An Extension of Rigid Pavement

t Design Methods
W.R. HUDSON and B. F. MCCULLOUGH
Respectively, Supervising Design Research Engineer and Design Research
Engineer, Texas Highway Department

This paper verifies and extends certain developments in the

AASHO Interim Pavement Design Guide. A choice of mathema-
tical models is made based on studies of the AASHO and Mary-
land Road Tests' stress data as well as data from in-service
pavements.
As an extension of the initial work, the design thickness equa-
tion is expanded to include the concrete modulus of elasticity,
total traffic, and pavement continuity (jointed or continuous).
A nomograph is presented that allows a quick solution to the ex-
panded equation.
A new design chart is presented for design of the reinforcing
steel in jointed reinforced pavements. In addition, a nomograph
for solving bar spacing and bar size is included.

•IN 1920, A. I. Goldbeck and Clifford Older independently developed formulas for ap-
proximating the stresses in concrete pavements. The best known of these formulas is
generally called the "corner formula" and was the basis for rigid pavement design for
many years. Results of the Bates Road Test in 1922-23 appeared to confirm the orig-
inal corner formula. In 1926, H. M. Westergaard completed his treatise on the anal-
ysis of stresses in concrete pavements (1). It was concerned with the determination
of maximum stresses in slabs of uniform thickness for three load conditions under
several limiting assumptions (2). The Westergaard equation for corner stresses has
become the definitive design equation for portland cement concrete pavements. In this
equation, Westergaard includes the following variables :
P =wheel load, in lb;
h =the thickness of the concrete slab, in in. ;
µ = Poisson's ratio for concrete;
E =Young's modulus of elasticity for the concrete in psi;
k = subgrade modulus in pci; and
a= radius of area of load contact, in in.
Using this same general equation form, slightly different design equations have been
developed by Spangler (3), Kelly (4), and Pickett (5). These equations are empirical
or semi-empirical, buCall retain the basic form o1 the Westergaard simplified theory.
All of these design equations are based on static loading. This is necessary because
very little theory exists to describe time dependent variables such as dynamic loads.

Road Test Results Used in Design

Three large-scale road tests have been conducted involving portland cement concrete
pavement-the Bates Road Test, 1922; the Maryland Road Test, 1950; and the AASHO
Road Test, 1958-61. All three have added valuable information to our knowledge of
concrete pavement performance. Only the AASHO Road Test, however, was large

Paper sponsored by Committee on Rigid Pavement Design .

1
2

enough to provide us with adequate information on which to base dynamic design equa-
tions . The first objective of the Road Test as out lined by the Advisory Committee (~)
was:
To determine t he signifi cant relationsh i p between the number of
repetitions of specified axl e loads of di :rrerent magnitude and
a r rangement and the pe r fo rinance of di fferent thicknesses and uni -
f or'lllly des i gne d and cons truc t ed asphaltic concrete , plain portland
,. en1ent con c!'~te.) enCt re i:0_f0:!-~c ed port J_ 2_~,,_d ~ o!lcr!2te curfe,c cc . . .• .

In addition to basic performance data, the AASHO Road Test al so provided an opportu-
nity to measure strains in concrete pave ments under dynamic loads, and thus provide
a mechanistic tie from these pavements to future designs .

Development of AASHO Design Guide

The AASHO Operating Committee on Design appointed a working subcommittee on
pavement design . The job of the subcommittee was to adapt the data from the AASHO
Road Test to us e in design procedures for asphaltic concrete pavements and portland
cement concret e pavements.
It was the unanimous opinion of the subcommittee that there are substantial factors
to be considered in a design procedu re that are not available as variables in the AASHO
Road Test results . Four of these factors a re (a) the length of test time relative to the
normal l ife of the pavement being designed ; (b) climatic and geologic differences be-
tween the conditions at the Road Test site and other geographic regions; (c) the need for
a guide in designing pavement types not included in the Road Test, such as continuously-
reinforced portland cement concrete pavem ents; and (d) expansion of the Road Test
results to various other materials su ch as low-modulus concr et e and stabiliz ed bas es .
It was decided that the AASHO Road T est performance equations should form the
basis for the AASHO Rigid Pavement Interim Design Guide to add these additional
factors.
The Interim Design Guide was developed as a guide for use in dev eloping more exact
design procedures. The committee was very deliberate in its efforts to provide for
future i mprovements in the work as additional information beca me available. The guide
(1) states that:
The above de sign e quations are based on fixed val ues f or cert ain
e l ement s that a re obviousl y important i n the design of r igid pave -
ment . These elements i nclude th i ckness and qual ity of subbase e n-
v ironmental effects , variations in t he amount of load t ransfer at
transverse j oint s , and the effec t s of joint elimi na tion through
contin uous reinforcement . It i s expe cted the design equations will
hP. fnrther modified in t he f uture as exper ience is gained and thcGc
e l ements are eval uat ed .

