DEVELOPING A STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHOD FOR PERVIOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT

NORBERT J. DELATTE Associate Professor, Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio, USA JOHN CLEARY Student, Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT As the use of pervious concrete pavement broadens, it is inevitable that it will begin to be considered for medium and heavy duty pavements. Expansion into these applications is hampered by the fact that to date there is no rational method for structural design of pervious pavements. Structural design of pavements should be based on material properties, and those material properties should be measurable through standardized test methods. This presentation will review the current state of the practice on structural design of pervious concrete pavements, and outline a methodology for moving forward to develop a new, more appropriate structural design method. Design methods should identify the failure mechanisms for pervious concrete pavements, as well as the layer properties and thickness and joint detailing necessary to prevent failure. Ways to adopt available software tools, such as ACPA StreetPave and FHWA DRIP 2.0, to the design of pervious concrete pavements are discussed. Structural design must also be integrated with hydraulic design. ______________________________________________________________________________ Keywords: pervious concrete; pavement; pavement design; compressive strength; porosity

Delatte and Cleary

Introduction In many regions developers are limited in the amount of impervious cover allowed on a site. This has led to increasing interest in pervious or porous pavements pavements that allow rapid water flow into and through the pavement structure. Different types of porous pavements, including pervious concrete, are described by Ferguson [1]. Figure 1 shows the permeability of a pervious concrete pavement demonstration project constructed in Cleveland, Ohio, in August 2005. This pavement obviously provides excellent drainage. Procedures for design and construction of pervious concrete pavements are currently being developed by ACI Committee 522 [2]. Extensive information about pervious concrete has been made available by the Southeast Cement Promotion Association on the web [3]. Pervious concrete is a mixture of Portland cement, coarse aggregate, water, and admixtures, with little or no fine aggregate. The pore structure contains interconnected voids that allow water and air to pass through. It is also called no-fines or permeable concrete. It has been used for parking lots, driveways, sidewalks/walkways, streets, road shoulders, and other light traffic areas. It is becoming widely adopted as a pavement system for storm water management, in response to the Environmental Protected Agency (EPA), which recognizes pervious concrete as a Best Management Practice (BMP) [4]. Pervious concrete parking lots may also be used to obtain LEED credits. LEED, for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a system that recognizes the environmental performance of buildings at four levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum [5]. Pervious concrete pavement surface layers are placed on top of a well compacted permeable subbase. Water passing through the system can deposit unwanted oils, grease, and other pollutants in the surface course, subbase, or soil [1]. Pervious pavement systems may be open or closed. Open systems, preferred for groundwater recharge, allow water to pass through into the underlying soil. The two case studies discussed in this paper represent closed systems, where an impermeable membrane is placed under the subbase to direct water to pipes. This represents a particularly conservative approach if there are concerns about water quality in the soil or about increasing moisture levels under adjacent pavements. Figure 2 illustrates a closed system.

Delatte and Cleary

Research Significance At present, expanded use of pervious concrete is waiting on improvements in test methods, quality control, and structural design. Because pervious concrete has a much lower flexural strength than conventional concrete, it has been most widely used for parking lots and light-traffic streets and roads. In the future, however, the use of pervious concrete pavement will probably be expanded to heavier traffic. This will require the development of appropriate pavement structural design methods, as well as quality control and quality assurance measures to ensure that the desired material properties have been achieved.

Project Case Studies In Northeast Ohio, interest in pervious concrete is increasing. Several demonstration projects have been completed, and an additional large demonstration project is planned for later in 2006.

Cleveland State University (CSU) Demonstration On August 22 and 24, 2005, part of an existing asphalt parking lot was removed in order to construct a demonstration pervious concrete pavement site. A 12 by 50 foot strip of existing parking lot near a drop inlet was removed, and 6 inches of subbase was placed and compacted. On the 22nd, half of the strip was paved with 6 inch thick pervious concrete. Two days later, a seminar and demonstration were held for approximately 200 participants, and the other half of the test section was placed. The construction during the demonstration is shown in Figure 3. A vibrating screed was used until it broke, and the section was finished with a hand screed. The joints were tooled with a pizza-cutter type roller, and the pavement was moist cured under plastic for seven days. This demonstration project was built as a closed system, with an impermeable plastic membrane to carry water to a perforated plastic pipe leading to a drop inlet (Figure 2). The reason for using a closed system was that the remainder of the existing asphalt parking lot was in poor shape, and there were concerns about introducing additional moisture under it.

