ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPONSORSHIP

This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and
was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is
administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council.

DISCLAIMER

This is the final draft as submitted by the research agency. The opinions and
conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research agency. They are
not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research
Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
 Research Team Perspective, Future Research and Development Needs,
and Acknowledgements

Perspective

The need for and benefits of a mechanistically based pavement design procedure were clearly
recognized at the time when the 1986 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures was
adopted. The benefits are described in Part IV of that edition of the Guide. From the early
1960’s through to the 1986 Guide, all versions of the Guide were based on limited empirical
performance equations developed at the AASHO Road Test conducted near Ottawa, Illinois, in
the late 1950’s. Since the time of the AASHO Road Test, there have been many significant
changes in trucks and truck volumes, materials, construction, rehabilitation, and design needs.

By 1986 it had become apparent that there was a great need for a design procedure that could
account for changes in loadings, materials, and design features as well as direct consideration of
climatic effects on performance. The AASHTO Joint Task Force on Pavements, in cooperation
with the NCHRP and FHWA, sponsored the “Workshop on Pavement Design” in March 1996 at
Irvine, California. The workshop participants include many of the top pavement engineers in the
United States. They were charged with identifying the means for developing an AASHTO
mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedure by the year 2002. Based on the conclusions
developed at the March 1996 meeting, NCHRP Project 1-37A, Development of the 2002 Guide
for Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures: Phase II, was awarded to the ERES
Consultants Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc. in February 1998. The project called
for the development of a guide that utilized existing mechanistic-based models and databases
reflecting current state-of-the-art pavement design procedures. The guide was to address all new
and rehabilitation design issues and provide an equitable design basis for all pavement types.

Design Challenges

NCHRP Project 1-37A called for the development of a design procedure based primarily on
existing technology. The many requirements and expectations of the procedure made this
requirement very challenging. This was the first pavement design procedure that incorporated
both the impact of climate and aging on materials properties in an iterative (biweekly, monthly)
and comprehensive manner throughout the entire design life. Most of the existing models had
only limited usage with equivalent or worst-case materials properties being used as inputs.
When varying materials properties and climatic conditions were applied using an incremental
damage approach over the design period, some of the models gave erroneous results. As a result,
significant resources were required to modify and adapt these models to work within the
incremental damage approach. In addition, the hourly, monthly, and annual variations in traffic
loadings were superimposed on changes to materials and climate to more realistically reflect the
way in which pavements exist in-service.

Perhaps the greatest challenge was to calibrate the mechanistic-based conceptual models with
nationally observed field performance data. This also had never been successfully accomplished
before nationally. After the theoretical distress models (e.g., fatigue cracking, rutting, thermal
cracking, joint faulting, slab cracking, punchouts) were formulated they were compared and

i
calibrated against observed data. The results were then evaluated which lead to improvements to
the model, which in turn required another time-consuming calibration. This process was
repeated many times to achieve each of the final acceptable mechanistic-based distress prediction
models. In the end, this laborious approach proved to be extremely valuable in producing
models that could reasonably predict observed pavement performance. After model calibration
was completed, design reliability was incorporated into the design procedure by considering the
residual between observed and predicted distress. This approach was necessitated because
computer run times for the simulation approach were not practical at this time but will be in the
future.

The final challenge was to incorporate the complex models and design concepts into a stable and
user-friendly software package. The NCHRP 1-37A team realized that no matter how
technically correct the design method is, adoption of the software will be hindered if the software
is not accessible and easy to use. Therefore, extensive effort was expended in making the
software user-friendly and minimizes potential input errors. This was accomplished as follows:

• Inputs: Assurance that proper inputs are utilized through use of carefully selected default
values, recommended and absolute ranges for each input.
• Help: Context-sensitive and on-line help.
• Outputs: Tabular and graphical Excel/HTML based outputs to help the designer visualize
the performance of their trial design.
• Climatic database: Hourly climatic data from over 800 locations in North America are
included, which allows the user to easily select a given station or to generate virtual
weather stations.

Another very important aspect of the design procedure and software is that improvements can be
made over time in a piecewise manner to any of the component models (distresses, IRI, climatic,
traffic, materials, and structural responses) and incorporated into the procedure for re-calibration.
The framework has been laid for future updates. Ranges and default values of design inputs can
be set by local agencies. The key limitation is the longer run time for flexible pavement design
and rehabilitation. This can be improved through software optimization.

Future Needs for Continued Improvement of the Design Guide

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the Design Guide is its technological and modular
framework for pavement design and its calibration-validation process. The bi-monthly/monthly
incremental damage approach makes it possible to improve virtually any model and algorithmic
subsystem over time. Any model or algorithm, from the various structural responses models to
modulus prediction models to fatigue damage models, can be replaced with improved versions as
they become available with further research. However, changes to models or algorithms that
affect distress and smoothness predictions may require re-calibration with field data. The Design
Guide provides the needed “focal” point for development and improvement of pavement design
over time.

The NCHRP 1-37A project was required to use proven state-of-the-art technology. While this
gave the research team a lot of possibilities, it restricted the team and prevented the use of some

ii
technology that might, after additional development, have resulted in better prediction models.
However, it soon became apparent that even supposedly proven technology had major problems
and required significant improvements and modifications before it would work within the
mechanistic design framework. Many needed improvements were accomplished, but within the
complex engineering system developed there exists several areas that need further development.
The research team and the many individuals who assisted in reviewing the design procedure over
the past several years identified a number of aspects that could be improved. This section
provides a brief summary of those improvements.

Climatic Modeling
One of the major advances of the Design Guide was to integrate the weather station driven EICM
model (Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model) directly with procedures to predict pavement and
subgrade layer material modulus changes and gradients due to changes in temperature and
moisture content within the pavement structure. The layer moduli values and temperature and
moisture gradients and their integration within a comprehensive structural analysis methodology
were implemented into the Design Guide to provide capabilities never before available.
However, there are still several issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the accuracy
of the overall climatic-materials interactive subsystem. Major changes in the subsurface
moisture distribution had to be made in the EICM version to improve the predictions of the
subsurface moisture content. These changes, predominantly in the SWCC relationships used to
define the state of soil suction, were implemented and are now a part of the latest EICM version
used in the Design Guide.

NCHRP 9-23 is nearing completion to enhance the subsurface moisture prediction methodology
in the EICM and it is recommended that the NCHRP 9-23 results, conclusions, and suggested
modifications to the EICM moisture model be directly incorporated into the Design Guide.
There are several other minor areas that need further improvement in the EICM model. Problems
still exist with the prediction of moisture in quality granular bases. The problem that occurs is
that, due to the soil suction properties of these materials, little, if any, moisture can be drawn into
the layer due to suction. For flexible pavement, no surface infiltration was allowed. As a
consequence, moisture contents become exceedingly low, and base moduli are predicted to be
abnormally high. A better infiltration model for both rigid and flexible pavements that predicts
infiltration over time is needed. Finally, the current version of the EICM model in the Design
Guide still uses an “empirical” recovery period, based upon soil type, to define the moisture –
time changes after thaw weakening has occurred. It is recommended that a more mechanistic
solution for this recovery process be developed.

Another aspect which will require continual, periodic updates to the Design Guide software
involves updating the weather station databases with the latest information from the NCDC. The
design guide at the present time contains historical hourly weather information for approximately
800 weather stations in North America. At the time the performance models were calibrated, for
most of these stations, the historical records contain information that spans over a five-year
period. However, it is recognized that an enhanced database will perhaps lead to a better
calibrated models and will also help establish the key climatic variable more accurately.

iii
Design Reliability
The procedure for design reliability included in the Design Guide while considered adequate for
initial implementation should be considered as a place holder for a more comprehensive
procedure. The identification of an improved methodology for design reliability is considered a
top priority by the research team. The current method for incorporating reliability into the
Design Guide is based upon the assessment of the overall standard error of the predicted distress
as compared to observed distress. An improved procedure should make it possible to consider
all of the key components of variability and uncertainty involved in pavement design. This
would make it possible for the designer to input the mean, variance, and distribution of many key
inputs and also incorporate the errors associated with the prediction models providing for a much
more accurate design reliability. The designer would then be able to determine the sensitivity of
the outputs (cracking, rutting, faulting, IRI, etc.) to variations in the inputs providing designers
with improved knowledge of the most critical inputs that should be estimated with greater
accuracy.

It is highly recommended that a continuing effort be made to incorporate such a design reliability
approach in a reasonable and practical manner. It is cautioned, however, that a critical factor in
this solution will be related to the computational time required for such an analysis which makes
a Monte Carlo simulation approach somewhat impractical. There exist a number of modern
approaches to reliability that can be explored that should provide a reasonable solution that
makes it possible to have the above desired characteristics.

However, with such a more comprehensive reliability approach, the estimation of all associated
variances and uncertainties will be required. This will require a large major research effort. This
would include estimation of variations and uncertainties associated with traffic loadings, climate,
material properties, layer thickness, and many other design inputs. It would also include errors
associated with all models included in the design guide. An improved reliability procedure
should not be attempted if a large allocation of resources is not available to estimate all of the
applicable variations and uncertainties associated with all inputs and models. Such a procedure
without good estimates of variances of all key inputs and prediction models would be completely
misleading and erroneous.

Calibration-Validation of Prediction Models for Level 1, 2, and 3 Inputs

The major premise, upon which the hierarchical input system was devised, is that the standard
error associated with the prediction of a given distress mode decreases as the level of engineering
effort, intensity and testing is increased. This can be stated in an alternate manner by
understanding that the reliability of the design prediction should logically increase when the
level of the engineering effort used to obtain inputs is increased. This would logically lead to a
reduction in life cycle costs of pavements.

In the Design Guide, it was only possible to demonstrate that this concept was applicable and
valid for the thermal fracture module. It is recommended that this hypothesis be confirmed, to
the practicing profession, for at least one major mode of load-associated distress. This is
necessary because it is very important to illustrate to the engineering community that additional
time, effort and design funding will actually result in a lower cost and longer performing
product. If this is not demonstrated quickly, it is possible that engineers may simple be lulled into

iv
using a Level 3 (empirical correlations and default values) as the primary (and perhaps only)
procedure to obtain inputs.

Conduct Additional Sensitivity Studies

A significant effort was expended in this study to complete a series of comprehensive sensitivity
studies on a very wide range of design variables for several models. These included alligator
(bottom up) and longitudinal (surface down) fatigue cracking and permanent deformation in
flexible pavements. Bottom up and top down fatigue cracking for JPCP, joint faulting for JPCP
and punchouts for CRCP were also included. While this was a monumental effort; there are still
several major additional sensitivity studies that need to be completed for various other models
related particularly to rehabilitation.

A major effort needs to be made to assess the sensitivity of reliability for the complex issue of
rehabilitated flexible pavement and rigid pavement systems. Limited sensitivity runs were
evaluated in the initial development of the Design Guide. However, a more extensive study
needs to be completed for all major asphalt rehabilitation categories developed: HMA overlays
of existing HMA pavements; HMA overlays of fractured PCC slabs and HMA overlays of sound
(intact) PCC systems. For PCC rehabilitation categories it includes restoration, unbonded PCC
overlays, bonded PCC overlays, and PCC overlays of flexible pavements.

Improve Accuracy of LTPP Database for Calibration-Validation of Distress/Smoothness Models

The LTPP database was a major asset for the calibration and validation studies performed in the
development of the Design Guide. It also became apparent that there were many limitations
associated with the LTPP database relative to its usefulness as a major tool in the performance
calibration of the Design Guide. A large amount of project resources were expended to improve
on the LTPP database for use in calibration. For instance, many time-series distress data varied
considerably over time, requiring the research team to examine every field data sheet to clear up
as many as possible. It is recommended that action be taken to improve the accuracy of entries
in the LTPP database. As such improvements are made, the LTPP sections within each state
could become more useful to local implementation and calibration efforts. LTPP should
revaluate the importance of the national database as an essential tool that should feed directly
into national and regional calibration studies of the Design Guide.

Two very important elements of the database that are missing are as follows. It is critically
important that trench studies be completed on certain LTPP flexible test sections that would be
designated as pavements to be used in any subsequent layer rutting calibration-validation project.
Without trenching data; it is physically impossible to accurately calibrate any type of rutting
model for flexible pavement systems. The second factor noted already relates to the field
verification of the surface down (longitudinal) fatigue cracking mechanism for both flexible
pavements and JPCP. It is very apparent that the existence of top down cracking can only be
completely ascertained by conducting a field core-crack depth assessment study on selected
LTPP sections.

Another important issue related to the LTPP distress identification procedure used is to modify
the existing procedure to better identify longitudinal cracking. It is necessary to identify types of
longitudinal (and even alligator cracking) that occur within the wheel paths. At present, there is

v
no known way for researchers, using the database, to distinguish cracking that is solely related to
load cracking (it would be assumed that all cracking in any wheel path is load associated) and
cracking that is non load related, such as longitudinal cracking reflected from existing
construction joints or lane widening. The manner in which distresses are recorded should be
reexamined, with the intention that the ultimate goal of the distress database is to use the distress
measurements in some form of structural (or even non-structural) models for calibration-
validation purposes.

It is recommended that the seasonal levels of Ground Water Table (GWT) be measured. The
same level of importance can also be stated for the depth to bedrock. The sensitivity runs of
these two variables have pointed out that they may be significant variables influencing pavement
distress and performance. Best estimates and county soil maps were used to estimate these
parameters for the calibration.

National Center for the Coordination of State Calibration Efforts for Flexible and Rigid
Pavement Systems
It is recommended that a concerted national effort be made to establish a center that would serve
to develop and house a complete materials database on a variety of tests that are required (or will
be required) for implementing the Design Guide. It is hoped that as State DOT / Universities
conduct material evaluations for their own DOT; their results can be placed in the National
Center database to add to those material responses that were originally used in the development
of the Design Guide models. The center could also house traffic databases developed by various
States that would help to fulfill or help validate the needs of each agency for traffic inputs.
Information and contents of the database would be freely accessible to all agencies supporting
the Center. There may be other dta that could also be houses by such a center such as climatic
data.

Improve Accuracy of Smoothness (IRI) Models

The Guide includes several models for IRI prediction for various types of flexible pavements,
rigid pavements, and various overlays. These empirical based models were developed based on
a limited number of LTPP sections. These models have serious deficiencies that will become
evident as they are used in pavement design and are in great need of improvement. These
models should be considered placeholders for new and improved models that could be
implemented in the future. There exists today substantially more data from which improved
models could be developed. However, since smoothness is such a critically important user
consideration, and is also the only performance indicator that is common between flexible and
rigid pavements, it is recommended that a major effort be initiated to predict smoothness in a
more mechanistic based manner. The smoothness models would input the M-E based distress
prediction, the initial as-built smoothness, and other parameters (e.g., foundation movement)
needed for the prediction over the design life. This would undoubtedly improve the accuracy
and capability of smoothness in the Design Guide.

HMA Pavements and Overlays

An enhanced calibration-validation effort is greatly needed. Although the research team spent a
lot of resources trying to obtain valid LTPP data, there was much missing data and only a small
fraction could be used in calibration for new and overlaid pavements. The results of the effort

vi
shown in flexible pavement calibration-validation appendices for data (Appendix EE), fatigue
cracking (II), permanent deformation (GG), and thermal cracking (HH) reflect a major effort of
calibration and validation of the initial distress models for new asphalt pavement systems.
However, it is quite obvious that some significant limitations were associated with the available
performance data used from the LTPP sections that are in need of a considerable effort to
improve their accuracy. A major recommended future need is to greatly increase the number of
design sections used in the calibration of the fatigue and permanent deformation modes of
distress.

A very important element of these additional test sections is that they should conform to two
critical recommendations that were suggested by Witczak et al and the Superpave Support and
Performance Models Management Team (FHWA Contract DTFH61-95-C-00100) in the 30
September 1996 “Models Evaluation Report”. In this report to the FHWA, it was urged (and
repeated in several other ensuing report documents) that “In addition to measurement and
classification of surface distress, all pavement sections included in the experimental designs for
load related distress, particularly permanent deformation, will require trench studies to apportion
distress (rutting) distributions between the bound and unbound layers. These studies will be
conducted in conjunction with material sampling required for the unbound materials test plan
described in Section 6.2”. None of the LTPP test sections used in this study effort for the main
calibration effort had trench data. Only surface (total) rutting was available. As such, it is the
belief of the research team that a very large portion of the “predictive rut depth error” is directly
due to the fact that actual deformations within material layer types were not available for the
initial calibration study.

Longitudinal surface (top-down) cracking prediction model was based on the assumption that all
longitudinal cracking in the LTPP database (in the wheel paths) were load associated and
propagates from the surface down. As pointed out by Witczak et al and the Superpave Support
and Performance Models Management Team (FHWA Contract DTFH61-95-C-00100) in the 30
September 1996 “Models Evaluation Report”; it was noted that “Substantial field data from the
United States, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia suggests that significant fatigue cracking can
initiate and propagate from the surface of asphalt concrete pavement layers. This is in contrast to
the traditional model, which considers the bottom of these layers as the only locus of fatigue
cracking. The performance model for fatigue cracking must account for this failure mechanism
if it is confirmed through careful field studies. Thus, the materials data collection plan requires
the sampling of pavement cores directly through fatigue cracks in order to evaluate the location
of crack initiation and the direction of its propagation in the asphalt layers.” It will not be
possible to pursue further calibration-validation studies for either permanent deformation (bound
and unbound layers) or top down longitudinal surface cracking until LTPP sections can be
trenched and a field core-crack study completed. Once this is completed, the additional sections
would be quite helpful to verify (modify) several critical assumptions made in the initial effort as
well as being combined with the original sections used to develop the initial national calibration
factors developed in this study. It is noted that a study (NCHRP 1-42) is already underway on
this topic.

In addition to more LTTP sections for enhancing the calibration of fatigue and rutting in new
sections; it is recommended that additional efforts be made to expand the calibration-validation

vii
of the rehabilitated sections as well. Here, the selection of additional sections having HMA
overlays over existing HMA pavements, PCC fractured slabs (crack-seat; break-seat and
rubblized PCC); JPCP, and CRCP pavements as well as pavements having chemically stabilized
layers needs to be analyzed with a much more comprehensive calibration effort that was possible
within the time and funding restraints of the initial study.

Enhance/improve existing models to increase accuracy. It should be recognized that several key
model selections and approaches were decided several years ago in the early stages of the
project. Since this time, the “state of the art” has continuously advanced as well as other
technologies that were available but required additional development may have produced more
accurate distress models. While the current methodology is felt to provide a strong foundation
for the prediction of distress in a mechanistic-empirical framework, there are several model
advances that should be undertaken to assess if they can significantly increase the accuracy of
the predicted distress.

The reflective crack model for HMA overlays is an empirical place holder for the future
development and implementation of a M-E based reflective crack model. This is one of the most
critical research needs for flexible pavements. The enhancement of the top-down surface fatigue
model with a more fundamental approach is also considered as a top research need.

One of the major goals of the NCHRP 1-37A project was to integrate the major HMA mixture
response results from the NCHRP 9-19 (Superpave study) which is nearing completion. In
essence, the ultimate goal is to integrate HMA mixture design within a structural design
framework. It is recommended that the enhancement of this process should be to integrate the
NCHRP 9-19 work with Flow Time (Ft) and Flow Number (Fn) into the permanent deformation
models for asphalt mixtures used in the current Design Guide. Both the Ft and Fn values are
Tertiary flow mix parameters of an asphalt mixture. In the current Design Guide, only the
secondary rutting phase is modeled by the εp/εr power model used. Thus the inclusion of a
methodology to also consider tertiary (plastic shear failure) in a structural model would be a very
significant enhancement to the Design Guide.

The current Design Guide rut model for HMA rutting was found to need an empirical
relationship to adjust the rutting as a function of the depth within the asphalt thickness. This
equation turned out to be a 5th order polynomial that accurately predicted the in-situ rutting-depth
profile for several MnRoad sections. While this modification was statistically developed; it has
the general appearance of the typical relationship of shear stress with depth within a Boussinesq
solid. It would be quite important to assess if this depth relationship would actually conform to a
more rational distribution associated with the maximum shear stress-depth relationship found
from mechanics, rather than from pure empiricism.

Reduce the computational time for flexible pavement design. The flexible pavement team
devoted a continuous effort in trying to reduce the computational time for the flexible pavements
analyzed in the Design Guide. A very significant decrease in runtime has simply been a result of
the generation of the microprocessor used in the analysis. In the early stages of the software
development; average runtime on what was then conceived to be a “fast” microprocessor (500
MHz system) was about 5.1 minutes per analysis year. With present day 2.8 GHz units, the time

viii
has been reduced to under 1.4 minutes per analysis year. Without any major changes in software
code, it is estimated that for future 4.0+ GHz units; the average runtime may actually approach
about 1 minute per analysis year. When one considers the complexity of the asphalt portion of
the Design Guide, along with the hundreds of thousands of incremental damage computations
conducted within an analysis run; the time is not excessive. Nonetheless, it is apparent that
significant trade-off in time reduction could be made if certain assumptions were “relaxed” more
than they currently are. It is recommended that continuous efforts be undertaken to reduce the
computational time for the program.

Enhancements to the Witczak et al E* predictive model are needed. The dynamic modulus
predictive equation for asphalt mixtures, developed by Witczak and a vast array of colleagues, is
an important component of the hierarchical structure of the Design Guide. While this equation is
considered quite accurate and has been developed from the E* lab test results of nearly 150
HMA mixtures and 1500 data points; there is an opportunity to nearly double the number of mix
types and increase the total number of data points to approximately 6000 by adding a significant
number of E* results that have been collected at ASU from several new major studies that have
been completed (NCHRP 9-19; ADOT 2002 DG Implementation; ADOT AR Projects). The
objective of this study would be to combine all available E* results and perform a new round of
statistical studies to develop a new, more accurate predictive model. The intention of this effort
would be focused upon keeping the same “sigmoidal” functional form as the current model; but
trying to develop a more accurate assessment of the volumetric components of the mix (air voids,
asphalt volume etc.). This minor change would definitely lead to more rational distress
predictions in the Design Guide, particularly for HMA rutting and fatigue fracture. A final effort
should also be focused upon assessing whether or not the current “Ai-VTSi” viscosity
characterization could be completely replaced by the new Performance Grade (PG) binder
properties such as G* (Dynamic Shear Modulus). If the use of the G* (binder) is found to be
feasible, the use of this binder property, rather than the use viscosity, would bring the entire
HMA material characterization process into a much more current methodology.

Conduct initial calibration trials of FEM technology for asphalt pavement systems. All of the
load associated calibration efforts used in the Design Guide has been based upon the linear
elastic layered pavement response model (JULEA). However, a finite element pavement
response model is also included for the case when a Level 1 input is desired for the use with non-
linear resilient modulus (Mr) of any unbound base, subbase and/or subgrade layer. The limitation
of this approach, however, is that it has not been calibrated. It is therefore recommended that an
initial effort be undertaken to start a calibration with LTPP sections that have been used in the
initial NCHRP 1-37A study. Because the complexities and problems that may surface with the
FEM calibration process are unknown at this time; it is recommended that only a handful (6-8)
LTPP sections be initially selected, Level 1 Mr testing be completed on all unbound layers, and a
pilot calibration study completed. After this pilot study is completed, plans and scheduling of a
major FEM calibration can be developed, using insights obtained from the pilot effort.

Concrete Pavements & Overlays

The current Design Guide can only handle PCC overlay thickness of 6 in and greater. A major
effort is needed to develop procedures for thinner PCC overlays including the ultra thin overlays
that are bonded to the asphalt surfacing. More adequate characterization of the existing HMA

ix
pavement will also be required. This may require a more comprehensive structural modeling as
well as improved knowledge on the bonding of PCC to HMA. This is considered a priority for
improvement of the PCC rehabilitation design procedure.

Shrinkage of the top portion of the PCC slab is directly considered in design in two modes:
permanent and transitory (varying with monthly relative humidity). The methodology, however,
is not nearly as comprehensive or reliable as is needed to match the level of accuracy that exists
for temperature gradients through PCC slabs. The method of incorporating permanent shrinkage
into the permanent curl/warp needs to be improved. The existing Design Guide shows a
continuing increase in shrinkage over many years resulting in the opening of cracks and joints
over a long time period. While this does occur, the magnitude needs better estimation
procedures.

Zero-stress temperature is the temperature at which after placement the PCC becomes solid
enough to go into tension. This temperature is used as the basis to compute the openings of
cracks and joints which affect the transfer of shear and load and crack load transfer over time.
Improved procedures are needed to estimate this important parameter in design of JPCP and
CRCP.

Permanent curl/warp effective temperature difference is a critical input that needs further
calibration and amplification. This input is used to predict top down and bottom up slab
cracking and also joint faulting. This value was obtained nationally through optimization of
cracking of JPCP for many LTPP and other sections across the U.S. There area no procedures to
adjust this input to consider other construction situations (e.g., night time construction, wet
curing, hot desert paving, and so on). Obtaining better estimates of this input for varying
construction conditions would greatly improve the ability to take construction and materials into
consideration in the design phase.

The coefficient of thermal expansion/contraction (CTE) is a new and most significant input to
the new rigid design procedure. Since this input has not before been measured and used in
design much more information is needed to help the designer estimate this input adequately. The
extensive LTPP data could be analyzed to further develop improved recommendations for CTE
as well as extensive additional lab studies carried out for a variety of aggregates and other
components of today’s PCC mixtures.

The CRCP procedure includes methodology to predict both crack spacing and crack width.
While these models are very comprehensive and mechanistic based, additional validation is
greatly needed since they play a very critical role in the performance of CRCP. The crack
deterioration model which controls punchout development depends greatly on crack width and
thus development of punchouts is critical. Very little validation of the crack deterioration model
was possible and more is needed. One variable that is missing is top aggregate size which has a
major effect on crack load transfer efficiency.

An enhanced calibration-validation effort is greatly needed for rigid pavements. Although the
research team spent a lot of resources trying to obtain valid LTPP data, there was much missing
data and only a small fraction could be used in calibration for new and overlaid pavements. The

x
results shown in various calibration-validation appendices include data (Appendix FF), CRCP
punchouts (Appendix LL), joint faulting (Appendix JJ), transverse fatigue cracking (appendix
KK), and rehabilitation (Appendix NN) reflect a major effort of calibration and validation of the
load associated distress models for new and rehabilitated concrete pavements. However, it is
quite obvious that some significant limitations were associated with the available performance
data used from the LTPP sections that are in need of a considerable effort to improve their
accuracy.

