WinPAS12 (SW03)

Windows Pavement
Analysis Software
(WinPAS) Guide
Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the
Design of Pavement Structures


ii | P a g e



Windows Pavement Analysis
Software (WinPAS) Guide
Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the
Design of Pavement Structures



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
American Concrete Pavement Association DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY
and LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the application of the information contained in
this publication to the full extent permitted by law.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without
permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief
passages in a review written for inclusion in a magazine or newspaper.

2012 American Concrete Pavement Association


ACPA is the premier national association representing
concrete pavement contractors, cement companies,
equipment and materials manufacturers and suppliers.
We are organized to address common needs, solve other
problems, and accomplish goals related to research,
promotion, and advancing best practices for design and
construction of concrete pavements.

P a g e | iii

Pavement and Overlay Design Based on the 1993 AASHTO
"Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures"
This publication is to help familiarize
engineers on the basics of concrete
pavement design. It gives the
background information that is essential
to effectively design concrete
pavements and overlays using the
"AASHTO Guide for the Design of
Pavement Structures - 1993"1 design
procedure via the ACPA's WinPAS
software. Still, ACPA encourages every
pavement design engineer to purchase
a copy of the complete 93 AASHTO
Design Guide for a complete reference.
This publication is broken down into four
chapters. The first two describe
concrete pavement thickness design
and overlay design according to Parts II
and III (Chapter 5) of the 93 AASHTO
Design Guide. Part II is entitled
"Pavement Design Procedures for New
Construction or Reconstruction," and
Chapter 5 of Part III is entitled
"Rehabilitation Methods with Overlays."1

The third chapter of this publication
describes life-cycle costing procedures
for a project level analysis. Life-cycle
costing is a procedure that economically
compares two competing design
alternatives considering all significant
costs over the economic life of each
alternative, expressed in equivalent
dollars. It includes initial cost,
rehabilitation costs, maintenance and
operation costs, user costs and residual
value.
The final chapter of this publication is
the users guide for the WinPAS
software. The software is capable of
conducting concrete and asphalt
pavement designs and analyses, traffic
conversions, life cycle cost analyses,
and overlay designs and analyses.
It is important to note that thickness
design is only one aspect of good
concrete pavement design. Another is
jointing. Proper jointing is essential to
ensure that a concrete pavement will
perform for its intended design life.
Unfortunately, it is often overlooked. For
more information on jointing of concrete
pavements, please refer to other ACPA
publications, including:
Design and Construction Joints
for Concrete Highways (TB010P)
Intersection Joint Layout
(IS006P)

AASHTO Guide for the Design of
Pavement Structures - 1993
iv | P a g e

Design and Construction Joints
for Concrete Streets (IS061P)
Concrete Pavement Field
Reference: Pre-Paving (EB237P)
Concrete Pavement Field
Reference: Paving (EB238P)
Concrete Intersections: A Guide
for Design and Construction
(TB019P)
P a g e | v


Table of Contents

Chapter 1 New Concrete Pavement Design ................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Concrete Pavement Basics ...................................................................................... 1
AASHO Road Test ....................................................................................................... 3
AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design Equation ................................................................ 6
Thickness ................................................................................................................. 6
Serviceability ............................................................................................................ 7
Environmental Effects ........................................................................................... 8
Traffic (ESALs) ......................................................................................................... 9
Rigid versus Flexible ESALs................................................................................. 9
Load Equivalency Factors .................................................................................. 10
Determining Load Equivalency Factors .............................................................. 11
Asphalt LEFs vs. Concrete LEFs ........................................................................ 12
Load Transfer ......................................................................................................... 13
Load Transfer Coefficient (J) .............................................................................. 14
Concrete Properties ............................................................................................... 15
Flexural Strength, S'
C
......................................................................................... 15
Center Point Flexural Strength ........................................................................... 16
Compressive Strength ........................................................................................ 16
The Importance of Using Average Strength ....................................................... 17
Modulus of Elasticity ........................................................................................... 18
Subgrade Support .................................................................................................. 19
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value) ........................................................... 19
Loss of Support .................................................................................................. 20
Determining Subgrade Support for Design ......................................................... 20
AASHTO Procedure to Determine the k-Value ................................................... 21
Determine Resilient Modulus .......................................................................... 21
vi | P a g e

Convert Resilient Modulus to k-Value ............................................................. 21
Adjust k-Value for Depth to Rigid Foundation ................................................. 23
Adjust k-Value for Loss of Support .................................................................. 23
Seasonal Adjustment to the k-Value ............................................................... 23
Problems with the AASHTO Procedure to Determine Subgrade Support .......... 24
Loss of Support ............................................................................................... 25
CBR and R-Value Relationships to M
r
............................................................ 25
Inconsistencies between Base and No Subbase Conditions .......................... 25
The Resulting k-Values are Unrealistic ........................................................... 26
Recommended Values for the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .......................... 26
........................................................................................................................... 27
Recommended k-Values for Subbases .............................................................. 28
AASHTO and the Benefits of Subbases ............................................................. 28
Coefficient of Drainage (C
d
) ................................................................................... 29
Reliability ................................................................................................................ 30
Reliability (R) ...................................................................................................... 31
Standard Deviation (s
o
)....................................................................................... 31
How Reliability Works ......................................................................................... 32
How Z
R
Relates to R ........................................................................................... 32
The Iterative Process ............................................................................................. 34
Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 34
Summary ................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 2 Concrete Overlay Design........................................................................... 39
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 39
The AASHTO Overlay Design Steps ......................................................................... 41
Step 1. Determine Existing Pavement Information ................................................. 41
Step 2. Predict Future ESALs ................................................................................ 41
Step 3. Perform Condition Survey .......................................................................... 42
Step 4. Perform Deflection Testing ........................................................................ 42
Step 5. Perform Coring/Material Testing ................................................................ 43
Step 6. Determine the Required Structural Capacity for Future Traffic (SC
f
) ......... 43
P a g e | vii

Step 7. Determine the Existing Structural Capacity (SC
eff
) ..................................... 43
Problems with Remaining Life ............................................................................ 44
Step 8. Determine Required Structural Capacity of the Overlay (SC
OL
) ................. 45
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ............................................................ 45
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ........................................................ 47
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite .................................... 48
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or Composite ........................................ 50
Other Considerations ................................................................................................. 50
Other Concrete Overlay Design Procedures/Software .............................................. 51
Chapter 3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) ................................................................. 53
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53
Comparable Sections ................................................................................................ 53
Performing an LCCA .................................................................................................. 54
Step 1 Select Analysis Period ................................................................................. 54
Step 2 Select Discount Rate ................................................................................... 55
Selecting an Interest Rate ...................................................................................... 55
Selecting an Inflation Rate ..................................................................................... 56
Calculating the Real Discount Rate ........................................................................ 56
Step 3 Estimate Initial Agency Costs ...................................................................... 56
Step 4 Estimate User Costs .................................................................................... 57
Step 5 Estimate Future Agency Costs .................................................................... 58
Maintenance and Operation Costs ......................................................................... 58
Preservation and Rehabilitation Timing and Costs ................................................. 58
Step 6 Estimate Residual Value ............................................................................. 59
Residual Value through Recycling (Salvage Value) ............................................... 59
Residual Value through Remaining Service Life .................................................... 59
Residual Value as a Support Layer ........................................................................ 60
Step 7 Compare Alternatives .................................................................................. 60
Cash Flow Diagrams .............................................................................................. 60
Present Worth Calculations .................................................................................... 61
Annual Worth Calculations ..................................................................................... 62
viii | P a g e

Analysis Methods ................................................................................................... 62
Accounting for Material Inflation ............................................................................. 63
Comparison of Results ........................................................................................... 64
More Information on LCCA ........................................................................................ 64
Chapter 4. WinPAS Users Guide ................................................................................. 65
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 65
Menu Options ............................................................................................................ 65
File Menu ............................................................................................................... 66
Units Menu ............................................................................................................. 66
Help Menu .............................................................................................................. 66
Main Menu ................................................................................................................. 66
Project Tab ................................................................................................................ 67
Estimate ESALs Tab .................................................................................................. 67
Total ESALs by Axle Data ...................................................................................... 68
Total ESALs by Vehicle Type ................................................................................. 69
Total ESALs by Truck Factor ................................................................................. 71
Design/Evaluation Tab ............................................................................................... 72
Concrete Pavement Design/Analysis ..................................................................... 72
Asphalt Pavement Design/Analysis ........................................................................ 76
Asphalt Layer Determination .............................................................................. 78
Both Concrete and Asphalt Design/Analysis (Side-by-Side) .................................. 79
Overlays Tab ............................................................................................................. 80
Existing Pavement Information............................................................................... 81
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ................................................................ 82
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete ........................................................... 84
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt (Conventional Whitetopping) ................ 85
Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Backcalculation .................................................... 86
NDT Backcalculation for Concrete Pavements ................................................... 87
NDT Backcalculation for Asphalt Pavements ..................................................... 88
NDT Backcalculation for Composite Pavements ................................................ 89
Life-Cycle Costs Tab ................................................................................................. 89
P a g e | ix

Economic Factors .................................................................................................. 90
Cost Graphs ........................................................................................................... 90
Pavement Cost Information .................................................................................... 91
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Results ............................................................................ 93
Reports Tab ............................................................................................................... 94
Problems or Questions .............................................................................................. 94
References .................................................................................................................... 95


x | P a g e











This Page Left Intentionally Blank
P a g e | 1

Chapter 1 New Concrete Pavement Design

Introduction
Over the last 100 years, the science of
concrete pavement design has fallen
into two basic categories: mechanistic
and empirical.
Mechanistic pavement design is based
upon a fundamental understanding of
the materials (i.e., the concrete and
soils). It is a true attempt to describe
how the pavement responds to loads.
Unfortunately, until very recently,
mechanistic equations did not consider
a number of practical factors relating to
pavement performance and have only
given an estimate of what could be
expected in the field.
Empirical models are based on known
field pavement performance. Empirical
models started being used in the 1920's
when engineers began to examine the
adequacy of their pavement design
methods. The search for answers to
many of their questions led to the
development of controlled experiments
or "road tests" of actual in-place
pavements. The most complete road
test to date is the AASHO (American
Association of State Highway Officials)
Road Test.1

In recent years, mechanistic and
empirical design methods have been
combined in various design methods,
including ACPAs StreetPave software
and AASHTOs DARWinME
TM
.

Concrete Pavement Basics
There are three basic types of concrete
pavements built in the United States:
jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP),
jointed reinforced concrete pavement
(JRCP), and continuously reinforced
concrete pavement (CRCP). The
primary design detail that distinguishes
each concrete pavement type from each
other is the jointing system used to
control natural crack development
(Figure 1 on next page).
Jointed plain concrete pavements
contain enough joints so that the natural
cracks occur at the joints and not
elsewhere in the slab. The spacing
between transverse joints for highways
is typically about 15 ft (4.5 m). JPCP
typically has deformed steel tie bars at
the longitudinal joints to hold the lanes
together, but they do not contain any
other mesh-steel reinforcement.
Depending on the slab thickness, JPCP
may contain smooth steel dowel bars at
transverse joints to improve load
transfer (load transfer is a slab's ability
to share part of its load with its
neighboring slab). For highways, dowels
should be used in pavements that are
greater than 8.0 in. (200 mm) thick
because of the large amounts of truck
traffic such pavements typically carry.

2 | P a g e


Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)

Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP)

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement
(CRCP)
Figure 1. Concrete Pavement Types
JPCP under 7.0 in. (150 mm) is usually
built without dowels and depend upon
"aggregate interlock" for load transfer.
Aggregate interlock is the mechanical
locking that forms between the fractured
surfaces along the crack below the joint
saw cut. Undoweled JPCP is generally
used for low-volume and secondary
roads. For pavements between 7.0 to
8.0 in. (150 and 200 mm), the use of
dowels should be based on other
criteria, such as whether or not the road
will be in a residential or industrialized
area.
JRCP contain steel mesh reinforcement
(sometimes called distributed steel).
With JRCP, designers purposely
increase the joint spacing, and use
reinforcing steel to hold the mid-panel
cracks that will develop together. The
spacing between transverse joints is
typically about 30 ft (9 m). In the past,
some agencies used spacing as great
as 100 ft (30 m), but this was found to
be excessive. For JRCP to perform, the
amount of distributed steel within the
pavement needs to be between 0.10%
and 0.25% of the cross-sectional area. If
there is not at least this amount of steel,
the steel can corrode or rupture and the
cracks can start to open, move, and
deteriorate.4 For this reason, ACPA
does not recommend building JRCP.
CRCP does not have transverse joints.
Rather, it is designed with high amounts
of steel reinforcement to hold the
transverse cracks that do develop tightly
together. The cracks usually develop at
intervals of 3-5 ft (1-1.5 m). Determining
the appropriate amount of steel to
control the crack spacing is part of the
design process for the pavement type.
This type of pavement was not
evaluated at the AASHTO Road Test.
Today, the majority of U.S. state
agencies build JPCP. CRCP is
common in some states for high traffic
applications. Very few states still
employ JRCP designs.
P a g e | 3

AASHO Road Test
The AASHO Road Test took place in
Ottawa, Illinois (approximately 80 miles
[130 km] southwest of Chicago)
between 1956 and 1960 (Figure 2). The
primary purpose of the Road Test was
to determine a relationship between axle
loading and pavement performance.
Other purposes were to determine a
relationship between the performance of
concrete and asphalt pavements and
the pavement design variables (base
courses, thickness, shoulders, etc.) and
to establish a more equitable taxation
basis for the vehicles that use the
roadways.2
Figure 2. The AASHO Road Test
(Ottawa, IL)
The Road Test itself consisted of six
loops. Each loop was constructed as a
parallel segment of a four-lane divided
highway with a turnaround at each end.
Loop 1 was the environmental loop and
was not trafficked. Loop 2 was the light
traffic loop. Both of these loops were
smaller than the main test loops. Loops
3 through 6 were the main test loops
and carried the heaviest traffic. After the
Road Test was complete, these loops
were reconstructed into what is now
Interstate 80.
Figure 3 shows the layout for the loops
3 through 6. Each loop had a test
tangent of 6,800 ft (2,070 m). The south
tangents and west turnarounds were
concrete designs and the north tangents
and east turnarounds were asphalt
designs. The centerlines divided the
pavements into inside and outside
lanes. Each lane carried a different
vehicle type and so was a different test
section.

Figure 3. AASHO Loop Layout for Loops
3 through 6
In the asphalt pavements, every 100 ft
(30 m) was a different design and
therefore a new structural section. For
the concrete pavements, the design
sections changed every 120 ft (36.5 m)
or 240 ft (73 m), depending on the type
of rigid pavement. Any design could be
located at any place in its test track to
provide randomization and certain
designs were duplicated in the same
test track to provide replication.
4 | P a g e

In total, there were 368 concrete test
sections and 468 asphalt test sections.
The design variables for the concrete
and asphalt pavements are shown in
Table 1.
Figure 4 shows the typical test traffic on
the pavement test sections. All test
vehicles were trucks. The single axles
loads ranged from 2,000 to 30,000 Ibs
(900 to 13,600 kg) and tandem axles
loads ranged from 24,000 to 48,000 Ibs
(10,890 to 21,780 kg). It is important to
note that front axles were not
considered load axles except in loop 2.
Traffic ran on the test loops from
November 1958 to December 1960 (25
months). The test vehicles operated for
18 hours 40 minutes per day for 6 days
a week.
2

Figure 4. AASHO Test Traffic and
Loading
Table 1: Design Variables at the AASHO Road Test
2
Concrete Pavement Variables Asphalt Pavement Variables
Surface Thickness,
in. (mm)
2.5 (63), 3.5 (89),
5 (127), 6.5 (165),
8 (203), 9.5 (241),
11 (279), 12.5 (318)
Surface Thickness,
in. (mm)
1 (25), 2 (51), 3 (76),
4 (102), 5 (127),
6 (152)
Subbase
Thickness, in.
(mm)
0 (0), 3 (76), 6 (152),
9 (229)
Base Thickness 0 (0), 3 (76), 6 (152),
9 (229), 19 (483)
Subbase Type Sandy-Gravel
Materials
Base Type Crushed Stone,
Gravel, Asphalt-
Treated, Cement-
Treated
Wire
Reinforcement
Yes or No Subbase
Thickness, in.
(mm)
0 (0), 4 (102), 8
(203), 12 (305),
16 (406) All
Sandy-Gravel
Materials
Paved Shoulders Yes or No Paved Shoulder Yes or No

P a g e | 5

The average speed on the test loops
was 35 mph (56 km/hr). In total, there
were 1,114,000 load applications during
the 25 months of testing with over 17
million miles (27 million km) driven.2
Figure 5 summarizes the results for
loops 3 through 6 at the Road Test.
These plots show the number of
sections remaining above a given
present serviceability index (PSI) plotted
against load applications. The PSI is a
rating from 0 (very poor) to 5 (very
good) that describes the condition of the
pavement. At the Road Test, pavements
were considered to have failed when the
PSI dropped below 1.5. Sections with a
PSI above 2.5 at the end of the test
were considered to have performed
"good.3
From the tremendous amount of data
collected during the AASHO Road Test,
the engineers and statisticians working
on the project developed a series of
equations relating axle loads to
pavement performance. The equations
represent the predicted performance for
the conditions at the Road Test for
concrete and asphalt pavements.
After the Road Test, AASHO published
the prediction equations in the "AASHO
Interim Guide for the Design of Rigid
Pavement Structures" and "AASHO
Interim Guide for the Design of Flexible
Pavement Structures." In 1972,
AASHTO consolidated and updated
these documents into the "AASHTO
Interim Guide for the Design of
Pavement Structures." (AASHO's name
was changed to AASHTO [American
Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials] in the early
seventies.) It was this document which
underwent the largest distribution and
use by highway engineers. In 1981, the
concrete pavement portion of the guide
again received some minor revisions.
In 1986, the guide was extensively
revised into the "AASHTO Guide for the
Design of Pavement Structures." The
1986 version included many changes,
such as the way subgrade support is
characterized. It also introduced many
new concepts, such as reliability, life-
cycle cost analysis (LCCA), and
pavement management.