PRESENTATION OF GUIDE
Scope
It is felt that a detailed list of parameters should be incorporated into a rigid pave-
ment structure analysis. The Rigid Guide presents a procedure that encompasses
most of thes e parameters and allows the engineer to design the pavement structure
from the subgrade up. Basically the Guide separates the design into four phases-slab
dimensions, reinforcement, joints, and slab support control. The first two phas es are
handled by formulas and will be discussed; the latter two a re not discussed.
Slab Dimensions. -The Guide's approach to pavement structure design is a combina-
tion of theoretical and empirical relations. The design parameters covered by the
various theoretical analyses previously discussed are loading factor magnitude and tire
pressure; support media strength; concrete properties-strength, modulus of elasticity,
Poisson's ratio; and continuity (load transfer). '\Vhercas , the final equation for the
rigid pavement research phase of the AASHO Road Test encompassed the load applica-
 3

tion factor as well as the following parameters: loading factor magnitude, repetitions,
and axle type . In this case, the concrete properties, subgrade support and other de-
sign factors were fixed parameters and their effect cannot be evaluated by the AASHO
Road Test equation.
The AASHO Subcommittee for Rigid Pavement Design combined the two approaches
into one equation. The parameters encompassed by the combined methods are loading
factor magnitude, repetitions, tire pressure, and axle type; support media strength;
concrete properties' strength, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio; continuity .
(load transfer); support media friction; and regional factors, i.e., weather, tempera-
ture, etc.
Reinforcement. -Steel reinforcement is placed in the slab for the purpose of holdi::g
any cracks that form in the pavement tightly closed, enabling the pavement to perform
as an integral structural unit. The Guide covers the design of two basic types of rein-
forced concrete pavement, i.e., jointed-reinforced and continuously-reinforced. Each
requires an individual procedure.
The reinforcement for the jointed concrete pavement is determined by the application
of the conventional "subgrade drag theory." In essence, the formula is based on the
principle of balancing the slab's resistance to movement against the tensile strength of
the steel.
The design method for continuously-reinforced concrete pavement is based on the
concept of balancing the internal concrete stresses developed by temperature and
shrinkage against the tensile strength of steel (10).

Development of Thickness Equation

Two general approaches were open for use in the Guide to combine the Road Test
equation and theory, (a) use of theoretical formuli as the basic design form modified
by the load term in the final answer for repetitions, and (b) use of the Road Test equa-
tion as a valid basis adding modifications from theory for variations in physical con-
stants.
The second approach was selected as the more valid because it depends on the Road
Test results for its starting point and uses theory for determining variations in the
basic equation. Also at the Road Test, failure was not defined as cracking (overstress),
but as a specific reduction in serviceability that usually did not occur until after initial
cracking.
After a cursory examination of the available information, the Spangler equation was
selected for use in the design equation because of its simplicity and because it showed
a good correlation with Road Test measurements. It was stated in the Guide that, "one
point of merit in this approach is that if a better stress equation is found, it can be
incorporated into the design method with very little revision. . ... "
After selecting the Spangler equation for modifying concrete properties, there were
two possible choices for inserting it into the general AASHO equation, (a) obtaining a
ratio of the selected concrete properties to those at the AASHO Road Test and making
it an additive term to the AASHO equation, or (b) modifying the term in general equation
to include various concrete properties. The committee selected the first alternative
and derived the following equations:

When the terminal serviceability index (p) = 2. 0:

log Wt Gt
= 7 .35 log (D 2 + 1) + 73 - 0.06 +
S I (D o. 75 _
3. 58 log c 2 1.132) ]
690 ( D 2 o. 1s _ 18. 416 )
[ zD. 25 ( 1)
4

When the terminal serviceability index (p) = 2. 5:

log Wt= 7.35 log (D 2 + 1) + ~ - 0.06 +

3. 42 log -~ ( ---1
7
G - 1. 132)
Sc (D2° ' ~
-8-.-41~6-)
r
L
7
690 D2 ; -
'
°·
Z0 · 25 'J
(2)

