Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Analysis Software
(WinPAS) Guide
WinPAS12 (SW03)
ii | P a g e
iv | P a g e
Table of Contents
P a g e | ix
x|Page
Page |1
Surface Thickness,
in. (mm)
Base Thickness
Sandy-Gravel
Materials
Base Type
Wire
Reinforcement
Yes or No
Subbase
Thickness, in.
(mm)
Paved Shoulders
Yes or No
Paved Shoulder
Crushed Stone,
Gravel, AsphaltTreated, CementTreated
0 (0), 4 (102), 8
(203), 12 (305),
16 (406) All
Sandy-Gravel
Materials
Yes or No
Subbase
Thickness, in.
(mm)
Subbase Type
4|Page
Sc Cd (D0.75 1.132)
Log
18.42
0.75
215.63 J D
(Ec /k)0.25
where:
po = Initial serviceability
pt = Terminal serviceability
S'c = Concrete modulus of rupture,
psi (MPa)
Cd = Drainage coefficient
J = Load transfer coefficient
Ec = Concrete modulus of elasticity,
psi (MPa)
k = Modulus of subgrade reaction,
psi/in. (MPa/m)
Though the equation looks long and
complicated, when it is broken down it is
found that there are eight basic
concepts that affect the concrete
pavement design. They are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Thickness
Serviceability
Traffic
Load transfer
Concrete properties
Subgrade strength
Drainage properties
Reliability
Page |7
Roadway
Classification
Interstate; Major
Highways or Arterials
Prime Secondary
Routes; Industrial and
Commercial Streets
Secondary Routes;
Residential Streets;
Parking Lots
Environmental Effects
According to the 1986 and 1993 guides,
the primary reason for allowing
adjustment to the initial serviceability is
so the designer can consider long-term
environmental effects like expansive or
frost susceptible soils. The Road Test
was an accelerated program that lasted
only two years. Consequently, the
design equation is somewhat limited in
its ability to consider long-term
environmental effects.
To make environmental adjustment, use
the following equation:
where:
Traffic (ESALs)
ESALs are the number and weight of all
axle loads from the anticipated vehicles
expected during the pavement design
life expressed in 18,000 lbs or 18 kip (80
kN) equivalent single axle loads.
In actual practice, highway engineers
work with a variety of axle weights and
configurations in a mixed traffic stream.
At the AASHO Road Test, the engineers
theorized that they could compare the
damage to a particular pavement
section by different axle configurations
and loads to the damage caused by a
standard axle. With that idea, they
developed the concept of the Equivalent
Single Axle Load or ESAL.
Simply put, the design ESALs is all the
traffic, with different vehicle types, axle
types, and tire configurations converted
into an equivalent number of 18 kip (80
kN) single axle loads. At the Road Test,
the total number of ESALs ranged from
a few thousand to over 10 million
flexible and 20 million rigid ESALs for
the heaviest trafficked test loop.
Rigid versus Flexible ESALs
Though the concept of ESALs sounds
simple, it can be very confusing
because there is a difference between
rigid ESALs and flexible ESALs. Flexible
ESALs are generally about 1/3 less than
rigid ESALs, though the exact ratio
varies depending on traffic, pavement
thickness, and terminal serviceability.
Page |9
Number
Rigid ESALs
Flexible ESALs
5
10
20
10
15
15
425
500
13.55
10.89
6.38
20.06
39.43
57.33
1.88
149.52
8.73
11.11
6.11
13.41
29.88
36.87
2.25
108.36
Typical street design: concrete thickness = 7 in. (175 mm), flexible structural number = 3.5, pt = 2.5
Axle Load,
kip (kN)
LEF
Single
2 (8.9)
10 (44.5)
14 (62.3)
18 (80.9)
20 (89.0)
30 (133)
0.0003
0.118
0.399
1.00
1.49
7.90
Tandem
2 (8.9)
10 (44.5)
18 (80.9)
30 (133)
34 (151)
40 (178)
50 (222)
0.0001
0.011
0.042
0.703
1.11
2.06
5.03
Figure 8A and 8B. Load Equivalency Factor Determination for Concrete and Asphalt
Pavements
SAL produces a LEF for that load.
Doing the same thing with a flexible
pavement produces the comparable
flexible LEF (Figure 8B).
When the asphalt pavement is loaded, it
produces different stresses, strains, or
deflections than does the concrete
pavement. The responses to the same
applied load are different because the
different pavement types respond
differently to the load.