Figure 5. Present Serviceability Index
Trends for the AASHO Road Test
6 | P a g e

The 1986 guide was also the first guide
to contain an overlay design procedure.
Unfortunately, the overlay procedure
was deficient, complicated, and
incomplete. This made it difficult to
understand and use.
In 1993, the overlay design procedure
was completely revised. This revised
procedure addressed the deficiencies in
the 1986 overlay design procedure, is
more comprehensive and adaptable to
local agency calibration, and is much
easier to use and understand.
AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design
Equation
The current AASHTO Rigid Design
Equation as published in the 1986 and
1993 guide is as follows:
()
= Z
R
s
o
+7.35 Log(D +1) 0.06
+
Log
PSI
4.5 1.5

1 +
1.624 10
7
(D +1)
8.46
+(4.22 0.32 p
t
)
Log
S
c

C
d
(D
0.75
1.132)
215.63 J D
0.75

18.42
(E
c
/k)
0.25

where:
ESAL = Allowable number of
equivalent 18-kip (80 KN) single
axles
Z
R
= Standard normal deviate
s
o
= Overall standard deviation
D = Concrete thickness, in. (mm)
PSI = p
o
- p
t
p
o
= Initial serviceability
p
t
= Terminal serviceability
S'
c
= Concrete modulus of rupture,
psi (MPa)
C
d
= Drainage coefficient
J = Load transfer coefficient
E
c
= Concrete modulus of elasticity,
psi (MPa)
k = Modulus of subgrade reaction,
psi/in. (MPa/m)
Though the equation looks long and
complicated, when it is broken down it is
found that there are eight basic
concepts that affect the concrete
pavement design. They are:
1. Thickness
2. Serviceability
3. Traffic
4. Load transfer
5. Concrete properties
6. Subgrade strength
7. Drainage properties
8. Reliability
Understanding the importance of each
of these allows the engineer to properly
design concrete pavements. The
remainder of this section will explain
each of the above concepts.
Thickness
The pavement thickness (D) is
expressed in in. (mm). At the Road Test,
concrete pavement thickness ranged
from 2.5 to 12.5 in. (63 to 320 mm) [see
Table 1]. Therefore, the AASHTO rigid
pavement design equation is only valid
within this range. When the resulting
P a g e | 7

pavement thickness is outside of this
range, it is important to check the design
with another procedure (i.e.,
StreetPave).5
Occasionally the AASHTO design
procedure produces a pavement less
than 4 in. (100 mm) thick for light traffic
streets. Except for overlays, ACPA
recommends a minimum concrete
pavement thickness of 4 in. (100 mm)
for automobiles and 5 in. (125 mm) for
limited truck traffic. Further guidance on
minimum pavement thickness is
available in other ACPA
publications.5
,
6
,
7
,
8
,
9
Under some conditions, such as a
bridge overpass, the thickness is
constrained, thus it becomes a design
feature. In such cases, the designer can
solve for the allowable traffic, or the
concrete strength required to carry the
estimated traffic.
Serviceability
Serviceability, or the present
serviceability index (PSI), is a
pavement's "ability to serve the type of
traffic that uses the facility (e.g.,
automobiles, trucks, buses, etc)". It is a
scaled index from 0 to 5 that represents
different levels of deterioration (Figure
6). All pavements lie somewhere on this
scale.


Figure 6. The Present Serviceability
Index (PSI) Corresponds to These
Subjective Descriptions of Pavement
Performance
Pavements with PSI rating of 5 are in
perfect condition, while pavements with
a PSI rating of 0 are impassable. For all
practical purposes, there are no
pavements that have a rating of 5 or 0.
The AASHTO Pavement Design is
based on the predicted loss or drop in
serviceability (PSI) that will occur over
the lifetime of the pavement due to
traffic levels, axle loadings, and
environment (Figure 7).
The PSI is the difference between
initial and terminal serviceability (P
o
-
P
t
). Initial serviceably (P
o
) is the
condition immediately after construction.
Terminal serviceability (P
t
) corresponds
to the condition at which a pavement
requires some type of rehabilitation in
order to remain in service.

8 | P a g e

Figure 7. The 93 AASHTO Design is
Based on the Serviceability Loss over
the Lifetime of the Pavement
Concrete pavements were built to an
initial serviceability of 4.5 at the AASHO
Road Test. Flexible pavements were
built to the initial PSI of about 4.2. If no
other information on the initial
serviceability is available, the designer
should use 4.5 for concrete and 4.2 for
asphalt. With current construction
procedures, modern techniques/
materials, and improved smoothness
specifications, concrete pavements can
be built with an initial serviceability of
4.7 or 4.8.
The smoother a pavement is built, the
higher its initial serviceability. A higher
initial serviceability results in a larger
PSI. Thus, pavements built smoother
will last longer because they extend the
serviceability curve and allow the
pavement to carry more traffic over its
lifetime (see Figure 7).
The terminal serviceability is typically
based on the type of roadway and the
type of traffic it carries. Generally, high-
speed highway traffic requires pavement
in better condition than low-volume
county or municipal streets.
The AASHO Road Test pavements
were taken out of service when the PSI
reached 1.5. Table 2 provides the
recommended terminal PSI values for
interstates and major highways, primary
and secondary roads, and secondary
routes and rural residential roads.
Table 2: Recommended Terminal
Serviceability (p
t
) Values for Various
Roadway Classifications
Terminal
Serviceability
Roadway
Classification
2.50
Interstate; Major
Highways or Arterials
2.25
Prime Secondary
Routes; Industrial and
Commercial Streets
2.00
Secondary Routes;
Residential Streets;
Parking Lots

Environmental Effects
According to the 1986 and 1993 guides,
the primary reason for allowing
adjustment to the initial serviceability is
so the designer can consider long-term
environmental effects like expansive or
frost susceptible soils. The Road Test
was an accelerated program that lasted
only two years. Consequently, the
design equation is somewhat limited in
its ability to consider long-term
environmental effects.
To make environmental adjustment, use
the following equation:
PSI
TR
= PSI PSI
ENV

where:
P a g e | 9

PSI
TR
= PSI loss due to traffic
PSI = Total PSI loss over the
design life (p
o
p
t
)
PSI
ENV
= PSI loss due to soil
displacement or other
environmental factors

Appendix G of the 1993 guide provides
further guidance for selecting the value
for PSI
ENV
. Though it is not difficult to
determine the proper PSI
ENV
, it is
complex and time consuming.
Determining the value requires an initial
estimate of the pavement thickness and
design life, some information on soil
permeability, knowledge of the roadbed
soil types, and information on drainage
conditions and freeze-thaw cycles. The
procedure requires several iterations to
recalculate traffic effects and evaluate
the changes these effects have on
PSI
ENV
.
The impact of PSI
ENV
on projected
performance is fairly low over much of
the U.S. Therefore, in most cases, the
value of PSI
ENV
can be set to zero and
PSI
TR
will equal PSI. This represents
the same conditions as at the AASHO
Road Test. Even if you may suspect that
setting PSI
ENV
to zero does not
represent your design conditions, the
range of typical values that you might
expect for PSI
ENV
is only from 0.0 to
0.7. In the worst case scenario, the
resultant increase in calculated
pavement thickness to carry a given
traffic volume will only be about seven
percent.
Traffic (ESALs)
ESALs are the number and weight of all
axle loads from the anticipated vehicles
expected during the pavement design
life expressed in 18,000 lbs or 18 kip (80
kN) equivalent single axle loads.
In actual practice, highway engineers
work with a variety of axle weights and
configurations in a mixed traffic stream.
At the AASHO Road Test, the engineers
theorized that they could compare the
damage to a particular pavement
section by different axle configurations
and loads to the damage caused by a
standard axle. With that idea, they
developed the concept of the Equivalent
Single Axle Load or ESAL.
Simply put, the design ESALs is all the
traffic, with different vehicle types, axle
types, and tire configurations converted
into an equivalent number of 18 kip (80
kN) single axle loads. At the Road Test,
the total number of ESALs ranged from
a few thousand to over 10 million
flexible and 20 million rigid ESALs for
the heaviest trafficked test loop.
Rigid versus Flexible ESALs
Though the concept of ESALs sounds
simple, it can be very confusing
because there is a difference between
rigid ESALs and flexible ESALs. Flexible
ESALs are generally about 1/3 less than
rigid ESALs, though the exact ratio
varies depending on traffic, pavement
thickness, and terminal serviceability.
10 | P a g e

This difference in ESALs can be
misleading, especially when attempting
to compare concrete (rigid) and asphalt
(flexible) designs. It often causes the
misconception that concrete pavements
are over designed when compared to
asphalt pavements. However, this is not
so. The different rigid and flexible
ESALs each describe the same traffic
stream.
An example is shown in Table 3. In this
table, the traffic stream is made up of a
mix of multiple unit trucks, single unit
trucks, panel trucks, buses, cars, etc.
There are 500 vehicles total on the
roadway for that day. When the traffic is
converted to ESALs, there are 149 rigid
ESALs and 108 flexible ESALs. Though
the values are different, they both
describe the same 500 vehicles.
Therefore, the ESAL counts are
equivalent.
To understand why rigid ESALs and
flexible ESALs are different, one needs
to understand how the traffic is
converted to ESALs.
Load Equivalency Factors
Traffic is converted to ESALs by
multiplying each load by a load
equivalency factor (LEF)
*
. LEFs are the
ratio of the damage of a specific axle
load on pavement serviceability to the
damage produced by an 18 kip (80 kN)
single axle load at the AASHO Road
Test.
Basically, LEFs measure damage
(serviceability loss). An 18 kip (80 kN)
single axle load (SAL) has a LEF of 1.0
because it does one unit of damage.
SALs less than 18 kip (80 kN) do less
than one unit of damage and SALs
greater than 18 kip (80 kN) do more
than one unit of damage.
Table 4 shows a typical set of LEFs for
a pavement. From it, some general
observations can be made (note that the
18 kip (80 kN) single axle LEF is 1.0).

*
Load equivalency factors vary depending on
pavement type (rigid or flexible), thickness, and
serviceability. For a listing of load equivalency
factors for different axle loads, configurations,
and pavement types, see Appendix D of the
AASHTO Guide.

Table 3: Rigid and Flexible ESALs Generated by a Mixed Traffic Stream
Vehicle Number Rigid ESALs Flexible ESALs
Busses 5 13.55 8.73
Panel Trucks 10 10.89 11.11
Single Unit, 2 Axle Trucks 20 6.38 6.11
Semi-Tractor Trailer, 3 Axles 10 20.06 13.41
Semi-Tractor Trailer, 4 Axles 15 39.43 29.88
Semi-Tractor Trailer, 5 Axles 15 57.33 36.87
Automobile, Pick-up, Van 425 1.88 2.25
TOTAL 500 149.52 108.36
Typical street design: concrete thickness = 7 in. (175 mm), flexible structural number = 3.5, p
t
= 2.5
P a g e | 11

Table 4: Typical Load Equivalency
Factors (Flexible Pavement with p
t
=
2.5)
Axle Type
Axle Load,
kip (kN)
LEF
Single
2 (8.9)
10 (44.5)
14 (62.3)
18 (80.9)
20 (89.0)
30 (133)
0.0003
0.118
0.399
1.00
1.49
7.90
Tandem
2 (8.9)
10 (44.5)
18 (80.9)
30 (133)
34 (151)
40 (178)
50 (222)
0.0001
0.011
0.042
0.703
1.11
2.06
5.03

The first observation is that an 18 kip
(80 kN) SAL does about 3,333 times
more damage that the 2 kip (8.9 kN)
SAL (e.g., 1.0 / 0.003 = 3,333). A similar
comparison shows that a 30 kip (133
kN) SAL does about eight times more
damage than the 18 kip (80 kN) SAL.
Comparing tandem axle loads to the
SAL, it can be seen that the tandem
axles spread out the load and minimize
the damage to the pavement. A 30 kip
(133 kN) tandem axle load does only
about 0.7 times the damage of a 18 kip
(80 kN) single axle load. Compared to
the 30 kip (133 kN) SAL, the tandem
axle load does only about 0.1 the
amount of damage.
Essentially, this analysis illustrates that
cars do very little structural damage and
that pavements must be designed to
carry trucks. Furthermore, it illustrates
that over-loaded vehicles cause much
more damage than an 18 kip (80 kN)
SAL. This can greatly impact our
nation's infrastructure if axle load
limitations are raised.
Determining Load Equivalency Factors
LEFs can be based on any response
that measures the difference between
any two loading conditions. The
AASHTO design procedure bases its
LEFs on equivalent serviceability loss
for a given pavement structure. Though
it is possible to explain LEFs using the
AASHTO procedure, it easier to
understand them when examined
mechanistically.
In a mechanistic procedure, load
equivalency factors can be based on
equivalent stress, strain, or deflection at
a given location. Figures 8A and 8B
show how LEFs are determined based
on given level of stress, strain or
deflection for a concrete pavement and
an asphalt pavement.
In Figure 8A, the concrete pavement is
loaded with an 18 kip (80 kN) SAL. This
produces a stress or strain at the bottom
of the concrete layer or a deflection at
the top of the concrete. Loading the
pavement with another load (X kip [kN]
load on axle type Y) produces a different
stress, strain, or deflection. Dividing the
stress, strain, or deflection of an X kip
[kN] load on axle type Y by the stress,
strain, or deflection of an 18 kip (80 kN)
12 | P a g e

SAL produces a LEF for that load.
Doing the same thing with a flexible
pavement produces the comparable
flexible LEF (Figure 8B).
When the asphalt pavement is loaded, it
produces different stresses, strains, or
deflections than does the concrete
pavement. The responses to the same
applied load are different because the
different pavement types respond
differently to the load.
Consequently, the LEF values that are
calculated for the same vehicles on
each pavement type are different. When
the same traffic is multiplied by different
LEFs, the ESALs calculated for each
pavement type are different. The
AASHTO equations are based on the
same principle, except that they use a
given serviceability loss (PSI) as the
measure of damage. The equation to
determine the LEF for concrete
pavement or asphalt pavement is:
LEF =
Number of repetitions of axle load X on
axle type Y needed to give the same
serviceability loss
Number of repetitions of an 18 kip (80 kN)
single axle load to cause a given
serviceability loss

Asphalt LEFs vs. Concrete LEFs
Because AASHTO bases its design and
its LEFs on serviceability loss (Figure 7),
the LEFs can be used to compare the
amount of loads needed to cause the
same amount of damage on a concrete
or asphalt pavement. That is, the LEFs
tell how many loads are necessary to
cause the same amount of serviceability
loss in the two pavement types.
Table 5 shows the LEF for two
approximately equivalent pavement
sections: an asphalt pavement with a
structural number (SN) equal to 4.0 and
a concrete pavement that is 8 in. (200
mm) thick. As shown, the concrete
pavement's LEFs are always higher
than the asphalt pavement's LEFs for
axle loads greater than 18 kips (80 kN)
and always less for axle loads less than
18 kips (80 kN). It takes more trucks on
a concrete pavement to cause the same
damage or loss in serviceability than it
does on an asphalt pavement.


Figure 8A and 8B. Load Equivalency Factor Determination for Concrete and Asphalt
Pavements
P a g e | 13

Table 5: LEF for Two Equivalent
Pavement Sections
Axle Load,
kip (kN)
Asphalt
LEF
Concrete
LEF
2 (8.9) 0.0002 0.0002
6 (26.7) 0.013 0.010
10 (44.5) 0.102 0.082
14 (62.3) 0.388 0.347
18 (80.9) 1.00 1.00
22 (97.9) 1.47 1.55
26 (116) 2.89 4.42
30 (133) 5.21 7.79
34 (151) 11.3 12.9
38 (169) 18.1 20.6

For example, on a concrete pavement,
the LEF for a 26 kip (118 kN) SAL is
4.42. This means that it takes 4.42 18
kips (80 kN) single axles to cause the
same damage (serviceability loss) of
one 26 kip (118 kN) single axle. On the
asphalt pavement, the LEF for the 26
kip (118 kN) SAL is 2.82, which means it
takes just 2.82 18 kips (80 kN) single
axles to cause the same damage of one
26 kip (118 kN) single axle.
For axle loads less than 18 kips (80 kN),
it is an inverse relationship, it takes 9.8
(1/0.102 = 9.8) 10 kip (45 kN) loads to
cause the damage of one 18 kips (80
kN) single axle on an asphalt pavement
while it takes 12.2 (1/0.82 = 12.2) 10 kip
(45 kN) loads on a concrete pavement.

This analytical look at the LEFs shows
that each load does more damage to
asphalt pavement than it does to a
concrete pavement. Real world
verification can be found by looking at
the performance curve of any two
similar designed and trafficked concrete
and asphalt pavements (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Typical Serviceability Curves
for Concrete and Asphalt Pavements
Load Transfer
Load transfer is a slab's ability to
transfer part of its load to its neighboring
slab. A slab with 100% load transfer
shares its load (deflection and stress)
equally with its neighboring slab. A slab
with 0% load transfer shares none of its
load (Figure 10). Generally, pavements
with good load transfer have minimized
faulting, less corner breaking, and better
performance. In the AASHTO design
procedure, load transfer is affected by
the type of concrete pavement, by the
presence of dowels, and by the
presence of edge support (e.g., tied
concrete shoulder, tied curb and gutter,
or an extended lane; not asphalt or
granular shoulders).

14 | P a g e

Figure 10. Diagram Showing Slabs with
Excellent and Poor Load Transfer
Figure 11 illustrates how dowels and
edge support improve pavement
performance. The pavement on the right
has good load transfer (doweled and
edge support) and the one on the left
has poor load transfer (undoweled and
no edge support). Loading both these
slabs in the middle with a given load will
produce nearly identical internal
deflections,
i
.
Loading the undoweled pavement with
the same load at the outside,
unsupported corner would produce a
deflection that is about five times greater
than the internal deflection (e.g., 5*
i
).
At the inside supported corner (due to
the adjacent longitudinal lane), the
deflection would be 3*
i
. In the doweled
pavement, the deflection at the outside
pavement edge would be about 3*
i
and
at the inside, supported corner, it would
be about 2*
i
.
Figure 11. Diagram Showing How
Shoulders and Dowels Effect
Deflections in a Slab
Load Transfer Coefficient (J)
In the AASHTO design procedure, load
transfer is accounted for with the load
transfer coefficient, or J-factor. The J-
factor is based on how stress is
transferred across the joint or crack. It
is used to minimize corner cracking and
it does not control or account for
faulting. Faulting is not a failure criterion
in the AASHTO design procedure; the
only failure criterion is serviceability
loss. This means that the J-factor
cannot be used to control faulting.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that a
better J-factor does not affect faulting. It
simply means that it was not taken into
account in the development of the
design equation. Better J-factors do
decrease deflections (Figure 11) and,
thus, minimize the potential for faulting.


