CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.10 Brief

The main objective in a rigid pavement design is to determine the thickness of

the concrete slab that will be adequate to carry the projected traffic load for the

design period. The method of design used in this project was the Portland

Cement Association (PCA) design method. The basic factors considered in this

method are:

 Flexural strength of the concrete.

 Subgrade and Sub base support

 Traffic load

The flexural strength of the concrete was given in terms of the Modulus of

Rapture obtained by the third-point method (ASTM Designation C78). The

Modulus of Rapture used in this project was 650 Ib/in2.

The Westergaard modulus of subgrade reaction (k) was used to define the

subgrade and sub base support. The design modulus of subgrade reaction was

assumed to be 50pci. Due to the low value of subgrade reaction, cement-

stabilized soil was used as subbase with thickness 4in. The subgrade-subbase

reaction of the project was derived from table 1.2 as 170pci.

1
The traffic load was computed in terms of the cumulated number of single and
tandem axles of different loads projected for the design period of the pavement.
The average daily traffic (ADT), the average daily truck traffic(ADTT) (in both
direction), and the axle load distribution of various categories of traffic was
used to estimate the Equivalent Single Axle Load(ESAL). Equation 1.0 was
used to estimate the ESAL.
ESALi  f d  G ji  AADTi  365  N i  FEi .........................................1.0

Where,

ESAL = equivalent accumulated 18,000-Ib(80KN) single-axle load for the axle

category i

fd = design lane factor

Gjt = growth factor for a given rate j and design period t

AADTi = first year annual average daily traffic

Ni = number of axles on each vehicle in category i

2
FEi = load equivalent factor for axle category i.

Where truck factors were used, the ESAL for each category of truck was taken
to be;
ESALi  AADTi  365  fi  G jt  f d ................................1.1

Where fi = truck factor for vehicles in truck category i .

Since the road was to serve as a residential street with low truck volume a load
safety factor (LSF) of 1.0 and a growth rate of 5% for a design period of
20years was adopted.

3
1.20 Analyses

The analyses carried out in this method(PCA) were Erosion and Fatigue

analyses. The adequacy of the trial thickness depends on the final result of

these analyses. When the erosion damage/fatigue per cent is less than 100%,

the selected trial thickness was said to be adequate.

To carry out these analyses the following data were required: Single/Tandem

axle load of various categories of vehicles, Load safety factor (LSF), Expected

axle repetitions, Allowable axle repetitions, fatigue per cent, Erosion damage

per cent, Equivalent stress for both single and tandem axle, Stress ratio factor,

and Erosion factor.

The single/tandem axle loads were derived from the classification of various

vehicle types that may probably use the road and, calculated using equations

1.0 & 1.1. The load safety factor is a function of the category road, in this case

(residential street) is 1.0( Garber&Hoel, 2002).

Expected axle repetitions were calculated based on the expected average daily

traffic flow for the design period including an annual rate of 5%. The

equivalent stress was computed from table 1.2 below, applying the subgrade-

subbase reaction and proposed thickness.

4
The Stress ratio was calculated from equation 1.2.

𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
Stress ratio = 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 … … … … … … … … … .1.2.

The Erosion factor was computed from table 1.4 by applying the proposed slab

thickness and subgrade-subbase reaction.

5
Using figures 1.01 and 1.02 the allowable axle repetitions for Fatigue and
Erosion analyses were derived by extending a line from the axle load axis
across the stress ratio factor/Erosion factor.

6
Figure 1.01: Allowable Load Repetitions for Fatigue Analysis Based on Stress Ratio.

7
Figure 1.02: Allowable Load Repetitions for Erosion Analysis Based on Erosion Factor (without
concrete shoulder).

The Fatigue percentage and Erosion damage percentage were calculated from
equation 1.3 and 1.4 respectively.
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
Fatigue percentage = 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 × 100 … … … … 1.3

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
Erosion damage percentage =𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐸𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 × 100 … … . .1.4

In summary, when the total damage for each analysis(i.e Erosion and Fatigue)
is lower than 100 per cent, it indicate that the proposed thickness is adequate
for the expected traffic load during the design period.

8
CHAPTER 2: DETAILED DESIGN

2.10 Design Information

Road type: Two-lane residential street.

Design Period = 20years.

Proposed pavement thickness = 8.5in

Cement-Treated subbase 4in thick.

Doweled joint without concrete shoulders.

Subbase-Subgrade reaction = 170Ib/in3

Subgrade reaction = 50Ib/in3

Concrete Modulus of rupture = 650Ib/in2

Load safety factor(LSF) = 1.0

Equivalent Stress(single axle) = 229.2Ib/in2

229.2
Stress ratio(single axle) = = 0.35
650

Equivalent Stress(Tandem axle) = 202Ib/in2

202
Stress ratio(Tandem axle) = = 0.31
650

Erosion factor(single axle) = 2.73

Erosion factor(Tandem axle) = 2.88.

9
2.20 Calculation of Pavement Thickness

From the above result, the total damage per cent for both Fatigue and Erosion

analysis is far lower than 100 therefore the proposed thickness of 8.5in was

adequate for the projected traffic load during the 20 years design period of the

road.

10