Consequently, the LEF values that are
calculated for the same vehicles on
each pavement type are different. When
the same traffic is multiplied by different
LEFs, the ESALs calculated for each
pavement type are different. The
AASHTO equations are based on the
same principle, except that they use a
given serviceability loss (PSI) as the
measure of damage. The equation to
determine the LEF for concrete
pavement or asphalt pavement is:
LEF =
12 | P a g e
Asphalt
LEF
Concrete
LEF
2 (8.9)
0.0002
0.0002
6 (26.7)
0.013
0.010
10 (44.5)
0.102
0.082
14 (62.3)
0.388
0.347
18 (80.9)
1.00
1.00
22 (97.9)
1.47
1.55
26 (116)
2.89
4.42
30 (133)
5.21
7.79
34 (151)
11.3
12.9
38 (169)
18.1
20.6
P a g e | 13
14 | P a g e
Concrete Properties
There are two concrete properties that
influence rigid pavement design in the
AASHTO design procedure. They are:
S'c Concrete flexural strength
determined at 28-days using
third-point loading
Ec Concrete modulus of
elasticity
Flexural Strength, S'C
The concrete strength used in the
design of concrete pavements is based
on AASHTO Test Method T97 or ASTM
C78, Flexural Strength of Concrete
using Simple Beam with Third-Point
Loading (Figure 12).11
Up to 0.3
0.3 to 1
1 to 3
3 to 10
10 to 30
Over 30
Doweled
JPCP and
all JRCP
No
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Yes
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
JPCP with
Aggregate
Interlock
Edge Support*
No
Yes
3.2
2.8
3.4
3.0
3.6
3.1
3.8
3.2
4.1
3.4
4.3
3.6
CRCP
No
---2.9
3.0
3.1
Yes
---2.5
2.6
2.6
Pavement
Class
Local Streets
and Roads
Arterials and
Highways
* Tied concrete shoulder, tied or integral curb and gutter, or a widened lane all provide the same
support conditions according to AASHTO. Asphalt or granular shoulders and no shoulders provide no
support and therefore no benefit.
P a g e | 15
Compressive Strength
Many agencies use compressive
strength of concrete cylinders (AASHTO
T22 or ASTM C39)13 as an alternative to
flexural strength testing. Several simple
conversion equations, such as the one
below, can convert 28-day compressive
strengths to 28-day third point flexural
strengths.
where:
Sc = C
S'c = Average 28-day thirdpoint flexural strength, psi (MPa)
f'c = Average 28-day
compressive strength, psi (MPa)
C = Constant assumed to be
between 8 and 10 for U.S.
standard units (0.7 to 0.8 for
metric units) for typical paving
concrete; for U.S. units, the value
of 9 (0.75) typically produces
reasonable results for most
designs
where:
Comp,
psi (MPa)
Third Point
Flex,
psi (MPa)
Center
Point Flex,
psi (MPa)
2,000 (13.8)
402 (2.78)
463 (3.19)
2,500 (17.2)
450 (3.10)
518 (3.57)
3,000 (20.7)
493 (3.40)
567 (3.91)
3,500 (24.1)
532 (3.67)
612 (4.22)
4,000 (27.6)
569 (3.92)
655 (4.51)
4,500 (31.0)
604 (4.16)
694 (4.79)
5,000 (34.5)
636 (4.39)
732 (5.05)
5,500 (37.9)
667 (4.60)
768 (5.29)
6,000 (41.4)
697 (4.81)
802 (5.53)
6,500 (44.8)
726 (5.00)
834 (5.75)
7,000 (48.3)
753 (5.19)
866 (5.97)
Sc = Sc + z
S'c = Estimated average in-field
flexural strength
Sc = Specified minimum flexural
strength
= Estimated standard
deviation of the strength
z = Standard normal deviate
corresponding to the percent of
results which can be below the
specified strength
2.
Percent of Specimens
Below the Specified
Value
0.841
20
1.037
15
1.282
10
1.645
2.327
Example:
Suppose that you want to design a
small street project. You know that
several local operators supply most
of the concrete in your area using
ready-mixed concrete. You also know
that you will specify concrete with a
minimum 28-day flexural strength of
550 psi (3.79 MPa) and your
specification will permit 10 percent of
tests to fall below that level. What
strength do you use in the AASHTO
design equation?
Step 1: Estimate the strength as 9
percent of the flexible strength or call
several ready mix operators to
determine the value. Since you do
not know the actual average strength,
use the specified value for S'c (it will
be fairly close). The value for then
becomes:
= 0.09*550 psi
= 49.5 psi
Step 2: Estimate the design strength
to use in the equation. Apply the
correction for a 10 percent failure rate
(z = 1.282 from Table 8):
Sc = 550 + 1.282*49.5
Sc =613 psi (4.22 MPa)
Thus, 613 psi (4.22 MPa) is used in
the design equations.
Note: The same principle applies if compressive
strengths are used. The corrected compressive
strength would be converted to third-point flexural
strength using the relationship previously shown.
Subgrade Support
In all pavements, the load is eventually
transmitted to the subgrade. Though
bases, subbases, and soil modifications
are used to increase the support
strength and protect the subgrade, it is
the natural subgrade that must be used
as the starting point for support
characterization.