P a g e | 15

The J-factor is dependent on the type of
pavement, edge support condition and
how load transfer is provided at the joint
(or crack). Jointed pavements with
dowels provide a higher level of load
transfer than those relying strictly on
aggregate interlock. CRCPs generally
provide the highest level of load
transfer.
Table 6 shows recommended J-factors
for typical concrete pavement designs
(lower J-factors mean better load
transfer). The designer simply selects a
J-factor that is consistent with the type
of pavement and edge support condition
for the design. The J-factor also varies
slightly with the expected design traffic
and indirectly with pavement
classification (e.g., local streets and
roads, arterials, and heavy highways).
The 93 AASHTO Design Guide actually
provides less specific guidance for
selecting the J-factor than provided in
Table 6. ACPA believes that the more
specific guidance in Table 6 is
necessary for uniform application of the
J-factor in design of concrete
pavements. Both JPCP and JRCP
designs were evaluated at the Road
Test and produced roughly equivalent
performance. The J-factor value for the
Road Test conditions was 3.2.
Concrete Properties
There are two concrete properties that
influence rigid pavement design in the
AASHTO design procedure. They are:
S'
c
Concrete flexural strength
determined at 28-days using
third-point loading
E
c
Concrete modulus of
elasticity
Flexural Strength, S'C
The concrete strength used in the
design of concrete pavements is based
on AASHTO Test Method T97 or ASTM
C78, Flexural Strength of Concrete
using Simple Beam with Third-Point
Loading (Figure 12).
11
Table 6: Load Transfer Coefficients (J-Factors) for Typical Designs
10

ESALs (millions)
Doweled
JPCP and
all JRCP
JPCP with
Aggregate
Interlock
CRCP
Pavement
Class
Edge Support*
No Yes No Yes No Yes
Up to 0.3 3.2 2.7 3.2 2.8 -- --
Local Streets
and Roads
0.3 to 1 3.2 2.7 3.4 3.0 -- --
1 to 3 3.2 2.7 3.6 3.1 -- --
3 to 10 3.2 2.7 3.8 3.2 2.9 2.5
Arterials and
Highways
10 to 30 3.2 2.7 4.1 3.4 3.0 2.6
Over 30 3.2 2.7 4.3 3.6 3.1 2.6
* Tied concrete shoulder, tied or integral curb and gutter, or a widened lane all provide the same
support conditions according to AASHTO. Asphalt or granular shoulders and no shoulders provide no
support and therefore no benefit.
16 | P a g e

Figure 12. Flexural Strength of Concrete
using Third-Point Loading
It is important that the third point loading
28-day flexural strength be used in the
AASHTO equation. If the strength value
is measured using some other test
method, it must be converted to the 28-
day third-point strength.
Center Point Flexural Strength
Some agencies use the center-point
flexural test (AASHTO T177 or ASTM
C293) to determine their concrete
strength (Figure 13).
12
Center-point
loading forces the beam to fail directly
under the center of the loading. This
may not be the weakest point in the
beam. In third point loading, the entire
middle one-third of the beam is stressed
uniformly and thus the beam fails at its
weakest point in the middle one-third of
the beam. By forcing the beam to fail at
the center, the center point flexural test
results are somewhat higher than the
third-point test results. Typically, center
point results are about 15% greater.
Though this relationship is not exact, it
does provide a reasonable estimate of
the concrete's average strength.
Figure 13. Flexural Strength of Concrete
using Center-Point Loading
Compressive Strength
Many agencies use compressive
strength of concrete cylinders (AASHTO
T22 or ASTM C39)
13
as an alternative to
flexural strength testing. Several simple
conversion equations, such as the one
below, can convert 28-day compressive
strengths to 28-day third point flexural
strengths.
S
c

= C

where:
S'
c
= Average 28-day third-
point flexural strength, psi (MPa)
f'
c
= Average 28-day
compressive strength, psi (MPa)
C = Constant assumed to be
between 8 and 10 for U.S.
standard units (0.7 to 0.8 for
metric units) for typical paving
concrete; for U.S. units, the value
of 9 (0.75) typically produces
reasonable results for most
designs
P a g e | 17

Table 7 shows typical value ranges for
compressive strength, third point loading
flexural strength, and center point
loading flexural strengths for
conventional concrete paving mixtures.
A free strength converter app is
available at http://apps.acpa.org.
Table 7: Typical Comparison Values
for Compressive Strength and Third
Point and Center Point Flexural
Strengths
Comp,
psi (MPa)
Third Point
Flex,
psi (MPa)
Center
Point Flex,
psi (MPa)
2,000 (13.8) 402 (2.78) 463 (3.19)
2,500 (17.2) 450 (3.10) 518 (3.57)
3,000 (20.7) 493 (3.40) 567 (3.91)
3,500 (24.1) 532 (3.67) 612 (4.22)
4,000 (27.6) 569 (3.92) 655 (4.51)
4,500 (31.0) 604 (4.16) 694 (4.79)
5,000 (34.5) 636 (4.39) 732 (5.05)
5,500 (37.9) 667 (4.60) 768 (5.29)
6,000 (41.4) 697 (4.81) 802 (5.53)
6,500 (44.8) 726 (5.00) 834 (5.75)
7,000 (48.3) 753 (5.19) 866 (5.97)

The Importance of Using Average
Strength
Because of the way the 93 AASHTO
Design Procedure uses reliability, it is
strongly recommended that the
expected average, in-field 28-day
flexural strength (S'
c
) of the concrete
be used in the design procedure
(AASHTO T97 or ASTM C78). Using
the specified minimum construction
strength will cause the pavement to be
too overdesigned. Therefore, it is
necessary to adjust the specified
minimum strength to the design strength
using the equation below:
S
c

= S
c
+z
where:
S'
c
= Estimated average in-field
flexural strength
S
c
= Specified minimum flexural
strength
= Estimated standard
deviation of the strength
z = Standard normal deviate
corresponding to the percent of
results which can be below the
specified strength
To use this equation, the designer must
know or have estimate values of:
1. The percent of strength tests
permitted below the specified
level.
2. The standard deviation of the
strength tests.
The values for z are derived from basic
statistics and are shown in Table 8.
The standard deviation () of the
strength test results depends upon the
variability of the concrete and accuracy
of the testing. Contractors generally use
either central-mix or ready-mix plants to
produce concrete. These plants are
capable of providing very uniform
concrete.
18 | P a g e

Historically, the standard deviation for
ready-mixed concrete is about 7 to 13
percent of the average strength. The
standard deviation for central-mixed
concrete is from 5 to 12 percent of the
average strength. Generally, records of
the standard deviation from past plant
operations are available.
Table 8: Values of the Standard
Normal Deviate (z) corresponding to
the Percent of Tests below the
Specified Strength (S
c
)
z
Percent of Specimens
Below the Specified
Value
0.841 20
1.037 15
1.282 10
1.645 5
2.327 1

The example to the right demonstrates
the above procedure to account for the
average in-field 28-day flexural strength.
Modulus of Elasticity
The other concrete property in the
AASHTO design procedure is the
modulus of elasticity, E
c
. E
c
indicates
how much the concrete will compress
under load. Concretes with a very high
E
c
are very rigid and do not compress
much. Concrete with a lower E
c

compresses more under load. In the
concrete pavement equation, E
c
is the
most insensitive parameter and has only
a minor impact on thickness design or
projected performance.

Example:
Suppose that you want to design a
small street project. You know that
several local operators supply most
of the concrete in your area using
ready-mixed concrete. You also know
that you will specify concrete with a
minimum 28-day flexural strength of
550 psi (3.79 MPa) and your
specification will permit 10 percent of
tests to fall below that level. What
strength do you use in the AASHTO
design equation?
Step 1: Estimate the strength as 9
percent of the flexible strength or call
several ready mix operators to
determine the value. Since you do
not know the actual average strength,
use the specified value for S'
c
(it will
be fairly close). The value for then
becomes:
= 0.09*550 psi
= 49.5 psi
Step 2: Estimate the design strength
to use in the equation. Apply the
correction for a 10 percent failure rate
(z = 1.282 from Table 8):
S
c
= 550 + 1.282*49.5
S
c
=613 psi (4.22 MPa)
Thus, 613 psi (4.22 MPa) is used in
the design equations.
Note: The same principle applies if compressive
strengths are used. The corrected compressive
strength would be converted to third-point flexural
strength using the relationship previously shown.
P a g e | 19

Although E
c
can be tested using ASTM
Test Method C469,
14
or an equivalent, it
is rarely done in practice. It is usually
estimated from either the flexural or the
compressive strength. The following two
equations are from the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) and provide
reasonable estimates.
15

To get E
c
from flexural strength:
E
c
() = 6,750 S
c

()
To get E
c
from compressive strength:
E
c
() = 57,000
c

()
The free strength converter app
available at http://apps.acpa.org also
can convert to modulus of elasticity in
both U.S. and metric units.
As was the case with the previous
correlation equations for strength, the
above correlation is not exact. It is a
close estimate and can be relied on to
evaluate projected performance within a
reasonable margin of error.
The ranges of values for E
c
that are
reasonable depend largely on the
strength of the concrete. Typical values
are from 3.5 to 5 million psi (21,400 to
34,500 MPa). The average E
c
obtained
at the Road Test was 4.2 million psi
(29,000 MPa) and is an acceptable
value for design.


Subgrade Support
In all pavements, the load is eventually
transmitted to the subgrade. Though
bases, subbases, and soil modifications
are used to increase the support
strength and protect the subgrade, it is
the natural subgrade that must be used
as the starting point for support
characterization.
For concrete pavements, the primary
requirement of the subgrade is that it be
uniform. This is the fundamental reason
for specifications on subgrade
compaction. A good quality subgrade
will improve the performance of the
pavement.
In the AASHTO design procedure for
concrete pavements, the strength of the
soil is described by two subgrade
properties:
1. Modulus of subgrade reaction,
or k-value
2. Loss of support factor (LOS)
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value)
The modulus of subgrade reaction is
determined by the plate load test
(AASHTO T235 or ASTM D1194).
16

The plate load test models the subgrade
as a bed of springs and the k-value is
analogous to a spring constant. In fact,
the k-value is sometimes referred to as
the subgrade "spring constant."



20 | P a g e

The test involves placing a 30 in. (762
mm) diameter plate on the subgrade
and loading it with a very heavy load.
The plate distributes the load to the
subgrade via the pressure of the plate
(Figure 14). The k-value is found by
dividing the plate pressure by plate
deflection under the load. The units for
k-value are psi/in. (MPa/m).
Figure 14. Photo of a Plate Load Test
In all but low volume applications, the
pavement is constructed on some type
of subbase placed over the subgrade.
The subbase material is used to provide
a uniform support layer and a strong
construction platform. Typically it is less
erodible than the subgrade, which limits
the pumping of material from beneath
the slabs.
Subbases can be made from either
unbound granular materials or stabilized
materials. Stabilized subbases include
lean concrete (econocrete) subbase,
cement-treated subbase, asphalt-
treated subbase, and lime-fly ash
stabilized subbase. When a subbase is
used, the k-value for design is increased
to a "composite k" (k
c
) to account for the
additional support provided by the
subbase.
Loss of Support
The loss of support (LOS) accounts for
the expected erosion and differential
movements of the subbase or subgrade
over the life of the pavement.
Essentially, it reduces the k-value based
on the size of the void that may develop
beneath the slab. A LOS factor of 0 is
equivalent to the conditions at the
AASHO Road Test and the predominant
JPCP and JRCP failure mode at the
Road Test was pumping/faulting due to
the clay soils at the site; thus, using a
LOS of 0 is conservative.
Determining Subgrade Support for
Design
Though the k-value is determined by the
plate load test, this test is rarely
performed in the field. It is an expensive
and very slow test. Furthermore, it does
not give much information. It only tells
what the k-value is at a single point. A
change in soil type, depth to bedrock,
moisture conditions, location along the
grade, etc. will change the results.

P a g e | 21

The 93 AASHTO Design Guide
recognized this and developed the
following multi-step procedure, detailed
in Part II of the 93 Guide, to estimate k-
value. It is based on the soil resilient
modulus, M
r,
used in the asphalt
pavement design. The procedure is:
1. Determine M
r

a. AASHTO T294
17

b. Correlate to CBR
18
or R-
value
19

2. Convert M
r
to k-value
3. Adjust for effects of a rigid
foundation
4. Adjust for LOS
ACPA does not recommend following
this procedure because it produces
unrealistic results. If followed, the
procedure increases the k-value to
unreasonably high values and then
reduces it back to unreasonably low
values using the loss of support.
Still, it is important to understand the
basic procedure and issues with it. The
next section will describe how to
determine the k-value using the above
procedure as well as the errors in it.
Following it, we will show what we
consider to be more realistic values for
the design of concrete pavements.
AASHTO Procedure to Determine the k-
Value
Determine Resilient Modulus
The resilient modulus measures the
recoverable deformation of a
dynamically loaded test specimen at any
stress level. Like the modulus of
subgrade reaction (k-value), M
r

indicates the stiffness of the layer
immediately under the pavement.
The M
r
is determined from AASHTO
T294, Resilient Modulus of Unbound
Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade
Soils. However, it is recognized that
many agencies do not have the
equipment to perform this test.
Therefore, AASHTO recommends the
following correlation equations to relate
the resilient modulus to the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) or the R-value.
M
r
(psi) = 1,500*(CBR)
M
r
(psi) = 1000 + 555*(R-value)
Convert Resilient Modulus to k-Value
Once M
r
is determined or estimated, it is
converted to a k-value by one of two
ways, depending on whether a subbase
is present or not. If there is no subbase
the k-value is calculated as:
k-value = M
r
/19.4
If there is a subbase, Figure 3.3 from
part 2 of the AASHTO guide is used
(reproduced here as Figure 15). This
figure estimates the "composite k-value"
(k
c
), which represents the additional
strength provided by the subbase.

Lime treated soils should be considered as a base course.

The subgrade k-value used for design is a "composite k-
value" starting with the k-value of the actual subgrade and
not the modified soil. This applies to asphalt pavements as
well, although resilient modulus is used instead of k-value.
In no case should the subgrade soil be ignored in design.
22 | P a g e



Figure 15. Chart for Estimating Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, Assuming
a Subgrade Depth Greater than 10 ft (3 m) [Figure 3.3, part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO
Pavement Design Guide]
P a g e | 23

Adjust k-Value for Depth to Rigid
Foundation
This step accounts for the proximity of
the pavement to bedrock. When a
pavement is within 10 ft (3 m) of the
bedrock, the confining pressure of the
bedrock causes the subgrade support to
increase. This step is disregarded when
the depth to the rigid foundation is
greater than 10 ft (3 m).
To adjust for the depth to a rigid
foundation, Figure 3.4 from part 2 of the
AASHTO guide is used (reproduced
here as Figure 16)
Adjust k-Value for Loss of Support
After the k-value is calculated, it is
adjusted for LOS using Figure 3.6 from
part 2 of the AASHTO guide
(reproduced here as Figure 17). A LOS
of 0 represents Road Test conditions.
Seasonal Adjustment to the k-Value
AASHTO also recommends doing this
procedure for each month of the year to
reflect seasonal changes. However,
because the Road Test ran year round
for several seasons, impacts of
seasonal changes of the k-value are
inherent in the AASHTO equations.

Figure 16. Chart to Modify k-Value to Consider Effects if Foundation is within 10 ft (3
m) of the Surface [Figure 3.4, part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide]
24 | P a g e

Furthermore, for concrete pavement,
these adjustments have very little effect
on the final results. For this reason,
seasonal adjustments have not been
included in WinPAS. For further
information, consult the AASHTO guide.
Problems with the AASHTO Procedure
to Determine Subgrade Support
As mentioned, there are several
problems with the current AASHTO
procedure to determine the subgrade
support values. The most glaring errors
deal with:
1. The LOS factor,
2. The accuracy of the CBR and
R-value relationships to M
r
,
3. Inconsistencies with the
relationships between k-value
and M
r
for base and no
subbase that occur with high
in-situ M
r
values, and
4. Unrealistic resulting k-values.

Figure 17. Correction of Effective k-Value for Potential Loss off Support [Figure 3.6,
part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide]
P a g e | 25

Loss of Support
This factor reduces the k-value for an
expected loss of support by subgrade
erosion. A LOS = 0 models the soil
conditions at the AASHO Road Test. A
closer look at the soils at the Road Test
show that it consisted of three feet of
embankment with these properties:
AASHO A-6 (clay)
Group Index = 9-13
Plastic Index = 11-15
Liquid Limit = 27-32
80-85% passing the #200 (75
m) sieve
Loss of support was the primary failure
mode of concrete pavements at the
AASHO road test. The pumping of
subbase fines from underneath the
slabs preceded all cracking. Therefore,
the effects of LOS are inherent in the
equation that predicts concrete
pavement performance or serviceability
loss. As a result, this additional factor is
unnecessary.
ACPA recommends setting the loss of
support factor to 0 for all designs.
Necessary improvements in subgrade or
subbase support should be made using
an improved subbase material or
improved drainage design.
CBR and R-Value Relationships to Mr
The AASHTO CBR and R-value to M
r

relationships are considered reasonable
only for fine-grained soils (e.g., CBR
less than 10 or R-value less than 20).
These two equations greatly over
estimate M
r
values at higher CBRs and
R-values (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Relationships between
Resilient Modulus and CBR or R-value
[from ACPAs MC016P, WinPAS
Pavement Analysis Software]
ACPA has developed two non-linear
relationships, based on NCHRP Report
128, Evaluation of the AASHO Interim
Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures,
20
to more accurately
estimate M
r
from CBR or R-value:
M
r
() = 1941.488 CBR
0.6844709

M
r
() = 2165.935 e
0.0343507Rvalue

As shown in Figure 18, these equations
better follow the actual values, leading
to better prediction or correlation.
Inconsistencies between Base and No
Subbase Conditions
The relationships between k and Mr for
the base and no subbase can give
inconsistent values, especially with high
in-situ M
r
values.
26 | P a g e

For example, assume that a soil has
been tested and has a M
r
of 12,000 psi
(82.7 MPa). In the case with no base,
the subgrade k-value is calculated in the
AASHTO method by:
k-value = M
r
/19.4
= 12,000 psi/19.4
= 619 psi/in.
When a 6 in. (150 mm) unstabilized
(granular) subbase with a resilient
modulus of 25,000 psi (173 MPa) is
placed over this soil, the composite k-
value decreases:
k = 572 psi/in. (from Fig 15)
This is obviously not correct. The
subbase course is stronger, provides
better support, and will improve the
pavement's performance. This
inconsistency in the AASHTO method
becomes greater as the M
r
value
increases.
The Resulting k-Values are Unrealistic
Probably the most compelling reason
not to follow the AASHTO procedure to
estimate k-values is that it does not
produce realistic results. Historical and
theoretical values for the types of
subgrades and subbases found under
concrete pavements typically are in the
range of 50 to 550 psi/in. (13 to 150
MPa/m). Using the AASHTO procedure,
it is possible to get values as high as
2,000 psi/in. (540 MPa/m). Furthermore,
the ranges that can be derived can be
extremely large.
Table 9 shows a comparison of
historical and AASHTO derived values
for different types of subgrades and
subbases. As can be inferred, this
disparity can affect designs greatly.
Table 9: Comparison of Historical
and AASHTO derived k-Values
Layer
Type
Historical
k-value,
psi/in.
(MPa/m)
AASHTO
k-value,
psi/in.
(MPa/m)
Silts &
Clays
60-100
(16-30)
10-20
(2.7-5.4)
Granular
150-250
(40-68)
12-73
(3.5-20)
Asphalt-
Treated
300-400
(80-108)
95-128
(25-35)
Cement-
Treated
405-550
(110-150)
128-400
(35-110)

Recommended Values for the Modulus
of Subgrade Reaction
Though the AASHTO procedure does not
produce reasonable k-values, the basic
premise of relating it to other soil
properties is reasonable. Furthermore,
an exact value is not required. Normal
variations from an estimated value will
not appreciably affect pavement
thickness (e.g., an error in the k-value of
100 percent only increases or decreases
a typical pavement thickness by about
0.4 in. [10 mm]). Figure 19 shows
relationships that are satisfactory for
design purposes.



