
Fig. C I represents a portion of the extra design work-
sheet needed to evaluate the effects of these tridems. Since
Design I A (9:5-in. pavement, combined k of 130 pci) is a
pavement with doweled joints and no concrete shoulder,
Tables C1 and C2 are used t o determine the equivalent
stress and erosion factors, Items I I and 13 on the work-
sheet.
For this example, Fig. 5 is used to determine allowable
load repetitions for the fatigue analysis and Fig. 6a is used
for the erosion analysis.
The tridem loads of 54,000 Ib are multiplied by the load
safety factor for Design 1A of 1.2, giving a design axle
load of 64,800 Ib. Before using the charts for allowable
load repetitions, the tridem load (3 axles) is divided by
three (64,800/3 = 2 1,600 Ib) so that the load scale for
single axles can be used. **
As shown in Fig. C I , the tridem causes only 9.3% ero-
sion damage and 0% fatigue damage. These results, added
t o the effects of the singleand tandem axles shown in Fig.
4 are not sufficient to require a design thickness increase.
*A tridem or triple axle is a set of three axles each spaced at 48 to 54in.
apart. These are used on special heavy-duty haul trucks.
**This is not to say that atridem hasthesameeffectasthreesingleaxles.
The damaging effects of tridem, tandem, and single axles are incorpo-
rated into their respective equivalent stress and erosion factor tables,
which in the sequence of the design steps is taken into account before
the charts for allowable-load repetitions are entered. This division by
three for tridems is made just to avoid the complexity of adding a third
scale on the charts for allowable-load repetitions.
 Calculation of Pavement Thickness
--
project Ax / e ~
/~/AT
T r ~ ath~ckness
l Doweled j o ~ n t s yes/^ n o -
Subbase-subgrade k 1-70 pc~ Concrete shoulder yes no r/
Modulus of rupture, MR ps~
Des~gnp e r ~ o dA years
Load safety factor LSF /. 7

:
load.
Mult~pl~ed
by
LSF
L2
2
Expected
repetltlons

3
Allowable
repetlt~ons

4
Fat~gue,
percent

5
Allowable
repet~t~ons

6
Damage.
percent

11. Equwalent stress- 13. E r o s ~ o nfactor 7,

,

-Axles 5-9 x /12 12. stress ratlo factor A!GLZ~

3

Total Total
0 5'. 3
ii A= adJd rb &A& skdruh /> fi++
Fig. C1. Analysis of tridems.

Table C1. Equivalent Stress-Tridems

(Without Concrete ShoulderIWith Concrete Shoulder)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pcl
thickness,
~ n . 50 100 150 200 300 500 700
4 51W431 456/392 437/377 428/369 419/362 414/360 41 2/359
4.5 439/365 380/328 359/313 349/305 339/297 331/292 328/291
Table C2. Erosion Factors-Trldems-Doweled Joints
(Without Concrete ShoulderIWith Concrete Shoulder)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, p c ~
thickness,
~n. 50 100 200 300 500 700

Table C3. Erosion Factors-Tridems-Aggregate-Interlock Joints

(Without Concrete ShoulderIWith Concrete Shoulder)
Slab k of subgrade-subbase, pci
thickness,
~n. 50 100 200 300 500 700
4 4.06/3.50 3.97/3.38 3.88/3.30 3.82/3.25 3.7413.21 3.67/3.16
4.5 3.95/3.40 3.85/3.28 3.76/3.18 3.70E.13 3.6313.08 3.5613.04
APPENDIX D
Estimating Traffic Volume by Capacity
(Note: At the time of preparing this bulletin. information Table D l . 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 theFH WA Type of hlghway
passenger cars'
per 12-ft lane
"Highway Capacity Manual," expected to be published per hour
in 1984 and 1985, should be used when available and they
Urban freeways wlth full access control
will replace the methods and references presented in this (30 to 35 mph)
appendix.)
Suburban freeways with full access control
In Chapter 2, the traffic volume (ADT) is estimated by (35 to 40 mph)
a method based on the projected rates of traffic growth. Rural freeways wlth full or partlal access
When the projected traffic volume is relatively high for a control
specific project, this method should be checked by the - - - --