Discussion of Design Charts

Design nomographs that solve for the thickness of jointed-conc rete pavement and the
reinforcement requirements for both jointed and continuous-concrete pavement are
presented in the Guide.
Thickness. -In deriving the nomograph for pavement thickness, the AASHO Road
Test values for the modulus of elasticity and load transfer characteristics were fixed
to solve the equation. This eliminates these factors as variables, hence the chart has
variable scales only for traffic, working stress, and subgrade support. The chart,
therefore, is not applicable to continuous concrete pavements or low modulus concrete
pavements. Furthermore, the traffic scale is in terms of equivalent daily 18-kip single-
axle load applications for a 20-yr traffic analysis. The daily traffic approach is re-
stricting because the analysis is for fixed time period, and is difficult to use for other
time periods or for evaluating the life of an existing pavement structure.
Reinforcement. -The chart solution for reinforcement in jointed pavements is in
graphic rather than nomographic form. The graphic solution has variable scales for
pavement thickness, slab length, and working stress ; but the graph is limited to the
solution for a fixed friction factor.
The chart solution for reinforcement in continuously-reinforced concrete pavement
is flexible in that all the parameters involved in the design equation are included as
variables on the no mo graph.

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW EQUATION

The design equation developed for the AASHO Design Guide was a first attempt to
utilize the AASHO Road Test data in pavement design. The equation is cumbersome
and several assumptions were made early in its development (7). Other refinements
were omitted from the equation that would make it a more useable formula under actual
conditions .
The purposes of this investigation are to (a) simplify the design equation if possible,
(b) investigate and clarify several of the assumptions made in the early development,
and (c) include any additional refinements in the equation that can be developed from
present data.
The equation developed herein has the following variations from the original equation:
(a) the Road Test stress data are used to verify the selection of a theoretical model,
(b) traffic is used as the total expected number of equivalent 18-kip application (~ L)
over the life of the pavement (design period), (c) the term for pavement continuity is
evaluated and extended to continuously reinforced pavements, and (d) the use of terms
for both modulus of elasticity and subgrade modulus is encouraged.

Model Sel ection

In order to select a model for combining theory with Road Test performance data,
the Road Test strain data (2) were compared with various modifications of the Wester-
gaard theory. The table inFigure 1 gives the equations that were examined and the
correlation obtained. It can be seen that Spangler's equation fits the data as well as
any of the more complicated equations.
It should be noted that the data fitting does not support nor deny the theoretical form-
ulation oft (radius of relative stiffness), because none of the factors involved in the
radius of relative stiffness, because none of the factors involved in the radius of rela-
 5

tive stiffness, i.e., E, k, orµ, were varied at the Road Test in a manner allowing
proper analysis.
After considering the fit of the data, the Spangler equation was selected. Figure 1
shows the correlation between Spangler, Westergaard, Pickett, and the Road Test
stresses as calculated from corner load strains, Loop 1, AASHO Road Test (2). The
following equation was selected as a result of the correlation. -

' log crlB = 1. 010 log crsp - 0. 521 (3)

in which:
crrn = stress calculated from strains measured under an 18-kip single-axle vibratory
load on Loop 1, AASHO Road Test, psi.

~ 2 so~-----~-----~----~ tn 2so----------------~~
Q_ CL

~ 1501----- - - - - - + - - - - + - - - - I·- ,,.__.,_-+__, ~ 150 1--- - - -- - + - - - + - -,.,..,---ll---+---I

0 0
_J _J

~
- 100 1 - - - - - - - - + -- - -11"----1---11-----+---J
0 0
w w
> >
a:: a::
w w
lf) lf)
CD CD
0 0

lf) lf)

~ 501-------,_--+----+----1---1--~--1 ~ S0 +--~,_----+----+----1---11--t--1
a:: a::
f-- f--
lf) lf)
100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
THEORETICAL ST R ES S (O"T) IN PS I THEORETICAL STRESS (OT) IN PSI

PREDICTED BY SPANGLER'S PREDICTED BY PICKETT'S

CORNER EQUATION CORNER EQUATION

EQUATION FOR PREDICTING CORNER STRESS

OBSERVED AT THE AASHO ROAD TEST IN
TERMS OF A THEORETICAL STRESS

~
~=AO/
(J, STRESSES OBSERVED LOOP 1 -
0
AASHO ROAD TEST
~ 1 501----------+---~~~--11-----t---+--l (JT THEORETICAL STRESSES
0