Delatte and Cleary

Erie Street, Kent, Ohio The CSU demonstration led to a lot of interest in pervious concrete pavement in Northeast Ohio, and the Director of Development for the City of Kent began discussions with the author. The City of Kent had installed an earlier demonstration project in a park in December 2003 in the citys Fred Fuller Park. This installation was only two parking spaces wide, and was performing well. The City decided to investigate repaving Erie Street (shown in Figure 4) with pervious concrete. At present, water runs rapidly across the pavement and flows directly into the Cuyahoga River, carrying any pollutants with it. A CSU senior design team took this on as their capstone design project. The project is complicated by the fact that, although the street is primarily used for light traffic and parking, nearby businesses require delivery truck service. The student team investigated the traffic patterns to estimate numbers and axle loads for the delivery vehicles. Available design tools were not adequate for designing this pavement. Therefore, the student team and the authors developed the method discussed later in this paper.

Pervious Pavement Design Pervious pavement differs from conventional pavement in that both structural and hydraulic requirements must be met. In fact, these two criteria are opposed. Making a pervious pavement more permeable requires increasing the porosity of the concrete as well as the subbase, weakening the load carrying capacity of the pavement. In fact, complete design of a pervious pavement must consider many factors, including: Hydraulics and hydrology the amount of water, where it comes from, and where it goes Environmental water quality, pollutant capture within the pavement structure Geotechnical support value and permeability of the soil Transportation traffic weights, volumes, geometrics Pavement structural design layer thickness, load carrying capacity, fatigue life Durability resistance to freeze-thaw cycles, deicing chemicals, abrasion Cost and project management Overall project costs and impacts must be considered. Pervious concrete pavement is likely to cost more than conventional asphalt and concrete, even with improved materials and

Delatte and Cleary

design procedures. However, the additional cost may be offset by even greater savings in drainage and water treatment systems.

Structural Design The current state of the practice in structural design of pervious concrete pavements suggests additional development is needed. Tennis et al. [6] suggest the use of ACI 330.R [7] and ACI 325.9R [8], but ACI 330.R requires a minimum concrete flexural strength of 500 psi and ACI 325.9R is not a design document. The ACI Committee 522 draft document, in Chapter 6, suggests using AASHTO or PCA procedures if the concrete strength falls within limits, which is unlikely [2]. Ferguson suggests an empirical approach Six inches is probably the minimum thickness Heavier traffic loads require thicker slabs. [1, p. 420]. Since the AASHTO design procedure is empirical and based on pavement types that bear very little relation to pervious concrete, the use of any AASHTO procedure for design of these pavements has very little theoretical justification. Clearly there is a need to develop a procedure with a stronger theoretical background. While 6 inches may have worked well in the past, including the CSU parking lot demonstration site, this thickness is probably not sufficient for the Kent Erie Street site. The authors investigated adaptation of ACPA StreetPave software [9], which is an update of the 1984 PCA concrete pavement design procedure [10] with improved fatigue curves. It is also possible to adjust the StreetPave fatigue curve based on the desired degree of reliability, from 50 % up to 95 %. This software can accept typical pervious concrete material properties of 300 400 psi flexural strength and appears to give reasonable results. Because no testing has yet been done on pervious concrete to establish fatigue relationships, it may be necessary to use the 95 % fatigue curve until this relationship has been established. However, the examples shown below used 85 % reliability. Table 1 illustrates a comparison between the design for a conventional concrete pavement, with 550 psi flexural strength, and pervious concrete pavements with 350 and 400 psi flexural strength. It must be cautioned that this example represents much heavier traffic than any pervious concrete pavement currently in existence or planned. However, it illustrates the important point that the increase of flexural strength from 350 to 400 psi reduces the design

Delatte and Cleary

thickness by 1 inch. Although this would be an expensive pavement structure, it would be possible to realize substantial savings in the storm water system for the project. A more realistic example is shown in Table 2. The design parameters remain unchanged, but the traffic has been reduced to that for a typical residential street, with only three trucks per day over 20 years. None of the pavements require dowels. The conventional concrete requires a 6 inch thickness, and the pervious concrete pavement design requires 7 or 8 inches depending on flexural strength. The conventional concrete thickness agrees with ACI 330 for this traffic category [7]. This suggests also that the 6 inch pervious concrete parking lot pavement design that has been widely used is probably roughly equivalent to the 4 inches of conventional concrete suggested by ACI 330 [7] for this application.