P a g e | 27



Figure 19. Approximate Interrelationships of Soil Classifications and Bearing Values
[from ACPA EB109P, Thickness Design for Concrete Highways and Street
Pavements]
28 | P a g e

Because Figure 19 does not contain M
r
,
ACPA has developed a correlation
equation for M
r
to k-value that, when
used in conjunction with the previously
mentioned ACPA correlations from CBR
or R-value to M
r
, will result in k-values
that match those in Figure 19. The M
r
to
k-value correlation equation is:
If M
r
15,089:
k = M
r
0.0000001155 M
r
2
0.0004683533 M
r
+41.1348117373
If M
r
> 15,089:
k = M
r
0.0000000106 M
r
2
0.0007608054 M
r
+69.4602909796
See http://apps.acpa.org for free apps to
easily convert CBR or R-value to M
r
and
then to k-value.
Recommended k-Values for Subbases
When a subbase is used, there is an
increase in the k-value. The magnitude of
the increase depends on whether the
subbase is stabilized (treated) or
unstabilized (untreated). Table 10 shows
an approximate increase of k-value
based on the type of subbase and its
thickness. A composite k-value
calculator also is available at
http://apps.acpa.org.
AASHTO and the Benefits of Subbases
It is not economical to use a base or
subbases for the sole purpose of
increasing the k-value. An increase of k-
value from 90 psi/in. (25 MPa/m) to 500
psi/in. (135 MPa/m) will only decrease
thickness by about 10 percent.
Table 10: Approximate Composite k-
Values (k
c
) for Various Subbase
Types and Thickness
Unstabilized (Granular) Subbase
Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)
Subgrade
k-value,
pci/in.
(MPa/m)
4 in.
(100
mm)
6 in.
(150
mm)
9 in.
(230
mm)
12 in.
(305
mm)
50 (14)
65.2
(17.6)
75.2
(20.3)
85.2
(23.0)
110
(29.7)
100 (27)
130
(35.1)
140
(37.8)
160
(43.2)
190
(51.3)
150 (41)
175
(47.3)
185
(50.0)
215
(58.1)
255
(68.9)
200 (54)
220
(59.4)
230
(62.1)
270
(72.9)
320
(86.4)
Asphalt-Treated Subbase
Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)
Subgrade
k-value,
pci/in.
(MPa/m)
4 in.
(100
mm)
6 in.
(150
mm)
9 in.
(230
mm)
12 in.
(305
mm)
50 (14)
85.2
(23.0)
112
(30.2)
155
(41.9)
200
(54.0)
100 (27)
152
(41.0)
194
(52.4)
259
(69.9)
325
(87.8)
150 (41)
217
(58.6)
271
(73.2)
353
(95.3)
437
(118)
200 (54)
280
(75.6)
345
(93.2)
441
(119)
541
(146)
Cement-Treated Subbase
Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)
Subgrade
k-value,
pci/in.
(MPa/m)
4 in.
(100
mm)
6 in.
(150
mm)
9 in.
(230
mm)
12 in.
(305
mm)
50 (14)
103
(27.8)
148
(40.0)
222
(59.9)
304
(82.1)
100 (27)
185
(50.0)
257
(69.4)
372
(100)
496
(134)
150 (41)
263
(71.0)
357
(96.4)
506
(137)
664
(179)
200 (54)
348
(94.0)
454
(123)
634
(171)
823
(222)
P a g e | 29

Subbases and bases are primarily used
to prevent the pumping of fines from
underneath the slab. Secondarily, they
are used to help control frost heave and
swelling soils, provide a drainage layer
when needed, and provide a working
platform for construction.
The current AASHTO design does not
model the contribution of subbases
accurately. At the AASHO Road Test, it
was found that the concrete pavements
with any granular subbase could carry
about 30% more traffic.
The current design procedure allows
concrete pavements built with granular
bases to carry only about 5 to 8% more
traffic. This indicates that concrete
pavements built with granular subbases
should perform better than predicted by
the AASHTO design equations.
Coefficient of Drainage (Cd)
Trapped water within a pavement
structure is one of the primary
contributors to pavement distresses. It
can lead to:
1. Reduced strength of unbound
granular materials.
2. Reduced strength of subgrade
soils.
3. Pumping of fines.
4. Differential heaving/swelling of
soils.
5. Loss of structural support.
6. Pavement settlement and/or
faulting.
For concrete pavements, the major item
that drainage control is the pumping of
fines. The conditions that lead to pumping
are:
1. Subgrade soil that will go into
suspension.
2. Free water between slab and
subgrade.
3. Frequent heavy wheel loads with
large deflections.
4. Poor load transfer between slabs.
Controlling any one of these items will
minimize pumping. Edge drains and
free-draining subbase layers help
minimize the free water between the
slab and subgrade and thus minimize
the amount of pumping. Dowels and
edge support also minimize pumping by
controlling the deflections of heavy
wheel loads. The use of improved
drainage, dowels, and edge support will
definitely lead to improved performance.
In the AASHTO design procedure,
drainage is accounted for by use of the
drainage coefficient (C
d
). The drainage
coefficient accounts for improved or
decreased quality of drainage over
those conditions at the Road Test.

Table 11, taken from the AASHTO
guide, provides recommended C
d

values. The value of C
d
depends on the
quality of drainage and percent of time
the pavement is exposed to moisture
levels approaching saturation. Because
the C
d
value depends on the saturation
of the subgrade/subbase, it is possible
for a pavement in a dry environment
with poor drainage to perform as well as
a pavement in a wet environment with
excellent drainage.

As mentioned, the subgrade soil at the

AASHTO Road Test was very poor (clay).
Though the pavement was designed with
elevated cross-sections and drainage ditches,
edge drains were not used. Thus, the subgrade
below the Road Test pavements was not well-
drained.
30 | P a g e

As a basis for comparison, a C
d
value of
1.00 represents conditions at the
AASHTO Road Test. Thus, a C
d
value
of 1.00 has no impact on the design.
Lower C
d
values increase the required
pavement thickness and higher values
decrease the required thickness.
Caution is recommended when using
drainage coefficients of less than 1.00.
Because the subgrade soils at the Road
Test were very poorly draining soils, the
AASHTO design equations already
account for a large degree of poor
drainage. Values less than 1.00 would
indicate conditions worse than that of
the AASHO Road Test. Open-graded,
free-draining subbases and free-
draining soils which can be maintained
can be modeled with a drainage
coefficient greater than 1.00.

Reliability
Reliability (R) accounts for the chance
variation in traffic predictions,
performance predictions, concrete
material properties, subgrade support
conditions, etc. It incorporates some
degree of certainty into the design
process to ensure that the pavements
will survive the analysis period for which
they are designed.
In the AASHTO design procedure there
are two basic statistical factors that
make up reliability:
1. Reliability (R)
2. Standard deviation (s
0
)


Table 11: Recommended Values of the Drainage Coefficient (C
d
) for Concrete
Pavement Design
Quality of
Drainage
Percent of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed to
Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation
< 1% 1% - 5% 5% - 25% > 25%
Excellent 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10
Good 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00
Fair 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90
Poor 1.10 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80
Very Poor 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70
Appendix DD of Volume II of the 1993 guide offers the following definitions for quality of drainage:
Excellent Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 2 hours.
Good Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 1 day.
Fair Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 7 days.
Poor Drainage - Soil drained to 50 percent of saturation in 1 month.
Very Poor Drainage - Soil does not drain.
P a g e | 31

It is important to note that by treating
reliability and standard deviation as
separate design factors, conservative
estimates for all the other design inputs
should no longer be used. Rather, all
input values should be input as the best
estimate of the average in-place, in-field
values. The selected level of reliability
and overall standard deviation will
account for the combined effect of the
variation of all the other design
variables.
Reliability (R)
Reliability is the statistical probability
that the pavement will meet its design
life. Essentially, reliability tells how
much of the pavement will be operative
at the end of its design life. For
example, a pavement designed with
90% reliability will have 90% of the
pavement in operational condition at the
end of the design period, and only 10%
of the pavement will have "failed."
Evaluating the acceptable level of risk
for the design is necessary when
choosing an appropriate reliability. High
levels of reliability, or low risk, are
appropriate for high traffic volume
pavements in urban areas where future
repairs are difficult and undesirable.
Medium or low levels of reliability are
appropriate for lower levels of traffic or
rural areas where repairs pose little
difficulty and more risk is tolerable. The
lowest reliability level, 50%, corresponds
to local roads.

Table 12 presents recommended levels
of reliability for different roadway
classifications. When comparing two
different pavement sections (e.g., a
new concrete section to a new asphalt
section, two different concrete sections,
or two different asphalt sections), the
same level of reliability for each must
be used. When an existing pavement is
being analyzed, it must be evaluated
with the reliability equal to 50%.
Table 12: Suggested Reliability
Levels for Various Functional
Roadway Classifications
Classification
Recommended
Reliability (R), %
Urban Rural
Interstate & Other
Freeways
85 99.9 80 99.9
Principal Arterials 80 99 75 99
Collectors 80 95 75 95
Local 50 80 50 80

Standard Deviation (so)
Standard deviation is the amount of
statistical error present in the design
equations due to the variability in the
materials, construction, etc. It
represents the amount of scatter
between predicted performance and
actual performance. To determine the
true value of s
0
requires knowledge of
the individual s
0
values of each
parameter (strength, elasticity, soil
support, etc.). Obtaining this information
is fairly difficult.
32 | P a g e

A typical range of s
0
values for each
pavement type are published in the 93
AASHTO Design Guide:
Concrete Pavements:
0.30 < s
0
< 0.40
Asphalt Pavements:
0.40 < s
0
< 0.50
The actual s
0
value for concrete
pavements at the Road Test, where the
conditions were controlled and exactly
known, was 0.25. AASHTO
recommends increasing the s
0
value to
account for error in traffic projections.
When lacking better information on the
value of s
0
for a particular situation, 0.35
and 0.45 are appropriate values for
concrete and asphalt pavement design,
respectively.
How Reliability Works
Understanding reliability requires
understanding the design curve and its
relationship to the performance curve. In
Figure 20, the performance curve
represents the average pavement
performance at the AASHO Road Test.
The AASHTO concrete pavement
design equation defines its shape and
its intersection with the various PSl
levels for all combinations of concrete
sections tested at the Road Test. This
curve passes through the average Road
Test PSl values and represents a
reliability level of 50 percent.


Figure 20. How Reliability Shifts
Performance Curve to Obtain a Design
Curve
The design curve is offset from the
performance curve based on the
specified reliability chosen by the user.
Essentially, the design curve is shifted
from the performance curve by an
amount equal to s
0
multiplied by the
standard normal deviate (Z
R
) for a given
level of reliability (Z
R
is the standard
normal deviate for the normal
distribution at a given value of
reliability).
How ZR Relates to R
Z
R
is the degree of offset from the
average PSl value, as shown in Figure
21. Basically, it describes the area
under the curve, which is the probability
of success or failure. Using statistics
and the standard normal distribution
curve, the Z
R
value is selected so that
the percentage of the area enclosed by
the curve is the desired level of
reliability, R (the area to the right of the
offset).
P a g e | 33

Figure 21. Standard Normal Curve
The engineer selects the appropriate Z
R

value after choosing the desired level of
reliability. For example, a 50% level of
reliability corresponds to a Z
R
of 0.0
(50% of the area under the curve is to
the right of the average or mean value).
At a higher level of reliability (e.g., 95%)
the appropriate Z
R
value is chosen so
that 95 percent of the area under the
curve is to the right of the average
value.
An engineer can choose Z
R
values for
any desired reliability. Z
R
values are
available in most statistics textbooks.
Typical values used for pavement
design are shown in Table 13.
Once the R and s
0
values are known,
the offset between the design and
performance curve is established.
The end result is basically a load safety
factor or a multiplier of the allowable
ESALs. The predicted design ESALs in
the AASHTO equation are multiplied by
the safety factor in order to ensure the
design performance is met.
Table 13: Standard Normal Deviate
(Z
R
) Values Corresponding to
Selected Levels of Reliability
Reliability (R), %
Standard Normal
Deviate (Z
R
)
50 0.000
75 -0.674
80 -0.841
90 -1.282
95 -1.645
97 -1.881
99 -2.327
99.9 -3.090

For example, when a pavement is
designed at 50 percent reliability, the
predicted design ESALs are multiplied
by a safety factor of 1.0 (no safety
factor). When designed at 80%
reliability, the predicted ESALs are
multiplied by a safety factor of 1.97.
Essentially, the pavement will be able to
carry about 100 percent more ESALs
than the predicted design ESALs. A
pavement with a 95 percent level of
reliability will, on average, carry about
3.75 times more ESALs than that for
which it is designed (e.g., the predicted
ESALs using all the same inputs but a
reliability of 50% such that the AASHO
performance curve is followed).
For more information on reliability, see
Chapter 4 in the 1993 AASHTO
Pavement Design Guide.

34 | P a g e

The Iterative Process
The AASHTO design procedure is an
iterative process. It requires the
designer to know the volume and types
of axle loads, the desired terminal
serviceability (p
t
), an estimate of the
required pavement thickness, etc. If you
do not have a "feel" for the probable
range of thicknesses for your design
traffic, start with a concrete surface
course thickness of 9 in. (230 mm).
After determining the design pavement
thickness using the estimated values,
the designer should check the results
against the ESAL calculations. If the
assumed pavement thickness is within
five percent of the design pavement
thickness, the results are reasonable.
However, if the computed pavement
thickness is greater than five percent,
the design ESALs should be
recalculated using the last design
thickness, and the whole design re-run.
In practice, ESAL recalculation will
probably not significantly affect the new
pavement thickness. However, the
iterative process is technically correct.
Sensitivity Analysis
One of the frequent pieces of
information missing in a pavement
design is which variables will most
influence the required thickness. Figure
22 shows the change in thickness over
the typical range of each design
variable. These graphs illustrate the
relative importance of each variable and
how a change in each design input will
affect the final design for this set of
inputs.
If a change in a variable produces a
steep slope in the graph, the required
thickness is sensitive to changes in that
variable. If the slope is relatively flat, the
required thickness is not very sensitive
to the variable.
The baseline design for generation of
the plots in Figure 22 was:
Design ESALs: 6,142,000
Reliability (R): 80%
Overall standard deviation (s
0
):
0.34

Modulus of rupture (S
c
): 600 psi
(4.14 MPa)
Modulus of elasticity (E
c
):
4,000,000 psi (27.6 MPa)
Load transfer (J): 3.2 (e.g.,
doweled w/o edge support)
Modulus of support (k-value): 200
psi/in. (54 MPa/m)
Drainage Coefficient: 1.0
Initial Serviceability: 4
Terminal Serviceability: 2
These basic inputs resulted in a
required concrete pavement thickness
of 9 in. (230 mm).
It is important to note that, while the
general trends will remain true, the
magnitude in change of required
thickness shown in these sensitivity
plots is unique to this set of inputs.

Note: If a reliability of 50% had instead been

used, Z
R
would have been zero and the Z
R
*s
0

term will drop from the AASHTO concrete
pavement design equation. In such cases, as is
the case with analysis of an existing pavement,
the thickness is completely unchanged by
changes in the overall standard deviation.
P a g e | 35






Figure 22. Charts Illustrating the Sensitivity of each Variable in the AASHTO Design
Equation on Design Thickness (in inches)
36 | P a g e

As shown, the variables with the largest
effect on the required thickness are
reliability, load transfer, drainage
coefficient, and flexural strength. It is
critical that proper thought be given to
each of these variables in the design.
Under- or over-estimating their actual
value can impact the design greatly.
The least sensitive variables are the
standard deviation and concrete
modulus of elasticity.
While the designer might investigate the
sensitivity of the design on variables
such as load transfer, drainage
coefficient, standard deviation and
initial/final serviceability, many of these
variables typically are standardized
based on local practice and experience.
Thus, the remaining design variables
oftentimes are the focus of a designer
who is looking to optimize the design.
Most of the effects shown in the
reliability sensitivity chart do occur over
a small range of very high reliability
levels (e.g., 95% to 99.9%); at levels
below 95%, the impact of reliability
drops considerably. For this reason,
caution is recommended when deciding
what reliability factor to use. When
choosing a high reliability, all the design
procedure does is increase the
thickness. However, most concrete
pavements do not fail because of
inadequate thickness; rather, they
typically fail because of poor jointing or
material problems. Therefore, using a
high reliability can cause the design to
be overly conservative.
Modulus of rupture (flexural strength)
and modulus of elasticity go hand-in-
hand. If the designer chooses to
increase the flexural strength to see if
the required thickness can be
decreased, the modulus of elasticity
must also be increased because
stronger concrete mixtures generally
also are more rigid. Regardless, the
designer should consider ancillary
effects of increased strength (e.g.,
fracture toughness typically is
decreased [and, thus, crack propagation
occurs more quickly] in stronger, stiffer
concrete mixtures).
For most designers, the k-value is the
design element in concrete pavement
design that tends to garner the most
focus when the goal is to optimize the
pavement structure. However, as can be
seen on the chart, composite k-value
has relatively little impact on the
required thickness.
From a design perspective
**
, an
engineer really only needs to know if the
pavement is going to be built on the
natural subgrade (k-value 100 psi/in.

**
This does not mean the condition of the
subgrade is unimportant. For concrete
pavements, the most important objective of the
subgrade support is that it be uniform throughout
the pavement's life. Proper subgrade design
and construction are absolutely necessary if the
pavement is to perform. Likewise, poor
subgrade/subbase preparation cannot be
overcome with thickness increases. Any
concrete pavement, of any thickness, will have
problems on a poorly designed and constructed
subgrade or subbase. For more information on
subgrades and subbases, see ACPAs EB204P,
Subgrades and Subbases for Concrete
Pavements.
P a g e | 37

[25 MPa/m]), an unstabilized/granular
subbase (k-value 150 psi/in. [40
MPa/m]), an asphalt-treated subbase (k-
value 200 psi/in. [54 MPa/m]), a
cement-treated subbase (k-value 250
psi/in. [68 MPa/m]), or a lean concrete
subbase (k 500 psi/in. [125 MPa/m]).
Any changes in thickness that may
result from a better estimate of the
actual k-value, due to better
information, are most likely not worth
the effort/cost. It is better to
concentrate on other design inputs.
Summary
There have been many welcome
additions in the 1993 Design Guide,
such as the improved overlay and low-
volume road design. However, items
that the concrete industry feels are still
in question include:
Loss of Support Factor was the primary
failure mode of rigid pavement sections
in the Road Test. Many of the failed
sections were the result of the migration
and pumping of subbase fines from
underneath the pavement. Therefore,
loss of support is inherent in the
equation that predicts concrete
pavement performance.
The 1986 and 1993 revisions to the
Guide provide no manner to improve the
support value for non-erodable
subbases. Many modern concrete
pavement designs include such
subbases. It is logical that some factor
should be available for the engineer to
improve the support characterization to
the pavement for a non-erodable base.
Seasonal Variation of Subgrade Support
are also inherent in the equation that
predicts concrete pavement
performance because the Road Test ran
year round for several seasons. The
pavements and subgrade materials
underwent seasonal variations during
the testing time. Therefore, the 93
AASHTO Design Guide's recommended
procedure to the adjust subgrade
support for seasonal variation in the
concrete pavement design is
unnecessary.
Traffic Equivalency Factors used in the
design of concrete pavements are not
appropriate for modern pavements.
These factors were established only for
unstabilized subbases. No adjustment
is provided for the now more-common
stabilized support layers. This biases
the results of the ESAL determination in
favor of other pavement types.
For these reasons, the industry heartily
endorses the efforts by AASHTO to
move in the direction of improved
mechanistic methods, such as the
recently released mechanistic- and
empirical-based AASHTO
DARWinME
TM
.






38 | P a g e










This Page Left Intentionally Blank

P a g e | 39

Chapter 2 Concrete Overlay Design

Introduction
The 1986 AASHTO "Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures" added a new
section on concrete overlay design.
Unfortunately, this procedure was
incomplete, hard to understand, and
difficult to calibrate to local conditions.
The 93 AASHTO Design Guide adopted
a revised concrete overlay design
procedure that facilitates rational and
sound overlay designs.
The revised AASHTO concrete overlay
design procedures are used to design
structural overlays. Structural overlays
address conditions that adversely affect
the load carrying capacity of the
pavement structure (i.e., inadequate
thickness, cracking, distortion, and
disintegration). Functional overlays
address conditions such as surface
polishing, hydroplaning, rutting, faulting,
settlements and heaves, etc. These
conditions adversely affect the highway
user and may cause unsafe operating
conditions, but do not affect the
pavement structure. The WinPAS
program and this manual only include
structural overlays. For more information
on functional overlays, see Chapter 4,
Part II, of the 93 AASHTO Design
Guide.