Rural major hlghways w ~ t hmoderate

capacitymethod described here. cross trafflc and roadslde interference
The practical capacity of a pavement facility is defined
Rural major h~ghwaysw ~ t hconsiderable
as the maximum number of vehicles per lane per hour cross traffic and roadslde Interference
that can pass a given point under prevailing road and
traffic conditions without unreasonable delay or restrict- 'Also Includes panels p ~ c k u p sand other four-tlre commerc~alvehlcles
ed freedom to maneuver. Prevailing conditions include that functlon as passenger cars In terms of trafflc capacity Values are
taken from References 53 and 54
composition of traffic, vehicle speeds, weather, align-
ment, profile, number and width of lanes, and area.
The term practical capacity is commonly used in refer-
ence to existing highways, and the term design capacity j = number of passenger cars equivalent to one
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 equal and have essentially the = 2 in level terrain
same meaning. In accordance with AASHTO usage'" 5 4 ' 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 Dl. = 12% for urban freeways in this text**
D = traffic, percent, in direction of heaviest travel
during peak hours-about 50% to 75%
A D T Capacity of Multilane High ways = 67% for rural freeways in this text
For thickness design it is necessary to convert the pas- = 60% for urban freeways in this text
senger cars per hour in Table D l to average daily traffic
in both directions, ADT. For multilane highways with
uninterrupted flow the following formula is used:
IOOP x - 5000N
ADT =
100 + T,hO- 1) KD
where P = passenger cars* per lane per hour (from
Table D l )
N = number of lanes-total both directions
Tph = trucks, percent, during peak hours *See footnote a t b o t t o m o f Table D l .
= 213 ADTT in this booklet **See Reference 54, pages 96 t o 98, and Reference 56
 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, Tph,differs from the sym-
bol for this term in the references. In this text:
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 capacity of two-lane high-
ways are ( I ) 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 uninterrupted flow on two-lane highways is shown
in Table D2.
It is good practice t o use both traffic projection fac-
tors and design capacity for thickness design of specific
projects. For example, if a n existing two-lane route is car-
rying 4000 A D T and the projection factor is 2.7, the pro-
jected A D T would be 10,800. This is more than 4000
vehicles per day (vpd) greater than the design capacity of
virtually all two-lane highways.** On the other hand,
10,800 A D T is below the design capacity of most four-
lane highways.7 Hence, the design should be made for
10,800 A D T on a four-lane roadway. Design capacity
should not be used where it shows a greater A D T than
shown by traffic projection.

-
*Lane widths of less than 12 ft are rarely used in current practice, ex-
cept for very lightly traveled two-lane roads where Land service is a pri-
mary function.
**See Table D2.
tSee Reference 53, Table 11-14,

Table D2. Design Capacities for Uninterrupted Flow on Two-Lane Highways*

Design capac~ty,both directions. In vph"
where: L = lane w ~ d t hin feet
Al~gnment, Tph =trucks, %. ~npeak h o u r t
percent of total
project length with L = 12 L = 11 L = 10
Terrain
s ~ g h td~stance
of less than Tph ' Tph ' Tph '
1500 ft 0 10 20 0 10 20 0 10 20
0 900 780 690 770 670 600 690 600 530
Level 20 860 750 660 740 640 570 660 580 510
40 800 700 620 690 600 530 620 540 480