0 A a B ° CORRELATION CONSTANTS
_J r' ° CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

A B r2
0
w SPANGLER\;
> .301 1.010 0.999
a:: EQUATION
w
lf)
CD
PICKETTS
0
EQUATION .389 1.006 0.999
lf)

~ so i--,.,..- - - - - + - -- + - - - - 1 --1---+---1 WESTERGAARDS

a::
f--
CORNER .309 1.078 0.999
lf)
EQUATION
200 300 400 500 600 700
THEORETICAL STRESS (CTT) IN PSI

PREDICTED BY WESTERGAARD'S
CORNER EQUATION

Figure l. Theoretical stresses compared with observed stresses on Loop l, AASHO Road
Test.
6

asp= stress predi cted by the Spangler equation for a 9, 000-lb wheel load (18-kip
single-axle), psi.

Modifying the Road Test Equation

A study by W. R. Hudson and F. Scrivner (8) showed excellent correlation between
observed stresses at the Road Test, slab thickness, and log W, i.e., the number of
load applications carried. To extend the study and obtain a correlation of the form
needed in this work, a correlation of the term (D + 1) with observed corner load stresses
on the Road Test Loop 1 was developed (Fig. 2). The resulting equation (Eq. 4) has a
coefficient of determination (r 2 ) of 0. 999.

log (D + 1) = 1.995 - 0.517 log aia (4)

Substituting Eq. 3 into Eq. 4 gives:

log (D + 1) = 1.995 - 0.517 (l.010 log asp - 0.521) = 2.264 - 0.522 log asp (5)

In a preliminary report (11) the Road Test equation is developed in terms of Z::L
(accumulated equivalent 18-kip single-axle loads).
The equation becomes:

log Z::L 7.35log (D + 1) - 0,06 + ~ (6)

in which
G = 4. 5 - Pt
3.0
7
{3 1 - 1+ 1.624 x: 10
- (D + l)a.16
logp = 7.35 log (D + 1) - 0.06
Pt = serviceability at end of time, t.

18
16
14
= r--
+ 12
0 10
-......__
8 -......_
~
a::
w
6
------ !--.-......
f-
--- r---- r---
z
(9
r----. r-.
(f)
4
w
0

2
100 150 200 250 300 400 500
CORNER STRESS - PSI (LOOP I)

Figure 2 . Correlating design term (D + l) with corner load stresses on Loop l.

 7

In this equation {3' is a curvature parameter, and p is a design function as shown

when the equation is in the form:

G = {3 ' [log ~ L - log pJ (7)

This being the case, and because (D + 1) exerts a lar ge influence on log ~L through the
p term and only a weak influence through the {3 t e rm, it was decided to substitute a for
(D + 1) in the p term only. Therefore, substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. 6 gives:

log ~L = 7.35 [2.264 - 0.522 log asp] - 0.06 + i (8)

This equation obtains for pavements of a fixed strength, Sc, (28 day) for AASHO
Road Test pavements was constant at 690 psi ± random variations. Previous design
equations have relied on the a/Sc ratio as the measure of adequate design. Work done
for the AASHO Interim Rigid Pavement Design Guide related this ratio to pavement life
in terms of log LL. This can be stated as follows:
It can be asswned that log I: L is a function of the a /Sc ratio; and
that when an increased a is matched by an incre ase d S so that the
ratio ox/Sx remains eq_ual to the ratio a /Sc , no change in I: L would
result. Therefore , the rate of change of I: L as Sc changes is in-
versely proportional to the rate of change of log 2:;L as a change s .

Inserting strength into Eq. 8 as such an inverse ratio with the fixed strength of the
Road Test pavements ( 690 psi) the following is obtained:

log ~L = 7.35 [2.264 - 0.522 log (crs;~ )]

00
- 0.06 + i (9)

The Spangler equation for stress has the form,

(10)

Substituting the full Spangler equation, crsp• expanding and combining terms obtains:

log ~L = -9.483 - 3.837 log (s:n 2 [1 - a1!tJ) + i (11)

in which 25

t [ zD
= 12(1-µ 2)
3
Jo·
In order to simplify the design equation and without damage to the theory, Poisson's
ratio (µ) is fixed at a value of 0. 20, resulting in a simplied form for the radius of rela-
tive stiffness: t = (Z D3/ l 1. 52) 0 • 25 • Taking a1 = a -12 and substituting for t and a 1,
Eq. 11 becomes

log ~L -9.483 - 3.837 log -J- [ 1 - - -

2.6laJ) + -G ( 12)
( SxD2 i; 3; f3
z /4D/4
in which
LL = number of accumulated equivalent 18-kip single-axle loads
J = a coefficient dependent on load transfer characteristics or slab continuity
8

