TECHBRIEF

LTPP Data Analysis,

Validation of Guidelines for
k-Value Selection and
Concrete Pavement
Performance Prediction
PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-96-198
FHWA Contact: Cheryl Richter, HNR-30 (703) 285-2183

The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program is a 20-year

study of inservice pavements across
North America. Its goal is to extend
the life of highway pavements
through various designs of new and
rehabilitated pavement structures,
using different materials and under
different loads, environments, subgrade soil, and maintenance practices.
LTPP was established under the
Strategic Highway Research Program,
and is now managed by the Federal
Highway Administration.

Background
Concrete pavement performance depends greatly on the support that it
receives from the base course and underlying soil layers as well as other
support-related factors such as slab curling and warping and slab-base
friction. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Project 1-30, Support Under Concrete Pavements (see Reference 1)
developed improved procedures for estimating support design inputs and
designing concrete pavements. The new recommended design model
gives greatly enhanced capabilities to pavement designers. Concepts for
use in future mechanistic design methodology were also developed.
Objectives
This LTPP data analysis was conducted to further test and verify the
improved pavement support guidelines and the improved American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) performance model proposed in NCHRP Project 1-30 using the design, materials, climate, traffic, and performance data available in the LTPP database.
This validation was performed to establish their practicality and appropriateness for use in concrete pavement design nationwide.

O2@@@@@6K?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@6K
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
V@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X
?W2@@@@@@@XI'@@@@@@@@@@)X?
W&@@@@@@@@)XV'@@@@@@@@@@)X
?W&@@@@@@@@@@1?V'@@@@@@@@@@1
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@eN@@@@@@@@@@@L?
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?3@@@@@@@@@@@L
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?N@@@@@@@@@@@1
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5e?J@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Ye?7@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@0Y?e?3@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@(M?f?N@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@0Yh@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@(Mhe3@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@H?heV4@@@@@@@@@@5?
?@@@@@@5e?O2@@6K?fI4@@@@@@@@H?
?@@@@@@H?W2@@@@@@6K?g?W@@@@
?3@@@@@?W&@@@@@@@@@6K?fO&@@@@
?N@@@@@?7@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?O2@@@@@5
3@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H
N@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?
?3@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y?
?V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y
V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y?
?V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y
V4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y?
?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@0Y
?I4@@@@@@@@0M?
?I40M?