Hydraulic Design Hydraulic performance is an essential element of pervious concrete pavement design otherwise, it would be considerably easier and cheaper to build a conventional concrete pavement. In areas of freezing and thawing, it is probably best to ensure that the subbase is thick enough to hold all of the water so as to keep the pervious concrete unsaturated. Tennis et al. [6] suggest a 6 to 12 inch layer of permeable subbase. Unlike in conventional pavements, the level of compaction of the subbase should be reduced to keep the modulus of subgrade reaction k to no more than 200 psi/in, with typical values of 150 175 psi/in. FHWA DRIP 2.0 software [11] may be used to design the permeable subbase using either the depth of flow or time to drain methods. This software includes a library of drainable base materials, with a variety of state specifications as well as AASHTO #57 and # 67. Both Ferguson [1] and Tennis et al. [6] provide extensive discussions of the hydraulic design considerations for pervious concrete pavements. In an open system, the water drains from the subbase downward through the underlying soil. Therefore, the drainable subbase only has to handle the difference between the inflow and outflow for the design storm. In fact, careful design and detailing may be needed on sloped pavements to keep water from shooting up as a fountain at the lower end of the pavement.

Delatte and Cleary

Typical Mixtures and Material Properties The properties of conventional concrete depend on both the material delivered and the placement and compaction techniques. This is even more true of pervious concrete, with the same material varying in compressive strength by a factor of four depending on the in place porosity. Tennis et al. [6] report that overall porosity is typically in the range of 15 25 %. Moreover, Haselbach and Freeman [12] found significant differences in porosity and strength between concrete at the top and bottom of a pervious concrete pavement placed using typical construction methods. In one core, for example, the porosity ranged from 13.4 % at the surface to 28 % at the bottom. Unfortunately, the bottom of the slab is both the weakest and the location where the flexural stresses are most critical. This important finding is worthy of further investigation.

Mixture Proportions Typical mixture proportions reported by Tennis et al. [6] are shown in Table 3, along with two mixtures tested in the CSU laboratories. The first mixture (CSU no fines) was the same as that used for the CSU parking lot demonstration. The second CSU mixture had a small amount of natural sand fine aggregate added to increase strength and decrease porosity. For both CSU mixtures the coarse aggregate was a No. 8 crushed limestone.

Compressive, Flexural, and Splitting Tensile Strength Design principles for concrete pavements are typically based in large part on the flexural strength of the concrete. Tennis et al. [6, p. 21] note that normal construction inspection practices that base acceptance on slump and cylinder strengths are not meaningful for pervious concrete. Strength is a function of the degree of compaction, and compaction of pervious concrete is difficult to reproduce in cylinders. Instead, a unit weight usually is used for quality assurance. The CSU no-fines mixture was used to make 20 cylindrical specimens using various compaction techniques. Eight specimens were made using a gyratory compactor and yielded porosities ranging from 19 to 24 %, in the typical range for field pervious concrete. Twelve other specimens were made using various hand and vibratory compaction techniques, and porosities were much higher (33 40 %).

Delatte and Cleary

Three of the no-fines specimens were tested at 7 days in splitting tension and yielded strengths of 220, 227, and 272 psi. These specimens split neatly into two halves. Although these values were low, it is possible that 28-day flexural strengths could approach 300 to 350 psi. The other 17 specimens were tested in compression at 7 days, and strengths ranged from 360 to 2,140 psi. Results are shown in Figure 5 and were strongly dependent upon porosity. However, many specimens failed as corner breaks, indicated that higher compressive strengths would be obtained with adjustments in the capping system. Results from testing the mixture with a small amount of fine aggregate produced similar results at 7 days, although the void ratio was slightly reduced. More testing is necessary to establish trends.

Role of Aggregates As with other types of concrete, aggregates have important effects on the performance of pervious concrete. Various coarse aggregates have been used, with fine aggregates occasionally added for strength.

Coarse Aggregates Coarse aggregate for pervious concrete is typically kept to narrow gradations ASTM C33 No. 67, No. 8, or No. 89. Generally smaller size aggregates have been used for aesthetic reasons [6, p. 7]. In contrast to typical concrete practice, single size aggregates are often used. The two CSU laboratory mixtures used No. 8 coarse aggregate. Schaefer et al. [13, p. 16] investigated various single size coarse aggregates, with inch, 3/8 inch, and 100 % retained on the No. 4 sieve, which are the finest particles classified as gravel. Crushed limestone and river gravels were both investigated. Their research produced figures with trends similar to Figure 5, although the compressive strengths were higher. Larger size coarse aggregates led to higher void ratios [13, p. 34].