This revised procedure uses the
concept of structural deficiency and
required future structural capacity, as
determined from the AASHTO design
equations, to calculate the required
overlay thicknesses. This maintains
compatibility between the new and
overlay portions of the Guide.
The structural deficiency approach
determines the structural capacity (SC)
of the overlay by subtracting the
effective structural capacity (SC
eff
) of the
existing pavement from the future
structural capacity (SC
f
) required by the
AASHTO design equations. Figure 23
illustrates the concept of structural
deficiency and effective structural
capacity. For concrete pavements,
structural capacity is equal to the
thickness of the pavement, D. For
flexible pavements, the structural
number expresses structural capacity.
In Figure 23, SC
0
denotes the
pavement's initial structural capacity. As
traffic and time act upon the pavement,
the structural capacity declines until it is
evaluated for an overlay. The capacity
at this point is the SC
eff
. If the structural
capacity required for the future traffic is
SC
f
, the overlay structural capacity,
SC
OL
is the difference between the two
(e.g., SC
OL
= SC
f
- SC
eff
).

40 | P a g e

The revised overlay design procedure
actually consists of seven separate,
stand-alone design procedures, each
laid out in eight steps. The seven
overlay design procedures are:
1. Bonded concrete overlay on
concrete.
2. Unbonded concrete overlay
on concrete.
3. Unbonded concrete overlay
on asphalt (whitetopping).
4. Asphalt on asphalt.
5. Asphalt on concrete.
6. Asphalt on break/crack and
seat or rubblized concrete.
7. Second asphalt overlay on
concrete.
Though each design procedure is
unique, they are all designed according
to the follow eight steps. It is
recommended that all eight steps of the
design procedure be followed; however,
it is recognized that money and
equipment limitations may preclude all
activities from being done. The eight
steps in the overlay thickness design
process are as follows:
1. Determine existing pavement
design/construction information,
including subgrade soil details.
2. Predict future ESALs in the
design lane for the design period.
3. Perform condition survey of the
existing pavement to determine
the type, severity, and quantity of
distresses present. The specific
distress types evaluated will
depend on the pavement type.
4. Perform deflection testing to
estimate pavement and material
properties (due to limitations, this
may not always be done).
5. Perform coring/material testing to
estimate pavement and material
properties (due to limitations, this
may not always be done).
6. Determine the required structural
capacity for future traffic (SC
f
).
7. Determine the existing structural
capacity (SC
eff
) of the pavement.
8. Determine the required structural
capacity of the overlay (SC
OL
)
and required thickness based on
the specific type of overlay being
designed.
Figure 23. Illustration of Structural Capacity Loss with Traffic and over Time
P a g e | 41

The AASHTO Overlay Design Steps
Step 1. Determine Existing Pavement
Information
The existing pavement information tells
the engineer exactly with what he or she
is working. The design data includes
the pavement type (materials, strengths,
and thickness), joint design and load
transfer, shoulder design, base and
subbase information, soils information,
drainage system design, etc. It should
also include any previous overlay or
maintenance and rehabilitation work
performed on the pavement, as well as
any that will be performed before the
overlay is placed. Construction data, if
available, is particularly useful in
determining how the as-built pavement
might vary in strength, thickness, etc.
from the design; construction data also
can provide insight into potential causes
of pavement distress.
Step 2. Predict Future ESALs
The predicted future 18 kip (80 kN)
ESALs is the design traffic for the
design lane expected over the life of the
overlay. It is the same basic input that
is used in the design of new concrete or
asphalt pavements.
There is one slight difference in the
ESALs for overlay design as compared
to new pavement design. In the overlay
design, the type of ESALs used
depends on the pavement performance
model used in the development of the
design procedure; Table 15 shows
which ESALs to use.
Table 15: AASHTO ESAL Loadings
for Overlay Design
Existing
Pavement
Overlay
Type
ESALs to
Use
Concrete Concrete Rigid
Asphalt Concrete Rigid
Composite Concrete Rigid
Concrete Asphalt Rigid
Asphalt Asphalt Flexible
Composite Asphalt Rigid
Fractured
Concrete
Asphalt Flexible

Essentially, if there is intact concrete
anywhere in the pavement structure,
rigid ESALs are used in the design. The
only times flexible ESALs are used is
when an asphalt pavement is overlaid
with asphalt or when an existing
concrete pavement is fractured (break
or crack and seat, or rubblized) and
overlaid with asphalt.
In the overlay design procedure,
AASHTO states that rigid ESALs can be
converted to flexible ESALs by
multiplying rigid ESALs by 0.67. For
example, 15 million rigid ESALs would
equal 10 million flexible ESALs and 5
million flexible ESALs would equal 7.5
million rigid ESALs. As can be inferred,
large errors in the final overlay design
can occur if the correct ESALs are not
used.

42 | P a g e

Step 3. Perform Condition Survey
The visual condition survey examines
the type, amount, and severity of
distresses in the pavement. The
specific distress types evaluated will
change depending on pavement type
(Table 16). The examination should
begin with obtaining and reviewing
original design and construction
documents, and when possible,
maintenance records.
Table 16: Key Distress Types
Concrete
Pavements
Asphalt
Pavements
Deteriorating
transverse or
longitudinal joints
Fatigue and alligator
cracking
Corner breaks Rutting
Localized failing
areas where the
concrete slab is
disintegrating
Transverse and
longitudinal cracking
Localized
punchouts
(CRCP)
Localized failing
areas where
underlying areas are
disintegrating

A drainage survey should also be
performed during the condition survey to
identify moisture-related problems and
locations where drainage improvements
may be effective in increasing the
performance of the overlay.



Step 4. Perform Deflection Testing
Non-destructive testing (NDT) data, in
the form of falling weight deflectometer
(FWD) testing, can provide a vast
amount of information at a reasonable
amount of time and money. However,
the analysis can be quite sensitive to
unknown conditions and therefore must
be performed by knowledgeable and
experienced personnel.
For concrete pavements, FWD data is
used for three purposes:
1. To estimate load transfer
efficiency at joints.
2. To estimate the concrete
modulus of elasticity (E
c
).
3. To estimate the modulus of
subgrade reaction (k-value).
For asphalt pavements, it is used to:
1. Estimate the roadbed resilient
modulus (M
r
).
2. Estimate the effective
structural number for the
pavement structure (SN
eff
).
FWD data cannot be used to give
estimates for the moduli values of
individual layers because this implies a
level of sophistication that does not exist
with the structural number approach to
pavement design.
Finally, for both types of pavements,
FWD data is used to quantify variability
along the project and subdivide it into
similar structural segments.
P a g e | 43

Step 5. Perform Coring/Material
Testing
Ideally, the materials testing program is
used in concert with the visual distress
survey and non-destructive deflection
testing to verify layer thickness, obtain
material properties, and investigate the
causes of observed distresses.
For asphalt pavements, coring/material
testing is used to determine the resilient
modulus of the subgrade (M
r
) and to
examine the asphalt layers for stripping,
degradation, erosion, and
contamination.
For concrete pavements, coring/
materials testing is mainly used to
determine the in-place concrete
modulus of rupture, S'
c
. For this,
AASHTO recommends cutting 6 in.
(15.2 mm) diameter cores from the
middle of the slab and testing them in
indirect tension (AASHTO T198 or
ASTM C496
21
). From the indirect
tension results, the S'
c
is estimated
using the following equation:
S
c

= 210 +1.02 IT
where:
S'
c
= concrete modulus of rupture
(psi)
IT = Indirect tensile strength of 6
in. diameter cores (psi)
The free strength converter app
available at http://apps.acpa.org also
can conduct this conversion.

Step 6. Determine the Required
Structural Capacity for Future Traffic
(SCf)
The structural capacity for future traffic
is the structural capacity needed to carry
the future traffic loadings. Essentially, it
is the design thickness for a new
pavement. It takes into account all the
same factors used in a new design
(serviceability, traffic, load transfer,
concrete properties, subgrade strength,
drainage, and reliability).
The only change in determining the
required structural capacity that
AASHTO recommends is increasing the
standard deviation (s
0
). AASHTO
recommends using an s
0
of 0.39 for any
type of overlay where concrete is in the
pavement structure and 0.49 for an
asphalt overlay of an asphalt pavement
or fractured concrete slabs.
Step 7. Determine the Existing
Structural Capacity (SCeff)
The most difficult part of the overlay
design procedure is determining SC
eff
.
AASHTO uses three approaches to
characterize the SC
eff
:
1. Visual condition survey and
materials testing.
2. Non-destructive deflection
testing and backcalculation
procedures.
3. Remaining life.





44 | P a g e

Because of the uncertainties associated
with determining SC
eff
, each approach
will give different results. Furthermore,
because all of the overlays are affected
differently by the underlying pavement,
the effective structural capacity of an
existing pavement is calculated
differently for each overlay type. More
detailed information on determining
SC
eff
for each overlay type will be
described in next section.
AASHTO recommends that the designer
uses all three approaches and choose
the best "estimate" based on his or her
judgment. However, ACPA does not
recommend using the remaining life
approach because of some deficiencies
associated with its use (see below).
Because of these problems, ACPA has
not included the remaining life approach
in the WinPAS program. Still, ACPA
recommends that the designer use both
approaches 1 and 2 and choose the
best "estimate" from these values based
on his or her judgment.
Problems with Remaining Life
The remaining life approach follows the
fatigue damage concept that repeated
loads gradually damage the pavement
and reduce the remaining number of
loads that the pavement can carry
before failure occurs. At any time, there
may be little or no visible damage, but
there is a reduction in structural capacity
based on the remaining, future load-
carrying capability.

To use remaining life, the designer must
be able to determine the actual amount
of traffic the pavement has carried to
date and the total amount of traffic the
pavement is expected to carry to
"failure". The following equation
determines remaining life:
RL = 100 1
N
o
N
f

10

where:
RL = Remaining life
N
0
= Total traffic to date
N
f
= Total traffic to failure
Once the remaining life has been
determined, a condition factor (CF) is
established from the remaining life. The
SC
eff
is calculated by multiplying the
original structural capacity (SC
0
) by the
CF (e.g., SC
eff
= SC
0
*CF).
Unfortunately, the remaining life
approach has some serious deficiencies
associated with it such that it may give
erroneous results. The major
deficiencies of this procedure are:
1. The predictive capability of the
AASHTO equations.
2. The large variation in observed
performance, even among
pavements of seemingly identical
designs.
3. Estimation of past ESALs.
4. Inability to account for the
amount of pre-overlay repair.
5. Cannot be applied to previously
overlaid pavements or
pavements that will have pre-
overlay repairs.
P a g e | 45

These deficiencies can produce two
extreme errors. The first is that a
pavement with little load-related distress
may be perceived to have a very low
remaining life because it has carried a
very large amount of traffic; in actuality,
such a pavement section might have a
considerably longer remaining life. Any
pavement without cracking has
substantial remaining life, regardless of
past traffic. The other extreme error
occurs when a pavement is severely
distressed but is rated to have a high
remaining life because it has carried
only a small amount of traffic. Because
it is severely distressed, it really has
little remaining life. As shown by these
two extremes, the remaining life
computed from past traffic may not
reflect a pavement's true condition.
Step 8. Determine Required Structural
Capacity of the Overlay (SCOL)
For concrete overlays, the structural
capacity of the overlay is equal to the
overlay thickness (e.g., SC
OL
= D
OL
).
However, because of the interactions
between the existing pavement and the
overlay, the exact equation to determine
the SC
OL
is dependent on the type of
overlay. The following sections will
describe the procedure for unbonded
and bonded concrete overlays on
concrete or asphalt/composite.
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete
Bonded concrete overlays on concrete
are generally used when the existing
pavement is in relatively good condition
and requires little pre-overlay repair.
Bonded concrete overlays on concrete
are not recommended when:
1. The amount of deteriorated slab
cracking and joint spalling is so
great that a substantial amount
of removal and replacement of
the existing surface is required
before overlaying.
2. Significant deterioration of
concrete slabs has occurred
due to durability problems (e.g.,
"D" cracking or reactive
aggregates).
For more information on the feasibility of
a bonded overlay on concrete, see
ACPAs TB007P, "Guidelines for
Bonded Concrete Overlays,"8 and the
CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete
Overlays.
22

The required bonded overlay thickness
(D
OL
) is the difference of the required
future thickness (D
f
) and the effective
thickness of the existing pavement (D
eff
):
D
OL
= D
f
- D
eff

The effective thickness is the actual in-
place concrete pavement thickness
reduced by adjustment factors to
account for joint and crack condition,
durability, and fatigue:
D
eff
= F
jc
*F
dur
*F
fat
*D
where:
F
jc
= adjustment factor based on
joint and crack condition of the
existing pavement
46 | P a g e

F
dur
= adjustment factor based
on durability condition of the
existing pavement
F
fat
= adjustment factor based on
the fatigue characteristics of the
existing pavement
D = existing pavement thckness
F
jc
adjusts for extra loss in serviceability
caused by deteriorated reflective cracks
in the overlay that could result from any
unrepaired deteriorated joints and
cracks in the existing slab. It is
recommended all deteriorated joints and
cracks be repaired so that F
jc
= 1.0.
If it is not possible to repair all the
deteriorated areas, Figure 24 (Figure
5.12 from the 93 AASHTO Guide) is
used to determine F
jc
. The information
needed to use this chart is:
Number of deteriorated
transverse joints per mile.
Number of deteriorated
transverse cracks per mile.
Number of existing expansion
joints, exceptionally wide
joints (>1 in.), or full-depth
asphalt patches.
F
dur
adjusts for extra loss in
serviceability of the overlay when the
existing slab has durability problems
such as D-cracking or reactive
aggregates. If a joint or crack is
deteriorated due to a durability problem,
the adjustment to the pavement
thickness is made with F
dur
and not F
jc
.
This avoids adjusting the thickness
twice.
Using the information from the condition
survey, the F
dur
is determined as follows:
1.00: No durability problems
0.96-0.99: Durability cracking
exists, no spalling
0.80-0.95: Both cracking and
spalling exist
Note: Bonded concrete overlays are
not recommended when F
dur
is less
than 0.95.
F
fat
adjusts for past fatigue damage that
may exist in the slab. It is based on the
amount of transverse cracking (JPCP
and JRCP) or punchouts (CRCP) due to
repeated loadings in the design lane.
AASHTO recommends the following
guidelines to determine F
fat
:
0.97-1.00: Few cracks/punchouts
JPCP: < 5% slabs cracked
JRCP: < 25% working cracks/mi
CRCP: < 4 punchouts/mi

0.94-0.96: Significant cracking/
punchouts
JPCP: 5-15% slabs cracked
JRCP: 26-75% working cracks/mi
CRCP: 4-12 punchouts/mi

0.90-0.94: Extensive cracking/
punchouts
JPCP: >15% slabs cracked
JRCP: >75% working cracks/mi
CRCP: >12 punchouts/mi



P a g e | 47

Unbonded Concrete Overlays on
Concrete
Unbonded concrete overlays can be
used under practically all conditions;
they are, however, most cost-effective
when the existing concrete pavement is
badly deteriorated. The major
advantage of unbonded overlays is that
they require little, if any, preoverlay
repair before construction. Conditions
under which an unbonded concrete
overlay may not be feasible include:
1. The amount of slab cracking and
joint spalling is not large so other
alternatives (e.g., concrete pavement
preservation or a bonded overlay)
may be more economical.
2. Vertical clearance at bridges is
inadequate for the required overlay
thickness. This may be addressed by
reconstructing the pavement under
the bridges or by raising the bridges.
3. The existing pavement is susceptible
to large heaves or settlements.
Figure 24. Chart to Estimate F
jc
for Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete [Figure
5.12 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired
deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width
asphalt patches per mile
48 | P a g e

For more information the feasibility of
unbonded overlays, see ACPAs
TB005P, "Guidelines for Unbonded
Concrete Overlays,"7 and the CP Tech
Centers, Guide to Concrete
Overlays.
22

The required unbonded overlay
thickness (D
OL
) is the square root of
difference of the required future
thickness (D
f
) squared and the effective
thickness (D
eff
) squared:
D
OL
=

D
f
2
D
eff
2

The effective thickness is the actual in-
place concrete pavement thickness
reduced by an adjustment factor to
account for joint and crack condition:
D
eff
= F
jcu
*D
where:
F
jcu
= adjustment factor based
on joint and crack condition of the
existing pavement
F
jcu
adjusts for extra loss in serviceability
caused by deteriorated reflective cracks
in the overlay that could result from any
unrepaired deteriorated joints and
cracks or punchouts in the existing slab.
Generally, very little such loss has been
observed in unbonded overlays.
The following information and Figure 25
are needed to determine F
jcu
:
Number of deteriorated
transverse joints per mile.
Number of deteriorated
transverse cracks per mile.
Number of existing expansion
joints, exceptionally wide
joints (>1 in.), or full-depth
asphalt patches.
The F
jcu
adjustment factor is different
than the F
jc
adjustment factor used in a
bonded concrete overlay on concrete
design. The F
jcu
factor makes a smaller
adjustment to the existing slab thickness
because an unbonded overlay is less
sensitive to the condition of the
underlying slab than is a bonded
overlay.
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt
or Composite
Also known as conventional
whitetopping, unbonded concrete
overlays of existing asphalt or
composite pavements can be used to
improve both structural capacity and
functional conditions. The major
advantage of whitetopping is that
minimal amount of pre-overlay repair is
required. Conditions under which a
whitetopping overlay may not be
feasible include:
1. The amount of deterioration is
not large and other alternatives
may be more economical.
2. Vertical clearance at bridges is
inadequate for the required
overlay thickness. This may be
addressed by reconstructing the
pavement under the bridges or
by raising the bridges.
3. The existing pavement is
susceptible to large heaves or
settlements.
P a g e | 49

For more information on the feasibility of
whitetopping of asphalt or composite
pavements, see ACPAs EB210P,
"Whitetopping The State of the
Practice,"9 and the CP Tech Centers,
Guide to Concrete Overlays.
22

The design for a whitetopping overlay of
an existing asphalt or composite
pavement is the same as designing a
new concrete pavement on an asphalt
stabilized base. The overlay thickness
(D
OL
) is the thickness for a new
pavement (D
f
):
D
OL
= D
f
The most difficult item to determine in
the design of a conventional
whitetopping is the k-value of the
asphalt or composite pavement. There
are two possible methods to estimate k-
value:
1. Base the k-value on soils data
and pavement layers type, such
as is done with stabilized bases
in new designs. For more
information, see the Subgrade
Support section and Part II,
Section 3.2 of the 93 AASHTO
Design Guide.
Figure 25. Chart to Estimate F
jcu
for Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete
[Figure 5.13 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired
deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width
asphalt patches per mile
50 | P a g e

2. Estimate the dynamic k-value
using a backcalculated M
r
and
effective pavement modulus
(obtained through FWD testing),
the existing asphalt thickness
(D
ac
), and Figure 15 (Figure 3.3
of the Guide). Static k-value is
the dynamic k-value divided by 2.
For more information, see step 4 and 6
in section 5.10.5 of the Design Guide.
For practical purposes, the k-value can
be estimated from Table 10, the k-value
calculator built into WinPAS or the k-
value calculator at http://apps.acpa.org.
Any change in thickness that may result
from a better estimate of the actual k-
value due to better information is most
likely not worth the effort/cost to collect it
(see Figure 22 and referencing text).
Bonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt or
Composite
AASHTO does not have a procedure to
design bonded concrete overlays on
asphalt or composite pavements, also
known as ultra-thin whitetopping (UTW).
For more information, see ACPAs
EB210P, "Whitetopping - The State of
the Practice,"9 the CP Tech Centers,
Guide to Concrete Overlays,
22
and the
free bonded concrete overlay on asphalt
(BCOA) calculator at
http://apps.acpa.org.