There is a great need for additional PCC rehabilitated sections including concrete pavement
restoration, unbonded PCC overlays, bonded PCC overlays, and PCC overlays of flexible
pavements. Particularly needed are JPCP and CRCP overlay sections which are being used
routinely by several states. With these data, a much more comprehensive calibration-validation
effort could be conducted with the result of improved distress prediction models for all these
PCC rehabilitations. There is also a great need for low volume road sections for use in better
calibration of these types of pavements.

Enhance/improve existing models to increase accuracy in prediction. It should be recognized

that several key model selections and approaches were decided several years ago in the early
stages of the project. Since this time, the “state of the art” has continuously advanced. In
addition, there were other technologies that with further development could likely have produced
improved distress prediction models. While the current methodology is felt to provide a strong
foundation for the prediction of distress in a mechanistic-empirical framework, there are several
model advances that should be undertaken in the future to assess if they can significantly
increase the accuracy of the predicted distress.

One of the major goals was to integrate some PCC mixture and construction factors into the
structural design process. It has been long recognized that PCC mixture design and construction
aspects strongly relate to ultimate long term performance of all types of rigid pavements and thus
this capability would provide a major enhancement to the structural design of a PCC pavement.
A major initial effort was made to incorporate several key mixture and construction factors,
however, addition development and improvement is greatly needed. PCC mixture parameters
incorporated include the various measures of strength (and its gain over time), the elastic
modulus (and its gain over time), the w/c ratio, cement content and type, thermal coefficient of
expansion, and relative drying shrinkage through the slab over time. Construction factors
include the zero-stress temperature of the slab after placement and the permanent curl/warp
equivalent temperature difference. While these important factors are included in the design
process, methods to estimate them for design are limited and several are considered only
rudimentary. Thus, great improvement is possible and needed.

Acknowledgements

The research team consisted of ERES as the prime contractor, with subcontractors the University
of Maryland (switched to Arizona State University after the first year of work) and Fugro, Inc.
The University of Maryland and Advanced Asphalt Technologies served as subcontractors to
Arizona State University. In reviewing the history of the project, more than 50 engineers played
a part in accomplishing the work as summarized below.

xi
Project Management
Mr. John P. Hallin of ERES Consultants Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ERES)
served as the Principal Investigator, and Mr. Ken McGhee with Fugro-BRE, Inc. served as the
Co-Principal Investigator.

Flexible Pavement Team

Dr. Matthew W. Witczak of Arizona State University headed the flexible pavement team.
Members of the flexible pavement team were:

• Arizona State University: Mohamed El-Basyouny, Waseem Mirza, Claudia Zapata,

Dragos Andrei, and Manuel Ayres.
• Fugro-BRE, Inc.: Harold Von Quintus (also served on the ERES team).
• University of Maryland: Charles Schwartz.
• Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC: Ray Bonaquist.
• University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: William Buttlar.
• Consultant: Jacob Uzan.

The following provided support to the flexible pavement team:

• Chandra Desai, Kamil Kaloush, Bill Houston, Mohammad Abojaradeh, Javed Bari,
Shudong Guan, Herve DiBenedetto, Manfred Partl, Tehri Pellinen, Darius Sybilski, Ken
Walsh, Andres Sotil, and Sherif El-Badawy (Arizona State University).
• Amy Simpson, Ahmed Eltahan, Weng-on Tam, Amber Yau, (Fugro-BRE, Inc.).
• Yongyi Feng and Yiquan Hu (University of Maryland).

Rigid Pavement Team

Dr. Michael I. Darter of the ERES Consultants Division of Applied Research Associated, Inc.
headed the rigid pavement team. Members of the rigid pavement team were: Lev Khazanovich,
H. Thomas Yu, Leslie Titus-Glover, Jagannath Mallela, Chetana Rao (also prepared training and
implementation materials), and Olga Selezneva.

The following provided support to the rigid pavement team:

• Kelly L. Smith, Shreenath Rao, and Jane Jiang (ERES).

• Dan G. Zollinger (Texas A&M University).
• Mark B. Snyder (formerly with the University of Minnesota).

Software Team
Mr. Gregg E. Larson of ERES Consultants Division of Applied Research Associated, Inc.
headed the software team. He was assisted by Lester Rabe and Mohamed El-Basyouny.

The following provided support to the software team:

• Efim Shats, Nasir G. Gharaibeh, and M.G. Abdel-Maksoud (ERES).

• Manuel Ayres and Waseem Mirza, (Arizona State University).

xii
Consultants
Many individuals served as consultants to the project team, particularly during the early stages of
the work. These included: Marshall R. Thompson, Y.K. Wen, Barry J. Dempsey, Starr D.
Kohn, Richard Berg, Newton Jackson, and Mark Hallenbeck.

Editorial Support Team

Robin L. Jones provided extensive editorial support, and Sonya C. Darter provided graphics,
website, and training and implementation support.

And special thanks to Applied Research Associates, Inc. for providing support and resources to
complete this important endeavor.

xiii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1—INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND, SCOPE, AND OVERVIEW......................................1.1.1

1.1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................1.1.1
1.1.1.1 Objective of the Design Guide...............................................................1.1.1
1.1.1.2 Economic Justification for a Revised and Improved Design Guide ......1.1.1
1.1.1.3 Need for the Design Guide ....................................................................1.1.3
1.1.1.4 Philosophy of the Design Guide Development......................................1.1.5
1.1.1.5 Benefits of a Mechanistic-Empirical Procedure ....................................1.1.5
1.1.2 PRINCIPLES OF A MECHANISTIC PROCEDURE ...................................1.1.7
1.1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENTS OF THE GUIDE ................................................1.1.9
1.1.4 DESIGN APPROACH..................................................................................1.1.11
1.1.4.1 General Approach ................................................................................1.1.11
1.1.4.2 Hierarchical Design Inputs ..................................................................1.1.14
1.1.5 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE ..................................................................1.1.15
1.1.6 TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION.............................................................1.1.18
1.1.7 PAVEMENT MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION..................................1.1.18
1.1.7.1 General Considerations........................................................................1.1.18
1.1.7.2 Classes of Materials .............................................................................1.1.19
1.1.7.3 Levels of Materials Characterization ...................................................1.1.20
1.1.8 STRUCTURAL MODELING OF THE PAVEMENT ................................1.1.20
1.1.8.1 Structural Response Models ................................................................1.1.20
1.1.8.2 Incremental Damage Accumulation ....................................................1.1.21
1.1.8.3 Analysis of Trial Design ......................................................................1.1.21
1.1.9 EVALUATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENTS FOR
REHABILITATION ...........................................................................................1.1.22
1.1.10 IDENTIFICATION OF FEASIBLE REHABILITATION
STRATEGIES.....................................................................................................1.1.23
1.1.11 DESIGN OF REHABILITATION PROJECTS .........................................1.1.24

xiv
1.1.12 DESIGN RELIABILITY ............................................................................1.1.24
1.1.13 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDE WITHIN AN AGENCY ............1.1.29
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................1.1.31

xv
PART 2—DESIGN INPUTS

CHAPTER 1: SUBGRADE/FOUNDATION DESIGN INPUTS ..................................2.1.1

2.1.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PAVEMENT FOUNDATION ...............2.1.1
2.1.2 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN ......2.1.2
2.1.2.1 Subsurface Exploration..........................................................................2.1.3
2.1.2.2 Boring Location and Depth....................................................................2.1.5
2.1.2.3 Number or Spacing of Borings ..............................................................2.1.5
2.1.2.4 Depth of Borings....................................................................................2.1.5
2.1.2.5 Type of Samples and Sample Recovery ................................................2.1.6
2.1.3 LABORATORY TESTING OF SUBGRADE SOILS...................................2.1.7
2.1.3.1 Number of Test Specimens....................................................................2.1.7
2.1.3.2 Types of Laboratory Tests .....................................................................2.1.8
2.1.3.3 Condition of Resilient Modulus Laboratory Test Specimens..............2.1.11
2.1.3.4. Selection of In Situ Resilient Modulus for Soil Strata........................2.1.12
2.1.3.5 Reporting of Test Results.....................................................................2.1.13
2.1.4 IDENTIFICATION AND TREATMENT OF SPECIAL
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .........................................................................2.1.14
2.1.4.1 Compressible Soils...............................................................................2.1.15
2.1.4.2 Swelling Soils ......................................................................................2.1.16
2.1.4.3 Subsurface Water .................................................................................2.1.17
2.1.4.4 Frost-Susceptible Soils.........................................................................2.1.18
2.1.5 FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENT AND STRENGTHENING ..................2.1.21
2.1.5.1 Stabilization .........................................................................................2.1.21
2.1.5.2 Thick Granular Layers .........................................................................2.1.25
2.1.5.3 Subsurface Drainage ............................................................................2.1.28
2.1.5.4 Geosynthetics.......................................................................................2.1.28
2.1.5.5 Soil Encapsulation ...............................................................................2.1.35
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................2.1.37

xvi
CHAPTER 2: MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION...................................................2.2.1
2.2.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2.2.1
2.2.1.1 Material Factors Considered ..................................................................2.2.2
2.2.1.2 Material Categories................................................................................2.2.5
2.2.1.3 Hierarchical Input Approach Concepts..................................................2.2.7
2.2.2 INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE ASPHALT MATERIALS
GROUP .................................................................................................................2.2.8
2.2.2.1 Layer Modulus for New or Reconstruction Design...............................2.2.8
2.2.2.2 Layer Modulus for Rehabilitation Design ...........................................2.2.25
2.2.2.3 Poisson’s Ratio for Bituminous Materials ...........................................2.2.28
2.2.2.4 Other HMA Material Properties ..........................................................2.2.31
2.2.3 INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE PCC MATERIALS ...............2.2.34
2.2.3.1 Modulus of Elasticity of PCC Materials..............................................2.2.34
2.2.3.2 Poisson’s Ratio of PCC Materials........................................................2.2.42
2.2.3.3 Flexural Strength of PCC Materials.....................................................2.2.43
2.2.3.4 Indirect Tensile Strength of PCC Materials.........................................2.2.48
2.2.3.5 Compressive Strength of PCC Materials .............................................2.2.51
2.2.3.6 Unit Weight of PCC Materials.............................................................2.2.51
2.2.3.7 PCC Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ..............................................2.2.52
2.2.3.8 PCC Shrinkage.....................................................................................2.2.54
2.2.3.9 PCC Thermal Conductivity, Heat Capacity, and Surface
Absorptivity ..................................................................................................2.2.57
2.2.4 INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE CHEMICALLY
STABILIZED MATERIALS GROUP ...............................................................2.2.57
2.2.5 INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE UNBOUND GRANULAR
MATERIALS AND SUBGRADE MATERIALS GROUP .........................…..2.2.64
2.2.5.1 Pavement Response Model Unbound Material Inputs.........................2.2.66
2.2.5.2 EICM Inputs Unbound Materials.........................................................2.2.71
2.2.5.3 Other Unbound Materials ...................................................................2.2.73
2.2.6 INPUT CHARACTERIZATION FOR BEDROCK
MATERIALS......................................................................................................2.2.73

xvii
 2.2.6.1 Modulus of Elasticity of Bedrock Materials........................................2.2.73
2.2.6.2 Poisson’s Ratio of Bedrock Materials..................................................2.2.74
2.2.7 OTHER MATERIALS CONSIDERATIONS..............................................2.2.75
2.2.7.1 Consideration of Erodibility in Design (JPCP and CRCP Only).........2.2.75
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………2.2.82

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............................................................2.3.1

2.3.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2.3.1
2.3.1.1 Importance of Climate in Mechanistic Empirical Design......................2.3.1
2.3.1.2 Consideration of Climatic Effects in Design .........................................2.3.2
2.3.1.3 Major Outputs of the EICM...................................................................2.3.5
2.3.1.4 Chapter Organization .............................................................................2.3.7
2.3.2 CLIMATIC AND MATERIAL INPUTS REQUIRED TO MODEL
THERMAL AND MOISTURE CONDITIONS...................................................2.3.7
2.3.2.1 General Information...............................................................................2.3.8
2.3.2.2 Weather-Related Data............................................................................2.3.9
2.3.2.3 Groundwater Table Depth....................................................................2.3.10
2.3.2.4 Drainage and Surface Properties..........................................................2.3.10
2.3.2.5 Pavement Structure Materials Inputs ...................................................2.3.12
2.3.3 EICM CALCULATIONS – COMPOSITE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, Fenv, FOR ADJUSTING MR .................2.3.22
2.3.3.1 Relevance of Fenv to Design .................................................................2.3.22
2.3.3.2 Environmental Effects on MR of Unbound Pavement Materials .........2.3.23
2.3.3.3 Computation of Environmental Adjustment Factor, Fenv .....................2.3.30
2.3.4 EICM CALCULATIONS – DETERMINATION OF THE
TEMPERATURE THROUGHOUT THE PAVEMENT SYSTEM ..................2.3.38
2.3.4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................2.3.38
2.3.4.2 Boundary Conditions for CMS Model.................................................2.3.41
2.3.4.3 Temperature Distribution Profile.........................................................2.3.45
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................2.3.49

xviii
CHAPTER 4: TRAFFIC...................................................................................................2.4.1
2.4.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2.4.1
2.4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HIERARCHICAL APPROACH USED IN
TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION.....................................................................2.4.2
2.4.2.1 Level 1 Inputs – A Very Good Knowledge of Traffic Characteristics ..2.4.2
2.4.2.2 Level 2 Inputs – A Modest Knowledge of Traffic Characteristics........2.4.3
2.4.2.3 Level 3 Inputs – A Poor Knowledge of Traffic Characteristics ............2.4.3
2.4.2.4 Summary ................................................................................................2.4.3
2.4.3 DESCRIPTION OF DATA SOURCES AND DATA ELEMENTS USED
IN TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION ...............................................................2.4.4
2.4.3.1 Traffic Load/Volume Data Sources .......................................................2.4.4
2.4.4 ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................2.4.6
2.4.5 INPUTS REQUIRED FOR TRAFFIC CHARACTERIZATION..................2.4.6
2.4.5.1 Traffic Volume – Base Year Information..............................................2.4.7
2.4.5.2 Traffic Volume Adjustments ...............................................................2.4.10
2.4.5.3 Axle Load Distribution Factors ...........................................................2.4.19
2.4.5.4 General Traffic Inputs..........................................................................2.4.26
2.4.6 INPUT PROCESSING .................................................................................2.4.30
2.4.6.1 Step 1: Subdivide the Year into Traffic Seasons – Hours of the Day
or Months of the Year with Similar Traffic Features ...................................2.4.30
2.4.6.2 Step 2: Determine AADTT for the Base Year.....................................2.4.30
2.4.6.3 Step 3: Determine the Normalized Truck Traffic Distribution............2.4.31
2.4.6.4 Step 4: Determine the Number of Axles by Each Axle Type and
Truck Class ...................................................................................................2.4.31
2.4.6.5 Step 5: Determine the Normalized Axle Load Spectra for Each
Axle Type......................................................................................................2.4.31
2.4.6.6 Step 6: Establish Traffic Growth/Decay Rates ....................................2.4.31
2.4.6.7 Step 7: Predict Total Traffic – Future and Historical ..........................2.4.31
2.4.6.8 Step 8: Determine the Axle and Tire Loading Details.........................2.4.32

xix
 2.4.7 TRAFFIC SAMPLING PLAN FOR SITE SPECIFIC AVC AND WIM
DATA .................................................................................................................2.4.32
2.4.7.1 Sample Location – Location of Traffic Measurement Equipment ......2.4.33
2.4.7.2 Sample Size and Frequency .................................................................2.4.33
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................2.4.36

CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENTS FOR

REHABILITATION..........................................................................................................2.5.1
2.5.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2.5.1
2.5.1.1 Major Aspects of Project-Level Pavement Evaluation..........................2.5.1
2.5.1.2 Definition of Project-Level Pavement Evaluation.................................2.5.2
2.5.1.3 Level of Data Collection........................................................................2.5.4
2.5.1.4 Field Evaluation Plan.............................................................................2.5.4
2.5.2 GUIDES FOR DATA COLLECTION...........................................................2.5.9
2.5.2.1 Overview................................................................................................2.5.9
2.5.2.2 Data Required for Overall Condition Assessment and Problem
Definition ......................................................................................................2.5.10
2.5.2.3 Establishing Fundamental Analysis Segments ....................................2.5.15
2.5.2.4 Distress Survey ....................................................................................2.5.21
2.5.2.5 Smoothness Measurements/Data .........................................................2.5.31
2.5.2.6 Surface Friction....................................................................................2.5.34
2.5.2.7 Drainage Survey...................................................................................2.5.35
2.5.2.8 Nondestructive Testing ........................................................................2.5.35
2.5.2.9 Destructive Pavement Testing .............................................................2.5.54
2.5.3 OVERALL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND PROBLEM
DEFINITION......................................................................................................2.5.58
2.5.3.1 Structural Adequacy.............................................................................2.5.59
2.5.3.2 Functional Adequacy ...........................................................................2.5.65
2.5.3.3 Drainage Adequacy..............................................................................2.5.65
2.5.3.4 Material Durability...............................................................................2.5.67
2.5.3.5 Maintenance Applications ...................................................................2.5.71

xx
 2.5.3.6 Shoulders Adequacy ............................................................................2.5.71
2.5.3.7 Variability Along the Project ...............................................................2.5.72
2.5.3.8 Miscellaneous ......................................................................................2.5.72
2.5.4 SUMMARY..................................................................................................2.5.73
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................2.5.75

xxi
PART 3—DESIGN ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 1: DRAINAGE...............................................................................................3.1.1
3.1.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................3.1.1
3.1.2 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMBATING
MOISTURE ..........................................................................................................3.1.2
3.1.2.1 Prevent Moisture from Entering the Pavement System.........................3.1.3
3.1.2.2 Provide Moisture-Insensitive (Nonerodible) Materials .........................3.1.4
3.1.2.3 Incorporate Design Features to Minimize Moisture Damage................3.1.5
3.1.2.4 Removal of Free Moisture through Subsurface Drainage .....................3.1.6
3.1.3 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE TERMINOLOGY...........................................3.1.6
3.1.3.1 Permeable Base......................................................................................3.1.6
3.1.3.2 Separator Layer......................................................................................3.1.8
3.1.3.3 Edgedrains..............................................................................................3.1.9
3.1.3.4 Outlets ....................................................................................................3.1.9
3.1.3.5 Headwall ................................................................................................3.1.9
3.1.3.6 Side Ditches .........................................................................................3.1.10
3.1.3.7 Storm Drains ........................................................................................3.1.10
3.1.3.8 Daylighting ..........................................................................................3.1.10
3.1.4 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES........................................3.1.10
3.1.4.1 Permeable Base System with Pipe Edgedrains: Type Ia .....................3.1.10
3.1.4.2 Daylighted Permeable Base System: Type Ib......................................3.1.11
3.1.4.3 Nonerodible Base with Pipe Edgedrains: Type IIa..............................3.1.11
3.1.4.4 Nonerodible Base with Edgedrains and Porous Concrete
Shoulder: Type IIb ........................................................................................3.1.12
3.1.4.5 Daylighted Dense-Graded Aggregate Base: Type III..........................3.1.13
3.1.5 SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DESIGN:
CONSIDERATIONS IN NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED PAVEMENTS........3.1.13
3.1.5.1 Step 1: Assessing the Need for Drainage.............................................3.1.14
3.1.5.2 Step 2: Selection of Drainage Alternatives..........................................3.1.18
3.1.5.3 Step 3: Hydraulic Design .....................................................................3.1.19

xxii
 3.1.5.4. Step 4: Prepare Pavement Cross-Sections with Appropriate Drainage
Features .........................................................................................................3.1.23
3.1.5.5 Step 5: Perform Structural Design .......................................................3.1.23
3.1.6 SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DESIGN:
CONSIDERATIONS FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS ..........................3.1.23
3.1.6.1 Step 1: Assessing the Need for Drainage.............................................3.1.24
3.1.6.2 Step 2: Drainage Improvement Alternatives........................................3.1.25
3.1.6.3 Step 3: Hydraulic Design .....................................................................3.1.28
3.1.6.4 Step 4: Prepare Pavement Cross-Sections with Appropriate Drainage
Features .........................................................................................................3.1.28
3.1.6.5 Step 5: Perform Structural Design .......................................................3.1.28
3.1.7 EDGEDRAIN MAINTENANCE.................................................................3.1.28
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................3.1.30

CHAPTER 2: SHOULDERS ............................................................................................3.2.1

3.2.1 GEOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................3.2.1
3.2 2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN...............................................................................3.2.2
3.2.2.1. Traffic Loadings on Shoulder ...............................................................3.2.2
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................3.2.5

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED FLEXIBLE

PAVEMENTS ....................................................................................................................3.3.1
3.3.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................3.3.1
3.3.2 OVERVIEW OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCESS ................3.3.2
3.3.2.1 Design Inputs .........................................................................................3.3.3
3.3.2.2 Pavement Response Models ..................................................................3.3.6
3.3.2.3 Incremental Distress and Damage Accumulation..................................3.3.7
3.3.2.4 Distress Prediction .................................................................................3.3.8
3.3.2.5 Smoothness (IRI) Prediction................................................................3.3.12
3.3.2.6 Assessment of Performance and Design Modifications ......................3.3.12
3.3.2.7 Design Reliability ................................................................................3.3.13

xxiii
 3.3.2.8 Life Cycle Costs Estimation ................................................................3.3.13
3.3.3 DESIGN INPUTS FOR NEW FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN............3.3.13
3.3.3.1 General Information.............................................................................3.3.14
3.3.3.2 Site/Project Identification ....................................................................3.3.15
3.3.3.3 Analysis Parameters.............................................................................3.3.15
3.3.3.4 Traffic ..................................................................................................3.3.18
3.3.3.5 Climate.................................................................................................3.3.25
3.3.3.6 Pavement Structure ..............................................................................3.3.27
3.3.4 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURE ....................................3.3.37
3.3.4.1 Trial Design Parameters.......................................................................3.3.38
3.3.4.2 Pavement Response Models ................................................................3.3.42
3.3.4.3 Performance Prediction........................................................................3.3.45
3.3.5 SPECIAL AXLE CONFIGURATION.......................................................3.3.106
3.3.6 CALIBRATION TO LOCAL CONDITIONS ...........................................3.3.107
3.3.6.1 Need for Calibration to Local Conditions..........................................3.3.108
3.3.6.2 Approach to Calibration.....................................................................3.3.109
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................3.3.112

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED RIGID

PAVEMENTS ....................................................................................................................3.4.1
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................3.4.1
3.4.2 OVERVIEW OF RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCESS ........................3.4.2
3.4.2.1 Design Inputs .........................................................................................3.4.2
3.4.2.2 Structural Response Model ....................................................................3.4.7
3.4.2.3 Incremental Damage Accumulation ......................................................3.4.8
3.4.2.4 Distress Prediction .................................................................................3.4.8
3.4.2.5 Smoothness (IRI) Prediction................................................................3.4.13
3.4.2.6 Assessment of Performance and Design Modifications ......................3.4.13
3.4.2.7 Design Reliability ................................................................................3.4.14
3.4.2.8 Life Cycle Costs Estimation ................................................................3.4.14
3.4.3 INPUTS FOR NEW RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN ...................................3.4.15

xxiv
 3.4.3.1 General Information.............................................................................3.4.15
3.4.3.2 Site/Project Identification ....................................................................3.4.15
3.4.3.3 Analysis Parameters.............................................................................3.4.16
3.4.3.4 Traffic ..................................................................................................3.4.17
3.4.3.5 Climate.................................................................................................3.4.23
3.4.3.6 Drainage and Surface Properties..........................................................3.4.28
3.4.3.7 Pavement Structure ..............................................................................3.4.29
3.4.3.8 Pavement Design Features...................................................................3.4.37
3.4.4 JPCP DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................3.4.44
3.4.4.1 Slab Thickness .....................................................................................3.4.45
3.4.4.2 Slab Width ...........................................................................................3.4.45
3.4.4.3 PCC Materials......................................................................................3.4.45
3.4.4.4 Transverse Joint Spacing .....................................................................3.4.46
3.4.4.5 Transverse Joint LTE...........................................................................3.4.47
3.4.4.6 Transverse Joint Sawcut Depth............................................................3.4.47
3.4.4.7 Longitudinal Joint Load Transfer and Ties..........................................3.4.47
3.4.4.8 Longitudinal Joint Sawcut Depth.........................................................3.4.48
3.4.4.9 Base......................................................................................................3.4.48
3.4.4.10 Subbase ..............................................................................................3.4.49
3.4.4.11 Subsurface Drainage ..........................................................................3.4.49
3.4.4.12 Shoulder Design.................................................................................3.4.50
3.4.4.13 Subgrade Improvement......................................................................3.4.50
3.4.5 JPCP DESIGN PROCEDURE .....................................................................3.4.50
3.4.5.1 JPCP Performance Criteria ..................................................................3.4.50
3.4.5.2 Trial Design .........................................................................................3.4.51
3.4.5.3 Performance Prediction—Transverse Cracking ..................................3.4.51
3.4.5.4 Performance Prediction—Faulting ......................................................3.4.69
3.4.5.5 Performance Prediction—Smoothness ................................................3.4.87
3.4.6 CRCP DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................3.4.99
3.4.6.1 Slab Thickness .....................................................................................3.4.99
3.4.6.2 Transverse Crack Width and Spacing..................................................3.4.99

xxv
 3.4.6.3 PCC Materials....................................................................................3.4.100
3.4.6.4 Longitudinal Reinforcement ..............................................................3.4.101
3.4.6.5 Depth of Longitudinal Reinforcement ...............................................3.4.101
3.4.6.6 Transverse Crack LTE .......................................................................3.4.102
3.4.6.7 Slab Width .........................................................................................3.4.102
3.4.6.8 Transverse Reinforcement .................................................................3.4.102
3.4.6.9 Longitudinal Joint Load Transfer and Ties........................................3.4.101
3.4.6.10 Formed Depth of Longitudinal Joints ..............................................3.4.103
3.4.6.11 Base..................................................................................................3.4.103
3.4.6.12 Subbase ............................................................................................3.4.104
3.4.6.13 Subsurface Drainage ........................................................................3.4.104
3.4.6.14 Shoulder Design...............................................................................3.4.104
3.4.6.15 Subgrade Improvement....................................................................3.4.104
3.4.7 CRCP DESIGN PROCEDURE..................................................................3.4.105
3.4.7.1 CRCP Performance Criteria...............................................................3.4.105
3.4.7.2 Trial Design .......................................................................................3.4.106
3.4.7.3 Punchouts Prediction Model ..............................................................3.4.106
3.4.7.4 CRCP Smoothness .............................................................................3.4.130
3.4.8 SPECIAL LOADING SITUATIONS ........................................................3.4.133
3.4.9 CALIBRATION TO LOCAL CONDITIONS ...........................................3.4.134
3.4.9.1 Need for Calibration to Local Conditions..........................................3.4.135
3.4.9.2 Approach to Calibration.....................................................................3.4.136
3.4.9.3 Performance Prediction Models.........................................................3.4.138
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................3.4.140

