AASHTO Rigid Pavement Design Procedure

Reference: AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures, 1993

Rigid Pavement Types

JPCP

JRCP

CRCP

Design Methods with Provisions for Establishing

PCC Slab Thickness Reinforcing Steel Requirements Joint Design

AASHTO Pavement Design

History Basis
1959 (guidelines) 1961, 1972, 1986, 1993, 20XX AASHO Road Test (1958-60) Ottawa, IL Regression analysis, accelerated loading, flexible & rigid

AASHO Road Test

Experimental design 200 combinations of surface thickness & subbase
Surface: 2.5-12 in Granular subbase: 0-9 in

AASHTO Design
Design criteria
smoothness, cracking, & patching

PSI=5.411.78log(1+SV)0.09(C+P)0.5
Limitations
Pavement materials & subgrade 2 yr testing Identical axle loads & configurations

AASHTO Design
Determine Slab Thickness, D D = f(PSI,W18,R,S0,k,Ec,Sc,J,Cd)
D Dsb PCC surface Subbase Subgrade (SG)

Serviceability Concept
Pavements ability to Serve the type of Traffic Using the Facility

Po PSI

PSI = Po - Pt
Pt

Time

Serviceability Loss (PSI)

PSI = Po - Pt
Po = Initial PSI
4.5 for Rigid Facility Interstate Urban Rural Pt 3.0 2.5 2.0

Pt = Terminal PSI

f(facility classification)

AASHTO Terminology
Performance or design period Analysis period
Initial construction to terminal serviceability

Time of design strategy, includes at least one rehab High volume 30-40 yr Low volume 15-20 yr

AASHTO Terminology
W18 = Design ESAL
See Traffic Notes EALF =f(D and Pt) Recall Lane Distribution Differences

AASHTO Terminology
Reliability (R)
Facility Interstate Principal arterial Collectors Local
AASHTO Table 2.2

Urban

Rural

85-99.9 80-99.9 80-99 80-95 50-80 75-95 75-95 50-80

AASHTO Terminology
Overall Standard Deviation (S0) Rigid = 0.25 - 0.35
Standard error of the estimate for traffic & performance

Material Properties
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k)
Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR) Subbase Resilient Modulus (Esb) Several Correction Factors

PCC Elastic Modulus (Ec) PCC Modulus of Rupture (Sc)

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

f(4 Parameters):
Seasonal effects on subgrade MR Type and thickness of subbase Effect of potential erosion of subbase Depth to bedrock

Subbase Recommendations

AASHTO Materials Environmental Effects

Effective modulus of subgrade reaction

Softer subgrade sustains more damage Recall Relative Damage Ur Similar approach employed

Establishing keff
Obtain Seasonal Subgrade and Subbase Moduli Data Determine Composite k (k)-Figure 3.3 Determine Modified k = f(depth to rigid foundation)-Figure 3.4 Determine Average Relative Damage (ur)-Figure 3.5 Correct for Loss of Support-Table 2.7 and Figure 3.6

Subgrade and Subbase Moduli

Seasonal Variations Affect Both Measure Over Seasons AASHTO T274 Use Correlations if Necessary

Composite k (k)
Dsb = 6 Esb = 20,000psi MR = 7,000psi

k = 400pci

Modify Composite k
Dsg = Distance from top of subgrade to a rigid layer (bedrock)
D Dsb PCC surface Subbase Subgrade (SG) Dsg Bedrock

Modify Composite k
Dsg = 5 k = 230pci MR = 4,000psi

k = 300pci

If No Subbase
MR

k =

19.4

MR = subgrade resilient modulus

Relative Damage (ur)

D = 9 k mod = 540pci

ur = 60%

Average Relative Damage

Ur n

Ur =

Use Average Relative Damage in Figure 3.5 to Solve for Effective k

Similar to Flexible Subgrade Modulus See Bottom Figure 3.5

Loss of Support Correction

Attempt to Account for Pumping Potential Apply correction to Effective k

Degree of LS by Material Type (Table 2.7) LS factor (Figure 3.6)

Loss of Support
Subbase Quality

Loss of Support

Loss of Support (LS)

Loss of Support

LS = 1.0 keff = 540pci Corr keff=170pci

Example keff Determination

Granular Subbase 6 Thick 5 Depth to Rigid Foundation Assumed D = 9