An Introduction to

PavementDesigner.org

ICPA’s 54th Annual Concrete Paving Workshop

Altoona, IA
February 7-9, 2018

Eric Ferrebee, P.E.

Director of Technical Services
American Concrete Pavement Association
Agenda
• PavementDesigner Project Intro
• Brief History of Pavement Design
• JPCP Street Design with PD
• Break (2 p.m.)
• Overlay Design with PD
• Parking Design with PD
• Intermodal Design with PD
• Future Updates
• Further Tools for Design (~3 p.m. w/ Dan King)
PavementDesigner
PavementDesigner Development Team

• ACPA Pavement Design Task Force Chairs

• Randell Riley, P.E and Jim Powell, P.E.
• Illinois Chapter, ACPA & Northwest Chapter, ACPA
• James Mack, P.E. and Feng Mu, PhD., P.E.
• Cemex
• Industry Team Partners
• Wayne Adaska, P.E. • Additional Support
• Portland Cement Association • Corey Zollinger, P.E.
• Brian Killingsworth, P.E. • CEMEX
• National Ready Mix Concrete Association • RCC Pavement Council (Chairman)
Need and Relevance – Addressing Demand
• High price point and learning curve for
AASHTOWares’s Pavement ME
• Non-DOT agency audience seeking affordable
easy-to-understand design tools for pavement
solutions, especially where traffic levels are
low to moderate
• Consultants have similar needs and value
quick-access design tools, providing quick
answers
• Students looking for technology to assist with
course work
• Professors often favor simple-to-implement
solutions; no complicated or expensive
licensing terms or lab setup
Need and Relevance – Misleading Pavement Design Tools
• I-PAVE underrepresents foundation support
• PaveXpress claims to follow AASHTO design methods but results show
otherwise…
PCC Materials Modulus of Elastic
Run Rupture (psi) Modulus (psi)
1 (Baseline) 690 4,000,000
2 600 4,000,000
3 662 4,000,000
4 750 4,000,000
5 600 2,564,500
6 662 4,000,000
7 690 4,634,500
8 750 6,014,500
9 690 2,564,500
10 690 6,014,500
• Conservative thickness results for PCC lead to first-cost competitive disadvantages
For details, see: Ferrebee, E. (Oct. 2015). I-PAVE and PaveXpress: Equitable Pavement Design?
http://www.acpa.org/position-papers/
Need and Relevance –
Unify Industry Design Tools
• Many existing design programs:
• ACPA StreetPave 12: Structural Design Software for Street and Road Concrete Pavement
• ACPA AirPave 11: Structural Design Software for Airport Concrete Pavement
• ACPA WinPAS 12: Structural Design of Concrete Pavement by AASHTO 1993 Method
• ACPA BCOA: Bonded Concrete Overlay on Asphalt Thickness Design Calculator
• NRMCA Concrete Pavement Analyst (CPA): Concrete Pavement Design for Parking Lots
• PCA RCCPave: Structural Design of Roller-Compacted Concrete for Industrial Pavements
• PCA PCAPave: Structural Design of Concrete Pavement

• Can be challenging for designers to determine best choice and get consistent
results and recommendations across products
• Contributes to negative perception that cement-based pavement solutions are
difficult to design compared to asphalt pavements
Bringing Online the Best
of the Best Available Design Tools

+
Design Guidance
Substructure Sensitivity
Asphalt Design
Evaluation
Overview and Background
• ACPA, NRMCA, and PCA partnership, with a contribution from
the RCC Council to develop a website application to design
cement-based solutions for:
• Streets and Local Roads
• Parking Lots
• Intermodal/Industrial Facilities
• Design guidance and tools for:
• Jointed-Plain Concrete Pavements
• Continuously Reinforce Concrete Pavement
• Concrete Overlays
• Composite Pavements
• Roller Compacted Concrete
• Cement Modified Soils
• Cement-Treated Base
• Full-Depth Reclamation
Summary –
• Primary audience is city, county, and consultant
engineers who design pavements
• Secondary audience is professors and students
• Unifies design methods, providing promoters
with a single source to direct target audience to
for consistent answers
• Fills a design void for some products
• Web-based platform, appealing to existing and
future generations of design engineers…
• …with broad industry partner support!
• FREE and easily accessible!
Agenda
• PavementDesigner Project Intro
• Brief History of Pavement Design
• JPCP Street Design with PD
• Break (2 p.m.)
• Overlay Design with PD
• Parking Design with PD
• Intermodal Design with PD
• Future Updates
• Further Tools for Design (~3 p.m. w/ Dan King)
Design Method Basis

Mechanistic – Purely scientific and based on measured,

defendable scientific rules and laws

𝜖 = 𝜎/𝐸 ∆L = α ∗ ∆𝑇 ∗ 𝐿𝑜

Empirical – Based on observations or experimentation

and requires a lot of tests to connect all the relationships

𝑪𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 = 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅𝒔 + 𝒆𝒏𝒗𝒊𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 + 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒍

U.S. JPCP Roadway Design Methods

AASHTOWare
Pavement ME
(previously known as
DARWin-ME and
MEPDG)
ACPA
StreetPave

AASHTO 93
(software as
325 & 330
ACPA WinPAS)
AASHTO 93 / WinPAS

acpa.org/winpas
AASHO Road Test (1958-1960)

• Wholly empirical
• Included 368 concrete and 468 asphalt
sections | focus was highway pavement
Necessary Thickness was Guessed!