CHAPTER 5: IDENTIFICATION OF FEASIBLE REHABILITATION

STRATEGIES ....................................................................................................................3.5.1
3.5.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................3.5.1
3.5.1.1 Scope......................................................................................................3.5.1
3.5.1.2 Organization...........................................................................................3.5.2
3.5.2 MAJOR REHABILITATION STRATEGIES ...............................................3.5.2

xxvi
 3.5.2.1 Reconstruction with/without Lane Additions ........................................3.5.3
3.5.2.2 Rehabilitation with Structural Overlay ..................................................3.5.3
3.5.2.3 Rehabilitation with Non-Structural Overlay..........................................3.5.7
3.5.3 RECYCLING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT OR OTHER MATERIALS.....3.5.9
3.5.4 IDENTIFICATION OF FEASIBLE REHABILITATION
STRATEGIES.....................................................................................................3.5.11
3.5.4.1 Steps 1 through 4⎯Determine Existing Pavement Condition and
Causes of Distress and Identify All Possible Rehabilitation Constraints .....3.5.13
3.5.4.2 Step 5⎯Selection of Major Rehabilitation Strategies and
Rehabilitation Treatments.............................................................................3.5.14
3.5.4.3 Step 6⎯Develop Preliminary Design of Feasible Rehabilitation
Strategies.......................................................................................................3.5.15
3.5.4.4 Step 7⎯Perform Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Possible
Rehabilitation Strategies ...............................................................................3.5.19
3.5.4.5 Step 8⎯Determine Relevant Non-Monetary Factors that Influence
Rehabilitation................................................................................................3.5.19
3.5.4.6 Step 9⎯Determine Preferred Rehabilitation Strategy.........................3.5.20
3.5.5 SUMMARY..................................................................................................3.5.21
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................3.5.23

CHAPTER 6—HMA REHABILITATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENTS ...............3.6.1

3.6.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................3.6.1
3.6.1.1 Scope......................................................................................................3.6.1
3.6.1.2 Organization...........................................................................................3.6.2
3.6.2 OVERVIEW OF REHABILITATION DESIGN PROCESS.........................3.6.2
3.6.2.1 HMA Overlay of Existing HMA Surfaced Pavements..........................3.6.5
3.6.2.2 HMA Overlay of Fractured PCC Slabs .................................................3.6.6
3.6.2.3 HMA Overlay of Existing Intact PCC Pavements.................................3.6.6
3.6.2.4 Reconstruction .......................................................................................3.6.7
3.6.3 INPUTS FOR HMA REHABILITATION DESIGN .....................................3.6.7

xxvii
 3.6.3.1 General Information.............................................................................3.6.11
3.6.3.2 Site/Project Identification ....................................................................3.6.11
3.6.3.3 Analysis Parameters.............................................................................3.6.12
3.6.3.4 Traffic ..................................................................................................3.6.25
3.6.3.5 Climate.................................................................................................3.6.26
3.6.3.6 Pavement Structure ..............................................................................3.6.26
3.6.4 HMA OVERLAY OF EXISTING HMA SURFACED PAVEMENTS ......3.6.28
3.6.4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................3.6.28
3.6.4.2 Subsurface Drainage Considerations ...................................................3.6.30
3.6.4.3 Pre-Overlay Treatments .......................................................................3.6.30
3.6.4.4 Performance Criteria............................................................................3.6.32
3.6.4.5 Design Reliability ................................................................................3.6.32
3.6.4.6 Characterization of Existing Pavement................................................3.6.32
3.6.4.7 Trial Section.........................................................................................3.6.43
3.6.4.8 Distress Prediction ...............................................................................3.6.44
3.6.4.9 Trial Design Performance Evaluation and Design Modifications .......3.6.50
3.6.5 HMA OVERLAY OF FRACTURED SLAB ...............................................3.6.55
3.6.5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................3.6.55
3.6.5.2 Subsurface Drainage Considerations ...................................................3.6.55
3.6.5.3 Pre-Overlay Treatments .......................................................................3.6.56
3.6.5.4 Performance Criteria............................................................................3.6.56
3.6.5.5 Design Reliability ................................................................................3.6.56
3.6.5.6 Characterization of Existing Pavement................................................3.6.57
3.6.5.7 Trial Section.........................................................................................3.6.59
3.6.5.8 Distress Prediction ...............................................................................3.6.59
3.6.5.9 Trial Design Performance Evaluation and Design Modifications .......3.6.61
3.6.6 HMA OVERLAY OF INTACT PCC PAVEMENT ....................................3.6.62
3.6.6.1 Introduction..........................................................................................3.6.62
3.6.6.2 Subsurface Drainage Considerations ...................................................3.6.62
3.6.6.3 Pre-Overlay Treatments .......................................................................3.6.62
3.6.6.4 Performance Criteria............................................................................3.6.64

xxviii
 3.6.6.5 Design Reliability ................................................................................3.6.64
3.6.6.6 Characterization of Existing Pavement................................................3.6.65
3.6.6.7 Trial Section.........................................................................................3.6.68
3.6.6.8 Distress Prediction ...............................................................................3.6.68
3.6.6.9 Trial Design Performance Evaluation and Design Modifications .......3.6.75
3.6.7 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REHABILIATION WITH
HMA OVERLAYS.............................................................................................3.6.78
3.6.7.1 Shoulder Reconstruction......................................................................3.6.78
3.6.7.2 Lane Widening.....................................................................................3.6.78
3.6.7.3 Subdrainage Improvement ...................................................................3.6.78
3.6.7.4 Pre-overlay Repairs of Concrete Pavements........................................3.6.79
3.6.7.5 Pre-overlay Repairs of HMA Pavements.............................................3.6.80
3.6.7.6 Reflection Crack Control .....................................................................3.6.81
3.6.7.7 Cold In-Place Recycling ......................................................................3.6.82
3.6.7.8 Hot In-Place Recycling ........................................................................3.6.83
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................3.6.85

CHAPTER 7: PCC REHABILITATION DESIGN OF EXISTING

PAVEMENTS ....................................................................................................................3.7.1
3.7.1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................3.7.1
3.7.1.1 Background ............................................................................................3.7.1
3.7.1.2 Scope......................................................................................................3.7.1
3.7.1.3 Organization...........................................................................................3.7.2
3.7.2 OVERVIEW OF REHABILITATION DESIGN PROCESS.........................3.7.2
3.7.2.1 Concrete Pavement Restoration (CPR) of JPCP....................................3.7.4
3.7.2.2 Overlay Rehabilitation Options .............................................................3.7.6
3.7.3 DESIGN INPUTS FOR PCC REHABILITATION DESIGN .......................3.7.8
3.7.3.1 General Information.............................................................................3.7.12
3.7.3.2 Site/Project Identification ....................................................................3.7.13
3.7.3.3 Analysis Parameters.............................................................................3.7.13
3.7.3.4 Traffic ..................................................................................................3.7.13

xxix
 3.7.3.5 Climate.................................................................................................3.7.14
3.7.3.6 Pavement Structure ..............................................................................3.7.14
3.7.3.7 Rehabilitation.......................................................................................3.7.36
3.7.4 JPCP REHABILITATION DESIGN............................................................3.7.38
3.7.4.1 Performance Criteria............................................................................3.7.38
3.7.4.2 Design Reliability ................................................................................3.7.39
3.7.4.3 Design Considerations .........................................................................3.7.39
3.7.4.4 Trial Rehabilitation Design..................................................................3.7.41
3.7.4.5 Transverse Joint Faulting.....................................................................3.7.41
3.7.4.6 Total Transverse Cracking (Bottom-Up and Top-Down)....................3.7.53
3.7.4.7 JPCP Smoothness.................................................................................3.7.65
3.7.5 CRCP REHABILITATION DESIGN ..........................................................3.7.69
3.7.5.1 Rehabilitation Design Considerations..................................................3.7.69
3.7.5.2 Performance Criteria............................................................................3.7.74
3.7.5.3 Rehabilitation Trial Design..................................................................3.7.74
3.7.6 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REHABILITATION WITH
PCC DESIGN (JPCP AND CRCP) ....................................................................3.7.84
3.7.6.1 Shoulder Reconstruction......................................................................3.7.84
3.7.6.2 Lane Widening.....................................................................................3.7.85
3.7.6.3 Subdrainage Improvement ...................................................................3.7.85
3.7.6.4 CPR/Pre-Overlay Repairs ....................................................................3.7.84
3.7.6.5 Separator Layer Design for JPC and CRC Unbonded Overlays..........3.7.88
3.7.6.6 Joint Design (JPCP Overlays)..............................................................3.7.90
3.7.6.7 Reflection Crack Control for Bonded PCC over Existing
JPCP/CRCP Overlays ...................................................................................3.7.91
3.7.6.8 Bonding (for Bonded PCC over Existing JPCP/CRCP Overlays) ......3.7.91
3.7.6.9 Guidelines for Addition of Traffic Lanes ............................................3.7.93
3.7.6.10 Guidelines for Widening of Narrow PCC Traffic Lanes/Slabs .........3.7.94
3.7.6.11 Recycling ...........................................................................................3.7.94
3.7.6.12 Local Calibration of PCC Rehabilitation...........................................3.7.94
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................3.7.95

xxx
PART 4—LOW VOLUME ROADS

CHAPTER 1: LOW VOLUME ROAD DESIGN...........................................................4.1.1

4.1.1 DESIGN PROCEDURES...............................................................................4.1.1
4.1.1.1 Design Catalog.......................................................................................4.1.2

xxxi
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY OF TERMS .......................................................................A.1

APPENDIX B—PAVEMENT STRATEGY SELECTION .............................................B.1

B.1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................B.1
B.2 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................B.1
B.3 TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................B.3
B.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................B.3
B.5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................B.4
B.6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................B.4
B.7 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS).........B.6

APPENDIX C—LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS GUIDELINES ...............................C.1

C.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................C.1
C.2 LCCA FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................C.4
C.3 LCCA PROCESS.............................................................................................C.14
C.4 LCCA 2002 SPREADSHEET PROGRAM.....................................................C.52
C.5 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF PROBABILISTIC LCCA .........................C.53
C.6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................C.68
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................C.70

APPENDIX D—USER’S GUIDE – DESIGN GUIDE SOFTWARE AND DESIGN

EXAMPLES .........................................................................................................................D.1
D.1.INTRODUCTION TO THE DESIGN GUIDE SOFTWARE............................D.2
D.2 JPCP DESIGN EXAMPLE ................................................................................D.7
D.3 CRCP DESIGN EXAMPLE.............................................................................D.42
D.4 JPCP RESTORATION AND UNBONDED JPCP OVERLAY
REHABILITATION DESIGN EXAMPLE .........................................................D.79
D.5 CONVENTIONAL FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN EXAMPLE...........D.105
D.6 AC OVER EXISTING AC REHABILITATION DESIGN EXAMPLE .......D.144

xxxii
D.7 AC OVER EXISTING JPCP REHABILITATION DESIGN EXAMPLE ....D.159

xxxiii
 APPENDIX D. USER’S GUIDE⎯DESIGN GUIDE SOFTWARE
AND DESIGN EXAMPLES

This appendix presents an introduction to the Design Guide software and guidance to
perform pavement design using the software. Section D.1 in this appendix describes the
main features of the Design Guide software and provides an introduction to the basic
features of this software. Next, this appendix presents examples for pavement design
using the Design Guide software. The following pavement types are considered in the
design examples presented in Sections D.2 through D.7 respectively:

• New or reconstructed Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)

• New or reconstructed Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP)
• JPCP Rehabilitation – JPCP Restoration and Unbonded JPCP overlay on an
existing JPCP
• New or reconstructed asphalt concrete (AC) pavement
• AC Rehabilitation – AC overlay on existing AC
• AC Rehabilitation – AC on existing JPCP

The design examples in this section illustrate the use of all design inputs discussed in
PART 2 of this Guide and the pavement design procedure described in PART 3, Chapter
3, 4, 6 and 7. The design examples chosen cover a wide range of input types and input
levels. Each example is introduced with a detailed problem statement that summarizes
the available data to begin the design process.

The new AC design and the new rigid design examples are presented with a detailed
listing of the design requirements and constraints followed by a step-by-step description
of the design procedure. Appropriate screen shots of the design software are also
provided to guide the user with the design procedure. Other examples provide less
detailed information.

It is required for the user to be familiar with the procedure for the design of new
pavements before attempting to perform the design of a rehabilitated pavement. The use
of the Design Guide software and the procedure to provide design inputs are similar for
both new and rehabilitation designs. Therefore, for rehabilitation design, the Guide
explains in detail only those aspects that are exclusively of relevance to rehabilitation
design.

The Design Guide software program accompanying the Guide contains the design
examples discussed in this appendix for the benefit of users gaining familiarity with this
design procedure. Additional rehabilitation design options are also included.

D.1
D.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE DESIGN GUIDE SOFTWARE

The Design Guide is based on a mechanistic-empirical design procedure. The design

procedure mechanistically calculates pavement responses such as stresses, strains, and
deflections and lets the designer project the damage that will accumulate over time.
Next, the procedure empirically relates damage over time to pavement distresses chosen
by the designer. The procedure is shown in the flowchart in Figure D. 1. The design
procedure is integrated into the Design Guide software.

Inputs
Structure Materials Traffic Climate

Selection of Trial Design

Revise trial design

Structural Responses (σ, ε, δ)

Damage Accumulation with Time

Calibrated Damage-Distress Models

Distresses Smoothness
Design
Design
Reliability
Performance Verification Requirements
Failure criteria Satisfied? No

Yes
Final Design
Figure D. 1. Design Guide procedure.

Pavement design using the Design Guide is an iterative process and includes the
following steps:

1. The designer inputs a trial design.

2. The software estimates the damage and key distresses over the design life.
3. The design is verified against the performance criteria at a desired level of
reliability. The design may be modified as needed to meet performance and
reliability requirements.

The software provides:

1. An interface to input design variables,

2. Computational engines for analysis and performance prediction, and
3. Results and outputs from the analyses in formats suitable for use in electronic
documents or for making hardcopies.

D.2
D.1.1 Installing Design Guide

The Design Guide installation CD uses the Windows auto-run feature. To install the
software:

1. Start Windows.
2. Close any applications that are already running.
3. Inset the Design Guide CD into the CD-ROM drive.

If the installation does not start within a few seconds:

1. Double-click on My Computer icon on the Desktop.

2. Double-click on the Design Guide CD-ROM icon.
3. Run setup.exe.

Simply follow the on-screen directions to install Design Guide.

The default directory for installing the program files is C:\DG2002. The user is provided
the option to change the installation directory. The installation program copies several
files into the program root directory DG2002. DG2002 will contain the main program
file and several Dynamic Linked Libraries (DLL) that are necessary for the proper
operation of the program. Other directories copied by the installation program are:

Projects: This directory contains the project files for all projects created by this release.
All project files have the ".dgp" file extension. Other files that are used for inter-process
communication and archiving purposes are kept in subdirectories of this directory. Each
project has its own subdirectory.

Bin: This directory contains files necessary for the operation of the program. Don't delete,
rename, or change any of the files from his directory.

Defaults: This directory contains default information files that are used by the program to
generate default input values.

HTML Help: This directory contains the help files.

D.1.2 Uninstalling Design Guide

To uninstall the Design Guide software program:

1. Select the Windows Start button.

2. Select or move the mouse to Settings.
3. Select Control Panel.
4. Select Add/Remove Programs.
5. Uninstall the Design Guide software

D.3
D.1.3 Running Design Guide

During installation, a Design Guide program will be added to your Windows Start menu.
To find Design Guide, click the Start button in the bottom left corner of your screen. Go
up to the Programs option with your cursor to see a list of folders and programs. Select
the Design Guide icon (the first icon shown below). Alternatively, the program can also
be run by double-clicking the DG2k2 icon on the desktop.

The software opens into a splash screen shown in Figure D. 2. A new file must be
opened for each project, much like opening a new file for each document on a word
processor. To open a new project, select “New” from the “File” menu of the tool bar. A
typical layout of the program is shown below in Figure D. 3.

The user first provides the software with the General Information of the project and then
inputs in three main categories, Traffic, Climate, and Structure. All inputs for the
software program are color coded as shown in Figure D.4. Input screens that have not
been visited are coded “red”. Those that have default values are coded “yellow” and
those that have complete inputs are coded “green”.

Next, after all inputs are provided for the trial design, the user chooses to run the analysis.
The software now executes the damage analysis and the performance prediction engines
for the trial design input. The user can then view input and output summaries created by
the program. The program creates a summary of all inputs of the trial design. It also
provides a summary of the distress and performance prediction in both tabular and
graphical formats. All charts are plotted in Microsoft Excel and hence can be
incorporated into electronic documents and reports.

Figure D. 2. Design Guide software.

D.4
 General
Information
Status and
Summary

Inputs View Results Run

•Traffic and Outputs Analysis
•Climate
•Structure

Figure D. 3. Program layout.

Green to indicate
completed inputs

Yellow to indicate that

default values will
be used for the design

Red to indicate that these

inputs are still needed for
the design process

Figure D.4. Color-coded inputs.

The Design Guide software also offers extensive online help to users. Help is available
in three levels.

1. Context sensitive and tool tip help as shown in Figure D. 5 and Figure D. 6
respectively. Context Sensitive Help (CSH) provides a brief definition of the
input variable and its significance to the design. CSH can be accessed by
right-clicking the mouse on an input variable. Tool tip help prompts the

D.5
 typical range in values for each input and will be accessed with moving the
cursor close to each input.
2. Html help (as in the level of help you are using now) provides the next level
of help and is in more detail than level 1 help. It can be accessed by clicking
on the “?” on the top right corner of the screen.
3. Link to detailed Design Guide documents.

The probability that a given

pavement design will last for the
anticipated design life. The
value entered here is the target
reliability against which all
performance models will be
evaluated

Figure D. 5. Context sensitive help.

Ranges from 50 to 200

Move cursor
to input box
for typical
input range
to appear

Figure D. 6. Tool tip help.

D.6
D.2. JPCP DESIGN EXAMPLE

Design Life

The jointed plain concrete pavement has a 25-year design life and will be constructed in
the month of September 2002 to be opened to traffic in November 2002.

Construction Requirements

Assuming a good quality of construction, the pavement shall have an initial IRI between
50 and 75 in/mile (assume 63 in/mile for design purposes).

Analysis Parameters

It is expected that at the end of the 25-year design life, the pavement will have no more
than 15 percent transverse cracking at 95 percent reliability level and no more than 0.15
inch faulting at a reliability level of 90 percent. In addition, the smoothness should be
maintained at an IRI of less than 252 in/mile at a reliability level of 95 percent.

Location

The pavement is in the state of Illinois and in the east central region of the state. It is
located in the close vicinity of Champaign Urbana. The 5-mile stretch of pavement to be
designed is in the northbound lane called JPCP1 between mileposts 00 + 00 to 05+00.

Traffic

The two-way average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) on this highway is estimated to
be 2250 trucks during the first year of its service. There will be two lanes in the design
direction with 90% of the trucks in the design lane. Truck traffic is equally distributed in
both directions (i.e. 50% of the trucks drive in the design direction). The operational
speed is 60 mph.

This pavement is being designed for heavy traffic in a principal arterial/Interstate

category highway and therefore the traffic consists of a high percentage of single trailer
trucks.

For each class of vehicle, the traffic pattern on monthly and daily bases remains the same
through out the year. However, the traffic varies over a 24-hour period and is same as the
national default based on LTPP data (provided in the Design Guide and the software).

After the base year, over the design life of the pavement, the traffic increases by 4.0 % of
the preceding year’s traffic (compounded annually).

D.7
The axle load distribution is identical to the national defaults (derived from LTPP)
provided with the Design Guide software for each vehicle class, axle type, load category,
and months of the year.

Assume that the mean of the outer wheel edge is located 18 inches from the edge of the
pavement. The truck lateral wander has a standard deviation of 10 inches. The pavement
has a standard design lane width is 12 feet. The number of single, tandem, tridem and
quad axles for each vehicle class is similar to the national defaults derived from LTPP
(provided in the Design Guide and software).

The axle configuration is as follows:

Average axle width (edge-to-edge outside dimensions, ft): 8.5

Dual tire spacing (in): 12

The single and dual tire pressures are 120 psi. The design lane is 12 feet wide. The
average axle spacing for tandem, tridem and quad axles are as follows:

Axle type Axle spacing (in)

Tandem 51.6
Tridem 49.2
Quad 49.2

Drainage and Surface Properties

The geometric design of the highway calls for a cross slope of 2 percent. The drainage
path will have a length of 12 feet from the centerline to the edge drain adjacent to the
lane-shoulder joint, and the infiltration will depend on the chosen shoulder type and the
presence of edge drains. Assume a surface shortwave absorptivity of 0.85 (used in all
calibration).

JPCP Design Features

It is anticipated that the temperature and curing conditions will induce a permanent
curl/warp equivalent to –10 deg F in this section if a curing compound is used during the
curing process (this is the mean determined from calibration).

Concrete Mix Properties

Concrete mix design to be used in this project has level 1-strength tests for the concrete
compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, and modulus of rupture. Tests have been
performed at concrete ages of 7, 14, 28, and 90 days. Because a long-term strength test
could not be performed, estimates of 20-year to 28-day strength and modulus ratios were
provided as recommended in the Guide. The results from the laboratory tests are
summarized as:

D.8
 Time, days f c′ , psi EPCC, psi MR, psi
7 6697 4553550 777
14 7320 4760907 813
28 7927 4954161 846
90 8895 5248021 896
20 yr to 28 day
strength ratio 1.44 1.2 1.2

The coefficient of thermal expansion of the mix was found to be 6.3 in/in/deg F. Assume
a thermal conductivity of 1.25 BTU/hr-ft-oF and a specific heat of 0.28 BTU/lb-oF. The
unit weight and Poisson’s ratio of the mix were 145 pcf and 0.20 respectively (used in
calibration).

The concrete mix design comprised of Type 1 cement, with a cement content of 565
lb/cubic yard and a water cement ratio of 0.402. The aggregate type used for this mix
design is dolomite. Shrinkage characteristics of the mix indicate that its reversible
shrinkage is 50% of its ultimate shrinkage value and it takes 35 days to develop 50% of
its ultimate shrinkage. The ultimate shrinkage is however not known.

Base Material

The base materials chosen in this design example include a cement stabilized base and a
crushed stone layer. The cement stabilized base layer has a unit weight of 150 pcf,
Poisson’s ratio of 0.20, and an average elastic modulus of 1,789,845 psi. Assume a
thermal conductivity of 1.25 BTU/hr-ft-oF and a specific heat of 0.28 BTU/lb-oF. The
crushed stone base layer has a modulus of 40,000 psi and a PI of 1.0. Sieve analysis
results of this material show that 10% and 80% of the material passes through the #200
and #4 sieve respectively. The D60 of the crushed stone material is 2 mm.

Subgrade

The subgrade in this location has an Mr value of 18,000 psi estimated at optimum
moisture conditions. The plasticity index of the soil is 25. Assume default values for
other subgrade inputs.

Trial Design

The Design Guide procedure is an iterative procedure that requires the user to develop a
trial design to begin the design process. The trial design is analyzed over the design
period specified by the designer. The trial design is then evaluated based on the design
criteria and then suitably modified till a final design is achieved. The design process is
integrated into the Design Guide software program.

The design process requires the following steps:

D.9
D.2.1 Create a New project

D.2.1.1 Create a new design project in the Design Guide program

Open the Design Guide program from the Programs menu of the operating system
(windows 98, 2000, XP, NT). Next open a new file and assign a name to the project,
“JPCP” as shown in Figure D.7. Next, select the folder to store the design files as
“C:\DG2002\Projects”. Select US Customary units as the measurement system by
clicking the radio button adjacent to it. Next, click “OK” and the program opens the main
layout screen of the design project as shown in Figure D.8.

Figure D.7. Create a New Project File from the Main Program.

Click on each
item to make
inputs
General
Inputs

Outputs

Run
Inputs
Analysis

Figure D.8. Main program layout.

D.10
D.2.2 General Inputs

D.2.2.1 General Information

On the main project screen click on the General Information input to open the General
Information screen. Inputs on General Information Screen as shown in Figure D.9:

Design Life: 25 years

Pavement Construction Month: September 2002
Traffic Open Month: November 2002
Type of Design: New Pavement – Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP)

Figure D.9. General Information screen.

Click OK and return to the program layout screen

D.2.2.2 Site/Project Identification

Click on Site/Project Identification to open the Site/Project Identification screen. Inputs

made on this screen are purely for providing identification to the project. Inputs to be
provided for this design, as shown in Figure D.10, are:

D.11
 Location: Illinois
Project ID: JPCP Design Example
Section ID: JPCP1
Functional Class (from pull-down menu): Principal Arterials – Interstate and
Defense
Date: Date performing the design
Station/milepost format: 00+00
Station/milepost begin: 00 + 00
Station/milepost end: 05 + 00
Traffic Direction: Northbound

Figure D.10. Site/Project Identification screen.

Click OK and return to the main layout program.