For concrete pavements, the primary
requirement of the subgrade is that it be
uniform. This is the fundamental reason
for specifications on subgrade
compaction. A good quality subgrade
will improve the performance of the
pavement.
In the AASHTO design procedure for
concrete pavements, the strength of the
soil is described by two subgrade
properties:
1.
2.
P a g e | 19
P a g e | 21
Figure 15. Chart for Estimating Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, Assuming
a Subgrade Depth Greater than 10 ft (3 m) [Figure 3.3, part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO
Pavement Design Guide]
22 | P a g e
P a g e | 23
4.
Figure 17. Correction of Effective k-Value for Potential Loss off Support [Figure 3.6,
part 2 of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide]
24 | P a g e
Loss of Support
This factor reduces the k-value for an
expected loss of support by subgrade
erosion. A LOS = 0 models the soil
conditions at the AASHO Road Test. A
closer look at the soils at the Road Test
show that it consisted of three feet of
embankment with these properties:
Mr () = 2165.935 e0.0343507Rvalue
26 | P a g e
Historical
k-value,
psi/in.
(MPa/m)
AASHTO
k-value,
psi/in.
(MPa/m)
Silts &
Clays
60-100
(16-30)
10-20
(2.7-5.4)
Granular
150-250
(40-68)
12-73
(3.5-20)
AsphaltTreated
300-400
(80-108)
95-128
(25-35)
CementTreated
405-550
(110-150)
128-400
(35-110)
If Mr > 15,089:
k = Mr 0.0000000106 Mr 2
0.0007608054 Mr
+ 69.4602909796
4 in.
(100
mm)
6 in.
(150
mm)
9 in.
(230
mm)
12 in.
(305
mm)
50 (14)
65.2
(17.6)
75.2
(20.3)
85.2
(23.0)
110
(29.7)
100 (27)
130
(35.1)
140
(37.8)
160
(43.2)
190
(51.3)
150 (41)
175
(47.3)
185
(50.0)
215
(58.1)
255
(68.9)
200 (54)
220
(59.4)
230
(62.1)
270
(72.9)
320
(86.4)
Asphalt-Treated Subbase
Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)
Subgrade
k-value,
pci/in.
(MPa/m)
4 in.
(100
mm)
6 in.
(150
mm)
9 in.
(230
mm)
12 in.
(305
mm)
50 (14)
85.2
(23.0)
112
(30.2)
155
(41.9)
200
(54.0)
100 (27)
152
(41.0)
194
(52.4)
259
(69.9)
325
(87.8)
150 (41)
217
(58.6)
271
(73.2)
353
(95.3)
437
(118)
200 (54)
280
(75.6)
345
(93.2)
441
(119)
541
(146)
Cement-Treated Subbase
Composite k-value, psi/in. (MPa/m)
Subgrade
k-value,
pci/in.
(MPa/m)
4 in.
(100
mm)
6 in.
(150
mm)
9 in.
(230
mm)
12 in.
(305
mm)
50 (14)
103
(27.8)
148
(40.0)
222
(59.9)
304
(82.1)
100 (27)
185
(50.0)
257
(69.4)
372
(100)
496
(134)
150 (41)
263
(71.0)
357
(96.4)
506
(137)
664
(179)
200 (54)
348
(94.0)
454
(123)
634
(171)
823
(222)
1.
2.
3.
4.
P a g e | 29
Table 11: Recommended Values of the Drainage Coefficient (Cd) for Concrete
Pavement Design
Quality of
Drainage
1% - 5%
5% - 25%
> 25%
Excellent
1.25 1.20
1.20 1.15
1.15 1.10
1.10
Good
1.20 1.15
1.15 1.10
1.10 1.00
1.00
Fair
1.15 1.10
1.10 1.00
1.00 0.90
0.90
Poor
1.10 1.00
1.00 0.90
0.90 0.80
0.80
Very Poor
1.00 0.90
0.90 0.80
0.80 0.70
0.70
Appendix DD of Volume II of the 1993 guide offers the following definitions for quality of drainage:
30 | P a g e
Reliability
Reliability (R) accounts for the chance
variation in traffic predictions,
performance predictions, concrete
material properties, subgrade support
conditions, etc. It incorporates some
degree of certainty into the design
process to ensure that the pavements
will survive the analysis period for which
they are designed.
In the AASHTO design procedure there
are two basic statistical factors that
make up reliability:
1.
2.