Subgrade = Clay Soil

Sections Loaded for 2 Yrs | 1.1 Mil Reps

Max Single
Axle

Max Tandem
Axle
1986-93 JPCP AASHTO 93 Equation

Change in Serviceability
Overall
Standard Standard Deviation
Normal Deviate Thickness   PSI  
 Log  4.5  1.5  
Log ( ESAL)  Z R * so  7.35 * Log ( D  1)  0.06    
 1.624 *10 
7

Traffic  1  ( D  1)8.46 
 
Modulus of
Rupture Drainage
Terminal
Coefficient
Serviceability  
 
' 0.75

 (4.22  0.32 * pt ) * Log  
S c * C d * ( D 1 . 132 )
  0.75 18.42  
 215.63 * J *  D  0.25  
  ( Ec / k )  
Load Modulus Modulus of
Transfer of Elasticity Subgrade Reaction
WinPAS Makes it Easy!
 Performance Estimated Subjectively

Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

4.0 – 5.0 = Very Good
3.0 – 4.0 = Good
2.0 – 3.0 = Fair
1.0 – 2.0 = Poor
0.0 – 1.0 = Very Poor
“Failure” at the Road Test
considered @ 1.5
Typical U.S. state agency
terminal serviceability
in practice = 2.5
Note on Inference Space of ‘93
 Current design traffic
is far beyond AASHO
road test limits

PAVEMENT THICKNESS
Data
Limits
(AASHO
Road
Test)

• • • •• • Current
•
Designs
1.1mil >100
million
AXLE LOAD REPETITIONS
Don’t Just Take My Word…
“The current design guide and its predecessors
were largely based on design equations
empirically derived from the observations
AASHTO’s predecessor made during road
performance tests completed in 1959-60.
Several transportation experts have criticized
the empirical data thus derived as outdated
and inadequate for today’s highway system. In
addition, a March 1994 DOT Office of
Inspector General report concluded that the
design guide was outdated and that pavement
design information it relied on could not be
supported and validated with systematic
comparisons to actual experience or
research.”…this is why Pavement ME exists!
MEPDG / DARWin-ME /
AASHTOWare Pavement ME
 Pavement ME Design

• Not “perfect” & not intended to be a “final” product

• Complex and relatively costly
• For highways and NOT street, road, parking lot, etc.

+ =
Mechanistic Calculation Empirical Tie Pavement Performance
of Responses to Ground Prediction
JPCP Calibration – BIG INF. SPACE!

LTPP GPS-3 & RPPR JPCP Sections

LTPP SPS-2, MnROAD, & AASHO JPCP Sections

AASHTO 93 vs. ME
Wide range of structural and
rehabilitation designs 50+ million load reps

Limited structural sections 1.1 million load reps

AASHTO 93

AASHTO Pavement ME
1 climate/2 years 1 set of materials

All climates over 20-50 years New and diverse materials

Sounds Easy Enough, Right?
INPUTS, INPUTS, INPUTS!!!!
INPUTS, INPUTS, INPUTS!!!!
OUTPUTS, OUTPUTS, OUTPUTS!!!
U.S. Roadway Length (lane miles)
Other, 1% Federal, 3%
AASHTO tools are
being developed for
State
Agency, these owners…
19%

City, county, and other

Town, 32% local engineers need
to decide what to use
locally because
Pavement ME will not
trickle down due to its
County, cost and complexity!
44%

Source: HM-10, 2012 FHWA Highway Statistics

PavementDesigner
PavementDesigner.org
PavementDesigner Background

• Designed to simplify concrete pavement

design for:
• Parking lots
• Roadways
• JPCP, RCC, CRCP
• Overlays (bonded and unbonded)
• Composite pavements
• Industrial / Intermodal yards
• Forklifts and other odd loadings
PavementDesigner for Roadways