D.2.2.3 Analysis Parameters

This screen allows the user to make inputs with regard to design criteria chosen by the
agency. For this specific example, the inputs to be made on the Analysis Parameters
screen, as show in Figure D.11 are as follows:

Initial IRI (in/mile): 63

Analysis Type: Probabilistic
Performance Criteria
Terminal IRI (in/mile): 252

D.12
 Reliability (%, for IRI criteria): 95
Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked): 15
Reliability (%, for transverse cracking): 95
Mean Joint Faulting (in): 0.15
Reliability (%, for faulting): 90

Figure D.11. Analysis Parameters screen for JPCP.

Click OK and return to the main layout program. Note that the icons in the general inputs
are all green at this point. It is suggested that at this point, the input file be saved by
clicking on the diskette icon in the tool bar or by clicking Save on the File menu.

D.2.3 Traffic Inputs

D.2.3.1 Traffic

This screen allows the user to make general traffic volume inputs and also provides a link
to other traffic screens for Volume Adjustments, Axle Load Distribution Factors, and
General Inputs. Please note that these screens can also be accessed from the main layout
screen. Inputs on this screen, as shown in Figure D. 12 are as follows:

D.13
 Two way average annual truck traffic: 2250
Number of lanes in design direction: 2
Percent of trucks in design direction: 50
Percent of trucks in design lane: 90
Operational truck speed: 60

Note that the chosen design life and the date of opening to traffic appear on this screen.
Also note the links to Traffic Volume Adjustment, Axle Load Distribution, and General
Traffic Inputs screens. These are the three main categories of traffic inputs required for
the design and individual links to these screens are also available from the main program
layout.

Figure D. 12. Traffic screen.

Click OK and return to the main layout program.

D.2.3.2. Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors

The Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors screen has 4 property pages (or sub-screens),
namely:

D.14
 • Monthly Adjustment
• Vehicle Class Distribution
• Hourly Distribution
• Traffic Growth Factors

D.2.3.2.1 Monthly Adjustment

The inputs on this screen indicate the distribution of traffic over the different months of a
year for each traffic class. The Monthly Adjustment Factor (MAF) is the proportion of
AADTT occurring over a 24-hour period in each month for each vehicle class.

For this example, since the traffic distribution remains the same through out the year, i.e.
does not change between the different months of the year, the default monthly adjustment
factors can be used.

Click on the radio button for Level 3 default inputs as shown in Figure D.13. Note that
the default MAF value is 1.0 for all months in each vehicle class.

Figure D.13. Monthly Adjustment Factors screen.

D.15
Next click on the Vehicle Class Distribution tab.

D.2.3.2.2 Vehicle Class Distribution

Site-specific vehicle class distribution data is available for this design project. Click on
the radio button Level 3: Default Distribution and click on the Load Default Distribution
button. Select pavement category as Principal/Arterials-Interstate and Defense and
choose Truck Traffic Classification (TTC) #2 listed in the 11th row of the table as shown
in Figure D. 14. This TTC has a high percentage of vehicles in Class 9 (single trailer
trucks).

Figure D. 14. Load Default AADTT screen.

Click OK and return to the Vehicle Class Distribution screen. As shown in Figure D. 15,
the TTC 2 distribution by vehicle class is seen on the screen. Next, click on the Hourly
Distribution tab.

D.2.3.2.3 Hourly Distribution

Enter the hourly distribution of the AADTT as shown in Figure D.16. Next, click on the
Traffic Growth Factors tab.

D.2.3.2.4 Traffic Growth Factors

The given data suggests that the traffic grows 4.0% at a compound rate. The program
will use a default function for traffic growth at a compound rate. Select Compound
Growth and enter a growth rate of 4.0% as shown in Figure D.17.

D.16
Figure D. 15. Vehicle Class Distribution screen.

Figure D.16. Hourly Distribution screen.

D.17
 Figure D.17. Traffic Growth Factors screen.

Next click on View Growth Plots to open a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that shows the
growth in AADTT for each vehicle class over the design life. The plots are shown in
Figure D.18, Figure D.19, and Figure D.20.

Close the Excel spreadsheet and click OK on the Volume Adjustments screen to return to
the main layout page.

Years vs AADTT Growth

2500

2000

Class 4
1500
Class 5
1000 Class 6
Class 7
500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Years

Figure D.18. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 4 through 7.

D.18
 Years vs AADTT Growth

2500

2000

1500 Class 8
Class 9
1000
Class 10
500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Years

Figure D.19. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 8 through 10.

Years vs AADTT Growth

2500

2000

1500 Class 11
Class 12
1000
Class 13
500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Years

Figure D.20. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 11 through 13.

D.2.3.3 Axle Load Distribution Factors

This screen allows the user to specify the percentage of vehicles in each vehicle class, at
each load level, for each axle type. This design example uses the default LTPP
distribution and therefore the level 3-default input will be used. Click on the radio button
for level 3 axle load distribution factors as shown in Figure D. 21. The program
automatically loads default values for these inputs. Click Ok to return to the main screen.

Note that the program also allows exporting a previously saved file if the user so chooses.

D.19
 Figure D. 21. Axle Load Distribution Factors screen.

D.2.3.4 General Traffic inputs

This screen allows the user to provide traffic wander inputs and also has 3 property
pages, namely,

Number of Axles/Truck
Axle Configuration
Wheelbase

Enter the following inputs with regard to lateral traffic wander as shown on Figure D. 22
Mean wheel location: 18 inch
Traffic wander standard deviation: 10
Design lane width: 12 feet

D.2.3.4.1 Number Axles/Truck

Enter the number of axles per truck as shown in Figure D. 22:

D.20
 Figure D. 22. General Traffic Inputs – Number of Axles/Truck screen.

D.2.3.4.2 Axle Configuration

Enter the following inputs on the Axle Configuration property page as shown in Figure D.
23:

Average axle width: 8.5 feet

Dual tire spacing: 12 in
Tire pressure:
Single tire: 120 psi
Dual tire: 120 psi
Axle spacing:
Tandem axle: 51.6 in
Tridem axle: 49.2 in
Quad axle: 49.2 in

D.21
 Figure D. 23. General Traffic Inputs – Axle Configuration screen.

D.2.3.4.3 Wheelbase

Enter the following inputs on the Wheelbase property page as shown in Figure D. 24:

Average axle spacing

Short: 12 feet
Medium: 15 feet
Long: 18 feet
Percentage trucks
Short: 2.0 percent
Medium: 20.0 percent
Long: 78.0 percent

Click OK and return to the main program layout screen. The user, by this stage, has
made all traffic inputs and is now ready to make Climate inputs for the project. Save the
project file before proceeding.

D.22
 Figure D. 24. General Traffic Inputs – Wheelbase screen.

D.2.4 Climate Inputs

D.2.4.1 Climate

The project site is in the vicinity of Champaign Urbana, for which a climatic file exists in
the ICM database. The user has to upload this climatic data for use in this design project
so that the Design Guide software can predict the moisture and temperature gradients in
trial designs.

Click on Climate on the main project layout screen. On the main Climate screen, as
shown in Figure D. 25, click on Generate to generate a new climatic data file. Next,
click on the radio button corresponding to Climatic data for a specific weather station.
Choose Champaign-Urbana, IL from the scroll down list of weather stations with climatic
data. Enter the Depth of water table (feet) as “10” and click on Select station.

D.23
 Figure D. 25. Main Climate screen.

Figure D. 26. Generating climatic data file for the project location.

D.24
The program creates the climatic data file for the project. After the climatic data file is
created, the program prompts the user to save it. Save the file in the project directory -
“C:\DG2002\Projects\JPCP\jpcp.icm”.

Note that the program also automatically creates a file called climate.tmp in the project
directory. This is the file that the program reads hourly climatic information from during
the analysis stage. This file contains the sunrise time, sunset time and radiation for each
day of the design life period. In addition, for each 24-hour period in each day of the
design life, the temperature, rainfall, air speed, sunshine, and depth of ground water table
are also listed in the climate file.

By this stage, the user has completed the climatic inputs required by the program. The
color-coded icons will have a green color for the traffic and climate and red icons for
structure, indicating that the traffic and climate inputs are complete and structural inputs
are yet to be addressed.

D.2.5 Structural Inputs

The user at this stage needs to choose structural parameters and a layer combination that
can be evaluated for its performance. As explained in the PART 3 of the Guide, the
procedure is an iterative procedure and the user will have to develop a trial design and
make several modifications to it, before a feasible and economic (or final) design is
achieved.

Choose the following layers in the trial design for the given JPCP example:

1. 10.0-in JPCP layer

2. 4.0-in cement stabilized base layer
3. 6.0-in crushed stone subbase layer
4. Semi-infinite uncompacted (natural) subgrade layer

The JPCP slabs in the trial design will have a joint spacing of 15 feet and 1.25 inch
diameter dowels across the transverse joints spaced at 12 inches. The joints will have a
liquid sealant. The shoulders will contain no load transfer and will be provided with edge
drains.

The structural inputs are of three categories, JPCP Design Features, Drainage and
Surface Properties, and Layer Properties. These three categories of inputs have direct
links from the program layout screen and no specific order is required to be followed to
make these inputs.

D.2.5.1 Design Features

Click on the Design Features link on the main program layout screen and the program
opens a screen to enable inputs for JPCP Design Features. The inputs to be made on this
screen are shown in Figure D. 27.

D.25
The default slab thickness (which can be edited on the layers screen discussed in 2.5.3.1)
appears on the screen on a non-edit mode. Enter a value of -10 for permanent curl/warp
effective temperature difference. Enter Joint spacing of 15 feet and select the Sealant
type as Liquid from the scroll down menu.

Next, click on the radio button corresponding to Bonded interface between the slab and
the base layer. Because the chosen base layer is a cement stabilized base layer, choose an
Erodibility index of 2 representing a very erosion resistant base layer and enter the Loss
of bond age as 60 months.

Figure D. 27. JPCP Design Features screen.

Note that on the JPCP Design Features screen shown in Figure D. 27, there are no inputs
made with regard to Edge Support for this design example because of the absence of ties
across the lane-shoulder joint. Finally, click Ok and return to the main program layout.

D.26
D.2.5.2 Drainage and Surface Properties

From the main program layout screen click on Drainage and Surface Properties to open
the screen shown in Figure D. 28.

Figure D. 28. Drainage and Surface Properties screen.

Enter 0.85 for surface shortwave absorptivity. For shoulder with edge drains, the
recommended infiltration is 10% corresponding to a minor level of infiltration. Enter 12
feet for the Drainage path length and 2 percent for Pavement cross slope. Click Ok and
return to the main program layout.

D.2.5.3 Layers

On the main program layout screen, click on Layers to add and edit pavement layers in
the trial design. The program opens the Layers screen as shown in Figure D. 29. The
three main functions this screen allows the user to perform are:

• Inserting a layer after a selected layer – by clicking the Insert button

• Deleting a selected layer – by clicking the Delete button
• Editing the layer properties of a selected layer – by clicking the Edit button

The first layer of the pavement, the PCC layer is shown on the screen in Figure D. 29.
Next, the user has to add a layer after (underneath) the PCC layer. To add a layer after
the PCC layer, select layer 1 by clicking on the row shown for Layer 1 and then insert a
layer by clicking on the Insert button. The program now opens a screen shown in
Figure D. 30a that allows the user to select the layer to be added as shown in
Figure D. 30b.

D.27
 Figure D. 29. Layers screen.

a) Initial screen to insert layer b) Inputs to insert cement stabilized layer

Figure D. 30. Inserting cement stabilized layer after the PCC layer.

From the scroll down menu, select Stabilized Base for the Material type and Cement
Stabilized for the Material. Enter a thickness value of 4 and click Ok to return to the
Layers screen shown in Figure D. 31. This screen now shows the newly added cement
stabilized layer.

Next, select layer 2 and click Insert to add a layer after the asphalt layer. Select Granular
Base for the Material type and crushed stone for Material as shown in Figure D. 32.
Enter a thickness of 6 inches Click Ok and return to the Layers screen shown in Figure D.
33.

D.28
 Figure D. 31. Layers screen after inserting the stabilized base layer.

Figure D. 32. Inserting the granular base layer after the stabilized base layer.

Next, the user needs to insert the subgrade layer, which is the final layer of the pavement
structure. It is recommended that in the absence of the granular base layer, the subgrade
layer be entered as two layers to represent the semi-infinite subgrade and a layer above
with compacted subgrade material. Please note that if the user fails to enter two distinct
layers and chooses only one subgrade layer instead, the program will automatically
prompt the user to add a second layer so that the drainage prediction model will function
properly.

D.29
 Figure D. 33. Layers screen after the addition of Layer 3 (granular base layer).

Repeat the same steps again and add the last layer. Select Layer 3 and click Insert. As
shown in Figure D. 34, select Subgrade for Material, and based on AASHTO soil
classification system, select A-6 for Material type. Select the last layer option instead of
entering a thickness to this layer. Click Ok and return to the Layers screen that now has
all four layers added to the structure as shown in Figure D. 35.

Figure D. 34. Inserting the uncompacted subgrade layer after the compacted subgrade.

D.30
 Figure D. 35. Layers screen after the addition of all layers.

The individual screens for the input of layer material properties can be accessed either
from the Layers screen shown in Figure D. 35, or directly from the program layout
screen. To access the material properties screen from the Layers screen, select the
desired pavement layer and click on Edit. To return to the program layout screen, click
Ok on the Layers screen. The program layout screen now, as shown in Figure D. 36.

Figure D. 36. Program layout screen after adding all layers.

D.31
D.2.5.3.1 Layer 1 – JPCP

Click on Layer 1 – JPCP to edit PCC layer material properties. This opens a screen with
three property pages for Thermal, Mix, and Strength properties. On the Thermal
properties screen, as shown in Figure D. 37, enter the following inputs:

Layer thickness = 10 inches

Unit weight = 145 pcf
Poisson’s ratio = 0.20
Coefficient of thermal expansion = 6.3 in/in/oF
Thermal conductivity = 1.25 BTU/hr-ft-oF
Heat capacity = 0.28 BTU/lb-oF

Figure D. 37. PCC Material Properties – Thermal Properties screen.

Next, click on the Mix tab and move to the property page requiring inputs specific to the
mix. As shown in Figure D. 38, the following inputs are made:

Cement Type : Type 1 (from draw down menu)

Cement content: 565 lb/yd3
Water cement ratio: 0.402
Aggregate type: Dolomite (from the draw down menu)
Ultimate shrinkage: Leave box unchecked for the program to internally calculate
value.
Reversible shrinkage: 50%
Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage: 35 days
Curing method: Curing compound (from draw down menu)

D.32
Next click on the Strength tab and move to the property page requiring inputs for
concrete strength properties. This screen is shown in Figure D. 39. Click the radio
button corresponding to level 1 inputs. The screen provides an array format to enter the
strength and modulus values at different ages. Enter values for concrete modulus and
modulus of rupture as shown in Figure D. 39.

Figure D. 38. PCC Material Properties – Mix Properties screen.

Figure D. 39. PCC Material Properties –Strength Properties screen (level 1).

D.33
Note that the tensile strength values are not required inputs for a JPCP design, and
compressive strength values are not required for level 1 input. Click Ok and return to the
program layout screen. Note that Layer 1 button is now green.

D.2.5.3.2 Layer 2 – Cement Stabilized

Click on Layer 2 on the program layout screen. The chosen material type and thickness
appear on the screen (Note that this information can be modified on this screen). Enter
the following inputs as shown in Figure D. 40,

Unit weight: 150 pcf

Poisson’s ratio: 0.20
Resilient modulus: 1,789,845 psi
Thermal conductivity: 1.25
Heat capacity: 0.28

Click Ok and return to the main program layout screen. Note that the icon adjacent to
Layer 2 – Cement stabilized layer is now green
.

Figure D. 40. Cement Stabilized Material screen.

D.34
D.2.5.3.3 Layer 3 – Crushed stone

Click on Layer 3 – Crushed stone ML on the program layout screen to enter inputs for
the crushed stone base layer. The screen that enables the user to make inputs for an
unbound layer opens as shown in Figure D. 41. Note that the choice made for the
unbound material type and the layer thickness appear on the screen. (This screen also
allows the user to make changes to these choices if necessary).

Choose the radio button corresponding to level 3 inputs, which requires only the input for
modulus for material property. Enter the following input values:

Poisson’s ratio: 0.35

Coefficient of lateral pressure: 0.50
Modulus (psi): 40,000

For Analysis Type, click on the radio button adjacent to ICM Inputs to indicate that the
user will make ICM inputs to the program

Figure D. 41. Unbound Layer screen for crushed stone base layer – Strength Properties.

D.35
Next, click on the ICM tab to make ICM inputs. The inputs made on this screen, shown
in Figure D. 42, are as follows:

Plasticity Index, PI: 1 (given)

Passing #200 sieve (%): 10 (default)
Passing #4 sieve (%): 80 (default)
D60 (mm): 2 (given)

Select the radio button corresponding to a compacted unbound layer because the base
material is compacted before the placing the treated base layer. Click on Update and
view the ICM calculated parameters. Next, click Ok and return to the main program
layout screen.

Figure D. 42. Unbound Layer screen for crushed stone base layer – ICM Properties.

D.2.5.3.4 Layer 4 – A-6

The fourth layer in this trial design is the natural subgrade classified as A-6 in this
geographic area as per the AASHTO classification system. Click on Layer 4 – A-6 on the

D.36
program layout screen. The input screen for unbound materials is opened for material
strength and ICM property inputs. Choose the radio button corresponding to level 3
inputs, which requires only the input for modulus for material property. Enter the
following input values on the Strength Properties page as shown in Figure D. 43:

Poisson’s ratio: 0.35

Coefficient of lateral pressure: 0.50
Modulus (psi): 18,000

Figure D. 43. Subgrade (Unbound) layer screen – Strength Properties page.

For Analysis Type, click on the radio button adjacent to ICM Inputs to indicate that the
user will make ICM inputs to the program. Next click on the ICM tab and on the ICM
property page, enter the following inputs as shown in Figure D. 44:

Plasticity Index, PI: 25

Passing #200 sieve (%): 80
Passing #4 sieve (%): 95
D60 (mm): 0.01

Next, click on the radio button corresponding to Uncompacted /natural unbound material
and then on Update to view the ICM calculated parameters. Next, click Ok and return to
the program layout screen shown in Figure D. 45. Note that in Figure D. 45, the icons
adjacent to all inputs⎯Traffic, Climate, and Structure⎯are green indicating that all these
inputs are complete.

D.37
Figure D. 44. Unbound layer screen for natural subgrade layer.

Figure D. 45. Program layout screen after completing all inputs.

D.38
D.2.6 Run Analysis

After all design inputs are provided, the Design Guide software has to begin the analysis
process to predict the performance of the trial design over the design life of the pavement.
Click on Run Analysis. The program runs the Traffic, Climate, Modulus, faulting JPCP,
Cracking JPCP modules and reports the analysis status on the upper right hand corner of
the screen.

At the end of the analysis, the program creates a summary file and other output files in
the project directory, C:\DG2002\Projects\JPCP. The summary file is in a MS Excel
format and is named “JPCP.xls.” The summary file contains an input summary sheet,
distress, faulting, and cracking summary sheets in a table format, and the predicted
faulting, LTE, differential energy, cumulative damage, cracking, and IRI in a graphical
format.

The distress summary sheet in the output file provides an overall summary of the JPCP
design for the project including critical material properties, traffic, and distress data.
Detailed data for each distress type is provided on separate sheets. The distress summary
sheet indicates that this pavement carried 15.5 million heavy trucks over the design
period and this provides an overall idea of the traffic loading on the pavement.

For the given trial design, the transverse cracking and faulting over the design life as
predicted by Design Guide software at the selected reliability level are shown in Figure
D. 46 and in Figure D. 47 respectively. The predicted IRI is shown in Figure D. 48.
From these three figures it is clear that the trial design satisfies the smoothness and
transverse criteria but fails to satisfy the faulting criteria specified.

Pr ed ict ed cr acking

100

90

80
Percent slabs
70
cracked
60
Cracked at
50
specified reliability
40

30
Limit percent slabs
cracked
20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

P a v e m e nt a ge , y e a r s

Figure D. 46. Predicted transverse cracking at 95 percent reliability for the trial design.

D.39
 P redicted faulting

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14 Faulting
Faulting, in

0.12

Faulting at specified
0.10
reliability
0.08
Faulting Limit
0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Pavem ent age, years

Figure D. 47. Predicted faulting at 90 percent reliability for the trial design.

P redicted IRI

260

234

208

182 IRI
IRI, in/mile, mil

156

130
IRI at specified
reliability
104
IRI Limit
78

52

26

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Pavem ent age, years

Figure D. 48. Predicted IRI at 95 percent reliability for the trial design.

D.2.7 Modify Trial Design

The user now has to modify the trial design so that the faulting criterion is also met. The
user has to run several different cases to select the optimum from the feasible design
options developed. Possible modifications to this trial design are:

• Increase the slab thickness (not best or economical alternative)

D.40
 • Increase the diameter of the dowel bar across the transverse joint
• Increase dowel bar size and decease thickness
• Increase thickness and decrease dowel diameter (uneconomical alternative)

The predicted faulting of the pavement at 90% reliability level for various thickness and
steel content parameters are summarized, Figure D. 49, and Figure D. 50. The predicted
transverse cracking and IRI at 95% reliability at the end of design life for the slab
thickness and dowel sizes considered are tabulated below:

Slab Dowel Faulting at Cracking at 95% IRI at 95%

thickness diameter 90% reliability reliability, (% reliability
(inch) (inch) (inch) slabs cracked) (in/mile)
10 1 0.30 6.1 263.1
10 1.25 0.17 6.1 192.8
10 1.375 0.14 6.1 173.3
10 1.5 0.12 6.1 164.6
11 1 0.24 5.6 230.1
11 1.25 0.16 5.6 183.2
11 1.375 0.12 5.6 162.7
11 1.5 0.10 5.6 154.6

0.35
1" dia dowel
0.3
1.25" dia dowel
Faulting for 10 inch slab, ins

0.25 1.375" dia dowel

1.5" dia dowel
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Age, months

Figure D. 49. Predicted faulting at 90 % reliability for 10-inch thick slab.

D.41
 0.35
1" dia dowel
0.3
Faulting for 11 inch slab, ins 1.25" dia dowel
0.25 1.375" dia dowel
1.5" dia dowel
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Age, months

Figure D. 50. Predicted faulting at 90 % reliability for 11-inch thick slab.

From the results presented in Figure D. 49 and Figure D. 50, the feasible design options
are clearly the 10 and 11-inch pavement sections with 1.375 and 1.5-inch diameter
dowels.

Note that several input parameters used in the design can affect the predicted
performance. Although the above design example for JPCP suggests altering the
thickness and/or dowel diameter, several other parameters that can be modified to meet
the desired performance requirements. Examples of such input values are strength of the
concrete mix design, the choice of the base layer, thickness of the base layer, shoulder
type, etc. Refer Appendix JJ and KK of the Guide for further illustration of the effects of
design parameters in the prediction of faulting and cracking in JPCP.

D.3 CRCP DESIGN EXAMPLE

Design Life

The continuously reinforced concrete pavement has a 30-year design life and will be
constructed in the month of August 2002 to be opened to traffic in September 2002.

Construction Requirements

Assuming a good quality of construction, the pavement shall have an initial IRI between
50 and 75 in/mile (assume 63 in/mile for design purposes).

D.42
Analysis Parameters

It is expected that at the end of the 30-year design life, the pavement will have no more
than 10 punchouts per mile at 95% reliability and an IRI of less than 252.

Location

The pavement is in the state of Illinois and in the east central region of the state. It is
located at 39.90 deg latitude, –88.30 deg longitude and at an elevation of 700 feet. The
depth of the water table is 10 feet at this site.

The 5-mile stretch of pavement to be designed is in the westbound lane called CRCP1
between mileposts 00 + 00 to 05+00.

Traffic

The two-way average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) on this highway is estimated to
be 2250 trucks during the first year of its service. There will be two lanes in the design
direction with 90% of the trucks in the design lane. Truck traffic is equally distributed in
both directions (i.e. 50% of the trucks drive in the design direction). The operational
speed is 60 mph.

This pavement is being designed for heavy traffic in a principal arterial/Interstate

category highway and therefore the traffic consists of a high percentage of single trailer
trucks. Information collected at this specific site shows that the percentage of AADTT in
each vehicle class is as follows:

Vehicle Class Percent AADTT in Class

Class 4 1.8
Class 5 6.7
Class 6 2.5
Class 7 0.2
Class 8 4.8
Class 9 80.1
Class 10 0.9
Class 11 2.5
Class 12 0.4
Class 13 0.1

For each class of vehicle, the traffic pattern on monthly and daily bases remains the same
through out the year. However, the traffic varies over a 24-hour period and is same as the
national default based on LTPP data (provided in the Design Guide and the software).

D.43
After the base year, over the design life of the pavement, the traffic increases by 4.0% of
the preceding year’s traffic (compounded annually).

The axle load distribution is identical to the national defaults (derived from LTPP)
provided with the Design Guide software for each vehicle class, axle type, load category,
and months of the year.

Assume that the mean of the outer wheel edge is located 18 inches from the edge of the
pavement. The truck lateral wander has a standard deviation of 10 inches. The pavement
has a standard design lane width is 12 feet. The number of single, tandem, tridem and
quad axles for each vehicle class is also same as the national defaults derived from LTPP
data (provided in the Design Guide and the software).

The axle configuration is as follows:

Average axle width (edge-to-edge outside dimensions, ft): 8.5

Dual tire spacing (in): 12

The single and dual tire pressures are 120 psi. The design lane is 12 feet wide. The
average axle spacing for tandem, tridem and quad axles are as follows:

Axle type Axle spacing (in)

Tandem 51.6
Tridem 49.2
Quad 49.2

Drainage and Surface Properties

The geometric design of the highway calls for a cross slope of 2 percent. The drainage
path will have a length of 12 feet from the centerline to the edge drain adjacent to the
lane-shoulder joint, and the infiltration will depend on the chosen shoulder type. Assume
a surface shortwave absorptivity of 0.85.

CRCP Design Features

It is anticipated that the temperature and curing conditions will induce a permanent
curl/warp equivalent to –10 deg F in this section if a curing compound is used during the
curing process.

