A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Comparison of Rigid Pavement Thickness Design Systems (Revised)
Rigid pavement thickness design systems investigated during the study were the 1986 AASHTO, American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), Portland Cement Association (PCA), and Kentucky methods. The ACPA system is a computer program based upon the 1986 AASHTO design equation. It was difficult to evaluate and compare the Kentucky method to the PCA system because the input and analysis procedures differ greatly. The Kentucky method is based upon the fatigue relationship involving the value of work at the bottom of the concrete pavement caused by the applied load and repetitions of an 18-kip single axleload. The AASHTO method was derived from data obtained at the AASHO Road Test where the rigid pavements failed primarily due to pumping of the subgrade from under the slab. In Kentucky, pumping is a minor problem compared to failures caused by compressive forces at joint openings. Compression occurs due to annual temperature fluctuations resulting in slab movement and subsequent intrusion of debris into the joint openings. Eventually, the slab cannot move and compressive forces increase until failure occurs. Failure criterion used in the Kentucky thickness design system is quite different from the mode of failure observed at the AASHO Road Test and makes direct comparisons between design methods somewhat questionable. The expression of soil stiffness values is a major contributor to the confusion arising between design methods. Using elastic theory to develop load equivalency relationships, the ratio of rigid pavement EALs to flexible pavement EALs is approximately 1.1. According to W-4 Tables, the ratio of AASHTO rigid pavement EALs to AASHTO flexible pavement EALs is approximately 1.6. Thus, the AASHTO combination of pavement structures used in W-4 tables are not equivalent for fatigue calculations. Another combination should be chosen. Thickness designs using the 1986 AASHTO, ACPA, and Kentucky methods can be made to match provided the terminal serviceability varies with Kentucky CBR. To help understand the behavior at the AASHO Road Test, published data for the cracking index, pumping index, and serviceability index were investigated. All three data sets influenced one another and could be correlated fairly well for serviceability values greater than 1.5. A method was devised to normalize the data to account for tire load and pavement thickness variations.
Comparison of Rigid Pavement Thickness Design Systems (Revised)
Rigid pavement thickness design systems investigated during the study were the 1986 AASHTO, American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), Portland Cement Association (PCA), and Kentucky methods. The ACPA system is a computer program based upon the 1986 AASHTO design equation. It was difficult to evaluate and compare the Kentucky method to the PCA system because the input and analysis procedures differ greatly. The Kentucky method is based upon the fatigue relationship involving the value of work at the bottom of the concrete pavement caused by the applied load and repetitions of an 18-kip single axleload. The AASHTO method was derived from data obtained at the AASHO Road Test where the rigid pavements failed primarily due to pumping of the subgrade from under the slab. In Kentucky, pumping is a minor problem compared to failures caused by compressive forces at joint openings. Compression occurs due to annual temperature fluctuations resulting in slab movement and subsequent intrusion of debris into the joint openings. Eventually, the slab cannot move and compressive forces increase until failure occurs. Failure criterion used in the Kentucky thickness design system is quite different from the mode of failure observed at the AASHO Road Test and makes direct comparisons between design methods somewhat questionable. The expression of soil stiffness values is a major contributor to the confusion arising between design methods. Using elastic theory to develop load equivalency relationships, the ratio of rigid pavement EALs to flexible pavement EALs is approximately 1.1. According to W-4 Tables, the ratio of AASHTO rigid pavement EALs to AASHTO flexible pavement EALs is approximately 1.6. Thus, the AASHTO combination of pavement structures used in W-4 tables are not equivalent for fatigue calculations. Another combination should be chosen. Thickness designs using the 1986 AASHTO, ACPA, and Kentucky methods can be made to match provided the terminal serviceability varies with Kentucky CBR. To help understand the behavior at the AASHO Road Test, published data for the cracking index, pumping index, and serviceability index were investigated. All three data sets influenced one another and could be correlated fairly well for serviceability values greater than 1.5. A method was devised to normalize the data to account for tire load and pavement thickness variations.
Comparison of Rigid Pavement Thickness Design Systems (Revised)
H. F. Southgate (author)
1991
156 pages
Report
No indication
English
Rigid pavement thickness design by spreadsheet
| British Library Online Contents | 1996
DESIGN OF RIGID PAVEMENT THICKNESS (RIGID PAVEMENT) ROAD BENDANG - MUHAMMAD SAID SAMARINDA CITY
| BASE | 2015
| DOAJ | 2022
Acceptance Sampling Plans for Rigid Pavement Thickness
| NTIS | 1971