?@@?e@@eW2@@@?e?@@@@6X?
?W2@?@@@@@@?
?@@?
?@@?e@@e7@@@@?e?@@@@@)X
?O26K?
?@6XheW&@5?@@@@@@?
?O@Kg?O26X@H?
?@@?e@@e@@X?f?@@?I'@1?W2@@6?2@@@6K??O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6?2@6X?W2@6KO2@@@6X@@)X?eO2@6KO&@@He?@@?@@6?2@@@@@@@@@6KO2@@?@?2@6X??O2@6KO2@@@@@@6?2@@@@@@@@@?W2@@6X?@@@@6X
?@@?e@@e@@)Kf?@@??N@@W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)?&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)??@@@@@@@@@5?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@)?2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@W&@@@@)X@@@@@1
?@@?e@@e@@@@6Xe?@@?e@@@@@??@@@@?I'@@@@(M?@@@@(M?@@?@@?@@(Y@@@@@??@@@@??@@@@?e?@@?I'@@@@H?e?@@@@@@@(M?@@@@@V'@@@@e?@@?I'@@@@?I'@@@@(M?@@@@(?'@@?@@?@@@(MI'@@@@e@@
?@@?e@@e?I4@@1e?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@??N@@@@H??@@@@He@@?@5?@@H?@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@?e?@@??N@@@@f?@@@@?@@H??@@@@@?N@@@@@6X@@??N@@@@eN@@@@He@@@@H?N@@?@@?@@@e?N@@@@e@@
?@@Le@@f?W@@e?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@L?J@@@@L?J@@@@?e@@?@H?@@e@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@?e?@@L?J@@@@f?@@@@?@@L??@@@@@e@@?@@@@@@??J@@@@eJ@@@@?e@@@@eJ@@?@@?@@@1??J@@@@e@@
?3@)K?@@?O26?&@@L??@@W2@@@@@@?@@@@@)?&@@@@)?&@@@@?e@@?@e@@e@@@@@?@@@@@??@@@@?e?@@)?&@@@@f?@@@@?3@)K?@@@@@e@@@@?@@@@?O&@@@@?O&@@@@?e@@@@?O&@@?@@?@@@@?O&@@@@e@@
?V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@0MI'@@@@@@@@@@(?4@@@@@@@@?e@@?@e3@e@@V'@@@@@@@??@@@@?e?3@@@@@@@@f?@@@@?V'@@@@@@@5e@@@@@@@@@@@@(?'@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@?@@?@V'@@@@(Y@@e@@
V4@@0MeI4@0M?e?@@@0Me?V4@0M?@@@@0Y??I4@@@@@@?e@@?@eV'e@@?V4@0MI4@??@0?@?e?V4@@0MI4@f?@0?@??V4@@@0?(Ye@@@@@0Y@@@@0Y?V4@@0MI4@?e@MI4@@@@@?@@?@?V4@@0Y?@@e@@
?@@?
?@
?@@?
?@
?@@@@@@?he?@6X
W2@?eW26Xe@@@@@@g?@@@
?@@@@@@?he?@@1
7@@?e7@@1e@@@@@@g?@@@
?@@@6Xg@@@?he@@@?g@@@?f?@6Xhf?@@@?@@?
?@@@@@@=O2@6X??O26X@@@?O26K?e?O@KO26Ke@@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@?O26K??@@@@6K?hfO@K?hf?@@@@1g@@@?he@@@?g@@@?f?@@)K?he?@@@?@@?
?@@@eV@@@@@)?2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6?2@6?2@@@@@@@@@@@6?2@@?eJ@@@@@L?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X@@@@@@@@6X@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@W2@@@@6?2@@@@6Xg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?e7@@@@@)X@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@V'@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y@@@V'@@?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@V'@@@@@@@@@H??J@@@?@@@@@@(Y@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@X?@@@@@@@@@@(?'@@?@@@?@@@@@(Y@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@?V@@@@@@@@@@@@H?@@@?V@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@?V@@@?@@@@5e?7@@@@@@@@@@Y?@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@1?@@@@@@V'@@?e@@?@@@?@@@@@Y?@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@??@@@@@@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@?3@@@He?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@?N@@)?&@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?3@@@@@@@@@@@@@V'@@@@5?@@??3@@@@@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?3@@@?@@@?3@@@@@@@e@@@?e?@@@?I'@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@??3@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?V4@@@0MI4@@@@@?V4@@0Y?@@??V4@@@@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@X@@@@@@@@@?@@@?V4@@?@@@?V4@@@@@@?7@@5?e?@@@eV4@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@?@0?4@@??V4@@@@@?@@@?@@0?4@@@0?4@@?@@@g
?B@@@@@@(M
?@@@H?
@@@@@0Y?
?@@@

Research and Development

Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296

Key Products of This Research

Proposed supplement to the AASHTO Design Guide.
Incorporate improvements in k-value selection, critical stress computation, the performance/design model, and checks for joint faulting and
corner cracking in non-doweled pavements.
Improved support characterization concepts for mechanistic design.
Impacts of This Study
The findings and procedures developed and verified under this study will
result in the following improvements in the design of jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) when implemented into the day-to-day operations
of State highway agencies:
Improved design of slab dimensions, including: (1) thickness, (2) length

(joint spacing), and (3) width.