Fine Aggregate Fine aggregate may be added to improve strength but to date no specific guidelines have been published. The investigation by Schaefer et al. [13, p. 34] found that including natural sand reduced the void ratio and improved strength. As a trial, the second CSU laboratory mixture used 10 % of the mass of the No. 8 coarse aggregate. The other mixture constituents were not

Delatte and Cleary

adjusted, because it was assumed that the small quantity of fine aggregate would simply fill voids.

Lightweight Fine Aggregate Pervious concrete is a dry no-slump mixture with an open structure and very little free water. To date, pervious concrete has required seven days of wet curing under plastic, and this will probably continue to be a prudent practice. Recently the concept of internal curing has emerged in concrete technology. One method of internal curing is through dispersion of saturated lightweight fine aggregate, such as an expanded slate or shale, throughout the concrete matrix. Research by Mack [14] found reduced cracking tendency and improved early and 28 day strength when internal curing was used for ODOT specification high performance concrete with a low w/c ratio. This appears to be a promising concept for pervious concrete, although it has not been tested to date. The CSU laboratories will begin testing mixtures with lightweight fine aggregate shortly.

Developing Pervious Concrete Grades One possible way of reconciling the difficulty of controlling quality and determining pavement design properties for pervious concrete might be to specify different grades of pervious concrete. This is illustrated conceptually in Figure 6. Three grades of pervious concrete are defined: Hydraulic low strength, high permeability, for non-structural applications Normal intermediate strength and permeability, for light duty parking lots, represented by the CSU no fines mixture Structural higher strength and lower permeability, for parking lots, streets, and roads with heavy trucks, with small amounts of conventional or lightweight fine aggregate added. Pavement design could then be based on typical properties of normal or structural grades of pervious concrete. Construction testing would then verify that the appropriate grade of pervious concrete had been delivered to the project, and that the compaction and curing were sufficient to ensure that these material properties were achieved.

Delatte and Cleary

For paving applications, the high degree of permeability indicated in Figure 1 is almost certainly much higher than is necessary. As the design examples show, increasing the flexural strength from 350 to 400 psi reduces thickness by half and inch to an inch. Increasing flexural strength to the lower range of conventional concrete, 500 or 550 psi, would allow more substantial pavement thickness reductions.

Recommendations for Future Research As a relatively new technology, pervious concrete pavement presents a number of promising areas for research.

Design of Mixtures To date mixture proportioning procedures for pervious concrete have relied in large part on trial and error, although Appendix 6 of ACI 211.3R [15] provides a procedure. Schaefer et al. [13] have recently completed an investigation of pervious concrete mixtures with particular attention to freeze-thaw resistance. More work needs to be done in this area.

Properties for Design Concrete pavement design procedures, such as StreetPave, require material properties as inputs. At minimum, a flexural strength and a modulus of elasticity are necessary. However, because of the difficulty of fabricating beam specimens, it is easier to determine compressive or splitting tensile strengths. Correlations between compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, and modulus of elasticity need to be developed for pervious concrete. Schaefer et al. [13, p. 33] found that the splitting tensile strength of the mixtures tested was 9.5 to 12.3 % of the compressive strength. This is slightly higher than the typical range of 7 to 11 % for conventional concrete [16].

Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) Tennis et al. [6] suggest using unit weight for construction inspection and testing, with acceptance based on plus or minus 5 pcf of the target value for the mix design. With roller compacted concrete (RCC), another low-slump mixture, excellent results have been obtained from preparing specimens using a gyratory asphalt compactor [17]. A pervious concrete

Delatte and Cleary

10

specimen made using the gyratory is shown in Figure 7. Although this is an excellent research tool for investigating properties, it is probably not practical for field QC/QA. Schaefer et al. [13] used rodding and vibration to produce cylindrical specimens. For RCC, a field specimen fabrication method using a vibratory hammer has been standardized as ASTM C1435 [18]. Perhaps this test method deserves consideration for pervious concrete field QC/QA.