Other Considerations
In the design of an overlay, many
important items, besides thickness,
need to be considered. Some of the
items that should be considered are
outlined in Table 17. The Guide gives
general and detailed guidelines for each
of these in the overlay design
procedures and the CP Tech Centers
Guide to Concrete Overlays
22
contains
more up-to-date guidance on such
considerations.
Table 17: Other Important
Considerations in Overlay Design
Structural versus
functional overlay
Overlay design
reliability and overall
standard deviation
Overlay feasibility
Shoulders and edge
support
Traffic loadings Pavement widening
Subdrainage
Concrete overlay
reinforcement
Concrete overlay
joints
Reflection crack
control
Pre-overlay repairs
Milling of asphalt
pavement
Existing concrete
durability
Rutting in asphalt
pavement
Concrete overlay
bonding and
separation layers
Recycling of the
existing pavement




P a g e | 51

Other Concrete Overlay Design
Procedures/Software
The CP Tech Centers, Design of
Concrete Overlays Using Existing
Methodologies,
23
details the use of the
93 AASHTO Design Guide, the
DARWinME
TM
, and the ACPAs BCOA.
Since the CP Tech Center publication
was published, ACPAs StreetPave
software has been updated to also
include overlay design for each overlay
type.






52 | P a g e










This Page Left Intentionally Blank

P a g e | 53

Chapter 3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

NOTE: This Chapter contains excerpts
from ACPAs EB011, Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis: A Tool for Better Pavement
Investment and Engineering Decisions.
See EB011 for more complete details on
pavement LCCAs and example LCCAs.
Introduction
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is an
analysis technique, based on well-
founded economic principles, used to
evaluate the overall long-term economic
efficiency between competing alternate
investment options. LCCA is typically
used as a means to evaluate and then
compare the cost to the agency of any
number of alternate pavement
alternatives, including variations of
concrete and asphalt pavement
solutions. When done correctly, a life-
cycle cost analysis of pavement design
or preservation/rehabilitation strategy
alternatives identifies the strategy that
will yield the best value by providing the
desired performance at the lowest cost
over the analysis period.
This does not mean that engineering is
not an important part of the LCCA. An
engineering analysis must be used with
the LCCA to ensure that each alternate
provides similar results. If the two
alternates do not provide similar results
then the economic assessment between
them is not possible, realistic, or
reliable.
Comparable Sections
In order to perform a realistic and
reliable life-cycle cost analysis, the two
alternates must have equivalent and
comparable designs and should provide
similar results over the analysis period.
That is, they should be designed for the
same:
Structural (traffic-carrying)
capacity
Reliability
Subgrade properties
Terminal condition
Furthermore, they need to provide the
same or reasonably similar levels of
service over the analysis period. If the
two designs being compared do not
have these same characteristics over
the analysis period, the resulting LCCA
is erroneous.
Unfortunately, this is difficult because of
the complexity in:
1. Accurately calculating
performance over time.
2. Quantifying the difference in
performance between alternates.




54 | P a g e

Currently, the only three national design
procedures that allow for quick and easy
design of comparable designs are:
1. AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures
WinPAS is based on the 1993
version of this guide.
2. AASHTOs DARWin-ME
TM

3. ACPAs StreetPave
Performing an LCCA
The actual mechanics of performing an
LCCA are not too complicated. It is
simply a mathematical calculation of the
present worth or equivalent uniform
annual cost of anticipated expenditure
flows over time. Though a computer
program or spreadsheet is helpful in
performing the calculations, LCCA does
not require a computer program.
There is no such thing as a concrete
LCCA or asphalt LCCA. The procedure
cannot tell whether the calculated
values are for a concrete pavement, an
asphalt pavement, or something else.
This chapter focuses on the inputs to an
LCCA and presents the following steps
in a typical LCCA of pavement design or
rehabilitation alternatives:
1. Select the analysis period.
2. Select a discount rate.
3. Estimate initial agency costs.
4. Estimate user costs.
5. Estimate future agency costs.
6. Estimate residual value.
7. Compare alternatives.

The FHWAs Report No. FHWA-SA-98-
079, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in
Pavement Design In Search of Better
Investment Decisions, identifies the
following procedural steps involved in
conducting an LCCA:
1. Establish alternative
pavement design strategies
for the analysis period.
2. Determine performance
periods and activity timing.
3. Estimate agency costs.
4. Estimate user costs.
5. Develop expenditure stream
diagrams.
6. Compute net present value.
7. Analyze results.
8. Reevaluate design strategies.
While ACPA agrees with the FHWAs
suggested procedural steps (and, in
fact, each of the ACPAs seven steps
can be rolled up into just a few of these
FHWA steps), the intent of this chapter
is to focus on the individual inputs of an
LCCA more than the LCCA process
itself. The ACPA seven steps also
assume that equivalent alternate
pavement designs are selected as a
prerequisite to conducting an LCCA of
the alternates.
Step 1 Select Analysis Period
The analysis period is the timeframe
over which the alternative strategies/
treatments are compared. This
timeframe must be long enough to
reflect significant differences in
performance among the alternatives
being compared. This is best
P a g e | 55

accomplished by selecting an analysis
period that encompasses the initial
performance period and at least one
major follow-up preservation/
rehabilitation activity for each strategy.
For this reason, the Federal Highway
Administrations (FHWAs) policy
statement on LCCA
24
recommends an
analysis period of at least 35 years for
all pavement projects. ACPA
recommends an analysis period of 45-
50+ years so that at least one major
rehabilitation effort is captured for each
alternate because common practice in
many states is to design the concrete
pavement alternate for 30+ years.
Step 2 Select Discount Rate
The term real discount rate, also known
as the real interest rate, is commonly
used in engineering economics to refer
to the rate of change over time in the
true value of money, taking into account
fluctuations in both investment interest
rates and the rate of inflation. This
value differs from a nominal discount
rate, which reflects expected inflation
and is used to discount inflated dollars
or nominal benefits and costs (e.g., real
discount rate nominal discount rate
inflation rate). That is to say, todays
costs can be used as proxies for future
costs only if the real discount rate is
used in the LCCA. All state highway
agencies currently use todays costs
(e.g., non-inflated dollars) and real
discount rates in their LCCAs.

The real discount rate is given by the
following equation
25
:
d =
1 +

1 +

1
Where:
d = the real discount rate, %
i
int
= the interest rate, %
i
inf
= the inflation rate, %

The appropriate interest and inflation
rates to use in calculating the real
discount rate for the evaluation of
public-sector investments, such as road
projects, are the subject of much
debate. Oftentimes, a single standard
real discount rate might be used to
avoid the complexities in calculating a
local or material-specific real discount
rate, but this practice can lead to the
selection of an alternate that is not the
most cost-effective.
26

Selecting an Interest Rate
An abundance of conflicting opinion and
guidance exists on the subject of
choosing an interest rate for use in
LCCA of pavement alternatives. Funds
for paving projects are obtained by 1)
levying taxes, 2) borrowing money (i.e.,
selling bonds), and/or 3) charging users
for services (e.g., toll revenue). The
interest rate assumed for the LCCA of a
project should reflect the type of entity
raising the money and the method(s)
used to raise it.

56 | P a g e

Selecting an Inflation Rate
The inflation rate chosen for use in a
life-cycle cost analysis of pavement
alternatives may be 1) a single value if it
is assumed that all components of future
costs inflate at a uniform rate or 2)
several different values for various cost
components when there are significant
differences in inflation among the cost
components.
Several general inflation indices are
compiled regularly by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) in the U.S.
Department of Labor, including the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the
Highway and Street Construction
(BHWY) Producer Price Index (PPI).
The BHWY PPI was, however,
discontinued in 2010. The PPI for all
commodities also can be used as a
general inflation index or combined with
the BHWY PPI to extend the BHWY PPI
from 2010 to present.
Calculating the Real Discount Rate
To avoid all of the complexities in
calculating a real discount rate for
general use in LCCAs, many state
agencies elect to use real discount rates
published annually by the United States
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). If local interest and inflation
rates are not readily available to develop
a local real discount rate, ACPA
supports the use of this OMB real
discount rate. If there is concern with
the variability in the OMB real discount
rates, a moving average of the value
can be considered.
Step 3 Estimate Initial Agency
Costs
Agency costs are all the costs incurred
by the agency over the analysis period.
These costs include:
Initial design and
construction/inspection costs,
Preservation/rehabilitation costs
(including engineering and traffic
control),
Operation and maintenance costs
(including staffing),
Either demolition/removal costs
or the residual value of the
pavement structure,
Costs associated with material
price escalators, and
Direct savings associated with
sustainable benefits of a
particular pavement type.
Only those initial agency costs that are
different among the various alternatives
need to be considered for reasonably
similar alternates. Engineering and
administrative costs (public hearings,
informational meetings, permits, real
estate and land development, legal fees,
etc.) may be excluded from the initial
agency cost if they are the same for all
alternatives.
Initial agency costs can be divided into
pavement and non pavement costs:
Pavement costs include items
such as subgrade preparation
costs; base, subbase, and
surface material costs;
associated labor and equipment
costs; etc.
P a g e | 57

Non pavement costs are costs
that affect the overall cost of the
project but are not directly
related to the pavement
structure, such as extra fill or cut
due to different grade elevations,
traffic control, median and fill
slopes, utilities, guardrail and
sign adjustments, lighting
requirements, overhead
structures, at-grade structures,
culvert extensions, associated
labor and equipment costs, etc.
When historical bid prices are used to
estimate the initial agency cost of
current designs, it is important to
consider the impact of material price
escalators, payment practices (e.g.,
payment for concrete in fixed
quantities, such as square yards,
versus payment for asphalt by the ton,
which may result in overages), and
bidding practices (e.g., bid shifting to
lower costs of some items [pavement
items] while artificially increasing other
costs [non-pavement items] to cover
the difference). Past bid prices may not
accurately represent final project costs
if escalators significantly increased the
actual construction cost of the project
or if material quantity estimates were
low. Thus, all project costs (pavement
and non-pavement) from past projects
must be examined to include any cost
overruns when using past projects for
current initial agency cost estimates.

Step 4 Estimate User Costs
User costs are intentionally separated
from other bidding components because
user costs are not agency costs and
should not be treated as such (e.g., user
costs have a discount rate based on
user interest and inflation rates). User
costs tell a different story than the other
components and oftentimes are
weighted differently than agency costs
in the pavement type selection process.
If user costs are significantly larger than
other cost components, the agency
should investigate why this is the case.
User costs are all those costs
associated with the alternative that are
incurred by users of the roadway over
the analysis period. The users to be
considered are both the actual users
and the would-be users; that is, those
who cannot use the roadway because of
either a detour imposed by the highway
agency or the users self-imposed
selection of an alternate route.
Any user costs that differ significantly
among the alternatives being compared
should be considered alongside the
agency costs in an LCCA. However,
each agency must decide which user
cost components it expects to differ
among different alternatives, and which
it is able to estimate reasonably well.
Even if the user costs are considered
equivalent between alternates, the time
value of money and frequency of future
activities cause the net result of work
zone user costs to be different between
alternates.
58 | P a g e

Failure to consider user costs may lead
in some cases to the selection of
undesirably short-lived alternatives.
For example, it is not good practice to
recommend major rehabilitation of a
busy urban freeway every seven years;
traffic handling and delays in the future
might be a significantly greater cost than
constructing a long-lived alternative
now. Without quantitative consideration
of work zone user costs, however, it
may be difficult to determine that a long-
lived solution is best in such a scenario.
WinPASs LCCA procedure does not
include user costs at this time.
Separate software are available,
however, to calculate the user costs,
such as the Construction Analysis for
Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies
(CA4PRS) software.
Step 5 Estimate Future Agency
Costs
While the initial agency costs can
exclude cost components that are
similar for each alternate being
considered, all cost components must
be considered in future agency costs
because the present value of costs
associated with engineering,
administrative, and traffic control
(detours, lane closures, work hours,
etc.) in the future are impacted by when
the costs are projected to take place
and by the selected discount rate (which
may vary with paving material type).


Future activities are dependent on the
initial pavement design. Thus, both
(and their cost impact on each other)
must be considered when designing the
pavement structure.
Maintenance and Operation Costs
The daily costs associated with keeping
the pavement at a given level of service
are termed maintenance and operating
costs. These include contracts,
materials and equipment, deicing, staff
salaries, etc. for the maintenance of the
pavement surface, shoulders, striping,
drainage, etc.
Several billion dollars are spent each
year on pavement maintenance by
highway agencies in the U.S. As such,
most state highway agencies include
maintenance costs in their life-cycle cost
analyses for pavements.
Preservation and Rehabilitation
Timing and Costs
Preservation/rehabilitation costs are
large future agency costs associated
with improving the condition of the
pavement or extending its service life.
Preservation and rehabilitation activities
and their timing should be based on the
distresses that are predicted to develop
in the pavement. That is, in the design
phase, the engineer should estimate the
rates of distress development in the
pavement, determine the years in which
critical level of distress are reached, and
assign the appropriate preservation or
rehabilitation activities for those
distresses at the appropriate times.
P a g e | 59

The best approach to developing
pavement performance predictions is to
rely on local performance history data to
the maximum extent possible; pavement
feedback loops are an ideal means of
updating such predictions as better
designs are created.
Predicting the performance of
preservation or rehabilitation activities
involves, at a minimum, predicting the
time (either in years or accumulated
axle loadings) at which each strategy
will reach a level of condition requiring
follow-up preservation or rehabilitation.
Typical expected performance period
ranges for new construction and various
preservation/rehabilitation activities are
summarized in ACPAs EB011.
Step 6 Estimate Residual Value
The residual value typically is defined in
one of three ways: 1) the net value that
the pavement would have in the
marketplace if it is recycled at the end of
its life (also known as salvage value), 2)
the value of the remaining service life
(RSL) at the end of the analysis, and 3)
the value of the existing pavement as a
support layer for an overlay at the end of
the analysis period.
Whichever way residual value is defined
for rehabilitation strategy alternatives, it
must be defined the same way for all
alternatives, and should reflect what the
agency realistically expects to do with
the pavement structure at the end of the
analysis period.
Residual Value through Recycling
(Salvage Value)
If it is assumed that the pavement is to
be recycled at the end of the analysis
period, the salvage value is the
monetary value of the recycled materials
minus the costs of removal and
recycling. The salvage value of the
pavement structure as recycled
materials may be different for the
different alternates.
It is important to not double-count the
salvage value; that is to say, it should
not be included as both a residual value
credit at the end of the LCCA of a
pavement section and then as a
reduction in cost at the beginning of the
next LCCA on the same section. Thus,
if the pavement is to be recycled,
salvage value oftentimes is not
considered at the end of the analysis
period (where the value is extremely
discounted) but rather is considered as
a reduction in cost for a new pavement
(where the value of the reduction is
better known and fully appreciated) in
the next LCCA of the section.
Residual Value through Remaining
Service Life
The residual value of a pavement that is
likely to be rehabilitated rather than
demolished at the end of the analysis
period can be based on its contribution
to the structural capacity of the
rehabilitated pavement structure.
The FHWA currently recommends that
the residual value be determined as the
portion of the cost of the last
60 | P a g e

rehabilitation equal to the portion of the
remaining life of the last rehabilitation.
27

However, this method of defining
residual value attributes worth only to
the last rehabilitation application, rather
than to the pavement structure as a
whole. It may also have the undesired
consequence of attributing greater worth
to a pavement design or rehabilitation
strategy alternative that costs more,
performs poorly and requires frequent
follow-up rehabilitation than to an
alternative with better long-term
performance that requires less frequent
rehabilitation.
Residual Value as a Support Layer
When all alternatives are predicted to
reach minimum acceptable condition at
the end of the analysis period and
require rehabilitation at that time,
another option is to determine what
contribution the existing pavement
structure will make to the structural
capacity of the rehabilitated pavement
structure. The residual value of each
alternative could be quantified as the
portion of the future rehabilitation cost
that will be reduced by the contribution
of the existing pavement structure.
When one or more alternatives are
predicted to reach minimum acceptable
condition beyond the end of the analysis
period, the residual values could be
defined in terms of how long each
alternative delays the next required
rehabilitation. The residual value could
be quantified as the difference between
the cost of rehabilitation if it is performed
at the end of the analysis period and the
discounted cost of the same type of
rehabilitation if it is deferred some years
into the future. Thus, an alternative with
more remaining structural capacity at
the end of the analysis period would
yield a larger difference between
immediate and deferred rehabilitation
costs, and therefore a higher residual
value.
Step 7 Compare Alternatives
Alternatives considered in an LCCA
must be compared using a common
measure of economic worth. The
economic worth of an investment may
be measured in a number of ways.
Investment alternatives such as
pavement strategies are most
commonly compared on the basis of
present worth (also called net present
value [NPV]) or annual worth (also
called equivalent uniform annual cost
[EUAC]).
Cash Flow Diagrams
A cash flow diagram (Figure 26) helps in
the development and visualization of
strategies. A cash flow diagram shows
the inflow and outflow of cash due to
construction, maintenance, and
preservation/ rehabilitation, expressed in
terms of either present worth or annual
costs. Up arrows indicate major cash
expenditures (e.g., construction,
preservation, etc.) and down arrows
show cash inflows (e.g., residual or
salvage value). The length of the arrow
indicates the magnitude of the
expenditure.
P a g e | 61


Figure 26. Example of a Cash Flow
Diagram for an Unbonded Concrete
Overlay
Present Worth Calculations
For a present worth style analysis, all
costs and benefits over the analysis
period are expressed in terms of their
equivalent (e.g., discounted) value at
the beginning of the analysis period in a
present worth style analysis. All initial
agency costs are assumed to occur at
time t = 0 and are not discounted (i.e.,
they are counted at full and actual
value). All future costs (e.g., future
maintenance and preservation/
rehabilitation costs) and future benefits
or reductions in cost (e.g., residual value
at the end of the analysis period) are
discounted to their equivalent present
values and are summed with the initial
costs to yield the net present value
(NPV).
The formula for the present value or
worth ($P) of a one-time future cost or
benefit ($F) is:
$ = $
1
(1 +d)
t

where:
d = the real discount rate (e.g.,
0.03 for 3 percent)
t = the year in which the one-time
future cost or benefit occurs
Costs that are expected to accrue
annually at a uniform value (e.g., routine
maintenance costs) can also be
expressed in terms of their present
worth. Such costs should be taken into
consideration in the LCCA whenever
they are expected to differ significantly
for the alternatives being considered.
The formula for the present value or
worth ($P) of an annual future cost or
benefit ($A) that first occurs in year 1 is:
$ = $
(1 +d)
n
1
(1 +d)
n

where:
n = number of years over which
the annual future cost reoccurs
The conversion of nonuniform future
annual costs requires:
1. Identification of subperiods during
which the annual costs are
uniform,
2. Converting these uniform annual
costs to present worths in the
beginning years of the
subperiods, and
3. Converting these present worths
in given future years to equivalent
present worths at the beginning
of the analysis period.