Sx = modulus of rupture of concrete at 28 days (psi)

D = nominal thickness of concrete pavement (inches)
Z = E/ k
E = modulus of elasticity for concrete (psi)
k = modulus of subgrade reaction (psi/inch)
a= radius of equivalent loaded area= 7 .15 for Road Test 18-kip axles
_ Po - Pt _ 4. 5 - Pt
G - 3 - 3
7
f3 =1 + 1. 624 )< 10
(D + l)u.1a

At this point, a so-called life term must be inserted into the design equation. The
life term will simply serve to modify the life of a pavement section as predicted by
Road Test equation (a 2-yr test). Studies of existing pavements in Texas and Illinois,
among others, have established this fact. A substitution of the Road Test values for
parameters in Eq. 12 would reduce it back to the basic Road Test equation. Perform-
ance studies now being conducted in Texas have indicated that the logarithm of the pre-
dicted applications obtained by the Road Test equation must be reduced by a factor of
0. 896. The AASHO Subcommittee on Rigid Pavement Design in effect reduced the
logarithm of the predicted applications by a factor of O. 935 by using a safety factor
(0. 75 of the concrete strength for a working stress). Although the use of a safety factor
to reduce the working stress is satisfactory, the use of a life term was adopted because
future results of performance studies will undoubtedly provide a better estimate of the
true factor and such values can be used to replace the trial value.
In determining the magnitude of the life factor both the Design Guide and the Texas
performance studies were given equal consideration and an average factor of 0. 9155
was selected.
Application of the life factor to the right side of Eq. 12 gives:

log I:L = -8.682 - 3.513 log(_____:!_ [1 -

SxD2
2 61
· a
3;
zi;;4D/4
J)+ 0.915 2f3 (13)

Only one term in Eq. 13 has not been evaluated adequately, the continuity or J term.
The selection of a value, J, for design purposes must now be postulated on the basis of
limited data. The J value for the jointed pavements on the Road Test is automatically
fixed at the value of 3. 2 that was used in all correlation work. For the present, this
value shall be assumed to apply for all jointed-concrete pavements with adequate load
transfer. A J value of 2. 2 was selected for continuously-reinforced concrete pavements
based on comparisons of previous design procedures and performance studies . This
value also gives answers that are compatible with the recommendations in the AASHO
Design Guide.

Graphical Solution
Using this equation, it is particularly hard to solve for concrete pavement thickness
D. It is a very simple matter, however, to program this equation on a computer and
solve for I;L using all combinations of the other variables. The resulting output is
useful in the form of tables. These tables can be combined graphically into a very use-
ful nomograph (Fig. 3). The nomograph is for a final serviceability level of 2. 5.
Evaluation of terminal serviceability throughout the United States has shown that an
acceptable level for the final or terminal condition of an Interstate pavement is 2. 2 -
2. 5. The Texas Highway Department has settled on 2. 5 for use in design of such pave-
ments. For design of lower class roads a terminal serviceability of 1. 5 is felt to be
satisfactory.
Use of the Nomograph. -The examples on the chart show how typical design problems
may be handled. Certain information is normally fixed by the conditions at the site or
by arbitrary choice.
 Equohon for Ncmo11roph• LoQ!L:- 9 _682 _ 3, 513 LOQ[ritl(l-~)]+09155 GIB
8

I
I ' . 12
I
-mg I
I
' \
600
8000
1000
I I\ ',
5000
I
I
I
J

10
' \
\
\
500

::l \
I
I --- 1-\~---~~·~~~·~_!~----- --- ',
~ 3000 \ ~

• I
\ i I 9
J... \
\.
\
" zooo I
I I
I
I
I
"'~ \
\
\ 300
\ \
I 8 z \ '-,
~ IOOO'"
900.
I
\
Jj
200 I
I /
I
I / "'
~
'' \
\
\
! \
' \'.I.
"P.

"' ,,
800 ' I I \
\ f- · 200 l.