Concrete Mix Properties

Concrete mix design to be used in this project has level 1-strength tests for the concrete,
modulus of elasticity, modulus of rupture, and tensile strength. Tests have been
performed at concrete ages of 7, 14, 28, 90 days respectively. Because a long-term
strength test could not be performed, estimates of 20-year to 28-day strength and modulus

D.44
ratios were provided as recommended in the Guide. The results from the laboratory tests
are summarized as:

Time, days EPCC, psi MR, psi S.T., psi

7 4553550 777 579
14 4760907 813 605
28 4954161 846 630
90 5248021 896 668
20 yr to 28 day strength ratio 1.2 1.2 1.2

The coefficient of thermal expansion of the mix was found to be 6.3 in/in/deg F. Assume
a thermal conductivity of 1.25 BTU/hr-ft-oF and a specific heat of 0.28 BTU/lb-oF. The
unit weight and Poisson’s ratio of the mix were 145 pcf and 0.20 respectively. The
concrete mix design comprised of Type 1 cement, with a cement content of 565 lb/cubic
yard and a water cement ratio of 0.402. The aggregate type used for this mix design is
dolomite. Shrinkage characteristics of the mix indicate that its reversible shrinkage is
50% of its ultimate shrinkage value and it takes 35 days to develop 50% of its ultimate
shrinkage.

Subgrade

The subgrade in this location is classified as “fine-grained soils, sandy lean clay” and has
a Mr value of 20,000 psi estimated at optimum moisture conditions. The plasticity index
of the soil is 15. Results from sieve analysis of this subgrade soil indicated that 68.5 % of
the material passes the #200 sieve, and 97% the #4 sieves. The D60 of this material is
0.0265mm:

Trial Design

The Design Guide procedure is an iterative procedure that requires the user to develop a
trial design to begin the design process. The trial design is analyzed over the design
period specified by the designer. The trial design is then evaluated based on the design
criteria and then suitably modified until a final design is achieved. The design process is
integrated into the Design Guide software program. The design process requires the
following steps:

D.3.1 Create a New project

D.3.1.1 Create a new design project in the Design Guide program

Open the Design Guide program from the Programs menu of the operating system
(windows 98, 2000, XP, NT). Next open a new file and assign a name to the project,
“CRCP Example” as shown in Figure D.51. Next, select the folder to store the design
files as “C:\DG2002\Projects”. Select US Customary units as the measurement system
by clicking the radio button next to it. Next, click “OK” and the program opens the main
layout screen of the design project as shown in Figure D.52.

D.45
 .
Figure D.51. Create a new project file from the main program.

Click on each
item to make
inputs
General
Inputs

Outputs

Run
Inputs
Analysis

Figure D.52. Main program layout.

D.3.2 General Inputs

D.3.2.1 General Information

On the main project screen click on the General Information input to open the General
Information screen. Inputs on General Information Screen as shown in Figure D.53:

Design Life: 30 years

Pavement Construction Month: August 2002
Traffic Open Month: September 2002
Type of Design: New Pavement – Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement
(CRCP)

D.46
 Figure D.53. General Information screen.

Click OK and return to the program layout screen

D.3.2.2 Site/Project Identification

Click on Site/Project Identification to open the Site/Project Identification screen. Inputs

made on this screen are purely for providing identification to the project. Inputs to be
made for this design, as Figure D.54

Location: Illinois
Project ID: CRCP Design Example
Section ID: CRCP1
Functional Class (from pull-down menu): Principal Arterials – Interstate and
Defense
Date: Date performing the design
Station/milepost format: 00+00
Station/milepost begin: 00 + 00
Station/milepost end: 05 + 00
Traffic Direction: Westbound

D.47
 Figure D.54. Site/Project Identification screen.

Click OK and return to the main layout program.

D.3.2.3 Analysis Parameters

This screen allows the user to make inputs with regard to design criteria chosen by the
agency. For this specific example, the inputs to be made on the Analysis Parameters
screen, as show in Figure D.55 are as follows:

Initial IRI (in/mile): 63

Analysis Type: Probabilistic
Performance Criteria
Terminal IRI (in/mile): 252
Reliability (for IRI criteria): 95
CRCP Punchouts per mile: 10
Reliability (for punchouts): 95

D.48
 Figure D.55. Analysis Parameters screen for CRCP.

Click OK and return to the main layout program. Note that the icons in the general inputs
are all green at this point. It is suggested that at this point, the input file be saved by
clicking on the diskette icon in the tool bar or by clicking Save on the File menu

D.3.3 Traffic Inputs

D.3.3.1 Traffic

This screen allows the user to make general traffic volume inputs and also provides a link
to other traffic screens for Volume Adjustments, Axle Load Distribution Factors, and
General Inputs. Please note that these screens can also be accessed from the main layout
screen. Inputs on this screen, as shown in Figure D. 56 are as follows:

Two way average annual truck traffic: 2250

Number of lanes in design direction: 2
Percent of trucks in design direction: 50
Percent of trucks in design lane: 90
Operational truck speed: 60

D.49
Note that the chosen design life and the date of opening to traffic appear on this screen.
Also note the links to Traffic Volume Adjustment, Axle Load Distribution, and General
Traffic Inputs screens. These are the three main categories of traffic inputs required for
the design and individual links to these screens are also available from the main program
layout.

Figure D. 56. Traffic screen.

Click OK and return to the main layout program.

D.3.3.2. Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors

The Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors screen has 4 property pages (or sub-screens),
namely:

• Monthly Adjustment
• Vehicle Class Distribution
• Hourly Distribution
• Traffic Growth Factors

D.50
D.3.3.2.1 Monthly Adjustment

The inputs on this screen indicate the distribution of traffic over the different months of a
year for each traffic class. The Monthly Adjustment Factor (MAF) is the proportion of
AADTT occurring over a 24-hour period in each month for each vehicle class.

For this example, since the traffic distribution remains the same through out the year, i.e.
does not change between the different months of the year, the default monthly adjustment
factors can be used.

Click on the radio button for Level 3 default inputs as shown in Figure D.57. Note that
the default MAF value is 1.0 for all months in each vehicle class.

Figure D.57. Monthly Adjustment Factors screen.

Next click on the Vehicle Class Distribution tab.

D.51
D.3.3.2.2 Vehicle Class Distribution

Site-specific vehicle class distribution data is available for this design project. Click on
the radio button Level 1: Site Specific Distribution and enter the distribution as shown in
Figure D. 58.

Figure D. 58. Vehicle Class Distribution screen.

Next, click on the Hourly Distribution tab.

D.3.3.2.3 Hourly Distribution

Enter the hourly distribution of the AADTT as shown in Figure D.59. Next, click on the
Traffic Growth Factors tab.

D.3.3.2.4 Traffic Growth Factors

The given data suggests that the traffic grows 4.0 % at a compound rate. The program
will use a default function for traffic growth at a compound rate. Select Compound
Growth and enter a growth rate of 4.0 % as shown in Figure D.60.

D.52
 Figure D.59. Hourly Distribution screen.

Figure D.60. Traffic Growth Factors screen.

D.53
Next click on View Growth Plots to open a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that shows the
growth in AADTT for each vehicle class over the design life. The plots are shown in
Figure D.61, Figure D.62 and Figure D.63.

Close the Excel spreadsheet and click OK on the Volume Adjustments screen to return to
the main layout page.

Years vs AADTT Growth

5000
4500
4000
3500
Class 4
3000
Class 5
2500
2000 Class 6
1500 Class 7
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Years

Figure D.61. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 4 through 7.

Years vs AADTT Growth

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000 Class 8
2500 Class 9
2000
Class 10
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Years

Figure D.62. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 8 through 10.

D.3.3.3 Axle Load Distribution Factors

This screen allows the user to specify the percentage of vehicles in each vehicle class, at
each load level, for each axle type. This design example uses the default LTPP
distribution and therefore the level 3-default input will be used. Click on the radio button
for level 3 axle load distribution factors as shown in Figure D. 64. The program
automatically loads default values for these inputs. Click Ok to return to the main screen.

D.54
 Years vs AADTT Growth

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000 Class 11
2500 Class 12
2000
Class 13
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Years

Figure D.63. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 11 through 13.

Figure D. 64. Axle Load Distribution Factors screen.

D.3.3.4 General Traffic inputs

This screen allows the user to provide traffic wander inputs and also has 3 property
pages, namely,

Number of Axles/Truck
Axle Configuration
Wheelbase

Enter the following inputs with regard to lateral traffic wander as shown on Figure D. 65
Mean wheel location: 18

D.55
 Traffic wander standard deviation: 10
Design lane width: 12

D.3.3.4.1 Number Axles/Truck

Enter the number of axles per truck as shown in Figure D. 65:

Figure D. 65. General Traffic Inputs – Number of Axles/Truck screen.

D.3.3.4.2 Axle Configuration

Enter the following inputs on the Axle Configuration property page as shown in Figure D.
66:

Average axle width: 8.5

Dual tire spacing: 12
Tire pressure:
Single tire: 120
Dual tire: 120
Axle spacing:
Tandem axle: 51.6

D.56
 Tridem axle: 49.2
Quad axle: 49.2

Figure D. 66. General Traffic Inputs – Axle Configuration screen.

D.3.3.4.3 Wheelbase

Enter the following inputs on the Wheelbase property page as shown in Figure D. 67:

Average axle spacing

Short: 12
Medium: 15
Long: 18
Percentage trucks (inputs not used for CRCP analysis)
Short: 2.0
Medium: 20.0
Long: 78.0

D.57
Click OK and return to the main program layout screen. The user, by this stage, has
made all traffic inputs and is now ready to make Climate inputs for the project. Save the
project file before proceeding.

Figure D. 67. General Traffic Inputs – Wheelbase screen.

D.3.4 Climate Inputs

D.3.4.1 Climate
This design example provides very specific location information for the project site, the
latitude, longitude, and elevation. With this information available, it will be possible to
develop climate data file for this project. Click on Climate on the main project layout
screen. On the main Climate screen, as shown in Figure D. 68, click on Generate to
generate a new climatic data file.

The program now opens a new screen allowing the user to make inputs for the location
coordinates. As shown in Figure D. 69, enter the following:

Latitude: 39.90
Longitude: -88.30
Elevation (feet): 700
Depth of water table (feet): 10

D.58
 Figure D. 68. Main Climate screen.

Figure D. 69. Generating climatic data file for the project location.

D.59
On entering the location coordinates for the project site, the program automatically lists
the six closest weather stations in the database that is within a radius of 100 miles.
Climatic data is interpolated from those weather stations that are selected on this screen.

It is important to recognize that the design engineer needs to make a sound judgment call
in selecting the weather stations that are most indicative of the weather conditions at the
project site, rather than routinely select all 6 sites for interpolation. The basis for
selecting weather stations will vary from project to project. Also, the extent of weather
data available at a given weather station is an important factor in selecting weather
stations in generating interpolated climatic file. In general, it is recommended that as
many weather stations as possible be selected to generate a virtual weather station.

For the purpose of this example, select all weather stations and click on the Generate
button. The program creates the climatic data file for the project. After the climatic data
file is created, the program prompts the user to save it. Save the file in the project
directory - “C:\DG2002\Projects\CRCP EXAMPLE\crcp.icm”.

Note that the program also automatically creates a file called climate.tmp in the project
directory. This is the file that the program reads hourly climatic information from during
the analysis stage. This file contains the sunrise time, sunset time and radiation for each
day of the design life period. In addition, for each 24-hour period in each day of the
design life, the temperature, rainfall, air speed, sunshine, and depth of ground water table
are also listed in the climate file.

By this stage, the user has completed the climatic inputs required by the program. The
color-coded icons will have a green color for the traffic and climate and red icons for
structure, indicating that the traffic and climate inputs are complete and structural inputs
are yet to be addressed.

D.3.5 Structural Inputs

The user at this stage needs to choose structural parameters and a layer combination that
can be evaluated for its performance. As explained in the PART 3 of the Guide, the
procedure is an iterative procedure and the user will have to develop a trial design and
make several modifications to it, before a feasible and economic (or final) design is
achieved.

Choose the following layers in the trial design for the given CRCP example

• 9.0-in CRCP layer

• 4.0-in asphalt concrete base layer
• 12.0-inccompacted subgrade layer
• Semi-infinite uncompacted (natural) subgrade layer

D.60
The structural inputs are of three categories, CRCP Design Features, Drainage and
Surface Properties, and Layer Properties. These three categories of inputs have direct
links from the main program layout screen.

D.3.5.1 Design Features

Click on the Design Features link on the main program layout screen and the program
opens a screen to enable inputs for CRCP Design Features. The inputs to be made on this
screen are shown in Figure D. 70.

The default slab thickness (which can be edited on the layers screen discussed in 2.5.3.1)
appears on the screen on a non-edit mode. Choose the Shoulder type from the scroll-
down menu. Select Asphalt for an Asphalt shoulder. Enter a value of 10 for permanent
curl/warp effective temperature difference.

Figure D. 70. CRCP Design Features screen.

Next, the steel reinforcement chosen for the CRCP trial design is to be entered. For the
given trial design, 0.6% steel comprising of 5/8” diameter steel bar at 4-inch depth is
suggested.

D.61
Because the chosen base layer is an asphalt concrete base layer, choose an erodibility
index of 2 representing a very erosion resistant base layer. The suggested base/slab
friction coefficient for this example is 8.0.

The user can either choose to use the cracking model built in the program to generate
crack spacing or can enter the expected mean long-term crack spacing. Click the radio
button Generate using model to allow the program to predict mean crack spacing.
Finally, click Ok and return to the main program layout.

D.3.5.2 Drainage and Surface Properties

From the main program layout screen click on Drainage and Surface Properties to open
the screen shown in Figure D. 71.

Figure D. 71. Drainage and Surface Properties screen.

Enter 0.85 for surface shortwave absorptivity. For an asphalt shoulder, the recommended
infiltration is 50% corresponding to a moderate level of infiltration. Enter 12 feet for the
Drainage path length and 2 percent for Pavement cross slope. Click Ok and return to the
main program layout.

D.3.5.3 Layers

On the main program layout screen, click on Layers to add and edit pavement layers in
the trial design. The program opens the Layers screen as shown in Figure D. 72. The
three main functions this screen allows the user to perform are:

• Inserting a layer after a selected layer – by clicking the Insert button

• Deleting a selected layer – by clicking the Delete button
• Editing the layer properties of a selected layer – by clicking the Edit button

D.62
 Figure D. 72. Layers screen.

The first layer of the pavement, the PCC layer is shown on the screen in Figure D. 72.
Next, the user has to add a layer after (underneath) the PCC layer. To add a layer after
the PCC layer, select layer 1 by clicking on the row shown for Layer 1 and then insert a
layer by clicking on the Insert button. The program now opens a screen shown in
Figure D. 73 that allows the user to select the layer to be added.

Figure D. 73. Inserting asphalt layer after the PCC layer.

From the scroll down menu, select Asphalt for the Material type and Asphalt concrete for
the Material. Enter a thickness value of 4 and click Ok to return to the Layers screen
shown in Figure D. 74. This screen now shows the newly added asphalt concrete layer.

D.63
 Figure D. 74. Layers screen after inserting the base layer.

Next, select layer 2 and click Insert to add a layer after the asphalt layer. Select Subgrade
for the Material type and ML for Material (ML is representative of fine-grained soils,
sandy lean clay per the Unified Classification system) as shown in Figure D. 75. Enter a
thickness of 12 inches Click Ok and return to the Layers screen.

Figure D. 75. Inserting the compacted subgrade layer after the asphalt base layer.

It is recommended that the subgrade layer be entered as two layers to represent the semi-
infinite subgrade and a layer above with compacted subgrade material. Please note that if
the user fails to enter two distinct layers and chooses only one subgrade layer instead, the

D.64
program will automatically prompt the user to add a second layer so that the drainage
prediction model will function properly.

Repeat the same steps again and add the last layer as shown in Figure D. 76. Select the
last layer option instead of entering a thickness to this layer. Click Ok and return to the
Layers screen that now has all four layers added to the structure as shown in Figure D.
77.

Figure D. 76. Inserting the uncompacted subgrade layer after the compacted subgrade.

Figure D. 77. Layers screen after the addition of all layers.

The individual screens for the input of layer material properties can be accessed either
from the Layers screen shown in Figure D. 77, or directly from the program layout
screen. To access the material properties screen from the Layers screen, select the

D.65
desired pavement layer and click on Edit. To return to the program layout screen, click
Ok on the Layers screen. The program layout screen now, as shown in Figure D. 78.

Figure D. 78. Program layout screen after adding all layers.

D.3.5.3.1 Layer 1 – CRCP

Click on Layer 1 – CRCP to edit PCC layer material properties. This opens a screen with
three property pages for Thermal, Mix, and Strength properties. On the Thermal
properties screen, as shown in Figure D. 79, enter the following inputs:

Layer thickness = 9 inches

Unit weight = 145 pcf
Poisson’s ratio = 0.20
Coefficient of thermal expansion = 6.3 in/in/oF
Thermal conductivity = 1.25 BTU/hr-ft-oF
Heat capacity = 0.28 BTU/lb-oF

D.66
 Figure D. 79. PCC Material Properties – Thermal Properties screen.

Next, click on the Mix tab and move to the property page requiring inputs specific to the
mix. As shown in Figure D. 80, the following inputs are made:

Cement Type : Type 1 (from draw down menu)

Cement content: 565 lb/yd3
Water cement ratio: 0.402
Aggregate type: Dolomite (from the draw down menu)
Reversible Shrinkage: 50%
Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage: 35 days
Curing method: Curing compound (from draw down menu)

Next, click on the Strength tab and move on to the property page requiring inputs for
concrete strength properties. This screen is shown in Figure D. 81. Click the radio
button corresponding to level 1 inputs. The screen provides an array format to enter the
strength and modulus values at different ages. Enter values as shown in Figure D. 81.
Note that the compressive strength inputs are not required for level 1 inputs. However,
level 2 inputs would require only the compressive strength values at all ages.

Click Ok and return to the program layout screen. Note that the icon for Layer 1 is now
green.

D.67
 Figure D. 80. PCC Material Properties – Mix Properties screen.

Figure D. 81. PCC Material Properties –Strength Properties screen, level 1.

D.68
D.3.5.3.2 Layer 2 – Asphalt Concrete

Click on Layer 2 on the program layout screen and choose level 3 inputs from the scroll
down menu. The chosen material type and thickness appear on the screen (Note that this
information can be modified on this screen). The asphalt material properties screen has
three property pages – Asphalt Mix, Asphalt Binder, Asphalt General - as shown in
Figure D. 82, Figure D. 83, and Figure D. 84.

On the asphalt mix screen enter the gradation of the aggregate used in asphalt concrete.
Assume the following gradation for this design example

Cumulative % Retained 3/4 inch sieve: 0

Cumulative % Retained 3/8 inch sieve: 35
Cumulative % Retained #4 sieve: 50
% Passing #200 sieve: 5

After completing the above inputs on the Asphalt Mix properties screen as shown in
Figure D. 82, click on the Asphalt Binder tab and make the following selections as shown
in Figure D. 83

Option: Conventional viscosity grade

Viscosity Grade: AC-20

Figure D. 82. Asphalt Material Properties screen – Asphalt Mix property page.

D.69
 Figure D. 83. Asphalt Material Properties screen – Asphalt Binder property page.

Next, click on the Asphalt General tab and make the following inputs for this example as
shown in Figure D. 84:

General
Reference temperature (F°): 70
Design frequency (Hz): n/a
Volumetric Properties
Effective binder content (%): 11
Air voids (%): 8.5
Total unit weight (pcf): 148
Poisson's ratio: 0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties
Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F°): 0.67
Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/lb-F°): 0.23

D.70
 Figure D. 84. Asphalt Material Properties – Asphalt General screen.

Click Ok and return to the main program layout screen. Note that the icon adjacent to
Layer 2 – Asphalt concrete layer is now green in color because of inputs being complete
in this layer.

D.3.5.3.3 Layer 3 – ML

Click on Layer 3 – ML on the program layout screen to enter inputs for the subgrade
layer. The screen that enables the user to make inputs for an unbound layer opens as
shown in Figure D. 85. Note that the choice made for the unbound material type and the
layer thickness appear on the screen. (This screen also allows the user to make changes
to these choices if necessary).

Choose the radio button corresponding to level 3 inputs, which requires only the input for
modulus for material property. Enter the following input values:

Poisson’s ratio: 0.35

Coefficient of lateral pressure: 0.50
Resilient Modulus (psi): 20,000

D.71
 Figure D. 85. Subgrade (Unbound) layer screen – Strength Properties page.

For Analysis Type, click on the radio button adjacent to ICM Inputs to indicate that the
user will make ICM inputs to the program. Next, click on the ICM tab to make ICM
inputs. The inputs made on this screen, shown in Figure D. 86, are as follows:

Plasticity Index, PI: 15

Passing #200 sieve (%): 68.5
Passing #4 sieve (%): 97
D60 (mm): 0.0265

Since layer 3 is the 12-inch compacted subgrade layer above the natural subgrade, click
on the radio button corresponding to Compacted unbound material. Click on Update to
view the various parameters that are calculated or derived by ICM.

Click OK and return to the main program layout screen.

D.72
 Figure D. 86. Subgrade (Unbound) layer screen – ICM property page.

D.3.5.3.4 Layer 4 – ML

The fourth layer in this trial design is the natural subgrade classified as ML under the
unified classification system. Repeat all inputs made for layer 3. However, on the ICM
property page, click on the radio button corresponding to Uncompacted/natural unbound
material as shown in Figure D. 87

D.73
 Figure D. 87. Unbound layer screen for natural subgrade layer.

Click on Update and view the ICM calculated parameters. Next, click Ok and return to
the program layout screen shown in Figure D. 88. Note that in Figure D. 88, the icons
adjacent to all inputs – traffic, climate, and structure – are green indicating that all these
inputs are complete.

D.3.6 Run Analysis

After all design inputs are provided, the Design Guide software has to begin the analysis
process to predict the performance of the trial design over the design life of the pavement.
Click on Run Analysis. The program runs the Traffic, Climate, Modulus, Punchout
CRCP modules and reports the analysis status on the upper right hand corner of the
screen.

At the end of the analysis, the program creates a summary file and other output files in
the project directory, C:\DG2002\Projects\CRCP Example. The summary file is in a MS
Excel format and is named “CRCPExample.xls.” The summary file contains an input
summary sheet, an distress summary sheet with predicted parameters in a table format,
and the predicted punchout, IRI, crack width and LTE in a graphical format. Note that
the crack spacing is also printed on the punchout prediction plot.

D.74
 Figure D. 88. Program layout screen after completing all inputs.

The distress summary sheet in the output file provides an overall summary of the CRCP
design for the project including critical material properties, traffic, and distress data.
Detailed data for each distress type is provided on separate sheets. The distress summary
sheet indicates that this pavement carried nearly 21 million heavy trucks over the design
period and this provides an overall idea of the traffic loading on the pavement.

For the given trial design, the number of punchouts over the design life as predicted by
Design Guide software at the selected reliability level of 95 percent is shown in Figure D.
89. The predicted IRI is shown in Figure D. 90. From these two figures it is clear that
the trial design satisfies the smoothness criteria but fails to satisfy the punchout criteria
specified.

D.3.7 Modify Trial Design

The user has to now accordingly modify the trial design so that the performance criteria
are met. The user has to run several different cases to select the optimum from the
feasible design options developed. Possible modifications to this trial design are:

D.75
 Predicted Punchout

41.5

37.4

33.2

29.1

24.9
Punchout
20.8 Punchout at specified reliability
Punchout Limit
16.6

12.5

8.3

4.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Pavement age, years

Figure D. 89. Predicted punchout for the trial design.

Predicted IRI

260

234

208

182

156
IRI
130 IRI at specified reliability
IRI Limit
104

78

52

26

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Pavement age, years

Figure D. 90. Predicted IRI for the trial design.

D.76
 a) Increase the slab thickness
b) Increase the steel content
c) Increase steel content and decease thickness
d) Increase thickness and decrease steel content

The predicted performance of the pavement at 95 percent reliability level for various
thickness and steel content parameters are summarized in Figure D. 91, Figure D. 92, and
Figure D. 93.

The feasible design options are clearly the 10 and 11 inch pavement sections with 0.6 or
0.7 percent steel. The optimum choice is the 10 inch section with 0.6 percent steel which
meets the design criteria at 95 % reliability level.

Note that several input parameters used in the design can affect the predicted
performance. Although the above design example for CRCP suggests altering the
thickness and/or steel content, other parameters that can be modified are strength of the
concrete mix design, the choice of the base layer, thickness of the base layer, shoulder
type etc. Refer to Appendix LL of the Guide for further illustration of the effects of
design parameters in the prediction of punchouts for pavements in different climatic
zones.

120
8" PCC
100
9" PCC
80 10" PCC
11" PCC
60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Age, months

Figure D. 91. Predicted performance at 95 % reliability with 0.5 % steel content.

D.77
 120
8" PCC
100
9" PCC
80 10" PCC
11" PCC
60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Age, months

Figure D. 92. Predicted performance at 95 % reliability with 0.6 % steel content.

80
8" PCC
70
9" PCC
60
10" PCC
50
11" PCC
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Age, months

Figure D. 93. Predicted performance at 95 % reliability with 0.7 % steel content.

D.78
D.4 JPCP RESTORATION AND UNBONDED JPCP OVERLAY
REHABILITATION DESIGN EXAMPLE

This section of the appendix consists of two design examples:

a) JPCP restoration
b) Unbonded JPCP overlay on existing JPCP

The two design examples presented in this section are based on a general problem
statement. The two design examples listed above are then used to design an appropriate
rehabilitation solution. Although not presented as part of this appendix, the design
examples developed should be used in Life-Cycle Costs Analysis (LCCA) to determine
the most cost effective design for the given problem statement.

It is expected that prior to performing these examples, the user is familiar with the use of
the design software for the design of new JPCP sections. The problem statement for
these rehabilitation options covers all information required for making design inputs to
the software. Unlike the design examples for new rigid pavements in Section D.2 and
D.3 of this appendix, this example does not contain screen shots for all design inputs. It
is expected that with the experience of performing a new pavement design, the user will
be able to make all inputs for the traffic, climate and structural inputs for the existing
pavements. However, appropriate screen shots of the design software that are different
from the new design or those that are typical to restoration or rehabilitation design are
provided to guide the user with the design procedure. Users are urged to refer to Section
D.2 and D.3 where necessary.