'Source Reference 53. Table 1 1 10 page 88

"Tabular values apply where lateral clearance 1s not restr~cted Where clearance IS less than 6 ft
apply factors In Reference 53 Table 11-11 page 89
t Trucks does not ~ n c l u d ef c u r - t ~ r eveh~cles
APPENDIX E
References
I. Westergaard, H. M., "Computation of Stresses in
Concrete Roads," Highway Research Board Pro-
ceedings, Fifth Annual Meeting. 1925, Part I, pages
90 to 112.
2. Westergaard, H. M., "Stresses in Concrete Pavements
Computed by Theoretical Analysis," Public Roads,
Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1926, pages 25 to 35.
3. Westergaard, H. M., "Analysis of Stresses in Con-
crete Roads Caused by Variations in Temperature,"
Public Roads, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 1927, pages 201 to
215.
4. Westergaard, H. M., "Theory of Concrete Pavement
Design," Highway Research Board Proceedings,
Seventh Annual Meeting, 1927, Part I, pages 175 to
181.
5. Westergaard, H. M., "Analytical Tools for Judging
Results of Structural Tests of Concrete Pavements,"
Public Roads, Vol. 14, No. 10, December 1933, pages
185 to 188.
6. Pickett, Gerald; Raville, Milion E.; Jones, WilliamC.;
and McCormick, Frank J., "Deflections, Moments
and Reactive Pressures for Concrete Pavements,"
Kansas State College Bulletin No. 65, October 1951.
7. Pickett, Gerald, and Ray, Gordon K., "Influence
Charts for Concrete Pavements," American Society
of Civil Engineers Transactions, Paper No. 2425, Vol.
116, 1951, pages 49 to 73.
8. Tayabji, S. D., and Colley, B. E., "Analysis of Jointed
Concrete Pavements," report prepared by the Con-
struction Technology Laboratories of the Portland
Cement Association for the Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, October 1981.
9. Teller, L. W., and Sutherland, E. C., "The Structural
Design of Concrete Pavements," Public Roads, Vol.
16, Nos. 8, 9, and 10 (1935); Vol. 17, Nos. 7 and 8
(1936); Vol. 23, No. 8 (1943).
10. Childs, L. D., Colley, B. E., and Kapernick, J. W.,
"Tests to Evaluate Concrete Pavement Subbases,"
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
Paper No. 1297, Vol. 83 (HW-3), July 1957, pages I to
41;. also PCA Development Department Bulletin
DXOI I.
11. Childs, L. D., and Kapernick, J . W., "Tests of Con-
crete Pavement Slabs on Gravel Subbases," Proceed-
ings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 84
(HW-3), October 1958; also PCA Development De-
partment Bulletin DX021.
12. Childs, L. D., and Kapernick, J. W., "Tests of Con-
crete Pavements on Crushed Stone Subbases," Pro-
ceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
Proc. Paper No. 3497, Vol. 89 (HW-I), April 1963,
pages 57 to 80; also PCA Development Department
Bulletin DX065.
13. Childs, L. D., "Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on
Cement-Treated Subbases," Highway Research Rec-
ord 60, Highway Research Board, 1963, pages 39 to
58; also PCA Development Department Bulletin
DX086.
14. Childs, L. D., "Cement-Treated Subbases for Con-
crete Pavements," Highway Research Record 189,
Highway Research Board, 1967, pages 19 to 43; also
PCA Development Department Bulletin DX 125.
15. Childs, L. D., and Nussbaum, P. J., "Repetitive Load
Tests of Concrete Slabs on Cement-Treated Sub-
bases," RD025P, Portland Cement Association, 1975.
16. Tayabji, S. D., and Colley, B. E., "Improved Rigid
Pavement Joints," paper presented at Annual Meeting
of Transportation Research Board, January 1983 (to
be published in 1984).
17. Childs, L. D., and Ball, C. G., "Tests of Joints for
Concrete Pavements," RD026P, Portland Cement
Association, 1975.
18. Colley, B. E., and Humphrey, H. A., "Aggregate In-
terlock at Joints in Concrete Pavements," Highway
Research Board Record No. 189, Transportation Re-
search Board, 1967, pages 1 to 18.
19. Colley, B. E., Ball, C. G., and Arriyavat, P., "Evalua-
tion of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders or
Widened Lanes," Transportalion Research Record
666, Transportation Research Board, 1978; also Port-
 land Cement Association, Research and Develop-
ment Bulletin RD065P, 1980.
20. Sawan, J. S., Darter, M. I., and Dempsey, B. J.,
"Structural Analysis and Design of PCC Shoulders,"
Report No. FHWA-RD-81-122, Federal Highway
Administration, April 1982.
21. Older, Clifford, "Highway Research in Illinois,"
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers,
February 1924, pages 175 to 217.
22. Aldrich, Lloyd, and Leonard, Ino B., "Report of
Highway Research at Pittsburg, California, 1921-
1922," California State Printing Office.
23. Road Test One-MD, Highway Research Board Spe-
cial Report No. 4, 1952.
24. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board
Special Report No. 6 1 E, 1962.
25. The AASHO Road Test, Highway Research Board
Special Report No. 73, 1962.
26. AASHTO Interim Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures, 1972, Chapter 111 Revised, 1981, Ameri-
can Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials, 1981.
27. Fordyce, Phil, and Teske, W. E., "Some Relation-
ships of the AASHO Road Test to Concrete Pave-
ment Design," Highway Research Board Record No.
44, 1963, pages 35 to 70.
28. Brokaw, M. P., "Effect of Serviceability and Rough-
ness at Transverse Joints on Performance and De-
sign of Plain Concrete Pavement," Highway Research
Board Record 471, Transportation Research Board,
1973.
29. Packard, R. G., "Design Considerations For Control
of Joint Faulting of Undoweled Pavements," Pro-
ceedings of International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design, Purdue University, February 1977.
30. Packard, R. G . , and Tayabji, S. D., "Mechanistic De-
sign of Concrete Pavements to Control Joint Faulting
and Subbase Erosion," International Seminar on
Drainage and Erodability at the Concrete Slab-Sub-
base-Shoulder Interfaces, Paris, France, March 1983.
3 1. Standard Method for Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load
Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components,
for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Designation D 1 196.
32. "Rigid Airfield Pavements," Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Army Manual, EM 1 1 10-45-303, Feb. 3, 1958.
33. Burmister, D. M., "The Theory of Stresses and Dis-
placements in Layered Systems and Applications to
Design of Airport Runways," Highway Research
Board Proceedings, Vol. 23, 1943, pages 126 to 148.
34. Standard Methods for Freezing-and-Thawing Tests
of Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, Designation D560.
35. Standard Methods for Wetting-and-Drying Tests of
Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Designation D559.
36. Soil-Cement Laboratory Handbook, Portland Ce-
ment Association publication EB052S, 1971.
37. "National Truck Characteristic Report, 1975-1979,"
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High-
way Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1981.
38. Becker, J. M., Darter, M. I., Snyder, M. B., and
Smith, R. E., "COPES Data Collection Procedures-
Appendix A," June 1983, Appendix to final report of
National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Project 1-19, Concrete Pavement Evaluation System,
draft submitted to Transportation Research Board.
39. Load Stress at Pavement Edge, Portland Cement
Association publication IS030P, 1969.
40. Taragin, Asriel, "Lateral Placement of Trucks on
Two-Lane and Four-Lane Divided Highways," Pub-
lic Roads, Vol. 30, No. 3, August 1958, pages 7 1 to 75.
41. Emery, D. K., Jr., "Paved Shoulder Encroachment
and Transverse Lane Displacement for Design Trucks
on Rural Freeways," a report presented to the Com-
mittee on Shoulder Design, Transportation Research
Board, January 13, 1975.
42. "Vehicle Shoulder Encroachment and Lateral Place-
ment Study," Federal Highway Administration Re-
port No. FH WA/ MN-8016, Minnesota Department
of Transportation, Research and Development Of-
fice, July 1980.
43. Darter, M. I., "Structural Design for Heavily Traf-
ficked Plain-Jointed Concrete Pavement Based on
Serviceability Performance," T R R 671, Analysis of
Pavement Systems, Transportation Research Board,
1978, pages 1 to 8.
44. Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements, Portland
Cement Association publication ISOIOP, 1974.
45. Kesler, Clyde E., "Fatigue and Fracture of Concrete,"
Stanton Walker Lecture Series of the Materials Sci-
ences, National Sand and Gravel Association and Na-
tional Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 1970.
46. Fordyce, Phil, and Yrjanson, W. A,, "Modern Design
of Concrete Pavements," American Society of Civil
Engineers, Transportation Engineering Journal, Vol.
95, No. TE3, Proceedings Paper 6726, August 1969,
pages 407 to 438.
47. Ballinger, Craig A., "The Cumulative Fatigue Dam-
age Characteristics of Plain Concrete," Highway Re-
search Record 370, Highway Research Board, 197 1,
pages 48 to 60.
48. Miner, M. A,, "Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,"
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Trans-
actions, Vol. 67, 1945, page A 159.
49. Klaiber, F. W., Thomas, T. L., and Lee, D. Y., "Fa-
tigue Behavior of Air-Entrained Concrete: Phase 11,"
Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State Univer-
sity, February 1979.
50. Packard, R. G., "Structural Design of Concrete Pave-
ments with Lean Concrete Lower Course," Proceed-
ings of Second International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design, Purdue University, April 198 1.
51. Yrjanson, W. A., and Packard, R. G., "Econocrete
Pavements-Current Practices," Transportation Re-
search Record 741, Performance of Pavements De-
signed with Low-Cost Materials, Transportation Re-
search Board, 1980, pages 6 to 13.
52. Ruth, B. E., and Larsen, T. J., "Save Money with
Econocrete Pavement Systems," Concrete Inter-
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. XLVIII, No. 4, July 1964,
pages 67 to 92.
57. Packard, R. G., and Tayabji, S. D., "New PCA
Thickness Design Procedure for Concrete Highway
and Street Pavements," Proceedings of Third Inter-
national Conference on Concrete Pavement Design
and Rehabilitation, Purdue University, April 1985.
 Calculation of Pavement Thickness
Project