Fatigue Performance Fatigue of conventional Portland cement concrete has been studied for many years and is an integral component of PCA and ACPA design procedures [9, 10]. To date, no similar research has been performed on pervious concrete, and the conventional fatigue relationships may or may not be valid for this material. However, for the time being, they are the only ones available. Fatigue testing is expensive and time consuming, but will be vitally necessary for moving the technology forward.

Joint Performance Load transfer across joints in pervious concrete has, to date, been provided through aggregate interlock. Research is necessary to determine the long term performance of pervious concrete aggregate interlock joints, and perhaps to investigate the feasibility of using dowels or other load transfer devices in pervious concrete.

Freeze-thaw Durability Freeze-thaw durability is a concern for all classes of concrete in areas of frost and snow, and the Northeast Ohio location for the projects discussed above is well within that category. Figure 8 shows the CSU demonstration test site after a single season of freezing and thawing. Performance of the site will be monitored in subsequent winters. The risk of freeze-thaw damage for pervious concrete is likely to be reduced if the pavement drains and the surface is not saturated [19]. Schaefer et al. [13, p. 39] found that mixtures containing sand and/or latex had better freeze-thaw resistance than those that did not. A mixture with single-size river gravel and 7 % sand had only 2 % mass loss through 300 freezing and thawing cycles, demonstrating that is it

Delatte and Cleary

11

possible to develop durable mixtures. As with strength, the degree of compaction had an important effect on durability. The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association has published recommendations for freeze-thaw resistant concrete pavements. For dry freeze and hard dry freeze areas, primarily in the Western U.S., 4 to 8 inches of clean aggregate under the pavement may be all the protection necessary. For wet freeze areas, representing much of the Eastern U.S., the same recommendation applies, since the ground does not remain frozen for long periods. More stringent measures are recommended for hard wet freeze areas. These include one or more of an 8 to 24 inch layer of clean aggregate base, air entrainment of the pervious concrete paste, and provision of PVC pipe under drains [19].

Clogging and Maintenance Pervious concrete pavements may become clogged with debris, reducing permeability. Tennis et al. [6, p. 21] suggest that pressure washing to remove debris may be necessary at periodic intervals, although detailed maintenance recommendations have not been established. Research is necessary to investigate the rates and impacts of clogging, as well as the effectiveness of maintenance treatments.

Improving Strength of Pervious Concrete Methods that have been suggested to improve the strength of pervious concrete include the addition of fine aggregate, discussed above, as well as the addition of latex or synthetic fibers.

Summary and Conclusions Clearly, although a lot of work has been done, much more needs to be done to develop a structural design method for pervious concrete pavements. Current methods are adequate for parking lots with only light vehicle traffic, but there are significant environmental benefits to expanding the use of the technology to carry heavier traffic.

Acknowledgements

Delatte and Cleary

12

The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association RMC Research Foundation has supported CSU research through a contract entitled Portland Cement Pervious Concrete Pavement: Field Performance Investigation on Parking Lot and Roadway Pavements. The NRMCA has not reviewed this paper, and it is not necessarily representative of their views. Eric Mack, Nader Amer, and Aleksandar Mrkajic provided valuable assistance in the laboratory for making and fabricating the specimens. Cement was provided by St. Marys. The aggregates for this testing were Calcite, supplied by Ontario Stone, Cleveland and Marblehead coarse aggregate and Shalersville fine aggregate supplied by Cuyahoga Concrete. Admixtures and advice on pervious concrete mixtures were provided by Master Builders/Degussa.