~
100 7 \~
600
I I I :e

!i•,
I I I
~
500 I
I
'f'O / "' \~ '°'t5
~

·~ a
\
I
:;;
~ 400;
I 6 Cl
"· \ =
~
\ '>
0

~
~~ ~/ ~
I \ l "

i ~ \~ !
~
/~
"'.:,,," 5
\
\
\
~
0 '" 100
~
~
£c<i.~~ \ ,'
\

!
0
~
100
90
80
10
I
3

~
I
!,

J
I
/
/§

/
I
l 1700
900
900
1000
\
\
\
\
\
\
it'/ ,,
~
80

10

60 5\
I I \
I \ 60
50 I I i \

.
40 I I! \
I I I so
\ ' '1,..,'
30
I
\ ~
. I I
I I
I I
zo
I I I :.
/I
I
I , I I
/ i
.;
!
\
I
\
,,
1/ J
\ II
I
I
EXAMPLE
MODIFIED Gw~ NOTE
AASHO DESIGN CHART ..,,, •
~met'll
lr.~)0,,000 ~~ron.
Type-CPJ
(a)Fla11t1men1 Type
I CPCA-Concrete Pavement C~:t A.Worcecl
RIGID PAVEMENTS KE~IOOpci 2 CPJ-Concrete F'Dvemenl Jomted hovinQ ~le
Allernole Desio;in I loodlransferatalljaints
PRIMARY HIGHWAYS Ccncrele with• 5t;:400psi .le?Jlll •CO«:tnr Jilc.>ll!lml1 ~ ••-.SjMCIHI
(p"2.5) E: l.5X 106 ps1 ~~"' ..._.,~~ .. ~4ffl'JOll"h
JANUARY 0 required•!.L.§....i!!!<l (bl Based upon 29 day test, ASTM 78-59
1964 Alternate Oeslo;in 2 {Third poin! lood•ngl
Concrele with' S.:• 690 psi fd t pt~tit1ttl!tllf'll U'28CI~'
E•4.SXI06 psi
Orequired~~
<:D

Figure 3. Rigid pavement design nomograph.

10

1. ~L = 3, 650, 000 applications is an estimate of the traffic to be carried during the

life of the proposed pavement. It should be established by statistical prediction proce-
dures from study of past loadometer and traffic count data. Texas Highway Department
methods may be found in (9).
2. kE = 100 pci is established by the existing subgrade plus some evaluation of the
improvement that will be gained by the sub base ( 12) .
3. Pavement type , CPJ, jointed plain concrete pavement with load transfer at the
joints. This factor may he chosen by the designers and varied for several different
designs . Often, however, the choice is dictated by other existing factors as assumed
for this example.
With these factors provided, it is appropriate to establish the value of each factor
on its respective scale and proceed as follows: (a) mark I:L on scale 1; (b) mark pave-
ment type on scale 2; (c) mark kE value on scale 6; (d) taking E = 1. 5 in anticipation of
using low-modulus shell concrete for the first trial, mark 1. 5 on scale 5 as shown;
(e) connect the points on scale 1 and scale 2 projecting the line to a point on turning
line 1; (f) select a trial concrete strength ( 400 psi) and mark it on scale 3; (g) connect
this point on scale 3 to the intersection on turning point 1 and extend it to a point on
turning line 2; (h) transferring over the scales 5 and 6, connect the points on these
scales and project to turning line 3; and (i) connect turning points 2 and 3 to establish
the required thickness D = 11. 8 in. on scale 4.
It may be desirable to check alternate designs. Another example is shown on the
design chart, which using different concrete characteristics and following the same
procedures yields D = 9. 3 in.

MODIFICATION OF REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

Jointed-Reinforced Concrete Pavement
The friction factor was not included as a variable in the Design Guide nomographfor
determining the reinforcement in jointed-concrete pavement. The nomograph was
solved _for a fixed friction factor of 1. 5. This was an adequate premise during the
period when sand cushion blankets were used between the pavement and the subbase,
but the current trend toward crushed stone or stabilized subbase emphasizes the need
for considering friction factor in design. Experiments performed by the Texas High-
way Department have shown friction factors in excess of two, therefore, ifthe Guide's
nomographwereused to design the reinforcement for a high friction subbase, an inade-
quate design would result.
In addition to inserting friction factor into design, it is felt that the solution for the
reinforcing requirements could best be expressed as a percentage in lieu of the current
concept of using the area of steel per ft of slab width. The latter designation is satis-
factory for estimating purposes, but is difficult to comprehend from a design standpoint.
Furthermore, when the solution is expressed as a percentage, the values are com-
parable and compatible with the solutions obtained with continuously-reinforced concrete
pavement. By simply changing the designation of several expressions in the Guide, the
answer for "subgrade drag" would be in percentages as follows (_2):