D.4.1 Problem Statement for Rehabilitation with JPCP Design

Summarized in Tables D.4.1 are the climate, material properties, structure, and design
features of existing JPCP. The information presented was obtained from a comprehensive
evaluation of the JPCP using procedures presented in PART 2, Chapter 5 of this Guide.
The JPCP was constructed and opened to traffic in July 1971.

Using the data presented in Table D.4.1 as the basis, the following rehabilitation
alternatives are considered:

1. Restoration of the existing JPCP including diamond grinding.

2. Unbonded JPCP overlay over the existing JPCP.

Design Life

The expected construction date of the rehabilitation alternative is August 2001 and the
rehabilitated pavement must be opened to traffic in September, 2001. Assume 15 years
for JPCP restoration (alternative 1), and 25 years for unbonded JPCP overlay over
existing JPCP (alternative 2).

D.79
 Table D.4.1. Existing JPCP climate, material properties, and design features data.

Category Variable Value

Latitude (degrees) 33.12
Longitude (degrees) -95.75
Climate
Elevation (ft) 523
Depth of water table (ft) 10
Permanent curl/warp effective temperature
-10
difference (°F)
Design
Joint spacing (ft) 15
Features—Joint
Sealant type Liquid
Design
Dowel diameter (in) No dowels
Dowel bar spacing (in) No dowels
Tied PCC shoulder None
Design
Widened lane None
Features—
Long-term LTE(percent) 10
Edge Support
Slab width(ft) 12
Moderate (50
Infiltration
Drainage percent)
Parameter Drainage path length (ft) 12
Pavement cross slope (percent) 2
Base type Cement treated
Very Erosion
Erodibility index
Base Resistant (2)
Properties— Base/slab friction coefficient 0.65
General PCC-Base Interface Unbonded
Loss of bond age (months) 0
Surface shortwave absorptivity 0.85

D.80
 Table D.4.1. Existing JPCP climate, material properties, and design features data,
continued.
Layer Number Variable Value
PCC type JPCP (existing)
Layer thickness (in) 10
Unit weight (pcf) 150
Poisson's ratio 0.2
-6
Coefficient of thermal expansion (per F° x 10 ) 6
Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) 1.25
Heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) 0.28
Cement type Type I
3
Cement content (lb/yd ) 600
Water/cement ratio 0.42
Aggregate type Limestone
Layer 1 PCC set temperature (°F) n/a
Ultimate shrinkage at 40 percent microstrain) n/a
Reversible shrinkage (percent of ultimate
50
shrinkage)
Time to develop 50 percent of ultimate shrinkage
35
(days)
Curing method Curing compound
Compressive strength (existing) psi 5000
Elastic modulus, psi 4,030,000
Flexural strength MR psi 671
Tensile strength, psi 520
Material type Soil Cement
Layer thickness (in) 6
Unit weight (pcf) 150
Layer 2 Poisson's ratio 0.2
Resilient modulus (psi) 250,000
Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) 1.25
Heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) 0.28
Material type A-1-b
Thickness, in 12
Poisson's ratio 0.35
Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko 0.5
Modulus, psi 10000
Layer 3 Plasticity Index, PI 1
Passing No. 200 sieve, percent 10
Passing No. 4 sieve, percent 80
D60, mm 2
Dry thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) 0.23
Dry heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) 0.17

D.81
 Table D.4.1. Existing JPCP climate, material properties, and design features data,
continued.

Layer
Variable Value
Number
Maximum dry unit weight, pcf 122.3 (derived)
Specific gravity of solids, Gs 2.67 (derived)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity, ft/hr 37 (derived)
Optimum gravimetric water content, percent 11.2 (derived)
Layer 3
Calculated degree of saturation, percent 82.8 (calculated)
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, a 11.4
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, b 1.72
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, c 0.518
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, hr 371
Material type A-6
Thickness, in Semi-infinite
Poisson's ratio 0.35
Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko 0.50
Modulus, psi 17000
Plasticity Index, PI 12
Passing No. 200 sieve, percent 60.7
Passing No. 4 sieve, percent 84
D60 (mm): 0.075
Dry thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) 0.23
Layer 4 Dry heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) 0.17
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) 112 (derived)
Specific gravity of solids, Gs 2.72 (derived)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity, ft/hr 7.1181e-006 (derived)
Optimum gravimetric water content, percent 16.5 (derived)
Calculated degree of saturation, percent 87 (calculated)
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, a 43
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, b 1.22
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, c 0.629
Soil water characteristic curve parameter, hr 1600
Percent slabs with transverse cracks plus
5
Existing previously replaced slabs(%):
Distress Percent of slabs with repairs after restoration
0
(%):
Foundation Modulus of subgrade reaction, psi/in 250
Support Month modulus of subgrade reaction measured September

D.82
Construction Requirements

Assume an initial IRI of 63 in/mile for the unbonded overlay. For the JPCP restoration
alternative, it is assumed that the diamond grinding operation will eliminate faulting
resulting in an IRI of less than 63 in/mile.

Analysis Parameters

It is expected that at the end of the design life, the pavement will have no more than 15
percent transverse cracking at 90 percent reliability level and no more than 0.15 inch
faulting at a reliability level of 90 percent. In addition, the smoothness should be
maintained at an IRI of less than 252 in/mile at a reliability level of 90 percent.

Location

Same as location of existing JPCP presented in Table D.4.1. The pavement was located at
an elevation of 523 ft and the depth of the water table is 10 feet at this site.

Traffic

Future traffic estimates for rehabilitation design are as follows:

• Two-way average annual daily truck traffic: 2800

• Number of lanes in design direction: 2
• Percent of trucks in design direction: 55 percent
• Percent of trucks in design lane: 95 percent
• Operational speed: 60 mph
• Traffic growth rate design life: 3 percent
• Traffic growth function: Linear

This pavement is categorized as a principal arterial/interstate highway and therefore must

be designed for heavy traffic. The traffic characteristics developed using information
from past traffic data collected shows the percentage of AADTT in each vehicle class is
closest to the default TTC#1 in the Design Guide software.

For each class of vehicle, the traffic pattern on monthly and daily bases remains the same
through out the year. However, the traffic varies over a 24-hour period and is same as the
national default based on LTPP data (provided in the Design Guide and the software).

The axle load distribution is identical to the LTPP default distribution for each vehicle
class, axle type, load category, and months of the year and hence the number of single,
tandem, tridem and quad axles is same as the national defaults provided in the Design
Guide software.

D.83
Assume that for all vehicle classes and axle wheel types, the left and right wheels are
located 18 in from the centerline joint and the slab—shoulder joint, respectively. The
traffic wander has a standard deviation of 10 inches from the wheels mean location. The
axle configuration is as follows:

• Average axle width (edge-to-edge outside dimensions, ft): 8.5

• Dual tire spacing (in): 12

The single and dual tire pressures are 120 psi. The design lane is 12 feet wide. The
average axle spacing for tandem, tridem and quad axles are as follows:

Axle Type Axle Spacing (in)

Tandem 51.6
Tridem 49.2
Quad 49.2

Drainage and Surface Properties

The geometric design of the highway calls for a cross slope of 2 percent. The drainage
path will have a length of 12 feet and the infiltration will depend on the chosen shoulder
type. Assume a surface shortwave absorptivity of 0.85.

D.4.2 Trial Design of Rehabilitation Alternative 1—JPCP Restoration

Trial design begins with the performance of specific repair activities to the existing
pavement to restore the JPCP’s structural capacity and functionality. The repair activities
are as follows:

1. Repair all existing slabs either by repairing using full-depth concrete patches or by
replacing the affected panels entirely.
2. Diamond grinding of the existing JPCP to eliminate existing faulting and to restore
pavement functionality. As stated the initial IRI after diamond grinding should be 63
in/mile.

Based on the repair activities performed the restored JPCP will be evaluated based on the
design criteria and then suitably modified till a final design is achieved. Modifications
for this example imply the adoption of a new set of repair activities with or without the
repair activities included in this first iteration. Note that diamond grinding is assumed to
be part of the set of repair activities adopted. The design process is integrated into the
Design Guide software program and the procedure is as follows:

D.84
4.2.1 Create a New project

Create a rehabilitation design project in the Design Guide program

Open the Design Guide program from the Programs menu of the operating system
(windows 98, 2000, XP, NT). Next open a new file and assign a name to the project,
“JPCP_Restored” as shown in Figure D.94. Next, select the folder to store the design
files as “C:\DG2002\Projects”. Select US Customary units as the measurement system
by clicking the radio button adjacent to it. Click “OK” and the program opens the main
layout screen of the design project.

Figure D.94. Create a New Project File from the Main Program.

D.4.2.2 Enter General Inputs

On the main project screen click on the General Information input to open the General
Information screen. Inputs on General Information Screen as shown in Figure D.95.
Click OK and return to the program layout screen

D.4.2.3 Enter inputs on the Site/Project Identification screen

Click on Site/Project Identification to open the Site/Project Identification screen. The

inputs procedure for this design is same as for new design.

D.4.2.4 Enter inputs on the Analysis Parameters screen

Enter the analysis criteria for the desired JPCP section after restoration as shown in
Figure D.96.

On the program layout screen, note that there is an additional category of inputs for a
rehabilitation project – Rehabilitation. This screen allows the user to input the condition
of the existing pavement.

D.85
 Figure D.95. General Information screen.

Figure D.96. Analysis Parameters screen for JPCP.

D.86
D.4.2.5 Traffic Inputs

Traffic inputs are the same as that of new design. Follow the step-by-step procedure
provided for new design. Note that actual inputs required for this design is presented in
Table D.4.1 and the problem statement.

D.4.2.6 Climate Inputs

Climate inputs are the same as that of new design. Follow the step-by-step procedure
provided for new design. Note that actual inputs required for this design is presented in
Table D.4.1 and the problem statement.

D.4.2.7 Structural Inputs

The structural inputs for a JPCP restoration project are similar to the structural inputs for
a new design and essentially fall under the following three categories:

• Design features.
• Drainage and surface properties.
• Layer.

The user at this stage needs to choose design features, drainage and surface properties,
and layer material properties and thickness that can be evaluated for its performance.
Note that for this example (JPCP restoration) the pavement structure, material properties,
and design features chosen must be as built or should reflect insitu conditions. The inputs
may be varied, however, to reflect changes made as part of repairs and treatments (e.g.,
addition of retrofit dowels). The existing as-built design features, drainage and surface
properties, and layer material properties and thickness are presented in Table D.4.1. For
this example repairs consisted of slab replacement and full-depth patching and hence the
existing design features and material properties will not be altered.

Layers - Defining Pavement Structure

In this example, the users will be guided to add the pavement layers first instead of
making inputs on the JPCP Features screen. Note that, as explained in Section D.2, the
program does not require a specific order to be followed in making inputs. Figure D. 97
shows the structure of the existing pavement. The pavement structure consisted of 4
layers (including the subgrade) as presented in Table D.4.1. Information required for this
screen may be obtained for various source including field-testing, laboratory analysis,
and agency records as discussed in PART 2, Chapter 5.

Input Layer 1- JPCP (Existing) Properties

Next, after defining the pavement structure input PCC material properties required for the
existing JPCP layer. Material properties required are presented in Table D.4.1.

D.87
 Figure D. 97. Adding existing layers to form the pavement structure in JPCP
Restoration.

Inputs for PCC-Thermal and Strength property pages are similar to those made for the
new design presented in Section D.2 of this appendix. The material strength data
available is from the existing condition. Enter level 1 PCC strength data on the PCC-
Strength property page, as shown in Figure D. 98.

Figure D. 98. PCC Materials Properties—Strength screen.

D.88
Input Layer 2-Soil Cement Properties

Input Layer 2 (soil cement) material properties provided in Table D.4.1 as shown in
figure D. 99.

Figure D. 99. Cement/Lime Stabilized Material screen.

Input Layer 3-A-1-b Properties

Unbound layer inputs for the subbase A-1-b layer are the same as that for new design.
Follow the step-by-step procedure provided for new JPCP design in Section D.2 of this
appendix. Note that actual inputs required for this design are presented in Table D.4.1.

Input Layer 4-A-6 Properties

Unbound layer inputs for the subgrade A-6 layer are the same as that for new design.
Follow the step-by-step procedure provided for new JPCP design in Section D.2 of this
appendix. Note that actual inputs required for this design are presented in Table D.4.1.

Design Features

Design features information required for JPCP design are shown in Figure D. 100. Data
inputs for this screen are obtained through the evaluation of the existing JPCP as
described in PART 2, Chapter 5. Note that the design features selected must reflect
changes to repair treatments (e.g., retrofit dowels) applied as part of restoration.

D.89
 Figure D. 100. JPCP Design Features—screen.

Drainage and Surface Properties

Enter Drainage and Surface Properties inputs from data provided in Table D.4.1.

D.4.2.8 Rehabilitation

Click on Rehabilitation on the program layout screen to enter inputs regarding existing
distresses in the pavement. Inputs for the Rehabilitation screen are shown in Figure D.
101.

D.90
 Figure D. 101. Rehabilitation screen.

Click Ok and return to the program layout screen shown in

Figure D. 102. Note that in
Figure D. 102, the icons adjacent to all inputs – traffic, climate, and structure – are green
indicating that all these inputs are complete.

D.4.2.9 Run Analysis

After all design inputs are provided, the Design Guide software has to begin the analysis
process to predict the performance of the trial design over the design life of the pavement.
Click on Run Analysis. The program runs the Traffic, Climate, Modulus, faulting JPCP,
Cracking JPCP modules and reports the analysis status on the upper right hand corner of
the screen.

At the end of the analysis, the program creates a summary file and other output files in
the project directory, C:\DG2002\Projects\JPCP_Restored. The summary file is in a MS
Excel format and is named “JPCP_Restored.xls” and is similar to the summary file
created for new JPCP design. The summary file contains an input summary sheet,
distress, faulting, and cracking summary sheets in a table format, and the predicted
faulting, LTE, differential energy, cumulative damage, cracking, and IRI in a graphical
format.

D.91
 Figure D. 102. Program layout screen after completing all inputs.

For the given trial design, the transverse cracking and faulting over the design life as
predicted by Design Guide software at the selected reliability level are shown in Figure
D. 103 and in Figure D. 104 respectively. The predicted IRI is shown in Figure D. 105.
From these three figures it is clear that the trial design satisfies all three performance
criteria - faulting, transverse cracking, and smoothness – at the selected reliability levels.
Predicted cracking

100

90

80

70

60

Percent slabs cracked

50 Cracked at specified reliability
Limit percent slabs cracked
40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Pavement age, years

Figure D. 103. Predicted transverse cracking at 90 percent reliability for the trial design.

D.92
 Predicted faulting

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

Faulting
0.08 Faulting at specified reliability
Faulting Limit

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pavement age, years

Figure D. 104. Predicted faulting at 90 percent reliability for the trial design.

Predicted IRI

260

234

208

182

156

IRI
130 IRI at specified reliability
IRI Limit
104

78

52

26

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Pavement age, years

Figure D. 105. Predicted IRI at 90 percent reliability for the trial design.

D.93
D.4.3 Trial Design of Rehabilitation Alternative 2—Unbonded JPCP Overlay on
Existing Overlay

The design example for the unbonded overlay has a design life of 25 years. The JPCP
Restoration alternative, discussed in Section D.5.2, cannot satisfy the required
performance criteria expected at the end of the design life. Although the procedure for
evaluating this design using JPCP Restoration is not discussed in this section, the user
can verify the design by changing the design life of the JPCP Restoration example to 25
years.

The rehabilitation alternative used for this design example is the Unbonded JPCP overlay
on the Existing JPCP. The inputs for the existing structure are provided in Table D.4.1

D.4.3.1 Create a New project

Create a rehabilitation design project in the Design Guide program

Open the Design Guide program from the Programs menu of the operating system
(windows 98, 2000, XP, NT). Next open a new file and assign a name to the project,
“JPCP_Unbonded” as shown in Figure D.106. Next, select the folder to store the design
files as “C:\DG2002\Projects”. Select US Customary units as the measurement system
by clicking the radio button adjacent to it. Next, click “OK” and the program opens the
main layout screen of the design project.

Figure D.106. Create a new project file from the main program.

D.4.3.2 Enter General Inputs

On the main project screen click on the General Information input to open the General
Information screen. Enter the design life and information regarding construction and
opening dates. Next, click on the radio button corresponding to PCC overlay and choose
Unbonded JPCP Over JPCP from the draw down menu as shown in Figure D.107. Click
OK and return to the program layout screen

D.94
D.4.3.3 Enter inputs on the Site/Project Identification screen

Same as for New design.

D.4.3.4 Enter inputs on the Analysis Parameters screen

Enter the analysis criteria for the desired JPCP section after restoration as shown in
Figure D.11.

Figure D.107. General Information screen.

D.4.3.5 Traffic Inputs

Traffic inputs are the same as that of new design. Follow the step-by-step procedure
provided for new design. Note that actual inputs required for this design is presented in
Table D.4.1 and the problem statement.

D.4.3.6 Climate Inputs

Climate inputs are the same as that of new design. Follow the step-by-step procedure
provided for new design. Note that actual inputs required for this design is presented in
Table D.4.1 and the problem statement.

D.95
D.4.3.7 Structural Inputs

The structural inputs for this design example are similar to the structural inputs for a new
design and a JPCP restoration project. The inputs fall under the three categories:

• Design features.
• Drainage and surface properties.
• Layers.

The user at this stage needs to choose design features, drainage and surface properties,
and layer material properties and thickness for the new layers so that the performance of
the pavement structure can be evaluated over the design life.

Layers - Defining Pavement Structure

In this example, the users will be guided to add the pavement layers first instead of
making inputs on the JPCP Features screen. Note that, when the user makes a choice for
the overlay type (JPCP over JPCP) on the General Information screen, the program
automatically adds a new JPCP layer and an asphalt concrete layer over an existing JPCP
layer. Click on Layers on the program layout screen and create the pavement structure
(new and existing layers) as shown in Figure D. 108.

Figure D. 108. Adding New and Existing layers to form the pavement structure for
Unbonded JPCP over Existing JPCP.

The suggested trial design for this design example includes the following layers:

D.96
 • 10-inch JPCP layer (new)
• 2-inch asphalt concrete (new separator layer)
• 10-inch JPCP (existing)
• 12-inch unbound A-1-b layer (existing)
• Semi-infinite A-6 subgrade layer (existing natural subgrade)

The JPCP overlay will have a joint spacing of 15 feet and 1.25 inch diameter dowels
spaced at 12 inches.

Input Layer 1- JPCP Properties

The inputs for this layer will be representative of the PCC material to be used in the new
JPCP layer. Figure D. 109, Figure D. 110, and Figure D. 111 show the property pages to
enter inputs for PCC Thermal, Mix and Strength properties. Level 3 strength inputs will
be used for this example, and the 28-day concrete modulus of rupture is 650 psi.

Input Layer 2-Asphalt Concrete Properties

Level 3 inputs are used for the asphalt concrete layer. Figure D. 112, Figure D. 113, and
Figure D. 114 show the inputs for asphalt concrete Mix properties, Binder properties, and
Asphalt General properties screens. Note that the procedure for making these inputs are
same as that described in the new CRCP design in Section D.3 of this appendix. Note
that Superpave binder grading is used in this example instead of a conventional viscosity
grading. A PG 64-22 grading binder is used in the AC layer for this example.

Figure D. 109. PCC Materials Properties—Thermal screen.

D.97
 Figure D. 110. PCC Materials Properties—Mix screen.

Figure D. 111. PCC Materials Properties—Strength screen.

D.98
 Figure D. 112. Asphalt Material Properties –Asphalt Mix screen.

Figure D. 113. Asphalt Material Properties –Asphalt Binder screen.

D.99
 Figure D. 114. Asphalt Material Properties –Asphalt General screen.

Input Layer 3-JPCP (Existing) Properties

The existing JPCP layer is treated as a stabilized base layer in the design process. The
inputs for this layer are shown in Figure D. 115.

Input Layer 4-A-1-b Properties

Unbound layer inputs for the subbase A-1-b layer are the same as that for new design.
Follow the step-by-step procedure provided for new JPCP design in Section D.2 of this
appendix. Note that actual inputs required for this design are presented in Table D.4.1.

Input Layer 5-A-6 Properties

Unbound layer inputs for the subgrade A-6 layer are the same as that for new design.
Follow the step-by-step procedure provided for new JPCP design in Section D.2 of this
appendix. Note that actual inputs required for this design are presented in Table D.4.1.

D.100
 Figure D. 115. JPCP (Existing) layer Materials screen.

Design Features

The Design Features screen shown in Figure D. 116 will be representative of the features
of the new JPCP layer in the design. Enter the selected dowel diameter, spacing and
shoulder type. Note that the radio button selecting an unbonded PCC-Base interface is
clicked on this screen.

Drainage and Surface Properties

Enter Drainage and Surface Properties inputs same as new JPCP design.

D.4.3.8 Rehabilitation

Click on Rehabilitation on the program layout screen to enter inputs regarding existing
distresses in the pavement. Figure D. 117 shows the inputs for the Rehabilitation screen.

Click Ok and return to the program layout screen. Note that this screen now indicates
that all inputs are complete.

D.101
Figure D. 116. JPCP Design Features—screen.

Figure D. 117. Rehabilitation screen.

D.102
D.4.3.9 Run Analysis

After all design inputs are provided, the Design Guide software has to begin the analysis
process to predict the performance of the trial design over the design life of the pavement.
Click on Run Analysis. The program runs the Traffic, Climate, Modulus, faulting JPCP,
Cracking JPCP modules and reports the analysis status on the upper right hand corner of
the screen.

At the end of the analysis, the program creates a summary file and other output files in
the project directory, C:\DG2002\Projects\JPCP_Unbonded. The summary file is in a
MS Excel format and is named “JPCP_Restored.xls” and is similar to the summary file
created for new JPCP design. The summary file contains an input summary sheet,
distress, faulting, and cracking summary sheets in a table format, and the predicted
faulting, LTE, differential energy, cumulative damage, cracking, and IRI in a graphical
format.

For the given trial design, the transverse cracking and faulting over the design life as
predicted by Design Guide software at the selected reliability level are shown in Figure
D. 118 and in Figure D. 119 respectively. The predicted IRI is shown in Figure D. 120.
From these three figures it is clear that the trial design satisfies all three performance
criteria - faulting, transverse cracking, and smoothness – at the selected reliability levels.

Predicted cracking

100

90

80

70

60
Percent slabs cracked
50 Cracked at specified reliability
Limit percent slabs cracked
40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Pavement age, years

Figure D. 118. Predicted transverse cracking at 90 percent reliability for the trial design.

D.103
 Predicted faulting

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

Faulting
0.08 Faulting at specified reliability
Faulting Limit

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Pavement age, years

Figure D. 119. Predicted faulting at 90 percent reliability for the trial design.

Predicted IRI

260

234

208

182

156
IRI
130 IRI at specified reliability
IRI Limit
104

78

52

26

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Pavement age, years

Figure D. 120. Predicted IRI at 90 percent reliability for the trial design.

This example presents a trial design, which more than satisfies the required performance
criteria. However, it is very likely for the initial trial design to not be a feasible option, as
a modified design might be less costly. A thinner overlay is definitely one option here.

D.104
D.5 CONVENTIONAL FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN EXAMPLE

Design Life

The conventional asphalt concrete (AC) pavement has a 10-year design life. The base
and subgrade construction will take place in August 2003, while the surface will be
placed in the month of September 2003 so that the pavement can be opened to traffic in
October 2003.

Construction Requirements

Assuming a good quality of construction, the pavement shall have an initial IRI between
50 and 75 in/mile (assume 63 in/mile for design purposes).

Analysis Parameters

It is expected that at the end of the 10-year design life, the pavement will have no more
than an IRI of 172 in/mile, AC surface-down or longitudinal cracking of 1000 ft/mile,
bottom-up fatigue cracking of 25 percent, AC thermal fracture (transverse cracking) of
1000 feet per mile. The total permanent deformation in the AC layer shall not exceed
0.25 inches and that in the total pavement not exceed 0.75 inches. In addition, if a
chemically stabilized layer is used, the fatigue fracture in the layer shall not exceed 25
percent. These criteria are to be satisfied at a reliability level of 90 percent. Note that the
design criterion for rutting is only the total rutting in the pavement. However, the rutting
model requires the level of reliability in calculating rutting in the AC layer only as an
input parameter. Therefore, the reliability level and rutting for the AC layer are input.

Location

The pavement is in the state of Indiana and located in the vicinity of Lafayette, IN. The
depth of the water table is 15 feet at this site.

The 5-mile stretch of pavement to be designed is in the northbound lane called AC2002
between mileposts 05 + 00 to 10+00.

Traffic

The two-way average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) on this highway is estimated to
be 1500 trucks during the first year of its service. There will be two lanes in the design
direction with 90% of the trucks in the design lane. Truck traffic is equally distributed in
both directions (i.e. 50% of the trucks drive in the design direction). The operational
speed is 60 mph.

This pavement is being designed for heavy traffic in a principal arterial/Interstate

category highway and therefore the traffic consists of a high percentage of single trailer
trucks. Information collected at this specific site shows that the percentage of AADTT in

D.105
each vehicle class is same as the default Truck Traffic Classification 1 based on LTPP
traffic data.:

Vehicle Class Percent AADTT in Class

Class 4 1.3
Class 5 8.5
Class 6 2.8
Class 7 0.3
Class 8 7.6
Class 9 74.0
Class 10 1.2
Class 11 3.4
Class 12 0.6
Class 13 0.3

For each class of vehicle, the traffic pattern on monthly and daily bases remains the same
through out the year. However, the traffic varies over a 24-hour period and is same as the
national default based on LTPP data (provided in the Design Guide and the software).

After the base year, over the design life of the pavement, the traffic increases by 4.0% of
the preceding year’s traffic (compounded annually).

The axle load distribution is identical to the national defaults (derived from LTPP)
provided with the Design Guide software for each vehicle class, axle type, load category,
and months of the year.

Assume that the mean of the outer wheel edge is located 18 inches from the edge of the
pavement. The traffic wander has a standard deviation of 10 inches. The pavement has a
standard design lane width is 12 feet. The number of single, tandem, tridem and quad
axles for each vehicle class is also same as the national defaults derived from LTPP data
(provided in the Design Guide and the software).