Reliability (R)
Standard deviation (s0)
Classification
Recommended
Reliability (R), %
Urban
Rural
85 99.9
80 99.9
80 99
75 99
Collectors
80 95
75 95
Local
50 80
50 80
P a g e | 31
32 | P a g e
Reliability (R), %
Standard Normal
Deviate (ZR)
50
0.000
75
-0.674
80
-0.841
90
-1.282
95
-1.645
97
-1.881
99
-2.327
99.9
-3.090
P a g e | 33
Figure 22. Charts Illustrating the Sensitivity of each Variable in the AASHTO Design
Equation on Design Thickness (in inches)
P a g e | 35
Summary
There have been many welcome
additions in the 1993 Design Guide,
such as the improved overlay and lowvolume road design. However, items
that the concrete industry feels are still
in question include:
Loss of Support Factor was the primary
failure mode of rigid pavement sections
in the Road Test. Many of the failed
sections were the result of the migration
and pumping of subbase fines from
underneath the pavement. Therefore,
loss of support is inherent in the
equation that predicts concrete
pavement performance.
38 | P a g e
P a g e | 39
Figure 23. Illustration of Structural Capacity Loss with Traffic and over Time
The revised overlay design procedure
actually consists of seven separate,
stand-alone design procedures, each
laid out in eight steps. The seven
overlay design procedures are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Overlay
Type
ESALs to
Use
Concrete
Concrete
Rigid
Asphalt
Concrete
Rigid
Composite
Concrete
Rigid
Concrete
Asphalt
Rigid
Asphalt
Asphalt
Flexible
Composite
Fractured
Concrete
Asphalt
Rigid
Asphalt
Flexible
P a g e | 41
Deteriorating
transverse or
longitudinal joints
Corner breaks
Localized failing
areas where the
concrete slab is
disintegrating
Localized
punchouts
(CRCP)
Asphalt
Pavements
Fatigue and alligator
cracking
Rutting
Transverse and
longitudinal cracking
Localized failing
areas where
underlying areas are
disintegrating
42 | P a g e
where:
Sc = 210 + 1.02 IT
2.
3.
P a g e | 43
44 | P a g e
where:
No 10
RL = 100 1
Nf
RL
= Remaining life
3.
4.
5.
where:
1.
2.
DOL = Df - Deff
The effective thickness is the actual inplace concrete pavement thickness
reduced by adjustment factors to
account for joint and crack condition,
durability, and fatigue:
Deff = Fjc*Fdur*Ffat*D
P a g e | 45
Number of deteriorated
transverse joints per mile.
Number of deteriorated
transverse cracks per mile.
Number of existing expansion
joints, exceptionally wide
joints (>1 in.), or full-depth
asphalt patches.
Figure 24. Chart to Estimate Fjc for Bonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete [Figure
5.12 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired
deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width
asphalt patches per mile
Unbonded Concrete Overlays on
Concrete
Unbonded concrete overlays can be
used under practically all conditions;
they are, however, most cost-effective
when the existing concrete pavement is
badly deteriorated. The major
advantage of unbonded overlays is that
they require little, if any, preoverlay
repair before construction. Conditions
under which an unbonded concrete
overlay may not be feasible include:
P a g e | 47
2.
Number of deteriorated
transverse joints per mile.
Number of deteriorated
transverse cracks per mile.
48 | P a g e
3.
Figure 25. Chart to Estimate Fjcu for Unbonded Concrete Overlays on Concrete
[Figure 5.13 from the 1993 AASHTO Guide]; the x-axis is the total of all unrepaired
deteriorated joints, cracks, punchouts, expansion joints, and full-depth, full-width
asphalt patches per mile
For more information on the feasibility of
whitetopping of asphalt or composite
pavements, see ACPAs EB210P,
"Whitetopping The State of the
Practice,"9 and the CP Tech Centers,
Guide to Concrete Overlays.22
1.
DOL = Df
2.
50 | P a g e
Other Considerations
In the design of an overlay, many
important items, besides thickness,
need to be considered. Some of the
items that should be considered are
outlined in Table 17. The Guide gives
general and detailed guidelines for each
of these in the overlay design
procedures and the CP Tech Centers
Guide to Concrete Overlays22 contains
more up-to-date guidance on such
considerations.
Table 17: Other Important
Considerations in Overlay Design
Structural versus
functional overlay
Overlay design
reliability and overall
standard deviation
Overlay feasibility
Traffic loadings
Pavement widening
Subdrainage
Concrete overlay
reinforcement
Concrete overlay
joints
Reflection crack
control
Pre-overlay repairs
Milling of asphalt
pavement
Existing concrete
durability
Concrete overlay
bonding and
separation layers
Rutting in asphalt
pavement
Recycling of the
existing pavement
P a g e | 51
52 | P a g e
Introduction
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is an
analysis technique, based on wellfounded economic principles, used to
evaluate the overall long-term economic
efficiency between competing alternate
investment options. LCCA is typically
used as a means to evaluate and then
compare the cost to the agency of any
number of alternate pavement
alternatives, including variations of
concrete and asphalt pavement
solutions. When done correctly, a lifecycle cost analysis of pavement design
or preservation/rehabilitation strategy
alternatives identifies the strategy that
will yield the best value by providing the
desired performance at the lowest cost
over the analysis period.