62 | P a g e

For example, suppose a uniform annual
maintenance cost is expected to be
incurred starting in year 16 of a 25-year
analysis. The present worth incurred
between years 16 and 25 would be
calculated by first converting the annual
maintenance costs in years 16 to 25 (N
= 10) to an equivalent present worth at
the beginning of year 16, which is also
the end of year 15, and then
discounting this equivalent present
worth back 15 years to time zero.
Annual Worth Calculations
For an annual worth style analysis, all
costs and benefits in a given analysis
period can also be expressed in terms
of an equivalent series of annual cash
flows of uniform value over every year of
the analysis period in an annual worth or
equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC)
analysis.
The formula for the equivalent uniform
annual value ($A) of a cost ($P) incurred
at the beginning of the analysis period (t
= 0):
$ = $
(1 +d)

(1 +d)

1

To express a one-time future cost (e.g.,
follow-up preservation/rehabilitation) or
benefit (e.g., salvage value) in terms of
its equivalent uniform annual cost over
the analysis period, it must first be
converted to its equivalent present worth
at t = 0, and then converted to its
equivalent uniform annual cost.

Annual costs that are uniform
throughout the analysis period require
no conversion before being added to
other equivalent uniform annual costs.
Annual costs that are not uniform over
the analysis period (e.g., annual
maintenance costs forecasted for some
subperiod within the analysis period)
must be:
1. Converted to present worth at the
beginning of the first year of the
subperiod,
2. Converted to a present worth at
the beginning of the analysis
period (e.g., t = 0), and
3. Converted to equivalent uniform
annual cost over the entire
analysis period.
Analysis Methods
The present and annual worth
calculations discussed thus far describe
a deterministic approach to LCCA
comparisons because a single defined
value is assumed and used for each
activity (e.g., initial construction cost,
preservation/rehabilitation cost and
timing, etc.).
There is, of course, inherent variability
(and, thus, risk) in each and every input
used in an LCCA (e.g., forecasted future
material costs, forecasted activity timing,
expected service life of preservation
techniques, etc.) that is not accounted
for in a deterministic analysis. Such
variability can, however, be accounted
for through a probabilistic analysis.
P a g e | 63

The FHWAs probabilistic LCCA
procedure, as used in their RealCost
LCCA software, relies on Monte Carlo
simulations to select a random value for
each input variable from its probability
distribution and then compute the NPV
or EUAC for the selected values. This
process is repeated many times in order
to generate a probability distribution of
LCCAs for each alternative being
considered.
WinPAS conducts a deterministic
analysis, so the remainder of this
chapter will focus on this analysis
method. ACPA does, however,
recommend the use of FHWAs
RealCost software to account for the
variability in the LCCA inputs.
Accounting for Material Inflation
Although asphalt cement makes up only
about 5-8% of the weight of a typical
asphalt paving mixture and cement
comprises about 8 percent of a typical
concrete paving mixture, the binders
typically are the most expensive
components of paving mixtures. Thus, a
comprehensive LCCA comparing these
two pavement types should consider
any significant differences in inflation
between these two materials.
Material-specific real discount rates are
one method of accounting for situations
when one or more materials are
expected to inflate at a rate significantly
greater (or less) than that of the inflation
rate used in the calculation of the
general real discount rate.
Other methods of accounting for
differences in material inflation are 1) by
escalating the future value of an item
before calculating its present or annual
worth or 2) adjusting the present or
annual worth of the item.
For example, the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation recently
began applying an Asphalt Adjustment
Multiplier (AAM)
28
to adjust asphalt bid
prices to better reflect the price paid for
asphalt over a life cycle; their current
AAM factor is 1.7419, which effectively
inflates all future agency asphalt costs
by almost 75% before the costs are
discounted.
Another method of escalating future
costs has recently been suggested by
researchers at MIT.
29
Through
stochastic simulation using the BLSs
PPIs for steel, lumber, concrete, and
asphalt and the CPI, they have
proposed real price escalation factors
that are dependent on the year in the
LCCA in which the activity is conducted.
These factors account for just the
difference between the material inflation
and general inflation so that the
standard (e.g., not material-specific) real
discount rate can still be used, making
this process very easy to apply to
individual expenditures.




64 | P a g e

For example, and because inflation has
outpaced the cost of concrete, a
concrete overlay in year 30 of an LCCA
would be escalated by a real price
adjustment of 87%, such that
$1,000,000 of concrete overlay
pavement today would have a real price
of $870,000 30 years from now; this
$870,000 at year 30 would then be used
to calculate the present or annual worth
of that activity using the standard real
discount rate.
Comparison of Results
After the LCCA has been conducted for
each alternate, it is necessary to
analyze and compare the results.
Because different components of the
total life-cycle cost indicate different
things about the alternates (e.g., the
relative impacts of initial and future
agency costs or user costs), the
components typically are viewed both
separately and together to aid in
interpretation and evaluation of the
results.
30

Probabilistic analyses provide a means
of evaluating the relative economic
(cost) risk of competing alternatives, but
the process can be complex. A simple
way to examine the cost estimation risk
(i.e., variability in the estimated LCCA)
of competing alternatives using only
deterministic analysis techniques is to
take the ratio of initial costs to the net
present value (of EUAC) for each
alternate . Higher values of this ratio
indicate that more of the LCCA is due to
initial costs, which are relatively better
known, so the reliability of the LCCA
estimate is higher than for alternatives
with lower values of this ratio.
When two alternatives have very similar
net present values over the analysis
period, it is advisable to choose the less
risky alternative (i.e., the one with the
higher proportion of the net present
value attributable to initial costs).
Depending on the level of cost
estimation risk considered acceptable, it
may even be preferable to select the
alternative with the somewhat higher
present worth of costs.
More Information on LCCA
ACPAs recently published EB011, Life-
Cycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better
Pavement Investment and Engineering
Decision, provides detailed discussion
on all aspects of a comprehensive
LCCA. This document is readily
available in the ACPA online bookstore
at:
http://acpa.org/bookstore/
P a g e | 65

Chapter 4. WinPAS Users Guide

Introduction
WinPAS is a menu-driven computer program for designing and analyzing pavement
systems using the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. It is a
stand-alone program consisting of the following modules:
1. Project identification,
2. Traffic analysis,
3. Pavement design and evaluation,
4. Overlay design and evaluation,
5. Life-cycle cost analysis, and
6. Reporting.
WinPAS contains many help screens that explain input variables and suggested,
reasonable ranges for input values. To access help, place the cursor on the input
variable about which help information is desired and click on the help button in
the active window.
WinPAS is intended as a tool for professional personnel knowledgeable in the field of
pavement engineering and who are able to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the results. The persons using this program are solely responsible for its proper use and
application. The American Concrete Pavement Association and the individuals
associated with developing the program disclaim any and all responsibility for improper
use or application of the program, or for the accuracy of any of the sources upon which
the program is based.


Menu Options
The menu at the top-left of the WinPAS window has three options:
File
Units
Help




66 | P a g e

File Menu
The File menu has four options:
New initiates the design or analysis of a new pavement
project in WinPAS.
Open reopens a project previously created in WinPAS.
Save saves the current project.
Exit will close the WinPAS software.
Units Menu
The Units menu has two options, permitting you to select the
units (English or Metric) in which you wish to work. This
selection should be made before inputting project details
because switching the units may cause input values to reset to
default levels.
Help Menu
The Help menu has two options. About WinPAS
identifies the version of WinPAS that you are using.
WinPAS 12 Guide links to this document, which
provides additional help and discussion for many of the
design inputs, overlays, and LCCA. In addition to this document, to access input specific
help details from within the software, place the cursor on the input variable about which
help information is desired and click on the help button in the active window.


Main Menu
The Main Menu is the strip of tabs that allow you to access each module included in the
software. To select one of the modules, click on its tab using the mouse. The Project
tab is the default tab selected when the program is opened. To open an existing project,
go to the File menu and select Open Project.



P a g e | 67

Project Tab
The Project tab allows you to input general information for your project. It is not
necessary for you to provide information for every field. WinPAS displays the general
information from this screen at the top of all printed reports.



Estimate ESALs Tab
The traffic module converts mixed traffic into ESALs
according to the AASHTO procedure. You can
determine the design ESALs using axle data, vehicle
type data, or traffic factor data. However, to determine
ESALs by any of these methods, you must first provide
some information on the General ESAL Calculation
Inputs screen (i.e., you cannot determine ESALS until
information is placed into the General ESAL Calculation Inputs).
A preliminary estimate of the required concrete slab thickness and/or asphalt pavement
Structural Number, as well as the terminal serviceability, is needed to select the
appropriate rigid and flexible pavement load equivalency factors (LEFs) for use in
68 | P a g e

calculating ESALs. The design life and ESAL growth rate are needed to calculate the
total ESALs over the design life. Note that the AASHTO design procedure is based on
vehicles in the design lane. WinPAS allows you to either input traffic as design lane, or
as total traffic.

If total traffic is chosen, you must also indicate whether it is 1 or 2 way traffic, and also
give the design lane and directional distributions.

Total ESALs by Axle Data
This screen requires the following inputs:
Axle types (single, tandem, or tridem).
Axle weights (in kips [kN]).
Number of axles for each axle type (in the first day, month, or year, depending on
the initial time interval indicated on the General ESAL Calculation Inputs screen).
WinPAS calculates the total rigid and flexible ESALs over the design life for each
combination of axle type and weight entered, and sums them at the bottom of the
screen.
P a g e | 69



Total ESALs by Vehicle Type
This screen requires the following inputs:
Vehicle types.
Type and weight of each axle of each vehicle.
Number of each vehicle (in the first day, month, or year, depending on the initial
time interval indicated on the General ESAL Calculation Inputs screen).
Place the information next to the diagram corresponding to the appropriate vehicle.
WinPAS automatically displays typical maximum legal values for axle types and weights
for several different types of vehicles. You may modify these axle types and weight
values. (Note: On average, vehicles are not fully loaded. ESALs calculated with these
values will be conservative.) The total rigid and flexible ESALs for the life of the
pavement are summed at the bottom.
70 | P a g e


Note: The pictures of vehicles above are for graphical purposes only. Changing
Axle Loads & Axle Type will not change the picture.

For special vehicles and design problems we suggest that you check your design with
another design procedure, such as ACPA's AirPave software or some other design
procedures.




P a g e | 71

Total ESALs by Truck Factor
This screen requires the following inputs:
Either the average daily truck traffic (ADTT) or
Average daily traffic (ADT) and percent trucks.
Rigid and flexible pavement truck factors (e.g., average ESALs/truck).


For traffic input using truck factors, knowledge of the average ESALs/truck must be
known. Many state agencies have calculated this factor based on the average vehicle
types and weights in use in the state, and by roadway classification. For more
information contact your state Department of Transportation (DOT).
For more information on ESALs, see the appropriate help screens in WinPAS, the
appropriate sections earlier in this document, or the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures.



72 | P a g e

Design/Evaluation Tab
WinPAS's pavement design and evaluation
module can design new pavements or
analyze existing pavements. Concrete and
asphalt pavements can be designed
separately, or side-by-side.
Upon first loading the WinPAS software, all inputs are blank. You may notice that the
Solve For button does not state to solve specifically for thickness like many pavement
thickness design software might. This is because the closed-form AASHTO solutions
allow you to quickly solve for any of the various design variables after all other variables
have been entered. When you press the Solve For button, WinPAS will solve for the
variable highlighted by your cursor.
To use Solve For, you must first input a value for all variables except the variable you
are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). After pressing Solve For,
WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in the
Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell. You can change the value for any
variable(s), reposition your cursor, and press Solve For again. The Solve For box will
again display the answer.
By allowing the flexibility to solve for any input, you can quickly calculate thickness or
Structural Number, ESALs, reliability, flexural strength, or any of the other design
variables. If you receive an 'ERROR,' it means one or more of your inputs are outside
the equation bounds. Check each input to make sure it is a reasonable value.

Concrete Pavement Design/Analysis
This screen displays and solves for the inputs in the AASHTO concrete pavement
performance equation. Information needed includes concrete slab thickness (D), total
rigid ESALs, reliability (R), overall standard deviation (s
0
), 28-day mean flexural strength
(f
c
), 28-day mean modulus of elasticity (E
c
), load transfer coefficient (J), mean static
modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), drainage coefficient (C
d
), and initial and
terminal serviceability (P
o
and P
t
).
The concrete pavement slabs at the AASHO Road Test were between 2.5 and 12.5 in.
(64 and 318 mm) thick. ACPA recommends a minimum concrete slab thickness of 5 in.
(127 mm) for streets and 4 in. (102 mm) for parking lots not subject to truck traffic. The
minimum and maximum allowable input for thickness in this program is 4 in. and 20 in.
(102 mm and 508 mm), respectively. The Total Rigid ESALs input comes from the
Estimate ESALs tab in WinPAS, although you may overwrite this value and solve for
the allowable ESALs for a given slab thickness and other inputs.
P a g e | 73



The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor for which a pavement is
designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to
accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher
safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this
margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative
values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations.

74 | P a g e

The overall standard deviation reflects:
1. The error associated with estimation of each of the inputs.
2. The error associated with the quality of fit of the model to the data on which it
is based, and the replication error (differences in performance of seemingly
identical pavement sections under identical conditions).
The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For
concrete pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.30 and 0.40.
Typically, 0.35 is used.
The required flexural strength input is the average 28-day in-place flexural strength of
the concrete in third-point loading. In design, AASHTO recommends you increase the
minimum specified flexural strength (S
c
) by a z' factor multiplied by the standard
deviation (SD) of the flexural strength to get a design flexural strength (S
c
).
S
c
(design) = S
c
+ z(SD)
The 'z' factor is a function of the percentage of tests allowed below the minimum
specified value. For more information on this, see the appropriate section earlier in this
document or section 2.3.4 of Part II of the AASHTO Design Guide.
The required modulus of elasticity input is the average 28-day in-place modulus of
elasticity. This may be difficult to determine directly, but can be estimated from
correlations with flexural or compressive strength. Some correlations from the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) are provided on the help screen for this input and others are
available in a free online strength converter app at http://apps.acpa.org.
The load transfer coefficient (J factor) is intended to reflect the effects of transverse
joint load transfer (e.g., aggregate interlock versus dowels) and longitudinal edge
support (e.g., asphalt shoulder versus tied concrete shoulder) on slab corner deflection.
A J factor of 3.2 reflects the corner support conditions at the AASHO Road Test
(doweled joints, asphalt shoulders). J factors less than 3.2 indicate even better support
conditions (e.g., concrete shoulder and/or continuously reinforced concrete pavement).
J factors greater than 3.2 reflect worse corner support conditions (e.g., asphalt
shoulders and undoweled joints). The J factor help screen displays the ACPA's J factor
recommendations. The recommended ranges fall within the ranges recommended in
the AASHTO Design Guide.


P a g e | 75

The required subgrade/subbase input is the average static modulus of subgrade
reaction (k-value). The modulus of subgrade reaction help screen provides a
procedure, from the AASHTO Design Guide and ACPA-developed correlations, for
estimating the design composite k-value as a function of the resilient modulus of the
subgrade and subbase, the thickness of the subbase, and the depth below the
subgrade to a rigid foundation. An additional help screen provides correlations between
subgrade resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and R-value. It should be
noted that the correlations are intended to estimate resilient modulus from either CBR or
R value, not to relate CBR to R value.
The drainage coefficient (C
d
) is intended to reflect the quality of drainage to the
pavement structure. The baseline value of 1.00 corresponds to AASHO Road Test
conditions, which were extremely poor. Pavement structures with better drainage would
have a C
d
value greater than 1.00, while pavement structures with worse drainage
would have a C
d
value less than 1.00. Note: because these values are based on soil
conditions found at the AASHO Road Test, care must be taken when assigning C
d

values less than 1.0.
Pavement performance is quantified in the AASHTO methodology in terms of
serviceability, which is the ability of the pavement to serve its function, from the
viewpoint of the users. To users of a pavement, serviceability is primarily a function of
ride quality (i.e., smoothness/roughness), which in turn depends on the type, quantity,
and severity of distress(es) present. At the AASHO Road Test, a scale from 0 to 5 was
developed for the user assessment of ride quality, or Present Serviceability Rating
(PSR). Equations were then developed to estimate the PSR by a Present Serviceability
Index (PSI), which can be calculated as a function of measured roughness and distress.
The AASHTO design equations predict the change in PSI as a function of the design
ESALs and other design inputs.
The required initial serviceability input is the expected PSI of the pavement when
opened to traffic, which depends on the initial smoothness of the pavement. The
average initial PSI values at the AASHO Road Test were 4.5 and 4.2 for concrete and
asphalt pavements, respectively However, with modern construction equipment and
practices, initial smoothness levels corresponding to PSI values of 4.5 are easily
achievable for both concrete and asphalt pavements. The required terminal
serviceability input is the PSI at which the pavement is expected to need replacement
or major preservation/rehabilitation. The appropriate terminal serviceability level for a
given design situation depends on the functional class and the location (urban or rural)
of the roadway.
76 | P a g e

For AASHTO recommended values on any of these inputs, see the help screen for any
input in WinPAS, see the appropriate section earlier in this document, or consult the
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

Asphalt Pavement Design/Analysis
This screen displays and solves for the AASHTO asphalt pavement performance
equation inputs, including:
Structural number.
Total flexible ESALs.
Reliability.
Overall standard deviation.
Subgrade resilient modulus.
Initial and terminal serviceability.

P a g e | 77

The Asphalt Structural Number reflects the required structural capacity of all asphalt
pavement structure layers above the subgrade (i.e., the asphalt concrete surface
course, base(s), and subbase(s)).
The Total Flexible ESAL input comes from the Estimate ESALs tab in WinPAS,
although you may overwrite this value and solve for the allowable ESALs for a given
Structural Number and other inputs.
The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor, for which a pavement is
designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to
accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher
safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this
margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative
values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations.
The overall standard deviation reflects:
1. The error associated with estimation of each of the inputs.
2. The error associated with the quality of fit of the model to the data on which it
is based, and the replication error (differences in performance of seemingly
identical pavement sections under identical conditions).
The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For asphalt
pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.40 and 0.50. Typically,
0.45 is used.
The subgrade resilient modulus is used to describe the subgrade strength for asphalt
pavements. Typical values range from about 1,000 psi (6.9 MPa) for soft, marshy soils
to about 40,000 psi (276 MPa) for granular soils. The resilient modulus help screen
provides correlations between subgrade resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio
(CBR), and R-value. It should be noted that the correlations are intended to estimate
resilient modulus from either CBR or R-value, not to relate CBR to R value.
Pavement performance is quantified in the AASHTO methodology in terms of
serviceability, which is the ability of the pavement to serve its function, from the
viewpoint of the users. To users of a pavement, serviceability is primarily a function of
ride quality (i.e., smoothness/roughness), which in turn depends on the type, quantity,
and severity of distress(es) present. At the AASHO Road Test, a scale from 0 to 5 was
developed for the user assessment of ride quality, or Present Serviceability Rating
(PSR). Equations were then developed to estimate the PSR by a Present Serviceability
Index (PSI), which can be calculated as a function of measured roughness and distress.
The AASHTO design equations predict the change in PSI as a function of the design
ESALs and other design inputs.
78 | P a g e

The required initial serviceability input is the expected PSI of the pavement when
opened to traffic, which depends on the initial smoothness of the pavement. The
average initial PSI values at the AASHO Road Test were 4.5 and 4.2 for concrete
pavements and asphalt pavements, respectively. However, with modern construction
equipment and practices, initial smoothness levels corresponding to PSI values of 4.5
are easily achievable for both concrete and asphalt pavements. The required terminal
serviceability input is the PSI at which the pavement is expected to need replacement
or major preservation/rehabilitation. The appropriate terminal serviceability level for a
given design situation depends on the functional class and the location (urban or rural)
of the roadway.