P = L F x 100 (14)
s 2 fs

in which
Ps = required steel percentage, percent.
L =length of slab between joints, ft.
F = friction factor of subbase.
fs = allowable working stress in steel, psi.
Figure 4 shows a nomograph for solving Eq. 14. Note the flexibility provided, in
that the working stress can be varied between wide limits in addition to including fric-
tion factor as a variable. The inclusion of a complete scale for working stress in lieu
of several fixed values allows the designer to apply any desired value.
 11

NOMOGRAPH
SOLVES: P5 •i:sx100

o.ooe
0 .006
0 .007

120 §;~I
110
100
90 0 .02
80 o.e
· 70 0 . 03 70,000

t
0 .04 60,000

--- -- ..___
.
1.0

1.e_
0 . 0~
0 .06
0 .01
8~B-----
(HiQh Ylold)
eo,ooo

30 F
2 .0
2.!I
-- -- a:i (Hard Grado)

ln11rm1diote)
40,000

30,000
( Grade
0,2

0 .6
20 20,000
0.4
o.e
0 .6
8·. ~
n
10 10,000
L Pi vol Is
Line

Example Problem: Where:

L • 60 ft P1 • Required SIMI p1rcenloo1 - ~-
F • 1.5 L • Lenglh of slob belween joinla - feet .
Is• 45,000psi F • Friction faclor of aubbose.
Answer: P5 • 0.2 % f8• Allowable working llre11 in sleel - pal .
(0 .75 of yield slrenolh recommended,
the equivalent of safety factor of 1.33 l

Figure !1. Distributed steel requirement for light i·einforced jointed-concrete pavements .

In addition, the designer has added flexibility using the two scales on the right to
either select the steel type or grade and determine the resulting required steel perc e nt-
age , or s elect an optimum steel percentage and determine the steel type.

Steel Size and Spacing Requirements

The solution for jointed-reinforced concrete pavement is expressed as a percentage.
The next step in design after determining the steel percentage is to determine the bar
spacing and size needed to fulfill the required percentage. The equation for s olving for
bar spacing is as follows :

y x 100 (15)
12

NOMOGRAPH

...
I
SOLVES y • ~aPs, 100

.....
• 0!':
!...
I

I
I

t,...., r••

'
•7t~~
.....6:_-05
...,
I

'"'
1
.
·s,_o~

~ .;_02
" t",.
~ -:,-
"
_,.,
-;-01
.....
~ooa
-,-007
1006
'"2-oos
.•
roo~

..
!
I
Aa l..,1 1
..l
'
p~ (%1

I\• 6% I\ - Reou,,ed sltel i>e•tenlaQ• -%

0• I J"~u ti C If ~ ·ft
Ae•Cross S1tl•o110I A•eo ol slttl
bor or w1" - 1n2
Y • Ctnler lo Ctnle1 Spac•n~ -on 'r fin I

Figure 5. Steel spacing for reinforced concrete pavement .

in which
y = bar or wire spacing, center to center, in.
Ab = cross-sectional area of bar or wire, sq in.
D =pavement thickness, in.
Ps = required steel percentage, percent.
Figure 5 shows a nomograph solution of this equation. Using the variable scales
on the right side of the nomograph, several combinations of bar spacings and sizes that
meet the steel percentage requirements can be readily obtained.

SUMMARY
Conclusions
The following conclusion can be draw from this work: (a) Based on an analysis of
stresses "observed" at the AASHO Road Test, the Spangler simplification of the
Westergaard stress equations fits the Road Test pavements. The use of this equation
as a stress model in design is therefore justified. (b) A design equation relating load
applications to pavement design factors including modulus of elasticity and slab con-
tinuity can be developed through the relationship of stress to slab thickness and load
applications observed at the Road Test. (c) The complicated design equation involving
load applications, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, slab continuity, modulus
of subgrade reaction, thickness of slab, and pavement performance can be usefully dis-
played as a nomograph using general computer solutions of the equations. (d) The
evaluation of all variables and constants are reasonably well founded except for the
value of life term and slab continuity. Continued observations on existing pavements
 13

will help verify these effects. (e) By use of a series of nomographs, the steel rein-
forcing requirements, i.e., bar size and spacing, for the design conditions of either
jointed-reinforced concrete pavement or continuously-reinforced concrete pavement
can be determined with several simple manipulations. (f) The design charts developed
herein allow the designer to consider numerous variables that were not accounted for
in previous design methods. Hence, more flexibility is afforded the designer.