This does not mean that engineering is
not an important part of the LCCA. An
engineering analysis must be used with
the LCCA to ensure that each alternate
provides similar results. If the two
alternates do not provide similar results
then the economic assessment between
them is not possible, realistic, or
reliable.
Comparable Sections
In order to perform a realistic and
reliable life-cycle cost analysis, the two
alternates must have equivalent and
comparable designs and should provide
similar results over the analysis period.
That is, they should be designed for the
same:
Structural (traffic-carrying)
capacity
Reliability
Subgrade properties
Terminal condition
Accurately calculating
performance over time.
Quantifying the difference in
performance between alternates.
P a g e | 53
2.
3.
Performing an LCCA
The actual mechanics of performing an
LCCA are not too complicated. It is
simply a mathematical calculation of the
present worth or equivalent uniform
annual cost of anticipated expenditure
flows over time. Though a computer
program or spreadsheet is helpful in
performing the calculations, LCCA does
not require a computer program.
There is no such thing as a concrete
LCCA or asphalt LCCA. The procedure
cannot tell whether the calculated
values are for a concrete pavement, an
asphalt pavement, or something else.
This chapter focuses on the inputs to an
LCCA and presents the following steps
in a typical LCCA of pavement design or
rehabilitation alternatives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
54 | P a g e
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Establish alternative
pavement design strategies
for the analysis period.
Determine performance
periods and activity timing.
Estimate agency costs.
Estimate user costs.
Develop expenditure stream
diagrams.
Compute net present value.
Analyze results.
Reevaluate design strategies.
Where:
d =
1 +
1
1 +
P a g e | 55
56 | P a g e
P a g e | 57
58 | P a g e
where:
(1 + d)t
where:
(1 + d)n 1
$ = $
(1 + d)n
P a g e | 61
(1 + d) 1
62 | P a g e
P a g e | 63
64 | P a g e
Project identification,
Traffic analysis,
Pavement design and evaluation,
Overlay design and evaluation,
Life-cycle cost analysis, and
Reporting.
WinPAS contains many help screens that explain input variables and suggested,
reasonable ranges for input values. To access help, place the cursor on the input
variable about which help information is desired and click on the help button in
the active window.
WinPAS is intended as a tool for professional personnel knowledgeable in the field of
pavement engineering and who are able to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the results. The persons using this program are solely responsible for its proper use and
application. The American Concrete Pavement Association and the individuals
associated with developing the program disclaim any and all responsibility for improper
use or application of the program, or for the accuracy of any of the sources upon which
the program is based.
Menu Options
The menu at the top-left of the WinPAS window has three options:
File
Units
Help
P a g e | 65
File Menu
The File menu has four options:
Units Menu
The Units menu has two options, permitting you to select the
units (English or Metric) in which you wish to work. This
selection should be made before inputting project details
because switching the units may cause input values to reset to
default levels.
Help Menu
The Help menu has two options. About WinPAS
identifies the version of WinPAS that you are using.
WinPAS 12 Guide links to this document, which
provides additional help and discussion for many of the
design inputs, overlays, and LCCA. In addition to this document, to access input specific
help details from within the software, place the cursor on the input variable about which
help information is desired and click on the help button in the active window.
Main Menu
The Main Menu is the strip of tabs that allow you to access each module included in the
software. To select one of the modules, click on its tab using the mouse. The Project
tab is the default tab selected when the program is opened. To open an existing project,
go to the File menu and select Open Project.
66 | P a g e
Project Tab
The Project tab allows you to input general information for your project. It is not
necessary for you to provide information for every field. WinPAS displays the general
information from this screen at the top of all printed reports.
calculating ESALs. The design life and ESAL growth rate are needed to calculate the
total ESALs over the design life. Note that the AASHTO design procedure is based on
vehicles in the design lane. WinPAS allows you to either input traffic as design lane, or
as total traffic.
If total traffic is chosen, you must also indicate whether it is 1 or 2 way traffic, and also
give the design lane and directional distributions.
WinPAS calculates the total rigid and flexible ESALs over the design life for each
combination of axle type and weight entered, and sums them at the bottom of the
screen.
68 | P a g e
Vehicle types.
Type and weight of each axle of each vehicle.
Number of each vehicle (in the first day, month, or year, depending on the initial
time interval indicated on the General ESAL Calculation Inputs screen).
Place the information next to the diagram corresponding to the appropriate vehicle.
WinPAS automatically displays typical maximum legal values for axle types and weights
for several different types of vehicles. You may modify these axle types and weight
values. (Note: On average, vehicles are not fully loaded. ESALs calculated with these
values will be conservative.) The total rigid and flexible ESALs for the life of the
pavement are summed at the bottom.