Asphalt Layer Determination
An additional step is necessary to complete an asphalt pavement design. After
determining the Structural Number, it is necessary to determine layer thicknesses that,
when combined, will provide the required SN. This is accomplished by pressing the
Calculate Asphalt Structural Number button. It provides a simple spreadsheet format
for trying different combinations of layers and materials. In an asphalt pavement
design, a coefficient is assigned to each layer and this coefficient converts the actual
layer thickness to a layer SN. The coefficients are indicative of the relative contributions
of the layers to the structural capacity of the pavement. The sum of all the layer
structural numbers must equal or exceed the required SN from the AASHTO equation.

The contributions of the individual layers to the total pavement Structural Number are
expressed by the following formula:
SN = a
1
t
1
+ a
2
t
2
m
2
+ a
3
t
3
m
3
+
P a g e | 79

Where a
i
are the layer coefficients corresponding to the surface, base, subbase, and
other layers above the subgrade and t
i
are their respective thicknesses. Drainage
coefficients (m
i
) may be applied only to granular base and subbase layers. Typical layer
coefficient values for several types of materials can be found in the help screen. For
more information, see section 2.3.5 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. Guidelines for
selection of drainage coefficient values for asphalt pavement base and subbase
materials can be found in the help screen and in section 2.4.2 of the 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide.
The Additional Thickness needed column on the right-hand side of the Layer Thickness
Determination screen provides a check to see if the Structural Number of the layer
materials and thicknesses selected satisfies the required Structural Number. The
column displays how much additional thickness is needed to meet the total SN for the
layer/material on which the cursor rests. You may use the value WinPAS displays to
adjust the layer thicknesses and optimize your design.

Both Concrete and Asphalt Design/Analysis (Side-by-Side)
This screen performs the same functions as the Concrete Pavement Design/Analysis
and Asphalt Pavement Design/Analysis screens. It allows you to develop concrete and
asphalt pavement designs side-by-side, so that you can easily make comparisons of the
two alternate pavement designs.
Note that when using this screen for side-by-side concrete and asphalt pavement
designs, you must press the Solve For buttons on either sides of the screen to
determine the required concrete pavement slab thickness or asphalt pavement
Structural Number.

80 | P a g e




Overlays Tab
The overlay design and evaluation module is based on Chapter 5 of Part III of the 1993
AASHTO Design Guide. It consists of three concrete overlay design procedures. For
more information on the theory used in these procedures, see Chapter 5 of the Guide
and the appropriate sections earlier in this document.
To use the overlay design module, you must first provide information about the existing
pavement and then some information for the type of overlay you wish to design. The
overlay design module also provides screens for backcalculation of some of the overlay
design inputs from nondestructive testing (NDT) deflection (e.g., FWD) measurements.


P a g e | 81


Similar to the new pavement design section, the overlay design modules employ the
Solve For button to solve for any design input. To use Solve For, input all variables
except the variable you are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). Next
place the cursor in the variable you would like to solve, and click on the Solve For
button. WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in
the Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell.

Existing Pavement Information
The existing pavement information needed depends on the existing pavement type (i.e.,
concrete, asphalt, or composite pavement).
For an existing concrete pavement, the following information is necessary to perform
an overlay design:
Concrete thickness,
Flexural strength,
Modulus of elasticity,
Load transfer coefficient,
Modulus of subgrade reaction, and
Drainage coefficient.
82 | P a g e

For an existing asphalt pavement, the following information is necessary to perform
an overlay design:
Existing soil resilient modulus and
Either the existing layer properties (material type, thickness, drainage coefficient,
and layer coefficient) or the effective modulus of the pavement (E
p
)
The E
p
is a composite elastic modulus of the existing pavement structure (all layers
above the subgrade), as if it were all composed of one material. E
p
may be determined
from nondestructive deflection testing with a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) or
similar device. The in-situ (field) resilient modulus of the subgrade soil (M
r
) may also be
determined from nondestructive deflection testing, and then used to estimate the design
(laboratory) resilient modulus. More information on determining E
p
and M
r
is given in
the appropriate section of this document and in Part III, Chapter 5, of the 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide.
When FWD testing is not possible, the effective Structural Number of the existing
pavement must be estimated using the existing layer thicknesses and assigning layer
coefficients that reflect the degree of deterioration in the existing pavement.
For an existing composite (asphalt over concrete) pavement, the following
information is necessary to perform an overlay design:
Asphalt surface thickness,
Concrete slab thickness,
Concrete flexural strength,
Concrete modulus of elasticity,
Concrete pavement load transfer coefficient,
Modulus of subgrade reaction, and
Drainage coefficient.

Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete
Bonded concrete overlays on concrete are generally used when the existing concrete
pavement is in relatively good condition, requiring little pre-overlay repair. For more
information on the feasibility of such overlays and the design equations used by
WinPAS, see Chapter 2 of this document.



P a g e | 83


The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a
function of the future total rigid ESALs and other AASHTO concrete pavement design
equation inputs. The values for flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, load
transfer, and modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen (they
are transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen). Because
the original pavement properties do not change with an overlay, these values have been
locked to prevent accidental changes.
The effective existing concrete slab thickness (D
eff
) is generally less than the actual slab
thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the
actual existing slab thickness and three adjustment factors that reflect the extent of
deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation
of D
eff
.



84 | P a g e

Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete
Unbonded concrete overlays on concrete are generally most cost effective when the
existing concrete pavement is badly deteriorated and would require extensive pre-
overlay repair for a bonded concrete or asphalt overlay. For more information on the
feasibility of such overlays and the design equations used by WinPAS, see Chapter 2 of
this document.

The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a
function of the design ESALs and other AASHTO rigid pavement design equation
inputs. On this screen, other input values cannot be determined with the Solve For key.
The value for the modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen
because it is transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen
and cannot be changed with an overlay. The values entered on this screen for the other
inputs (including the flexural strength, elastic modulus, and load transfer
coefficient) apply to the unbonded overlay, not the existing pavement.


P a g e | 85

The effective existing slab thickness (D
eff
) is generally less than the actual slab
thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the
actual existing slab thickness and one adjustment factor that reflects the extent of
deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation
of D
eff
.

Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt (Conventional Whitetopping)
The design for an unbonded concrete overlay on an asphalt pavement, also known as a
conventional whitetopping) is similar to designing a new concrete pavement on an
asphalt-stabilized subbase. The AASHTO overlay design procedure requires inputs for
future thickness, future ESALs, reliability, overall deviation, modulus of rupture,
modulus of elasticity, modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), drainage
coefficient, and initial and terminal serviceability.

86 | P a g e

The most difficult input to determine in the design of conventional whitetopping is the
appropriate k-value to use to represent the existing asphalt pavement structure and
foundation. There are two methods to estimate the k-vale:
1) Compute a composite k-value from the soil and pavement layer strengths. This is
a similar procedure as that used for stabilized subbase materials in new concrete
pavement designs. See Part II, Section 3.2 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide for
more details.
2) Determine the dynamic k-value from FWD testing and backcalculation. This
requires backcalculating the subgrade modulus (M
r
) and the effective pavement
modulus (E
p
), and determining the existing asphalt layer thickness (D
ac
), which can
be done using WinPAS's NDT backcalculation procedure).
For more information on conventional whitetopping for asphalt pavements, see Section
5.10 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide, ACPAs EB210P, "Whitetopping - The State of
the Practice," or the CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete Overlays,
22


Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Backcalculation
WinPAS provides easy-to-use backcalculation routines for analysis of nondestructive
deflection testing data. More information on these backcalculation routines is provided
in Part III, Chapter 5 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. Nondestructive deflection
testing can be an extremely valuable and rapid form of testing. FWD testing provides
very useful information for a reasonable investment of time, effort, and money.
However, analysis of FWD data can be quite sensitive to site conditions and therefore
requires knowledgeable and experienced personnel.
For concrete pavements, NDT is useful for examining load transfer at joints and cracks,
estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), and estimating the concrete
modulus of elasticity. For asphalt pavements, NDT provides data for estimating the soil
resilient modulus and the effective Structural Number of the pavement. NDT cannot be
used to estimate moduli values of individual layers of a flexible pavement system. For
composite pavements, NDT can be used to determine load transfer efficiency at joints
and cracks, estimate effective k-value, estimate concrete strength, and examine
resilient modulus of asphalt layers. Still for all three pavement types, one of the most
important things NDT can do is quantify variability along the project.


P a g e | 87

NDT Backcalculation for Concrete Pavements
To determine the subgrade k-value and the elastic modulus of the concrete slab,
WinPAS requires inputs for the existing concrete slab thickness, the Poisson's ratio
of the concrete (typically 0.15 to 0.20), the radius of the FWD load plate (5.9 in. [150
mm]), and load and deflection data. WinPAS uses the existing concrete slab thickness
from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen in the NDT module.
The load input is the measured load magnitude that corresponds to the deflections
measured at the pavement surface. The deflections d
0
, d
12
, d
24
, and d
36
are measured
directly under the load (e.g., 0 in.) and at 12, 24, and 36 in. (305, 610, and 914 mm)
from the center of the load plate. WinPAS provides more information on these inputs on
the help screen. WinPAS calculates the deflection basin (AREA), radius of relative
stiffness (l), dynamic and static modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value), and
concrete modulus (E
c
) from the load and deflection data and the slab thickness. The
static k-values are estimated by dividing the dynamic k-values by 2. The mean static k-
value is the appropriate input for inclusion in the appropriate overlay design procedures.



88 | P a g e

NDT Backcalculation for Asphalt Pavements
To determine the in-situ (field) subgrade resilient modulus and the effective Structural
Number of an existing flexible pavement, WinPAS requires inputs for existing asphalt
pavement thickness (all layers above the subgrade), the radius of the FWD load
plate (5.9 in. [150 mm]), and load and deflection data.
A correction factor (C) is required to estimate the design (laboratory) resilient modulus
of the subgrade from the in-situ resilient modulus. For design of asphalt overlays on
asphalt pavements, a C value no greater than 0.33 is recommended. For design of
asphalt overlays on fractured slabs, a C value of 0.25 is suggested. The distance (r)
from the center of the load plate to the deflection (d
r
) used in calculation of the subgrade
resilient modulus is typically at least 24 in. (610 mm).
The effective modulus of the existing pavement is calculated from the backcalculated
(unadjusted) subgrade resilient modulus, the deflection d
0
at the center of the
load plate, and the total thickness of the existing pavement above the subgrade.



P a g e | 89

NDT Backcalculation for Composite Pavements
WinPAS will estimate the subgrade k-value and approximate concrete elastic
modulus from deflections measured on a composite pavement by essentially the same
backcalculation method used in NDT backcalculation for concrete pavements. To
account for the presence of the existing asphalt layer, you must also enter the asphalt
thickness, an estimate of the asphalt elastic modulus at the time of deflection testing,
and assume whether the asphalt and concrete layers are bonded or unbonded.
Examination of cores may be helpful in making the bonded versus unbonded
determination.




Life-Cycle Costs Tab
WinPAS's life-cycle cost analysis tab allows you to account for the total costs involved in
constructing, maintaining, and rehabilitating both concrete and asphalt pavement
systems, although the analysis is not limited to the comparison of concrete and asphalt
pavements.

90 | P a g e

Any pavement cross-section can be assigned for the life-cycle cost analysis. WinPAS
calculates both the present worth and the equivalent uniform annual cost of the
cross-section. For more information on life-cycle cost analysis, see Chapter 3 of this
publication and ACPAs EB011, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better Pavement
Investment and Engineering Decisions.
Economic Factors
The economic factors account for the effects of interest and inflation over a defined
period of time (e.g., the analysis period). WinPAS requires input for the analysis
period for each pavement, the interest rate, and the inflation rate. The discount rate,
which is used to characterize the effects of fluctuating interest and inflation rates, is
calculated as a function of the interest and inflation rates.

Cost Graphs
A graphical output is available to show the economic analysis results, comparing the
pavements in the life-cycle cost module. You may display plots in terms of initial costs,
maintenance costs, rehabilitation costs, present worth value, or equivalent
uniform annual cost (EUAC) for each pavement type.
P a g e | 91

Pavement Cost Information
Cost information for Pavement A and B is entered on three subtabs (each pavement
type's cost information screens are exactly alike). The subtab is for general pavement
information, while the second and third subtabs are cost calculation screens. The
second subtab provides lines for up to 35 initial cost items. The third subtab is for entry
of maintenance and rehabilitation cost items.
On the first subtab, enter general details of the project: layer types, widths, thicknesses,
material unit weights, shoulders or curb and gutter, project length, joint spacing, etc.
When activate, the drop down menu buttons that appear when the cursor is in a specific
column give a list of possible items.

The second subtab calculates the initial cost for the pavement, considering up to 35
initial cost items. Any project details initially entered on the previous subtab are
automatically transferred to the second subtab. You must make adjustments to the
information on the second subtab manually. Again, the drop down menu identifies
possible items for the columns. Furthermore, in the quantity column, the drop down
menu can be used to calculate quantities and establish units based on the information
from the first subtab. Item cost is the initial cost per item and automatically calculated
from the Unit Cost and Quantity.
92 | P a g e


The third subtab calculates maintenance and rehabilitation costs for the pavement.
Once more, maintenance items and quantities are capable of being tied to the general
info on the first subtab. Item cost is the maintenance cost per item in today's dollars.
The total item cost is summed at the bottom of the page. The year input is the year the
maintenance will be performed. Present worth is calculated for each item based on the
year of the maintenance to account for the time value of money and all present worths
are totaled at the bottom of the page.
P a g e | 93


Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Results
This screen has no inputs. It displays a summary of the results of the economic
analysis. Initial Cost and Maintenance and Rehabilitation Costs are the total
amounts spent on each activity for each pavement type. Total Expenditures is the sum
of initial costs and maintenance and rehabilitation costs. It is the actual dollar outlay of
the life of the project.
Present Worth is the sum of initial cost and future cost, discounted to account for both
inflation and interest. Annual Cost is the total expenditures amortized over the analysis
period; this is the same as EUAC.
Note: Pavements with different analysis periods should be compared using equivalent
uniform annual cost (EUAC) only. Comparisons in terms of present worth are not
appropriate for comparison of pavements with different analysis periods.




94 | P a g e

Reports Tab
The Reports tab permits you to print or save the results of analyses conducted with
WinPAS. Customized reports on new pavement designs, overlay designs, rigid and
flexible ESAL calculations, or life-cycle cost analysis can be printed. In these reports,
all pertinent information will be printed. To print a report, select the reports you would
like to print on the Reports tab and hit Load. WinPAS will display the reports. Within
that new window, you can toggle between reports and print the reports. You can also
export the reports so that they can be used in other formats (e.g., MS Word).



Problems or Questions
If you are having problems with the operation of this program, please contact ACPA at
847.966.2272. If you have general questions about concrete pavements and concrete
pavement design, please contact your local ACPA Chapter or State Paving Association
(see the My Locator on the ACPA homepage) or visit ACPA online at www.acpa.org.

P a g e | 95

References

1. "AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures," American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington,
D.C., 1993.
2. "The AASHO Road Test, Special
Reports 61A-61G," Highway Research
Board National Academy of Sciences-
National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1961-1962.
3. "National Road Test Performance
Study" Portland Cement Association,
R164, Skokie, IL, 1962.
4. Performance of Concrete Pavements,
Vol. Ill - Improving Concrete Pavement
Performance, Yu, H.T., Darter M.I.,
Smith K.D., Jiang J., and Khazanovich
L., Report No. FHWA-RD-95-111,
Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., 1997
5. Thickness Design for Concrete
Highway and Street Pavements,
EB109P, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, IL, 1984.
6. Design of Concrete Pavements for City
Streets, IS184P, American Concrete
Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1992.
7. Guidelines for Unbonded Concrete
Overlays, TB005P, American Concrete
Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1990.
8. Guidelines for Bonded Concrete
Overlays, TB007P, American Concrete
Pavement Association, Skokie, IL, 1990.
9. Whitetopping - State of the Practice,
EB210P, American Concrete Pavement
Association, Skokie, IL, 1998.
10. Comments on the Proposed "AASHTO
Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures," March 1985, Portland
Cement Association, Presented at May
14, 1985 Public Hearings, Washington,
D.C.







11. "Flexural Strength of Concrete Using
Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading,"
AASHTO Test Method T97,
Washington, D.C. or ASTM C78,
American Society of Testing Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
12. "Flexural Strength of Concrete using
Simple Beam with Center-Point
Loading," AASHTO Test Method T177,
Washington, D.C. or ASTM C93,
American Society of Testing Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
13. "Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens," AASHTO Test
Method T22, Washington, D.C. or ASTM
C39, American Society of Testing
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
14. "Standard Test Method for Static
Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's
Ratio of Concrete in Compression,"
ASTM C469, American Society of
Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
15. "High Strength Concrete," ACI Manual
of Concrete Practice, Part 1, Materials
and General Properties of Concrete,
ACI 363R-84, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Ml, 1990.
16. "Bearing Capacity of Soil for Static Load
on Spread Footing," AASHTO Test
Method T-235, Washington, D.C. or
ASTM D1194, American Society of
Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
17. "Resilient Modulus of Unbound
Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade
Soils," AASHTO Test Method T294,
Washington, D.C.
18. "The California Bearing Ratio," AASHTO
Test Method T193, Washington, D.C.
19. "Resistance R-Value and Expansion
Pressure of Compacted Soils," AASHTO
Test Method T190, Washington, D.C. or
ASTM D2844, American Society of
Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
96 | P a g e

20. "Evaluation of the AASHO Interim Guide
for the Design of Pavement Structures,"
NCHRP Project 128, Washington, D.C.
21. "Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens," AASHTO Test
Method T198, Washington, D.C. or
ASTM C496, American Society of
Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
22. Guide to Concrete Overlays, National
Concrete Pavement Technology Center,
Ames, IA, 2008.
23. Design of Concrete Overlays Using
Existing Methodologies, National
Concrete Pavement Technology Center,
Ames, IA, 2011.
24. LCC Final Policy Statement, Federal
Register, Vol. 61, No. 182, September
18, 1996, p. 35404.
25. Engineering Economy, Thuesen, G. J.
and Fabrycky, W. J., sixth edition,
copyright by Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.


























26. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Revisited: The
Discount Rate, Concrete Conveyer,
Volume 8, Issue 4, Concrete Paving
Association of Minnesota, 2008.
27. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement
Design In Search of Better Investment
Decisions, Federal Highway
Administration, Interim Technical
Bulletin, Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079,
1998.
28. Asphalt Adjustment Multiplier Memo,
July 8, 2011, Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation, 2011.
29. The Effects of Inflation and Its Volatility
on the Choice of Construction
Alternatives, Concrete Sustainability
Hub, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Lindsey, L., Schmalensee,
R., and Sacher, A., 2011.
30. Guide for Pavement-Type Selection,
National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Report 703, 2011.







P a g e | 97











This Page Left Intentionally Blank




Windows Pavement Analysis Software (WinPAS) Guide
Based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures












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
American Concrete Pavement Association DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY
and LIABILITY for the accuracy of and the application of the information contained in
this publication to the full extent permitted by law.


American Concrete Pavement Association
9450 Bryn Mawr, Suite 150
Rosemont, IL 60018
www.acpa.org


WinPAS12 (SW03)