T r ~ ath~ckness
l ~n. Doweled jo~nts: yes no
Subbase-subgrade k PC1 Concrete shoulder. yes no
Modulus of rupture. MR PSI
Design penod years
Load safety factor. LSF

Fat~gueanalys~s Eros~onanalys~s
Axle Mult~pl~ed Expected
load, by repetitlons
klps LSF Allowable Fat~gue. Allowable Damage.
repetitions percent repetlt~ons percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Equ~valentstress 10. Eros~onfactor

9. Stress ratlo factor
Single Axles

11. Equwalent stress 13. Eros~onfactor

12. Stress ratlo factor
Tandem Axles

I Total I Total I
 \ I
Microcomputer Program for Thickness Design of
Concrete Highways, Streets, and Parking Lots

PCAPAV-the low-cost software for concrete pavement design

PCAPAVs easy-to-use, menu-driven routine offers

High-speed solutions to pavement thickness design problems
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
lanes.
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 PCAPAV (MCOO3),contact the Portland Cement Association, Order
Processing Department, 5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1083,
(800)868-6733

PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION

An organmation of cement manufadurento improve and extend the user of portland cement and concrete through market development, eng~neerlng,research. education, and public aifdlrs work.
/

5420 Old Orchard Road, Skok~e,lll~no~s

60077-1083
Printed in U.S.A. EB109.01P