• Roots date back to the 1960s PCA Method

• Tailored for streets and roads
• Failure modes are cracking and faulting
Traffic Loads Generate Stresses
• Equivalent stress at the slab edge:
6 ∗ 𝑀𝑒
𝜎𝑒𝑞 = 2 ∗ 𝑓1 ∗ 𝑓2 ∗ 𝑓3 ∗ 𝑓4
ℎ𝑐
Me = equivalent moment, psi; different for single, tandem, and tridem axles, with and without edge
support - func on radius of relative stiffness, which depends on concrete modulus, Poisson’s
ratio, and thickness and the k-value
hc = pavement thickness, in.
f1 = adjustment for the effect of axle loads and contact area
f2 = adjustment for a slab with no concrete shoulder
f3 = adjustment to account for the effect of truck (wheel) placement at the slab edge
f4 = adjustment to account for approximately 23.5% increase in concrete strength with age after the
28th day and reduction of one coefficient of variation (COV) to account for materials variability
Limit Stress Ratio to Allow Design Reps

• PavementDesigner (SR) = Stress / Concrete Strength

• PavementDesigner
1

makes slab thicker

0.9

Fatigue Data

to limit stress ratio 0.8 StreetPave R=95%

Stress Ratio
low enough to 0.7

achieve the design 0.6

traffic repetitions 0.5

0.4
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10

Repetitions

Inference space normalized to SR

 A Conservative Approach!

• PavementDesigner fatigue
calculation should be
conservative relative to ME
Design because:
• Size Effects – Slabs have a …versus…
greater fatigue capacity than
beams
• Support – The beam test has a d=L/3
k-value for support of 0
L/3
psi/in.! Span Length = L
 Faulting Design in PavementDesigner

• If dowels used, faulting mitigated & fails by cracks

• No faulting data collected at the AASHO road test so model
developed in 1980s using field performance data from WI,
MN, ND, GA, and CA
• Similar to cracking models, the pavement is made thicker, as
necessary, until faulting model predicts that the pavement
will not fail by faulting during the design life
• PD’s weak point
 Traffic Spectrum + Counts
Single Axles Tandem Axles
Axle Load (kip) Axles/1,000 Axle Load (kip) Axles/1,000
Trucks Trucks
34 0.19 60 0.57 Can also
32 0.54 56 1.07 estimate traffic
30 0.63 52 1.79 based on an
28 1.78 48 3.03 existing asphalt
26 3.52 44 3.52 design! More on
24 4.16 40 20.31
that later.
22 9.69 36 78.19
20 41.82 32 109.54
18 68.27 28 95.79
16 57.07 24 71.16

• Total trucks in design lane over the design life… calculated from trucks/day
(2-way), traffic growth rate (%/yr), design life (yrs), directional distribution (%) and design lane
distribution (%)
 AASHTO Pavement ME
U.S. Agencies Quickly Changing National Users Group
Meetings Technical
• Summary of State Agency practice in 2005: Report - 2016
Design Method Percent of Responding
State Agency
Used Agencies
AR, AZ, DE, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, MD,
AASHTO
85% MI, NV, NC, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN,
72/86/93
UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
AASHTO
4%
MEPDG MO
PCA Method 11% HI, IN, IA
State-
7%
Developed IL, MT
• At the end of 2013, 41 state agencies had performed ME
Design calibration and implementation efforts, indicating a
relatively quick shift from AASHTO 93.
U.S. Roadway Length (lane miles)
Federal, 3%
Other, 1%
AASHTO tools are
being developed for
State
Agency, these owners…
19%

City, county, and other

Town, 32% local engineers need
to decide what to use
locally because
Pavement ME will not
trickle down due to its
County, cost and complexity!
44%

Source: HM-10, 2012 FHWA Highway Statistics

StreetPave Accepted in MN

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/admin/memos/12-sa-03.pdf
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/documents/201210.pdf
 And Its Use is Growing!

• Also “approved” in VA and many other state, city, and

county engineers are using it in the U.S.
• StreetPave used in design tables in:
• ACI 325 and 330 documents
• Dr. Norb Delatte’s textbook Concrete Pavement Design, Construction, and
Performance
• Internationally, used in Australia, Portugal, Mexico, Uruguay,
Argentina, Chile, etc.
Doweled JPCP Thickness Comparison
14 350

13 325

12 300

Required Thickness (mm)

Required Thickness (in.)
11 275

10 250

9 225

8 200

7 AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS) 175

AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
6 150
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
5 ACPA StreetPave 125

4 100
- 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000
Design Lane ESALs
remember AASHTO 93 limit?
Flexural Strength Sensitivity
14 350

13 325

12 300

Required Thickness (mm)

Required Thickness (in.) 11 275

10 250

9 225

8 AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS) 200

AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
7 175
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
6 ACPA StreetPave 150

5 125

4 100
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Concrete Flexural Strength (psi)
Modulus of Elasticity Sensitivity
14 350

13 325

12 300

Required Thickness (mm)

Required Thickness (in.) 11 275

10 250

9 225

8 200
AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
7 175
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
6 150
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
5 ACPA StreetPave 125