The axle configuration is as follows:

Average axle width (edge-to-edge outside dimensions, ft): 8.5

Dual tire spacing (in): 12

The single and dual tire pressures are 120 psi. The design lane is 12 feet wide. The
average axle spacing for tandem, tridem and quad axles are as follows:

Axle Type Axle Spacing (in)

Tandem 51.6
Tridem 49.2
Quad 49.2

D.106
Drainage and Surface Properties

The geometric design of the highway calls for a cross slope of 2 percent. The drainage
path will have a length of 12 feet from the centerline to the edge drain adjacent to the
lane-shoulder joint, and the infiltration will depend on the chosen shoulder type. Assume
a surface shortwave absorptivity of 0.85.

Asphalt Material Properties

The asphalt concrete mix to be used in this project has material property information in
compliance with level 3 inputs for the Design Guide. Sieve analysis results for the
aggregate to be used in the mix suggest that the ¾”, 3/8”, and #4 size sieves have 12, 38,
and 50 percentage aggregate retained on them respectively. 4 percent passes through the
#200 sieve. A PG grade 64-22 or 64-28 binder will be used for the asphalt mix design.

The volumetric design of the mix includes 12 percent binder content, 6 percent air voids,
and the mix has a unit weight of 143 lb/ ft3. Assume a thermal conductivity of 0.67
BTU/hr-ft-oF and a specific heat of 0.23 BTU/lb-oF. Also assume that the poison’s ratio
is 0.35. The reference temperature is 70 deg F.

Subgrade

The subgrade in this location is classified as A-7-6 per the AASHTO classification
system, and has a Mr value of 10,000 psi estimated at optimum conditions. The plasticity
index of the soil is 40. Results from sieve analysis of this subgrade soil indicated that
90% of the material passes the #200 sieve, and 99% the #4 sieves. The D60 of this
material is 0.01mm:

Other layers
The available base and subbase materials for this project are classified as A-1-a and A-2-
5, with modulus of 40,000 psi and 28,000 psi at optimum moisture content respectively.
The A-1-a and A-2-5 materials have a PI of 1.0 and 2.0, have 3% and 20% passing the
#200 sieve, 20% and 80% passing the #4 sieve, and have D60 values of 8 and 0.1mm
respectively.

Trial Design

The Design Guide procedure is an iterative procedure and requires the user to develop a
trial design to begin the design process. The trial design is analyzed over the design
period specified by the designer, and the Design Guide software predicts the performance
of the trial design. If the design criteria are not met, then the design is suitably modified
till a final design is achieved. The design process requires the following steps:

D.107
D.5.1 Create a New project

D.5.1.1 Create a new design project in the Design Guide program

Open the Design Guide program from the Programs menu of the operating system
(windows 98, 2000, XP, NT). Next open a new file and assign a name to the project,
“AC Conventional Example” as shown in Figure D.121. Next, select the folder to store
the design files as “C:\DG2002\Projects”. Select US Customary units as the
measurement system by clicking the radio button next to it. Next, click “OK” and the
program opens the main layout screen of the design project as shown in Figure D.122.

Figure D.121. Create a new project file from the main program.

General
Inputs

Click on each item

to make inputs

Outputs
Run
Analysis

Inputs

Figure D.122. Main program layout.

D.108
D.5.2 General Inputs

D.5.2.1 General Information

On the main project screen click on the General Information input to open the General
Information screen. Inputs on General Information Screen as shown in Figure D.123:

Design Life: 10 years

Base/Subgrade Construction Month: August 2003
Pavement Construction Month: September 2003
Traffic Open Month: October 2002
Type of Design: New Pavement – Flexible Pavement

Figure D.123. General Information screen.

Click OK and return to the program layout screen

D.109
D.5.2.2 Site/Project Identification

Click on Site/Project Identification to open the Site/Project Identification screen. Inputs

made on this screen are purely for providing identification to the project. Inputs to be
made for this design, are shown in
Figure D.124, and are as follows:

Location: Indianapolis, Lafayette

Project ID: AC2002
Section ID: AC2002 - A
Functional Class (from pull-down menu): Principal Arterials – Interstate and
Defense
Date: Date performing the design
Station/milepost format: 00+00
Station/milepost begin: 05 + 00
Station/milepost end: 10 + 00
Traffic Direction: Northbound

Figure D.124. Site/Project Identification screen.

Click OK and return to the main layout program.

D.110
D.5.2.3 Analysis Parameters

This screen allows the user to make inputs with regard to design criteria chosen by the
agency. For this specific example, the inputs to be made on the Analysis Parameters
screen, as show in Figure D.125 are as follows:

Initial IRI (in/mile): 63

Analysis Type: Probabilistic
Performance Criteria (Enter both criteria and level of reliability)
Terminal IRI: 172 at 90 % reliability
AC Surface Down/Longitudinal Cracking: 1000 ft/mile at 90 % reliability
AC Bottom Up/Alligator Cracking: 25 % at 90 % reliability
AC Thermal Fracture: 1000 ft/mile at 90 % reliability
Chemically Stabilized Layer Fatigue Fracture: 25 % at 90 % reliability
Permanent Deformation: 0.75 in at 90 percent reliability

Figure D.125. Analysis Parameters screen for flexible pavement design.

D.111
Click OK and return to the main layout program. Note that the icons in the general inputs
are all green at this point. It is suggested that at this point, the input file be saved by
clicking on the “diskette” icon in the tool bar or by clicking Save on the File menu.

D.5.3 Traffic Inputs

D.5.3.1 Traffic

See 2.3.1 for description of this screen. Inputs on this screen, as shown in Figure D. 126
are as follows:

Two way average annual truck traffic: 1500

Number of lanes in design direction: 2
Percent of trucks in design direction: 50
Percent of trucks in design lane: 90
Operational truck speed: 60

Figure D. 126. Traffic screen.

Click OK and return to the main layout program.

D.112
D.5.3.2. Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors

The Traffic Volume Adjustment Factors screen has 4 property pages (or sub-screens),
namely:

• Monthly Adjustment
• Vehicle Class Distribution
• Hourly Distribution
• Traffic Growth Factors

D.5.3.2.1 Monthly Adjustment

The inputs on this screen indicate the distribution of traffic over the different months of a
year for each traffic class. The Monthly Adjustment Factor (MAF) is the proportion of
AADTT occurring over a 24-hour period in each month for each vehicle class.

For this example, since the traffic distribution remains the same through out the year, i.e.
does not change between the different months of the year, the default monthly adjustment
factors can be used.

Click on the radio button for Level 3 default inputs as shown in Figure D.127. Note that
the default MAF value is 1.0 for all months in each vehicle class.

D.113
 Figure D.127. Monthly Adjustment Factors screen.
Next click on the Vehicle Class Distribution tab.

D.5.3.2.2 Vehicle Class Distribution

Site-specific vehicle class distribution data is available for this design project. Click on
the radio button Level 3: Default Distribution and click on the Load Default Distribution
button. Select pavement category as Principal/Arterials-Interstate and Defense and
choose Truck Traffic Classification or TTC #1 listed in the 10th row of the table as shown
in Figure D. 128. This TTC has a high percentage of vehicles in Class 9 (single trailer
trucks). Click OK and return to the Vehicle Class Distribution screen. As shown in
Figure D. 129, the TTC 1 distribution by vehicle class is seen on the screen. Next, click
on the Hourly Distribution tab.

D.5.3.2.3 Hourly Distribution

Enter the hourly distribution of the AADTT as shown in Figure D. 130. Next, click on
the Traffic Growth Factors tab.

D.5.3.2.4 Traffic Growth Factors

The given data suggests that the traffic grows 4.0 % at a compound rate. The program
will use a default function for traffic growth at a compound rate. Select Compound

D.114
Growth and enter a growth rate of 4.0 % as shown in Figure D.131. Note that the
previously entered traffic inputs appear, but are grayed out, on the screen.

Figure D. 128. Load Default AADTT screen.

D.115
Figure D. 129. Vehicle Class Distribution screen.

Figure D. 130. Hourly Distribution screen.

D.116
 Figure D.131. Traffic Growth Factors screen.

Next click on View Growth Plots to open a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that shows the
growth in AADTT for each vehicle class over the design life. The plots are shown in
Figure D.132, Figure D.133, and Figure D.134 for vehicle classes 4-7, 8-10, and 11-13
respectively. Close the Excel spreadsheet and click OK on the Volume Adjustments
screen to return to the main layout page.

D.5.3.3 Axle Load Distribution Factors

This screen allows the user to specify the percentage of vehicles in each vehicle class, at
each load level, for each axle type. This design example uses the default LTPP
distribution and therefore the level 3-default input will be used. Click on the radio button
for level 3 axle load distribution factors as shown in Figure D. 135. The program
automatically loads default values for these inputs. Click Ok to return to the main screen.

Note that the program also allows exporting a previously saved file if the user so chooses.

D.117
 Years vs AADTT Growth

5000
4500
4000
3500
Class 4
3000
Class 5
2500
2000 Class 6
1500 Class 7
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Years

Figure D.132. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 4 through 7.

Years vs AADTT Growth

1000
900
800
700
600 Class 8
500 Class 9
400 Class 10
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years

Figure D.133. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 8 through 10.

Years vs AADTT Growth

1000
900
800
700
600 Class 11
500 Class 12
400 Class 13
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years

Figure D.134. Growth in AADTT for Vehicle classes 11 through 13.

D.118
 Figure D. 135. Axle Load Distribution Factors screen.

D.5.3.4 General Traffic inputs

This screen allows the user to provide traffic wander inputs and also has 3 property
pages, namely,

Number of Axles/Truck
Axle Configuration
Wheelbase

Enter the following inputs for lateral traffic wander as shown in Figure D. 136.

Mean wheel location: 18 inch

Traffic wander standard deviation: 10
Design lane width: 12 feet

D.5.3.4.1 Number Axles/Truck

Enter the number of axles per truck as shown in Figure D. 136:

D.5.3.4.2 Axle Configuration

Enter the following inputs on the Axle Configuration property page as shown in Figure D.
137:

Average axle width: 8.5 feet

Dual tire spacing: 12 in

D.119
 Figure D. 136. General Traffic Inputs – Number of Axles/Truck.

Tire pressure:
Single tire: 120 psi
Dual tire: 120 psi
Axle spacing:
Tandem axle: 51.6 in
Tridem axle: 49.2 in
Quad axle: 49.2 in

D.5.3.4.3 Wheelbase

Enter the following inputs on the Wheelbase property page as shown in Figure D. 138:

Average axle spacing

Short: 12 feet
Medium: 15 feet
Long: 18 feet
Percentage trucks
Short: 2.0 percent
Medium: 20.0 percent
Long: 78.0 percent

D.120
 Figure D. 137. General Traffic Inputs – Axle Configuration screen.

Click OK and return to the main program layout screen. The user, by this stage, has
made all traffic inputs and is now ready to make Climate inputs for the project. Save the
project file before proceeding.

D.5.4 Climate Inputs

D.5.4.1 Climate

There are several methods of making climate inputs to the program, depending upon the
extent of information available, regardless of the pavement type. Sections D.2.4.1 and
D.3.4.1 address these other methods.

This design example, although does not specify the exact project location, provides
details of the general vicinity of the project, i.e. Lafayette, Indiana. The user can either
import a previously generated climatic data file, or generate one for a specific location.
In this case, the user will have to generate a new file (unless the example is being rerun
with a previously generated file).

D.121
 Figure D. 138. General Traffic Inputs – Wheelbase screen.

Click on Climate on the main project layout screen. On the main Climate screen, as
shown in Figure D. 139, click on Generate to generate a new climatic data file. Then
click on the radio button Climatic data for a specific weather station. From the list of
weather stations in the database, choose Lafayette, IN, and enter a water table depth of 15
feet as shown in Figure D. 140.

The screen shown in Figure D. 140 indicates that this station contains 48 months of
weather data. The current EICM contains 66 months of weather data for a section with
complete weather data. If the number of months of available data is less than that of the
complete data set, it will be necessary to interpolate weather information from nearby
weather stations for those months when data becomes unavailable. Now click on the
radio button for Interpolate climatic data for given location. The program automatically
lists the six closest weather stations in the database that is within a radius of 100 miles.
Climatic data is interpolated from those weather stations that are selected on this screen.

D.122
 Figure D. 139. Main Climate screen.

Figure D. 140. Generating climatic data file for the project location.

The program also lists the distance of each weather station from the actual location (i.e.
Lafayette, IN). The weather data is interpolated for the given location inversely weighted
by the square of the distance. Therefore for the 48 months when data is available, based
on a weight of 100 percent for “0” distance, the actual data from Lafayette will be used.
For the months with missing data, the data will be interpolated.

D.123
Note the considerations for selecting weather stations in this process as discussed in
3.4.1. For the purpose of this example, select all listed weather stations and click on the
Generate button. The program creates the climatic data file for the project. After the
climatic data file is created, the program prompts the user to save it. Save the file in the
project directory - “C:\DG2002\Projects\AC Conventional EXAMPLE\lafayette.icm”.

Note that the program also automatically creates a file called climate.tmp in the project
directory. This is the file that the program reads hourly climatic information from during
the analysis stage. This file contains the sunrise time, sunset time and radiation for each
day of the design life period. In addition, for each 24-hour period in each day of the
design life, the temperature, rainfall, air speed, sunshine, and depth of ground water table
are also listed in the climate file.

By this stage, the user has completed the climatic inputs required for the program. The
color-coded icons will have a green color for the traffic and climate and red icons for
structure, indicating that the traffic and climate inputs are complete and structural inputs
are yet to be addressed.

D.5.5 Structural Inputs

The user at this stage needs to choose structural parameters and a layer combination that
can be evaluated for its performance. As explained in the PART 3 of the Guide, the
procedure is an iterative procedure and the user will have to develop a trial design first,
make several modifications to it next, and finally arrive at a feasible and economic (or
final) design.

Based on the available materials for the different layers, choose the following layers in
the trial design:

3.0-inch AC layer
6.0-inch A-1-a granular base layer
9.0-inch A-2-5 compacted subbase layer
Semi-infinite uncompacted (natural) A-7-6 subgrade layer

The structural inputs are of three categories, Drainage and Surface Properties, Layer
Properties, and Thermal Cracking,. These three categories of inputs have direct links
from the main program layout screen.

D.5.5.1 Drainage and Surface Properties

From the main program layout screen click on Drainage and Surface Properties to open
the screen shown in Figure D. 141.

D.124
 Figure D. 141. Drainage and Surface Properties screen.

Enter 0.85 for surface shortwave absorptivity., 12 feet for Drainage path length and 2
percent for Pavement cross slope. Note that the flexible pavement design does not
require the user to input Infiltration. Click Ok and return to the main program layout.

D.5.5.2 Layers

On the main program layout screen, click on Layers to add and edit pavement layers in
the trial design. The program opens the Layers screen as shown in Figure D. 142. Refer
to section D.2.5.3 for a discussion on the Insert, Delete and Edit functions that can be
performed from this screen.

The first layer of the pavement, the AC layer is shown on the screen in Figure D. 142.
Next, the user has to add a layer after (underneath) the AC layer. To add a layer after the
AC layer, select layer 1 by clicking on the row shown for Layer 1 and then insert a layer
by clicking on the Insert button. The program now opens a screen shown in Figure D.
143a that allows the user to select the layer to be added.

As shown in Figure D. 143 b, from the scroll down menu select Granular Base for the
Material Type, A-1-a for the Material, and enter 6.0 for the Thickness. Next, click Ok to
return to the Layers screen shown in Figure D. 144. This screen now shows the newly
added granular base layer.

D.125
 Figure D. 142. Layers screen.

a) Initial screen to insert layer b) Inputs to insert cement stabilized layer

Figure D. 143. Inserting granular base layer after AC layer.

D.126
 Figure D. 144. Layers screen after inserting the base layer.

Next, select layer 2 and click Insert to add a layer after the A-1-a granular layer. Select
Granular Base for the Material type and A-2-5 for Material as shown in Figure D. 145.
Enter a thickness of 9.0 inches Click Ok and return to the Layers screen.

Repeat the same steps again and add the A-7-6 subgrade layer as shown in Figure D. 146.
Select the last layer option instead of entering a thickness to this layer. Click Ok and
return to the Layers screen that now shows all four layers added to the structure as
illustrated in Figure D. 147.

Figure D. 145. Inserting the compacted subgrade layer after the asphalt base layer.

D.127
Figure D. 146. Inserting the uncompacted subgrade layer after the compacted subgrade.

The individual screens for the input of layer material properties can be accessed either
from the Layers screen shown in Figure D. 147, or directly from the program layout
screen. To access the material properties screen from the Layers screen, select the
desired pavement layer and click on Edit. To return to the program layout screen, click
Ok on the Layers screen. The program layout screen is shown in Figure D. 148.

Figure D. 147. Layers screen after the addition of all layers.

D.128
 Figure D. 148. Program layout screen after adding all layers.

D.5.5.2.1 Layer 1 – Asphalt Concrete

Click on Layer 1 – Asphalt Concrete to edit AC layer material properties. This opens a
screen with three property pages for Asphalt Mix, Asphalt Binder, and Asphalt General
properties. The main screen also allows the user to input the layer thickness, and select
the level of inputs that the designer is using for AC properties. Enter a thickness of 3
inches for the AC layer and choose level 3 inputs from the draw down menu. Further, on
the property page Asphalt Mix, enter the gradation of the aggregates used in the mix
design as shown in Figure D. 149:

Cumulative % retained on ¾” sieve = 12

Cumulative % retained on 3/8” sieve = 38
Cumulative % retained on #4 sieve = 50
Percent passing #200 sieve = 4

After completing the above inputs on the Asphalt Mix properties screen, click on the
Asphalt Binder tab and select Superpave binder grade 64-22 as shown in Figure D. 150.

D.129
 Figure D. 149. Asphalt Material Properties screen – Asphalt Mix property page.

Figure D. 150. Asphalt Material Properties screen – Asphalt Binder property page.

D.130
Next, click on the Asphalt General tab and make the following inputs for this example as
shown in Figure D. 151:

General
Reference temperature (F°): 70
Volumetric Properties
Effective binder content (%): 12
Air voids (%): 6.0
Total unit weight (pcf): 143
Poisson's ratio: 0.35 (user entered)
Thermal Properties
Thermal conductivity asphalt (BTU/hr-ft-F°): 0.67
Heat capacity asphalt (BTU/lb-F°): 0.23

Click Ok and return to the main program layout screen. Note that the icon adjacent to
Layer 1 – Asphalt concrete layer is now green in color because of inputs being complete
in this layer.

Figure D. 151. Asphalt Material Properties – Asphalt General screen.

D.5.5.2.2 Layer 2 – A-1-a

Click on Layer 2 – A-1-a on the program layout screen to enter base layer material inputs.
The screen that enables the user to make inputs for an unbound layer opens as shown in
Figure D. 152.

D.131
 Figure D. 152. Base (Unbound) layer screen – Strength Properties page.

Note that the choice made for the unbound material type and the layer thickness appear
on the screen. (This screen also allows the user to make changes to previous choices if
necessary).

Choose the radio button corresponding to level 3 inputs, which requires only the input for
modulus for material property. Enter the following input values:

Poisson’s ratio: 0.35

Coefficient of lateral pressure: 0.50
Modulus (psi): 40,000

For Analysis Type, click on the radio button adjacent to ICM Inputs to indicate that the
user will make ICM inputs to the program

Next, click on the ICM tab to make ICM inputs. The inputs made on this screen, shown
in Figure D. 153, are as follows:

D.132
 Plasticity Index, PI: 1
Passing #200 sieve (%): 3
Passing #4 sieve (%): 20
D60 (mm): 8

The granular base layer will be a compacted subgrade layer and hence click on the radio
button corresponding to Compacted unbound material. Click on Update to view the
various parameters that are calculated or derived by ICM.

Click OK and return to the main program layout screen.

Figure D. 153. Base (Unbound) layer screen – ICM property page.

D.5.5.2.3 Layer 3 – A-2-5

Layer 3 is the subbase layer which is also an unbound layer similar to layer 2. Repeat the
steps followed in 5.5.2.2 and enter the specified inputs as shown in Figure D. 154 and
Figure D. 155.

D.133
Figure D. 154. Subbase (Unbound) layer screen – Strength Properties page.

Figure D. 155. Subbase (Unbound) layer screen – ICM property page.

D.134
D.5.5.2.4 Layer 4 – A-7-6

The fourth layer in this trial design is the natural subgrade classified as AASHTO soil A-
7-6. The inputs made for the subgrade layer are identical in nature to the input provided
for the unbound base and subbase materials. The inputs are shown in Figure D. 156 and
Figure D. 157. Note that on the ICM property page, click on the radio button
corresponding to Uncompacted/natural unbound material as shown in Figure D. 157.

Click on Update and view the ICM calculated parameters. Next, click Ok and return to
the program layout screen.

D.5.5.3 Thermal Cracking

This screen provides an interface to provide all inputs required to predict thermal
cracking The software program uses the tensile strength, creep compliance, coefficient
of thermal contraction, surface shortwave absorptivity, thermal capacity and heat capacity
to predict thermal cracking. These inputs can all be either user input, or the software uses
default values that are calculated from the asphalt material properties entered for the first
asphalt layer in the pavement structure (see 2.2.2.4). Note that if the user attempts to
make inputs to the Thermal Cracking screen before the material inputs are finalized for
the first AC layer, the program prompts the user to visit the material properties screen
first. For the purpose of this design example, click on the radio button for Level 3 inputs
and view the default inputs for the chosen material as shown in Figure D. 158.

Figure D. 156. Unbound layer screen for natural subgrade layer.

D.135
Figure D. 157. Subbase (Unbound) layer screen – ICM property page.

Figure D. 158. Thermal Cracking screen.

D.136
Note that on this screen, the user has the option of importing a previously saved creep
compliance dataset, or exporting the currently dataset to a file for later use. Also, the Mix
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, can either be either computed using default
correlations, as was done in this example, or can be a user input value.

Click Ok and return to the mail program layout screen. Establishment

D.5.6 Distress Potential

Next, click on the Distress Potential item and enter “None” for both block cracking and
sealed longitudinal cracks outside of wheelpath as shown in Figure D. 159.

Figure D. 159. Distress potential.

Click Ok and return to the main program layout screen as shown in Figure D. 160. Note
that in Figure D. 160, the icons adjacent to all inputs – traffic, climate, and structure – are
green indicating that all these inputs are complete.

D.5.7 Run Analysis

After all design inputs are provided, the Design Guide software has to begin the analysis
process to predict the performance of the trial design over the design life of the pavement.
Click on Run Analysis. The program runs the Traffic, Climate, Modulus, Thermal
cracking, AC analysis modules, and reports the analysis status on the upper right hand
corner of the screen.

D.137
 Figure D. 160. Program layout screen after completing all inputs.

At the end of the analysis, the program creates a summary file and other output files in
the project directory, C:\DG2002\Projects\AC Conventional Example. The summary file
is in an MS Excel format and is named “AC Conventional Example.xls.” The summary
file contains an input summary sheet, computed material modulus values, and distress
summaries for all predicted distresses in a tabular format. Further, the predicted
distresses and IRI over time are also represented in a graphical format.

The AC modulus predicted by the program for the given climate and subgrade moisture
conditions is shown in Figure D. 161. These modulus values are also reported in a data
sheet titled Layers Modulus. The performance of the trial design over the specified
design life is also plotted in the output file as shown in Figure D. 162 through Figure D.
166 for top-down longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking, thermal cracking, rutting and
IRI respectively. The output file has accompanying data sheets for all these charts, as
well as charts illustrating damage accumulation for each distress.

D.138
 Asphalt Sub-Layers Modulus Vs Time

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000
Modulus (psi)

AC1(1) h=0.5
AC1(2) h=0.5
2,000,000 AC1(3) h=1.0
AC1(4) h=1.0
AC1(5) h=1.0
1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 161. Trial design AC modulus predicted by the Design Guide program.

Surface Down Cracking - Longitudinal

2000

1800

1600
Longitudinal Cracking (ft/mi)

1400

1200
Surface
Depth = 0.5"
1000
Surface at Reliability
Design Limit
800

600

400

200

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 162. Surface down longitudinal cracking.

D.139
 Bottom Up Cracking - Alligator

100

90

80

70
Alligator Cracking (%)

60
Maximum Cracking
50 Bottom Up Reliability
Maximum Cracking Limit
40

30

20

10

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 163. Alligator cracking prediction over design life for the trial design.

Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time

3000

2700

2400

2100
Total Length (ft/mi)

1800
Thermal Crack Length
1500 Crack Length at Reliability
Design Limit
1200

900

600

300

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 164. Thermal cracking prediction over design life for the trial design.

D.140
 Permanant Deformation: Rutting

0.80

AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25

0.70 Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75

0.60
Rutting Depth (in)

0.50 SubTotalAC
SubTotalBase
SubTotalSG
0.40
Total Rutting
TotalRutReliability
0.30 Total Rutting Design Limit

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 165. Rutting prediction over design life for the trial design.

IRI

200

180

160

140

120
IRI (in/mi)

IRI
100 IRI at Reliability
Design Limit
80

60

40

20

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 166. Predicted IRI over design life for trial design.

D.5.8 Sensitivity Analysis

The trial design satisfies the design criteria specified in the program for all analysis
parameters except thermal cracking requirement (Figure D. 164). AC rutting Figure D.
165. Therefore, this trial design cannot serve as a feasible design. Note that thermal
cracking is a temperature related distress and can be less controlled with changes to the

D.141
structural capacity of the pavement. For example, increasing or decreasing the subbase
layer, although would affect cracking and rutting predictions as shown in the sensitivity
analysis presented in Figure D. 167, Figure D. 168, and Figure D. 169. The thermal
cracking prediction, shown in Figure D. 170, is less sensitive to the structural design, and
more a function of the binder grade selected. However, note that substantial increase in
the thickness of the subbase (i.e. from 9 in to 18 in) will alter the moisture profile
predicted by the EICM module and can result in significant changes to the thermal
cracking prediction. Note that there is no subbase thickness value that satisfies the
thermal cracking requirement in this design. Also, changing the subbase thickness does
not alter the AC rutting values significantly as shown in Figure D. 171.

2000
1800 18 in subbase
Longitudinal Cracking (ft/mi)

1600 9 in subbase
3 in subbase
1400
Design Limit
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120

Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 167. Sensitivity of surface-down cracking to subbase thickness.