P a g e | 69
Note: The pictures of vehicles above are for graphical purposes only. Changing
Axle Loads & Axle Type will not change the picture.
For special vehicles and design problems we suggest that you check your design with
another design procedure, such as ACPA's AirPave software or some other design
procedures.
70 | P a g e
For traffic input using truck factors, knowledge of the average ESALs/truck must be
known. Many state agencies have calculated this factor based on the average vehicle
types and weights in use in the state, and by roadway classification. For more
information contact your state Department of Transportation (DOT).
For more information on ESALs, see the appropriate help screens in WinPAS, the
appropriate sections earlier in this document, or the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures.
P a g e | 71
Design/Evaluation Tab
WinPAS's pavement design and evaluation
module can design new pavements or
analyze existing pavements. Concrete and
asphalt pavements can be designed
separately, or side-by-side.
Upon first loading the WinPAS software, all inputs are blank. You may notice that the
Solve For button does not state to solve specifically for thickness like many pavement
thickness design software might. This is because the closed-form AASHTO solutions
allow you to quickly solve for any of the various design variables after all other variables
have been entered. When you press the Solve For button, WinPAS will solve for the
variable highlighted by your cursor.
To use Solve For, you must first input a value for all variables except the variable you
are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). After pressing Solve For,
WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in the
Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell. You can change the value for any
variable(s), reposition your cursor, and press Solve For again. The Solve For box will
again display the answer.
By allowing the flexibility to solve for any input, you can quickly calculate thickness or
Structural Number, ESALs, reliability, flexural strength, or any of the other design
variables. If you receive an 'ERROR,' it means one or more of your inputs are outside
the equation bounds. Check each input to make sure it is a reasonable value.
The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor for which a pavement is
designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to
accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher
safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this
margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative
values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations.
P a g e | 73
The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For
concrete pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.30 and 0.40.
Typically, 0.35 is used.
The required flexural strength input is the average 28-day in-place flexural strength of
the concrete in third-point loading. In design, AASHTO recommends you increase the
minimum specified flexural strength (Sc) by a z' factor multiplied by the standard
deviation (SD) of the flexural strength to get a design flexural strength (Sc).
Sc(design) = Sc + z(SD)
The 'z' factor is a function of the percentage of tests allowed below the minimum
specified value. For more information on this, see the appropriate section earlier in this
document or section 2.3.4 of Part II of the AASHTO Design Guide.
The required modulus of elasticity input is the average 28-day in-place modulus of
elasticity. This may be difficult to determine directly, but can be estimated from
correlations with flexural or compressive strength. Some correlations from the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) are provided on the help screen for this input and others are
available in a free online strength converter app at http://apps.acpa.org.
The load transfer coefficient (J factor) is intended to reflect the effects of transverse
joint load transfer (e.g., aggregate interlock versus dowels) and longitudinal edge
support (e.g., asphalt shoulder versus tied concrete shoulder) on slab corner deflection.
A J factor of 3.2 reflects the corner support conditions at the AASHO Road Test
(doweled joints, asphalt shoulders). J factors less than 3.2 indicate even better support
conditions (e.g., concrete shoulder and/or continuously reinforced concrete pavement).
J factors greater than 3.2 reflect worse corner support conditions (e.g., asphalt
shoulders and undoweled joints). The J factor help screen displays the ACPA's J factor
recommendations. The recommended ranges fall within the ranges recommended in
the AASHTO Design Guide.
74 | P a g e
P a g e | 75
For AASHTO recommended values on any of these inputs, see the help screen for any
input in WinPAS, see the appropriate section earlier in this document, or consult the
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.
Structural number.
Total flexible ESALs.
Reliability.
Overall standard deviation.
Subgrade resilient modulus.
Initial and terminal serviceability.
76 | P a g e
The Asphalt Structural Number reflects the required structural capacity of all asphalt
pavement structure layers above the subgrade (i.e., the asphalt concrete surface
course, base(s), and subbase(s)).
The Total Flexible ESAL input comes from the Estimate ESALs tab in WinPAS,
although you may overwrite this value and solve for the allowable ESALs for a given
Structural Number and other inputs.
The reliability level is, generally speaking, the safety factor, for which a pavement is
designed. It reflects the degree of risk of premature failure that the agency is willing to
accept. Facilities of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher
safety factors in design. In the AASHTO methodology, using reliability provides this
margin of safety. As such, it is important to note that average values, not conservative
values, be used for all other inputs to the design equations.
The overall standard deviation reflects:
1.
2.
The lower the overall deviation, the better the design equation fits the data. For asphalt
pavements, AASHTO recommends using a value between 0.40 and 0.50. Typically,
0.45 is used.