Delatte and Cleary

13

REFERENCES 1. Bruce K. Ferguson, Porous Pavements, CRC Press, 2005. 2. ACI Committee 522, Pervious Concrete, final draft approved for publication, 2006. 3. Master Builders Degussa Admixtures Inc., Product Information: Pervious Concrete, Master Builders, 2005. 4. About the LEED menus and links, http://www.buildinggreen.com/menus/leed.cfm, 2006. 5. Pervious Concrete Pavements, Southeast Cement Association, http://www.pervious.info, 2006. 6. Paul D. Tennis, Michael L. Leming, David J. Akers, Pervious Concrete Pavements, PCA Engineering Bulletin EB 302, Portland Cement Association, 2004. 7. ACI Committee 330, Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots, ACI 330.1R-01, American Concrete Institute, 2001. 8. ACI Committee 325, Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements and Concrete Bases, ACI 325.9R-91, American Concrete Institute, 1991. 9. StreetPave software, American Concrete Pavement Association, 2006. 10. Portland Cement Association (PCA), Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements, PCA Engineering Bulletin EB109P, Portland Cement Association, 1984. 11. Mallela, J., Larson, G., Wyatt, T., Hall, J., and Barker, W. Users Guide for Drainage Requirements in Pavements DRIP 2.0 Microcomputer Program, Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, 2002, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/software.cfm 12. Liv M. Haselbach and Robert M. Freeman, Vertical Porosity Distributions in Pervious Concrete Pavement, paper accepted for publication in the ACI Materials Journal. 13. Vernon R. Schaefer, Keijin Wang, Muhannad T. Suleiman, and John T. Kevern, Mix Design Development for Pervious Concrete in Cold Weather Climates, Report Number 2006-01, National Concrete Pavement Technology Center, Iowa State University, February 2006. http://www.pcccenter.iastate.edu/projects/reports.cfm 14. Eric Mack, Using Internal Curing to Prevent Concrete Bridge Deck Cracking, Masters Thesis, CSU, May 2006.

Delatte and Cleary

14

15. ACI Committee 211, Guide for Selecting Proportions for No-Slump Concrete, ACI 211.3R-02, American Concrete Institute, 2002. 16. Sidney Mindess, J. Francis Young, and David Darwin, Concrete, p. 317, Prentice-Hall, 2003. 17. Nader Amer, Chris Storey, and Norbert Delatte, Roller-Compacted Concrete Mix Design Procedure with Gyratory Compactor, pp. 46 52, Concrete 2004, Transportation Research Record 1893, 2004. 18. ASTM C1435/C1435M-05 Standard Practice for Molding Roller-Compacted Concrete in Cylinder Molds Using a Vibrating Hammer, ASTM International, 2005. 19. NRMCA, Freeze Thaw Resistance of Pervious Concrete, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, May 2004.

Delatte and Cleary

15

Figure 1. Demonstrating Permeability of Pervious Concrete Pavement

Pervious concrete pavement

Pipe Impermeable membrane (optional)

Permeable base

Subgrade soil

Figure 2: Pervious Concrete Pavement as a Closed System

Delatte and Cleary

16

Figure 3. Cleveland State University Demonstration

Figure 4. Erie Street in Kent, Ohio

Delatte and Cleary

17

2500

2000 Compressive Strength, psi

1500 y = -7563.1x + 3334.9 R2 = 0.8025 1000

500

0 0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30 Porosity

0.35

0.40

0.45

Figure 5. Comparison between Porosity and Compressive Strength, no fines mixture

Low Strength High Permeability STRENGTH

High Strength Low Permeability

PERMEABILITY

Hydraulic Grade

Normal Grade

Structural Grade

Figure 6. Proposed Pervious Concrete Grades

Delatte and Cleary

18

Figure 7. Pervious Concrete Specimen Produced Using Gyratory Compactor

Figure 8. CSU Demonstration Site after One Northeast Ohio Winter

Delatte and Cleary

19

Table 1. Heavy Traffic Design Example Pavement Type Conventional Normal Strength Structural Concrete Pervious Concrete Concrete Reliability 85 % Design life 20 years Traffic 4 lane minor arterial with 500 ADTT and 2 % growth Modulus of subgrade 100 psi/in reaction k Flexural strength 550 350 400 Design thickness 7.5 with 1.25 inch 11.5 10.5 dowels Joint spacing 15 feet Table 2. Light Traffic Design Example Pavement Type Conventional Normal Strength Structural Concrete Pervious Concrete Concrete Reliability 85 % Design life 20 years Traffic 2 lane residential with 3 ADTT and 2 % growth Modulus of subgrade 100 psi/in reaction k Flexural strength 550 350 400 Design thickness 6 8 7.5 Joint spacing 12 feet 15 feet 15 feet Table 3. Sample Mixture Proportions (pounds per cubic yard) Typical Range [6] Constituent/ratio Cementitious materials Water Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Water/cement ratio Aggregate/cement ratio FA/CA ratio Admixtures 450 700 CSU Lab No Fines 600 168 2,850 No. 8 0 0.28 4.75:1 CSU Lab with FA 600 168 2,850 No. 8 285 natural sand 0.28 5.2:1 Pervious Pervious

2,000 2,500 0 2,500 0.27 0.34 4 4.5:1 0 1:1

0 1:10 MB Delvo, Rheomac VMA, Polyheed 1025

Delatte and Cleary

20