100
90
80 18 in subbase
Alligator Cracking (%)

9 in subbase
70 3 in subbase
60 Maximum Cracking Limit
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 168. Sensitivity of bottom up fatigue cracking to subbase thickness.

D.142
 Permanant Deformation: Rutting

0.80

0.70

0.60
Rutting Depth (in)
0.50

0.40

0.30 18 in subbase
9 in subbase AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25
0.20 Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75
3 in subbase
0.10 Total Rutting Design Limit

0.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 169. Sensitivity of total rutting to subbase thickness.

3000

2700 18 in subbase

2400

2100 9 in subbase
Total Length (ft/mi)

3 in subbase
1800

1500

1200

900

600

300

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 170. Sensitivity of thermal cracking prediction to subbase thickness.

D.5.9 Modify Trial Design

The design can be modified by altering the PG grade of the binder used in the mix design.
For example, use a 64-28 Superpave PG-grade for the asphalt binder with subbase
thickness of 18 inches to improve the thermal cracking and rutting performance. The
thermal cracking and rutting performance for the modified design are shown in Figure D.
172 and Figure D. 173.

It is recommended that the designer verify other alternatives by means of a sensitivity

analysis in order to develop the most optimum design. Sensitivity charts are provided in
this User’s Guide to demonstrate the effect of some design inputs to performance
prediction (subbase thickness in this case). The user is urged to verify several
modifications to the initial trial design to reach an optimum design.

D.143
 0.30

0.25
Rutting Depth (in)
0.20
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25
0.15 Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75

0.10 18 in subbase
9 in subbase
0.05 3 in subbase
Total Rutting Design Limit
0.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 171. Rutting in AC layer with changing subbase thickness.

Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time

2000

1800

1600

1400
Total Length (ft/mi)

1200
Thermal Crack Length
1000 Crack Length at Reliability
Design Limit
800

600

400

200

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 172. Thermal cracking prediction for the modified design (64-28 PG binder
and 18 inch subbase thickness).

D.144
 Permanant Deformation: Rutting

0.80

AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25

0.70 Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75

0.60
Rutting Depth (in)

0.50 SubTotalAC
SubTotalBase
SubTotalSG
0.40
Total Rutting
TotalRutReliability
0.30 Total Rutting Design Limit

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 173. Predicted rutting for modified design (64-28 PG binder and 18 inch
subbase thickness).

D.6 AC OVER EXISTING AC REHABILITATION DESIGN EXAMPLE

It is expected that, prior to performing AC rehabilitation design, the user is familiar with
the use of the design software for the design of new AC sections (explained in detail in
Section D.5). The problem statement for these rehabilitation options covers all
information required for making design inputs to the software. Unlike the design
examples for new flexible pavements in Section D.5, this example does not contain
screen shots for all design inputs. It is expected that with the experience of performing a
new pavement design, the user will be able to make all inputs for the traffic, climate, and
structural inputs for the existing pavements. However, appropriate screen shots of the
design software that are different from the new design, or those that are typical to
rehabilitation design, are provided to guide the user with the design procedure. Users are
urged to refer to Section D.5 where necessary.

D.6.1 Problem Statement for AC Rehabilitation

Summarized in Table D.6.1 are the climate, material properties, structure, and design
features of the existing AC pavement. The information presented was obtained from a
comprehensive evaluation of the conventional flexible pavement using procedures
presented in PART 2, Chapter 5 of this Guide. The AC pavement was constructed in
August 1980 and is located in Columbus, Ohio. The ground water table is 10 feet deep at
the project location. Using the data presented in Table D.6.1 as the basis, consider an AC
overlay option.

D.145
 Table D.6.1. Material properties of existing AC pavement.

Layer Number Variable Value

Material type AC (existing)
Layer thickness (in) 7
Mix - Cumulative retained on ¾” sieve (%) 0
Mix - Cumulative retained on 3/8” sieve (%) 5
Existing Layer Mix - Cumulative retained on #4 sieve (%) 40
1 (Considered Mix - Passing #4 sieve (%) 4
as Layer 2 in Backcalculated modulus in psi (at 30hz, 70deg F) 1,000,000
overlay Binder viscosity grade AC-20
analysis) Volumetrics - Mix binder content (%) 11
Volumetrics - Air void (%) 8.5
Total unit weight (pcf) 145
Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) 0.67
Heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) 0.23
Material type Crushed Stone
Thickness, in 12
Poisson's ratio 0.35
Existing Layer Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko 0.5
2 (Considered
35000 from FWD
as Layer 3 in Modulus, psi
analysis (Level 1)
overlay
analysis) Plasticity Index, PI 1
Passing No. 200 sieve, percent 6.2
Passing No. 4 sieve, percent 54
D60, mm 6
Material type SC
Thickness, in Semi-infinite
Poisson's ratio 0.35
Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko 0.50
24000 from FWD
Layer 3 Modulus, psi
analysis (Level 1)
Plasticity Index, PI 15
Passing No. 200 sieve, percent 25
Passing No. 4 sieve, percent 90
D60 (mm): 0.1
Sealed longitudinal cracks outside of wheel path None
Distress
Patches None
Potential
Potholes (%): None

This example constitutes a level 1 rehabilitation design. If a level 3 rehabilitation design

is used, the design procedure will require the pavement rating (excellent through very
poor) as an input, some of which will be illustrated during the course of this example.

D.146
Design Life

The expected construction date of the rehabilitation alternative is September 2002, and
the rehabilitated pavement must be opened to traffic in October 2002. Assume a design
life of 20 years for the AC over AC option.

Construction Requirements

Assuming a good quality of construction, the pavement shall have an initial IRI between
50 and 75 in/mile (assume 63 in/mile for design purposes).

Analysis Parameters

It is expected that, at the end of the 10-year design life, the pavement will have no more
than an IRI of 172 in/mile, AC surface-down or longitudinal cracking of 1000 ft/mile,
bottom-up fatigue cracking of 25 percent, and AC thermal fracture (transverse cracking)
of 1000 feet per mile. The permanent deformation in the AC layer shall not exceed 0.25
inches, and that in the total pavement shall not exceed 0.75 inches. In addition, if a
chemically stabilized layer is used, the fatigue fracture in the layer shall not exceed 25
percent. These criteria are to be satisfied at a reliability level of 90 percent.

Traffic

Future traffic estimates for rehabilitation design are as follows:

• Two-way average annual daily truck traffic: 200

• Number of lanes in design direction: 2
• Percent of trucks in design direction: 50 percent
• Percent of trucks in design lane: 95 percent
• Operational speed: 60 mph
• Traffic growth rate design life: 4 percent
• Traffic growth function: Compound

This pavement is categorized as a principal arterial/interstate highway, and the section

carries less than 2 percent buses but greater than 10 percent multi-trailers. The traffic
characteristics developed using information from past traffic data collected show the
percentage of AADTT in each vehicle class is closest to the default TTC#1 in the Design
Guide software.

For each class of vehicle, the traffic pattern on monthly and daily bases remains the same
through out the year. However, the traffic varies over a 24-hour period and is the same as
the national default based on LTPP data (provided in the Design Guide and the software).

The axle load distribution is identical to the LTPP default distribution for each vehicle
class, axle type, load category, and months of the year; hence, the number of single,

D.147
tandem, tridem, and quad axles is same as the national defaults provided in the Design
Guide software.

Assume that, for all vehicle classes and axle wheel types, the left and right wheels are
located 18 in from the centerline joint and the slab–shoulder joint, respectively. The
traffic wander has a standard deviation of 10 inches from the wheels mean location. The
axle configuration is as follows:

• Average axle width (edge-to-edge outside dimensions, ft): 8.5

• Dual tire spacing (in): 12

The single and dual tire pressures are 120 psi. The design lane is 12 feet wide. The
average axle spacing for tandem, tridem and quad axles are as follows:

• Tandem: 51.6 in
• Tridem: 49.2 in
• Quad: 49.2 in

D.6.2 Trial Design

D.6.2.1 Create a New Project

Create a rehabilitation design project in the Design Guide program

Open the Design Guide program from the Programs menu of the operating system
(Windows 98, 2000, XP, NT). Next, open a new file and assign a name to the project,
“AC_on_AC,” as shown in Figure D.174. Next, select the folder to store the design files
as “C:\DG2002\Projects.” Select US Customary units as the measurement system by
clicking the radio button adjacent to it. Next, click “OK” to open the main layout screen
of the design project.

Figure D.174. Create a new project file from the main program.

D.148
D.6.2.2 Enter General Inputs

On the main project screen, click on the General Information input to open the General
Information screen. Enter inputs on the General Information Screen as shown in Figure
D.175. Click OK and return to the program layout screen.

D.6.2.3 Enter Inputs on the Site/Project Identification Screen

Click on Site/Project Identification to open the Site/Project Identification screen. The

inputs procedure for this design is same as for new design.

D.6.2.4 Enter Inputs on the Analysis Parameters Screen

Enter the analysis criteria for the AC section after rehabilitation as shown in Figure
D.176.

Figure D.175. General Information screen.

D.149
 Figure D.176. Analysis Parameters screen for AC on AC overlay.

D.6.2.5 Traffic Inputs

Traffic inputs are the same as for new design. Follow the step-by-step procedure provided
in Section D.5.3. Note that actual inputs required for this design are presented in the
problem statement.

D.6.2.6 Climate Inputs

Climate inputs are the same as for new design. Follow the step-by-step procedure
provided for new AC design. Note that actual inputs required for this design are
presented in the problem statement. Use the climatic file for Columbus, Ohio, and use a
water table depth of 10 feet. The user then returns to the main program layout screen as
shown in Figure D. 177.

The user is now ready to provide inputs for the structural and material properties. Note
that the program has automatically inserted the two obvious layers to the pavement
structure, the existing AC layer and the new AC overlay.

D.150
 Figure D. 177. Program layout screen after making general, traffic, and climate inputs.

D.6.2.7 Structural Inputs

The structural inputs for an AC overlay design are similar to the structural inputs for a
new design (see Section D.5) and essentially fall under the following three categories:

• Drainage and surface properties.

• Layers.
• Thermal cracking.

The thermal cracking and drainage inputs are the same as those discussed in Sections
D.5.5.1 and D.5.5.3. Note that the Thermal Cracking screen has to be visited after the
layer properties are input in the Layers screens.

Layers - Defining Pavement Structure

In the layers section, the program creates two AC layers by default, as the chosen
rehabilitation type is AC over AC. The user then needs to add the existing layers
underneath the existing AC layer using the procedure described in Section D.3.5.3 to
result in a Layers screen, as shown in Figure D. 178.

Choose a pavement rating of “Excellent” and a rutting value of “0.” The milled thickness
is 1 inch.

D.151
Figure D. 178. Layers screen after the addition of all existing layers beneath the new AC
overlay.

The pavement structure consisted of four layers, including the subgrade and the new AC
overlay, and the layer properties as required by the Design Guide program are presented
in Table D.6.1. Information required for each material property is typically obtained
from various source including field-testing, laboratory analysis, and agency records, as
discussed in PART 2, Chapter 5.

Also, choose Level 1 from the pull down menu of the Flexible Rehabilitation section to
select the hierarchical level being used for the rehabilitation. Enter a value of zero for the
milled thickness to indicate that the existing pavement is not being milled. Also note that
a rutting value of zero inches is being used for all existing layers to indicate the rutting
condition of the existing pavement.

If the user chooses to use a Level 3 rehabilitation, the user needs to indicate the Pavement
Rating for the existing pavement to indicate the condition of the existing pavement. The
Total Rutting is the rutting observed in the pavement after the pavement has been milled.
Note that Level 3 rehabilitation is not being considered in this example. However, given
the frequent use of this design type, this information has been provided in the User’s
Guide.

Input Layer Properties

Next, after defining the pavement structure, input material and structural properties for all
layers following the same procedure described for new AC design in Section D.5.5.3.
For the new AC layer assume 0, 5,and 40 percent are retained on the ¾”, 3/8” and #4
sieves, while 4 percent passes the #200 sieve. Use an AC-20 conventional binder type.
The volumetric properties of the new AC layer are same as those of the existing AC
layer. Finally, the thickness of the new AC overlay is 2 inches. The inputs made for the
AC layer are shown in Figure D. 179 and Figure D. 181.

D.152
 Figure D. 179. AC overlay material properties – Asphalt Mix.

Figure D. 180. AC overlay material properties – Binder Properties.

D.153
 Figure D. 181. AC overlay material properties – Asphalt General and Volumetrics.

Next, for the existing AC layer, input material properties as shown in Figure D. 182,
Figure D. 183, and Figure D. 184. For level 1 rehabilitation design, the backcalculated
moduli from Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests are input for the modulus values
for all layers of the existing pavement. As shown in Figure D. 182, enter the
backcalculated modulus value of 1,000,000 psi, frequency of 30 Hz, and temperature of
70 deg F.

Visit the Thermal Cracking screen and accept the default values generated by the
program for the given asphalt concrete material inputs.

D.6.2.8 Distress Potential

Next, click on the Distress Potential icon from the main project layout screen and enter
the distress potential based on the information provided in Table D.6.1, as shown in
Figure D. 185.

Click OK and return to the main project layout screen, and as shown in
Figure D. 186, the color scheme indicates that all the required inputs have been provided.

D.154
 Figure D. 182. Existing AC layer material properties – Asphalt Mix.

Figure D. 183. Existing AC layer material properties – Binder Properties.

D.155
Figure D. 184. Existing AC layer material properties – Asphalt General and Volumetrics.

Figure D. 185. Distress Potential screen.

D.156
 Figure D. 186. Program layout screen after completing all inputs.

D.6.2.9 Run Analysis

After all design inputs are provided, the Design Guide software has to begin the analysis
process to predict the performance of the trial design over the design life of the pavement.
Click on Run Analysis. The program runs the Traffic, Climate, Thermal Cracking, and
AC Analysis modules and reports the analysis status on the upper right hand corner of the
screen.

At the end of the analysis, the program creates a summary file and other output files in
the project directory, C:\DG2002\Projects\AC_on_AC. The summary file is in Microsoft
Excel format, named “AC_on_AC.xls,” and is similar to the summary file created for new
AC design. The summary file contains an input summary sheet, distress summary, and
several performance charts, one for each distress type evaluated.

For the given trial design, the fatigue cracking, thermal cracking, rutting, and IRI
predicted over the design life are shown in Figure D. 187, Figure D. 188, and Figure D.
189, respectively. The predicted IRI is shown in Figure D. 190. From these figures it is
clear that the trial design satisfies the desired criteria at the selected level of reliability.

D.157
 Bottom Up Cracking - Alligator

100

90

80

70
Alligator Cracking (%)

60
Maximum Cracking
50 Bottom Up Reliability
Maximum Cracking Limit
40

30

20

10

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 187. Fatigue cracking prediction over design life for the trial design.

Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time

2000

1800

1600

1400
Total Length (ft/mi)

1200
Thermal Crack Length
1000 Crack Length at Reliability
Design Limit
800

600

400

200

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 188. Thermal cracking prediction over design life for the trial design.

D.158
 Permanant Deformation: Rutting

0.80

0.70

AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25

0.60 Total Rutting Design Limit =
0.75
Rutting Depth (in)

0.50 SubTotalAC
SubTotalBase
SubTotalSG
0.40
Total Rutting
TotalRutReliability
0.30 Total Rutting Design Limit

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 189. Rutting prediction for the trial design over the design life.

IRI

200

180

160

140

120
IRI (in/mi)

IRI
100 IRI at Reliability
Design Limit
80

60

40

20

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 190. IRI prediction over design life for the trial design.

D.6.3 Modify Trial Design:

The trial design is a feasible design and need not be further modified. However,
depending on the results of a trial design, the inputs should be modified to optimize the
pavement structure chosen.

D.159
D.7 AC OVER EXISTING JPCP REHABILITATION DESIGN EXAMPLE

It is expected that, prior to performing AC rehabilitation design, the user is familiar with
the use of the design software for the design of new AC sections (explained in detail in
Section D.5).

The problem statement for this rehabilitation option of using an AC overlay to

rehabilitate an existing JPCP is not covered in detail, to eliminate duplicated explanation
of the various inputs and their use in the Design Guide software. Instead, all inputs
required are tabulated in Tables D.7.1 and D.7.2.

Unlike the design examples for new flexible pavements, this example does not contain
screen shots for all design inputs. It is expected that, with the experience of performing a
new pavement design, the user will be able to make all inputs for the traffic, climate, and
structural inputs for the existing pavements. However, those screen shots of the design
software that are considered different from the previous examples, or those that are
typical to this rehabilitation design type, are provided to guide the user with the design
procedure. Users are urged to refer to Section D.5 where necessary.

D.7.1 Problem Statement for AC Rehabilitation

Table D.7.1 summarizes the general, traffic, climate inputs, and Table D.7.2 provides
material properties, structure, and design features of the existing JPCP section. The
information presented was obtained from a comprehensive evaluation of the jointed
concrete pavement using procedures presented in PART 2, Chapter 5 of this Guide. The
existing JPCP was constructed in September 1973 and is located in Columbus, Ohio. The
ground water table is 10 feet deep at the project location. Using the data presented in
Tables D.7.1 and D.7.2 as the basis, consider an AC overlay option.

D.7.2 Trial Design

This section is very brief compared to the corresponding sections of other design
examples; references will be made to previous sections of this appendix, as appropriate,
to guide the user through this example. The inputs parameters and their values are
tabulated in Tables D.7.1 and D.7.2. Completing the design inputs will require the user
to provide general, traffic, climate, materials, and rehabilitation inputs. Providing this
general, traffic, and climate inputs involves the following steps:

1. Open a new project file in the Design Guide software as described in Section
D.5.1.1.
2. Enter General Information inputs for this design type. In the overlay option,
select AC Over JPCP from the drop-down menu.
3. Enter the design criteria on the Analysis Parameters screen as described in
D.5.2.3.
4. Enter all Traffic inputs using the procedure described in Section D.5.3.

D.160
 Table D.7.1. General, traffic, and climate inputs for AC overlay of existing JPCP.
Input Type Variable Value
Design Life 20 years
Existing pavement construction September, 1973
General
Pavement overlay construction September, 2003
Inputs
Traffic open October, 2003
Type of rehabilitation design AC on JPCP
Initial IRI (in/mi) 63
Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172
Transverse cracking (% slabs cracked) 15
Analysis
AC surface-down cracking (Long. cracking) (ft/500) 1000
Parameters
AC bottom up cracking (Alligator cracking) (%) 25
at 90 percent
AC Thermal fracture (Transverse cracking) (ft/mi) 1000
reliability
Chemically stabilized layer (Fatigue fracture) 25
Permanent deformation (AC Only) (in) 0.25
Permanent deformation (Total pavement) (in): 0.75
Initial two-way AADTT 200
Number of lanes in design direction 2
Percent of trucks in design direction (%) 50
Percent of trucks in design lane (%) 95
Operational speed (mph) 60
Traffic volume adjustment factors Default level 3
Truck Traffic Classification Default TTC 1
Traffic
Hourly truck distribution Default level 3
Traffic Growth 4% compound
Axle load distribution Default level 3
Traffic-General inputs:
Number of axles/truck
Default level 3
Axle configuration
Wheelbase
Weather station Columbus, OH
Climate
Water table depth, feet 10

D.161
 Table D.7.2. Structural and material properties of existing JPCP and AC overlay.
Input Type Variable Value
Permanent curl/warp effective temperature
-10
difference (°F)

Joint Design
Joint spacing (ft.) 20
Sealant type Liquid
Dowel diameter (in) 1
Dowel bar spacing (in) 12

JPCP Design
Features Edge Support None
Long-term LTE(%) N/A
Widened Slab (ft) N/A

Base Properties
Base type Granular
Erodibility index Fairly Erodible (4)
Base/slab friction coefficient 0.85
PCC-Base Interface Unbonded
Loss of bond age (months) n/a
Material type AC (existing)
Layer thickness (in) 2
Mix-Cumulative retained on ¾” sieve (%) 0
Mix-Cumulative retained on 3/8” sieve (%) 5
Mix-Cumulative retained on #4 sieve (%) 40
AC Overlay Mix-Passing #4 sieve (%) 4
(Considered
Binder viscosity grade, Conventional grade AC-20
as Layer 1 in
Volumetrics-Mix binder content (%) 11
overlay
analysis) Volumetrics-Air void (%) 8.5
Total unit weight (pcf) 145
Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) 0.67
Heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) 0.23
Thermal cracking Use defaults
Layer thickness 10
Unit weight, pcf 150
Existing JPCP Poisson’s ratio 0.20
(Considered
as Layer 2 in Thermal Properties
overlay Coefficient of thermal expansion, in/in/°F x 10-6 5.5
analysis) Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) 1.25
Heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) 0.28

D.162
 Table D.7.2. Structural and material properties of existing JPCP and AC overlay,
continued.

Input Type Variable Value

Mix Properties
Cement type Type I
Cement content (lb/yd^3) 600
Water/cement ratio 0.42
Existing Aggregate type Limestone
JPCP,
PCC zero-stress temperature (F°) Derived
continued
Ultimate shrinkage at 40% R.H (microstrain) Derived
(Considered
as Layer 2 in Reversible shrinkage (% of ultimate shrinkage) 50
overlay Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage
35
analysis) (days)
Current Method Curing compound

Strength Properties
Compressive strength from core, psi 6,000
Material type Crushed Stone
Existing Thickness, in 12
Granular Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Base, Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko 0.5
(Considered Modulus, psi 35000
as Layer 3 in Plasticity index, PI 1
overlay Passing No. 200 sieve, percent 6.2
analysis) Passing No. 4 sieve, percent 54
D60, mm 6
Material type SC
Thickness, in Semi-infinite
Subgrade Poisson’s ratio 0.35
(Considered Coefficient of lateral pressure, Ko 0.50
in Layer 4 as Modulus, psi 24000
in overlay Plasticity index, PI 15
analysis Passing No. 200 sieve, percent 25
Passing No. 4 sieve, percent 90
D60, mm 0.1
Percentage cracks in existing JPCP 20
Rehabilitation
Percentage cracks repaired in restoration 20
Sealed longitudinal cracks outside of wheel path Medium
Distress
Patches Low
Potential
Potholes (%): High

D.163
 5. Enter Climate inputs using the procedure described in Section D.5.4. Select the
weather station for Columbus, Ohio, and use a water table depth of 10 feet. By
this stage, the color-coded buttons adjacent to the different inputs should indicate
that the user has provided all necessary inputs for the first three categories.

Next, the user will have to provide the inputs for the design structure, including
properties of the existing pavement. Note that the Structure inputs are divided into four
categories, Design Features of the Existing JPCP layer, Drainage and Surface
Properties, Layers, and Thermal Cracking. The Design Features inputs were addressed
in Section D.2.2.5.1. The other three categories are similar to the flexible design example
in Section D.5.5.

For the design features of the existing pavement, enter the inputs given in Table D.7.2 as
shown in Figure D. 191. Next, enter the Drainage and Surface Properties as described in
Section D.5.5.1. Next, add layers to the pavement structure as described in D.5.5.2. Note
that the program inserts the first two layers in the structure based on the type of design
chosen. Insert the layers of the existing pavement as shown in Figure D. 192.

For the new AC layer, enter the material properties listed in Table D.7.2 as explained in
Section D.5.5.2.1. Next, for the existing JPCP layer, enter the design inputs for the
thermal, mix, and strength properties as shown in Figure D. 193, Figure D. 194, and
Figure D. 195.

Figure D. 191. Design Features for the existing JPCP layer.

D.164
Figure D. 192. Layers screen for designing an AC overlay on existing JPCP.

Figure D. 193. Existing JPCP layer Thermal properties screen.

D.165
 Figure D. 194. Existing JPCP layer Mix properties screen.

Figure D. 195. Existing JPCP layer Strength properties screen.

D.166
Note that, in Figure D. 194, the strength inputs are made at level 2 because the
compressive strength from the cores has been provided. The value of 10,000 psi is the
compressive strength of the concrete in the existing pavement in its current condition, and
not its 28-day strength. Note that the software will not internally apply any other strength
or modulus reductions to the JPCP layer.

Enter the material properties for the unbound layers using the input values listed in Table
D.7.2 with the procedure described in D.5.5.2.2. Finally, accept the default thermal
cracking inputs generated by the program on the Thermal Cracking screen.

Next, provide inputs to the Rehabilitation screen to indicate the damage in the existing
pavement and the extent of repairs undertaken. These inputs are shown in Figure D. 196.
The Distress Potential inputs provided in Table D.7.2 are to be entered as described in
Section D.5.6.

This step completed the input process. Upon returning to the Program Layout screen, the
color-coded icons should all turn green to indicate that the user has made all inputs
necessary to run the analysis engine.

Figure D. 196. Rehabilitation screen for the AC overlay on existing JPCP.

D.167
D.7.3 Run Analysis

After all inputs are entered, click on the Run Analysis button. The Design Guide
software first runs the traffic, climate, and material inputs. Next, the program analyzes
the trial design to compute JPCP cracking and all other distresses associated with flexible
pavements—fatigue cracking, thermal cracking, rutting, and roughness.

For the current example, the predicted performance for AC bottom-up cracking, thermal
cracking, rutting, and smoothness are shown in Figure D. 197, Figure D. 198, Figure D.
199, and Figure D. 200. Since all the performance criteria are satisfied, the current trial
design presents a feasible overlay option.

Bottom Up Cracking - Alligator

100

90

80

70
Alligator Cracking (%)

60
Maximum Cracking
50 Bottom Up Reliability
Maximum Cracking Limit
40

30

20

10

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 197. Fatigue cracking in AC overlay on existing JPCP.

D.168
 Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time

2000

1800

1600

1400
Total Length (ft/mi)

1200
Thermal Crack Length
1000 Crack Length at Reliability
Design Limit
800

600

400

200

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 198. Thermal cracking in AC overlay on existing JPCP.

Permanant Deformation: Rutting

0.80
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25
Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75
0.70

0.60
Rutting Depth (in)

0.50 SubTotalAC
SubTotalBase
SubTotalSG
0.40
Total Rutting
TotalRutReliability
0.30 Total Rutting Design Limit

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 199. Rutting for AC overlay on existing JPCP.

D.169
 IRI

300

270

240

210

180
IRI (in/mi)

IRI
150 IRI at Reliability
Design Limit
120

90

60

30

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure D. 200. Predicted IRI over design life for AC overlay on existing JPCP.

D.170