Needed Research
The design methods reported herein are intended to represent the best use of availa-
ble knowledge concerning portland cement concrete pavements. They are presented
as empirical approximations of the true phenomena involved. Continuing research into
various aspects of this problem is being carried on.
Powerful computational techniques along with the wealth of experimental data that is
being accumulated should advance pavement performance knowledge. Specifically,
additional information is needed to evaluate a variable termed "subbase quality" (Q).
This variable is related to the load carrying capacity, but must also evaluate the ability
of the subgrade to maintain its integrity under repeated load applications. The search
should also continue to develop a meaningful environment factor (RF), a function of
weather and other environmental conditions. This term would of course include the
curling and warping effects of temperature and moisture differentials.
In addition to these two variables, not included in the design equation developed
herein, a great amount of work remains for the verification of the following parameters:
1. J, a function of slab continuity, load conditions, and jointing procedures.
2. t , radius of relative stiffness, a function of E, K, and D. The present applica-
tion of these factors is based on elastic theory. It can immediately be noted that K is
far from elastic and additional study is warranted.
3. Log I;L, several satellite studies designed to extend and verify the AASHO Road
Test equations are in various stages of planning at the present time. Such studies are
vital to the solution of this problem.

Method of Proposed Research

In addition to Road Test satellite studies, which are considered to be vital to the
solution of this problem, at least two other avenues of research must be exploited.
There is an immediate need for the development of more adequate and versatile
methods of analysis permitting the extension of the available solutions past the simpli-
fied special-case solutions developed by Westergaard in 1925. Particular attention is
needed on dynamic loadings .
A second need is that of developing additional information concerning the effects of
dynamic loads on the so-called elastic material properties. There is sufficient proof
available from the Road Test to indicate that such a study is both physically and eco-
nomically feasible by employing a vibrating loader similar to that introduced at the
Road Test (2, 8).
The Road Test strain-performance studies provide a basis for extending the Road
Test performance equations to include additional design variables, for example: (a)
modulus of elasticity of concrete (E), (b) flexural strength of concrete (Sc), (c) joint
type and arrangment, (d) subbase and subgrade characteristics (k), and (e) slab loading
conditions (continuity) .

REFERENCES
1. Westergaard, H. M., "Computation of Stresses in Concrete Roads . " HRB
Proc. 5(Ft. 1):90-112 (1925).
2. Hudson, W. R., "Comparison of Concrete Pavement Load-Stresses at AASHO
Road Test with Previous Work." HRB Highway Res. Rec. 42, pp. 57-98 (1963).
3. Spangler, M. G., "stresses in the Corner Region of Concrete Pavements." Iowa
Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull . 157 (1942).
14

4. Kelly, E. F., "Application of the Results of Research to the Structural Design of

Concrete Pavements." Public Roads, 20 (1939).
5. Portland Cement Assoc., "Concrete Pavement Design." Chicago (1951).
6. "The AASHO Road Test-History and Description of Project." HRB Spec. Rept.
61A (1961).
7 . "AASHO Interim Guide for the Design of Rigid Pavement Structures." AASHO
Comm. on Des. (Apr. 1962).
8 . Hudson, W . R., and Scrivner, F., "AASHO Road Test Principal Relationships-
Performance with stress, Rigid Pavements." HRB Spec. Rept. 73 (1962).
9. Derdeyn, C. J., "A New Method of Traffic Evaluation for Use in Pavement Design."
HRB Highway Res. Rec. 46, pp. 1-10 (1964).
10. McCullough, B. F. and Ledbetter, W. B., "LTS Design of Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Pavements." Jour. of the Highway Div., ASCE Proc., 86(HW4)
(Dec. 1960).
11. HRB AASHO Road Test staff, "Second Preliminary Report on the AASHO Road
Test." Presented to U. S. Bureau of Public Roads (May 8, 1961).
12. Murray, W. M., and Stein, P. K., "Strain Gage Techniques." M. I. T., Cambridge,
pp. 537-548 (1956).
13. Timashenko, S., and Goober, J. N., "Theory of Elasticity." McGraw-Hill, p. 24
(1951).
14. "The AASHO Road Test-Pavement Research." HRB Spec. Rept. 61E, pp. 139-286
(1962).