The subgrade resilient modulus is used to describe the subgrade strength for asphalt
pavements. Typical values range from about 1,000 psi (6.9 MPa) for soft, marshy soils
to about 40,000 psi (276 MPa) for granular soils. The resilient modulus help screen
provides correlations between subgrade resilient modulus, California Bearing Ratio
(CBR), and R-value. It should be noted that the correlations are intended to estimate
resilient modulus from either CBR or R-value, not to relate CBR to R value.
Pavement performance is quantified in the AASHTO methodology in terms of
serviceability, which is the ability of the pavement to serve its function, from the
viewpoint of the users. To users of a pavement, serviceability is primarily a function of
ride quality (i.e., smoothness/roughness), which in turn depends on the type, quantity,
and severity of distress(es) present. At the AASHO Road Test, a scale from 0 to 5 was
developed for the user assessment of ride quality, or Present Serviceability Rating
(PSR). Equations were then developed to estimate the PSR by a Present Serviceability
Index (PSI), which can be calculated as a function of measured roughness and distress.
The AASHTO design equations predict the change in PSI as a function of the design
ESALs and other design inputs.
P a g e | 77
The required initial serviceability input is the expected PSI of the pavement when
opened to traffic, which depends on the initial smoothness of the pavement. The
average initial PSI values at the AASHO Road Test were 4.5 and 4.2 for concrete
pavements and asphalt pavements, respectively. However, with modern construction
equipment and practices, initial smoothness levels corresponding to PSI values of 4.5
are easily achievable for both concrete and asphalt pavements. The required terminal
serviceability input is the PSI at which the pavement is expected to need replacement
or major preservation/rehabilitation. The appropriate terminal serviceability level for a
given design situation depends on the functional class and the location (urban or rural)
of the roadway.
The contributions of the individual layers to the total pavement Structural Number are
expressed by the following formula:
SN = a1t1 + a2t2m2 + a3t3m3 +
78 | P a g e
Where ai are the layer coefficients corresponding to the surface, base, subbase, and
other layers above the subgrade and ti are their respective thicknesses. Drainage
coefficients (mi) may be applied only to granular base and subbase layers. Typical layer
coefficient values for several types of materials can be found in the help screen. For
more information, see section 2.3.5 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. Guidelines for
selection of drainage coefficient values for asphalt pavement base and subbase
materials can be found in the help screen and in section 2.4.2 of the 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide.
The Additional Thickness needed column on the right-hand side of the Layer Thickness
Determination screen provides a check to see if the Structural Number of the layer
materials and thicknesses selected satisfies the required Structural Number. The
column displays how much additional thickness is needed to meet the total SN for the
layer/material on which the cursor rests. You may use the value WinPAS displays to
adjust the layer thicknesses and optimize your design.
P a g e | 79
Overlays Tab
The overlay design and evaluation module is based on Chapter 5 of Part III of the 1993
AASHTO Design Guide. It consists of three concrete overlay design procedures. For
more information on the theory used in these procedures, see Chapter 5 of the Guide
and the appropriate sections earlier in this document.
To use the overlay design module, you must first provide information about the existing
pavement and then some information for the type of overlay you wish to design. The
overlay design module also provides screens for backcalculation of some of the overlay
design inputs from nondestructive testing (NDT) deflection (e.g., FWD) measurements.
80 | P a g e
Similar to the new pavement design section, the overlay design modules employ the
Solve For button to solve for any design input. To use Solve For, input all variables
except the variable you are determining (i.e., design ESAL or concrete thickness). Next
place the cursor in the variable you would like to solve, and click on the Solve For
button. WinPAS will display the design parameter solved for and the value obtained in
the Solve For box and also in the appropriate input cell.
Concrete thickness,
Flexural strength,
Modulus of elasticity,
Load transfer coefficient,
Modulus of subgrade reaction, and
Drainage coefficient.
P a g e | 81
The Ep is a composite elastic modulus of the existing pavement structure (all layers
above the subgrade), as if it were all composed of one material. Ep may be determined
from nondestructive deflection testing with a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) or
similar device. The in-situ (field) resilient modulus of the subgrade soil (Mr) may also be
determined from nondestructive deflection testing, and then used to estimate the design
(laboratory) resilient modulus. More information on determining Ep and Mr is given in
the appropriate section of this document and in Part III, Chapter 5, of the 1993 AASHTO
Design Guide.
When FWD testing is not possible, the effective Structural Number of the existing
pavement must be estimated using the existing layer thicknesses and assigning layer
coefficients that reflect the degree of deterioration in the existing pavement.
For an existing composite (asphalt over concrete) pavement, the following
information is necessary to perform an overlay design:
82 | P a g e
The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a
function of the future total rigid ESALs and other AASHTO concrete pavement design
equation inputs. The values for flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, load
transfer, and modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen (they
are transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen). Because
the original pavement properties do not change with an overlay, these values have been
locked to prevent accidental changes.