These procedures make it possible to select slab dimensions for
specific project site conditions
by directly considering subgrade stiffness, loss of support
of base/subgrade, base course
as a structural layer, friction
between the slab and base, longitudinal edge support (shoulder design and widened lane
designs), and particularly thermal gradients for the project
site. (See figure 1.) Slab thickness requirements show some
reduction from that obtained
using the current AASHTO procedure.
Direct check on joint faulting and
procedures to prevent faulting
for both doweled and nondoweled joints for specific project
design and site conditions.
Better estimation of subgrade
elastic k-value through improved

correlations with soil properties

and tests, improved backcalculation procedures and slab size
adjustments, and consideration
of bedrock and embankments of
better material.
Improved design of non-doweled JPCP through a check for
slab corner, diagonal and transverse cracking with nighttime
thermal gradient, and transverse
joint faulting.
These findings and improved
procedures will collectively decrease the frequency of premature
failures that result from deficient
design for specific site conditions
(i.e., early cracking from too long
transverse joint spacing for specific site conditions, and early faulting
from inadequate joint load transfer
provisions). These procedures will
also result in more cost-effective
design through better representa-

tion of subgrade support, the structural impact of the base course,

and design features such as
widened slabs.
Improved Support
Characterization for
Mechanistic Design
Mechanistic design requires characterization of the subgrade and
base layers so that the critical tensile stresses in the slab due to loading and climate can be accurately
computed for design purposes.
Key practical findings of this
research include the following:
Use of an elastic k-value

FIGURE 1
Maximum allowable joint spacing to control transverse cracking
for a given (example) slab thickness, base type, subgrade, and traffic
loading for different climatic areas in the United States.*

*Varying design conditions would require different maximum joint spacings than
those shown.

results in proper modeling for

stress computation for vehicles
moving at creep speed.
Speed of loading has a major
effect on the backcalculated kvalue of the AASHO Road Test
soil. This may be true for other
soils as well and should be considered in the design.
The frictional resistance between the base and the slab is
an important factor in the computation of stress in the slab.
The effect of subgrade and base
stiffness on slab stress is very
different when a temperature differential exists through the slab.
Construction curl (negative) and
moisture differentials (also negative) are also important as they
tend to counteract positive temperature differentials.
Analyses showed that two different loading positions could produce critical tensile stresses for
a given pavement: midslab loading and joint or corner loading.
The presence of properly sized
dowels at the joint will eliminate
corner cracking and transverse
cracking near the joint as well as
minimize joint faulting.

TABLE 1
Comparison between existing and proposed design methods.
Feature

Existing AASHTO Procedure

Proposed Revision

Subgrade Stiffness
Characterization

Gross k-value required that includes permanent deformation and results in too high slab
stresses under moving load. Lowest springtime value incorporated into equation, NOT
seasonally adjusted k-value. Subgrade stiffness not considered in slab thermal curling
stresses.

Elastic k-value of subgrade soil. Seasonal

adjustment if desired. Subgrade stiffness
directly considered in slab design for load
AND thermal curling stresses. Ability to estimate elastic k-value for a variety of soils,
bedrock layer, and embankment layer.

Estimating Elastic
k-value

Erroneous correlation with resilient modulus

and erroneous use of top of base k-value for
design.

Three methods for subgrade elastic k-value:

(1) correlation with soil properties and tests,
(2) backcalculation with slab size correction,
(3) plate load-bearing test.

Base Course

Considered only through a composite (top-ofbase) k-value. Base stiffness and friction are
not considered in load or curl stresses.

Direct consideration of base as structural

layer (thickness, stiffness, and friction). Base
considered in load and thermal curl stresses.

Joint Spacing

Built-in 15-ft [4.6-m] JPCP.

Built-in 40-ft [12.2-m] JRCP.
Not considered otherwise

Direct consideration of load and thermal curl

stresses on joint spacing. Brings climate
directly into design process.

Climatic Effects

AASHO site climate built into design model.

Only adjustment is through seasonal composite k-value. Other climates not considered.

Seasonal variation of subgrade elastic k-value

possible. Effective thermal gradients can be
determined for any other site.

Loss of Support

Substantial loss of support built into existing

model. Additional reduction of k-value for
loss of support is overdesign.

Substantial loss of support built into model

from AASHO site; no further adjustment is
needed.

Joint Faulting

Not considered in current procedure.

Mistakenly thought to be considered through
J factor, which results in increased slab thickness, not reduced faulting.

Faulting checked after slab thickness design is

completed. If joint design is inadequate, joint
load transfer or base type changes are
allowed, but not slab thickness increase.

Joint Load Transfer

Doweled joints built into existing model. J

factor attempts to adjust corner stress for
more or less load transfer. No way to consider curling or warping of corners, especially
for undoweled joints.

Effect of joint load transfer on corner load,

curl, and moisture gradient stresses for
undoweled joints are checked directly.

Widened Slab, Tied

Shoulders

Inadequate stress adjustment through J factor.

Direct adjustment of critical stress through

consideration of wider slab or longitudinal
load transfer.

Overall Impact on
Design

Serious problems with gross k-value, correlation between resilient modulus and k-value, J
factor, no consideration of load transfer and
thermal gradients, and poor subdrainage with
thickness.

Reduction of slab thickness, maximum joint

spacing, need and proper diameter of dowel
bars, base type consideration, significant
effect of widened slab, subdrainage impact on
faulting, etc.

 Thermal

gradients, moisture
gradients, and built-in construction curling are important considerations in overall slab support and should be used along
with traffic loadings in the selection of appropriate joint spacings for JPCP.

Improved Concrete Pavement

Performance Model
There exist several major deficiencies in the current AASHTO design
procedure for concrete pavements
related to the full consideration of
base and subgrade support. These
deficiencies were addressed and
an improved methodology was
developed. Proposed revisions to
the AASHTO design procedure for
concrete pavements were developed to correct the deficiencies
identified. A summary of the differences between the existing and
revised design methodology is
given in Table 1. This table shows
that the revised and validated procedure provides many improved
and increased design capabilities
for jointed concrete pavements.

Validation of New Rigid

Pavement Design Model
The predictive capability of the
proposed new rigid pavement
design model (developed under
NCHRP Project 1-30) was evaluated
using the LTPP data from General
Pavement Section 3 (GPS-3)
(JPCP), GPS-4 (jointed reinforced
concrete pavement), and GPS-5
(continuously reinforced concrete
pavement). The predicted number
of equivalent single-axle loads
(ESALs) was calculated for each
section in the LTPP database using
the new NCHRP 1-30 model and
compared to the accumulated
actual ESALs for that section.
Plots of predicted versus actual
ESALs were prepared for a variety
of design comparisons (climatic
zone, base type, thick versus thin
slabs). In addition, statistical tests
were conducted to determine if
there were significant differences
between predicted and actual
ESALs. Results showed that there
is no overall bias of the new
NCHRP 1-30 model for overpredicting or underpredicting ESALs.

There was, however, considerable scatter of LTPP test section

data about the predicted versus
actual plot. An approximate analysis of the components of this variation was conducted. The results
show significant variation associated with the estimation of historical
ESALs, with model inputs for each
section, normal random variation
between replicate sections, and, of
course, model error. Estimates of
the prediction model error indicate
that the model is reasonable and
can be used in design with confidence provided that an appropriate
design reliability procedure, such
as in the AASHTO Design Guide, is
included. The new design/performance model provides a much better accounting of the many concrete pavement design details that
ultimately affect performance.
Reference

1. Darter, M.I., K.T. Hall, and C.M.

Kuo, Support Under Portland Cement
Concrete Pavements, NCHRP Report
372, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 1995.

Researcher: This study was performed by the ERES Consultants, Inc., 505 West University Avenue, Champaign, IL
61820-3915, (217) 356-4500. Contract No. DTFH61-94-C-00218.
Distribution: This technical summary is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct distribution
is being made to the Regions and Divisions.
Availability: The publication will be available in January 1997. Copies will be available from the National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A limited number of copies will be
available from the R&T Report Center, HRD-11, FHWA, 9701 Philadelphia Court, Unit Q, Lanham, MD 20706,
Telephone: (301) 577-0818, Fax: (301) 577-1421.
Key Words: AASHTO Guide, PCC pavement design, concrete pavement
Notice: This technical summary is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the
interest of information exchange. The summary provides a synopsis of the studys final publication. The summary
does not establish policies or regulations, nor does it imply FHWA endorsement of the conclusions or recommendations. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or their use.