The effective existing concrete slab thickness (Deff) is generally less than the actual slab
thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the
actual existing slab thickness and three adjustment factors that reflect the extent of
deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation
of Deff.
P a g e | 83
The Solve For key determines the required slab thickness for future traffic, as a
function of the design ESALs and other AASHTO rigid pavement design equation
inputs. On this screen, other input values cannot be determined with the Solve For key.
The value for the modulus of subgrade reaction cannot be changed on this screen
because it is transferred from the Existing Concrete Pavement Information screen
and cannot be changed with an overlay. The values entered on this screen for the other
inputs (including the flexural strength, elastic modulus, and load transfer
coefficient) apply to the unbonded overlay, not the existing pavement.
84 | P a g e
The effective existing slab thickness (Deff) is generally less than the actual slab
thickness, depending on the degree of deterioration. It is calculated as a function of the
actual existing slab thickness and one adjustment factor that reflects the extent of
deterioration present; see Chapter 2 of this document for more details on the calculation
of Deff.
P a g e | 85
The most difficult input to determine in the design of conventional whitetopping is the
appropriate k-value to use to represent the existing asphalt pavement structure and
foundation. There are two methods to estimate the k-vale:
1) Compute a composite k-value from the soil and pavement layer strengths. This is
a similar procedure as that used for stabilized subbase materials in new concrete
pavement designs. See Part II, Section 3.2 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide for
more details.
2) Determine the dynamic k-value from FWD testing and backcalculation. This
requires backcalculating the subgrade modulus (Mr) and the effective pavement
modulus (Ep), and determining the existing asphalt layer thickness (Dac), which can
be done using WinPAS's NDT backcalculation procedure).
For more information on conventional whitetopping for asphalt pavements, see Section
5.10 of the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide, ACPAs EB210P, "Whitetopping - The State of
the Practice," or the CP Tech Centers, Guide to Concrete Overlays,22
86 | P a g e
P a g e | 87
88 | P a g e
P a g e | 89
Any pavement cross-section can be assigned for the life-cycle cost analysis. WinPAS
calculates both the present worth and the equivalent uniform annual cost of the
cross-section. For more information on life-cycle cost analysis, see Chapter 3 of this
publication and ACPAs EB011, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: A Tool for Better Pavement
Investment and Engineering Decisions.
Economic Factors
The economic factors account for the effects of interest and inflation over a defined
period of time (e.g., the analysis period). WinPAS requires input for the analysis
period for each pavement, the interest rate, and the inflation rate. The discount rate,
which is used to characterize the effects of fluctuating interest and inflation rates, is
calculated as a function of the interest and inflation rates.
Cost Graphs
A graphical output is available to show the economic analysis results, comparing the
pavements in the life-cycle cost module. You may display plots in terms of initial costs,
maintenance costs, rehabilitation costs, present worth value, or equivalent
uniform annual cost (EUAC) for each pavement type.
90 | P a g e
The second subtab calculates the initial cost for the pavement, considering up to 35
initial cost items. Any project details initially entered on the previous subtab are
automatically transferred to the second subtab. You must make adjustments to the
information on the second subtab manually. Again, the drop down menu identifies
possible items for the columns. Furthermore, in the quantity column, the drop down
menu can be used to calculate quantities and establish units based on the information
from the first subtab. Item cost is the initial cost per item and automatically calculated
from the Unit Cost and Quantity.
P a g e | 91
The third subtab calculates maintenance and rehabilitation costs for the pavement.
Once more, maintenance items and quantities are capable of being tied to the general
info on the first subtab. Item cost is the maintenance cost per item in today's dollars.
The total item cost is summed at the bottom of the page. The year input is the year the
maintenance will be performed. Present worth is calculated for each item based on the
year of the maintenance to account for the time value of money and all present worths
are totaled at the bottom of the page.
92 | P a g e
P a g e | 93
Reports Tab
The Reports tab permits you to print or save the results of analyses conducted with
WinPAS. Customized reports on new pavement designs, overlay designs, rigid and
flexible ESAL calculations, or life-cycle cost analysis can be printed. In these reports,
all pertinent information will be printed. To print a report, select the reports you would
like to print on the Reports tab and hit Load. WinPAS will display the reports. Within
that new window, you can toggle between reports and print the reports. You can also
export the reports so that they can be used in other formats (e.g., MS Word).
Problems or Questions
If you are having problems with the operation of this program, please contact ACPA at
847.966.2272. If you have general questions about concrete pavements and concrete
pavement design, please contact your local ACPA Chapter or State Paving Association
(see the My Locator on the ACPA homepage) or visit ACPA online at www.acpa.org.
94 | P a g e
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
P a g e | 95
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
96 | P a g e
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
P a g e | 97
WinPAS12 (SW03)