4 100
3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 6,000,000
(20.7 GPa) Modulus of Elasticity (psi) (41.4 GPa)
… in reality, need to change strength too…
Thickness Reduction w/ Edge Support
4 100

Thickness Reduction w/Edge Support (mm)

Thickness Reduction w/Edge Support (in.)
3.5 AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
3 75
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
2.5 ACPA StreetPave

2 50

1.5

1 25

0.5

0 0
- 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000
Design Lane ESALs
Reliability Sensitivity
14 350

13 325

12 300

Required Thickness (mm)

Required Thickness (in.)
11 275

10 250

9 225

8 200
AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
7 175
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
6 150
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX
5 ACPA StreetPave 125

4 100
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Reliability
k-value
14
Sensitivity 350
AASHTO 93 (ACPA WinPAS)
13 325
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ ORD
12 300
AASHTOWare Pavement ME @ PHX

Required Thickness (mm)

Required Thickness (in.)
11 ACPA StreetPave 275

10 250

9 225

8 Very few 200

designed
7 for < 100 175
psi/in.
6 150
(27
5 MPa/m)? 125

4 100
0 100 200 300 400 500
(136 MPa/m)
Static k-value (psi)
Agenda
• PavementDesigner Project Intro
• Brief History of Pavement Design
• JPCP Street Design with PD
• Break (2 p.m.)
• Overlay Design with PD
• Parking Design with PD
• Intermodal Design with PD
• Future Updates
• Further Tools for Design (~3 p.m. w/ Dan King)
Estimated Traffic From Asphalt Design

• PavementDesigner calculates
total allowable flexible ESALs
• Using AASHTO 93
Estimated Traffic From Asphalt Design

• PavementDesigner calculates
total allowable flexible ESALs
• Divides this by the flexible LEFs
for the axles in the selected
spectrum to calculate total
trucks
Total Trucks
 Estimated Traffic From Asphalt Design

• PavementDesigner calculates
total allowable flexible ESALs
• Divides this by the flexible LEFs
for the axles in the selected
spectrum to calculate total
trucks
• Distributes the calculated total
trucks over the entire design life
5538 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘
∗ ∗ =1
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 30 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 365 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝐷𝑎𝑦
BACK TO THE DEMO!
Agenda
• PavementDesigner Project Intro
• Brief History of Pavement Design
• JPCP Street Design with PD
• Break (2 p.m.)
• Overlay Design with PD
• Parking Design with PD
• Intermodal Design with PD
• Future Updates
• Further Tools for Design (~3 p.m. w/ Dan King)
Concrete Overlays

A VERY LONG History of Performance and

Cost Effectiveness
 Concrete Overlays in the U.S.

• Existing compilations of project

details:
• NCHRP Synthesis 99, “Resurfacing with
Portland Cement Concrete” (1982) –
375 projects back to the 1910s!
• NCHRP Synthesis 204, “Portland
Cement Concrete Resurfacing: A
Synthesis of Highway Practice” (1994)
– 708 projects
Concrete Overlays
Newest Resource Detailing Performance

• Detailing overlays with

up to 35 years of
performance!
Increasing in Use!
We Engineers are Conservative!
… but Bonded is Increasingly Common!
Historically, Mostly on Concrete
… but More and More on Asphalt
Thin (< 6 in. [150 mm]) Concrete Overlays in the U.S.

1 square yard = 0.84 square meters

Lots of Guidance Available…
CP Tech Guide on Design

• Released in 2012
• Not a design procedure!
• Background on
recommended overlay
design techniques
• 18 pages
• Detailed design examples
• 35 pages
Design Methods Recommended

apps.acpa.org
Note: StreetPave12, Pitt BCOA-ME, and Pavement ME’s SJPCP
released after guide was published
 Guide to All Things Overlays!

• Overlay types and uses

• Evaluation & selection
• Design guidance
• Miscellaneous design details
• Overlay materials selection
• Work zones under traffic
• Key points for overlay construction
• Accelerated construction
• Specification considerations
• Repairs of overlays
• Free download at:
www.cptechcenter.org
What About Overlay Design in PavementDesigner?

• StreetPave/PCA Method
Overlay Design
• Utilizes StreetPave with
modification to account for
existing surface layer’s condition
and thickness

• Links out to the BCOA-ME

• Best method available
• Incorporates ACPA BCOA and
6x6x6 designs
Bonded versus Unbonded

Bonded: Use to eliminate surface

defects; increase structural capacity; and
improve surface friction, noise, and
rideability.
Unbonded: Use to restore structural
capacity and increase pavement life
equivalent to full-depth pavement. Also
results in improved surface friction,
noise, and rideability.
Additional Inputs for Overlay Design
• For AASHTO 93, StreetPave PavementDesigner, and
Pavement ME, they all use their same “core” to calculate
overlay thickness, with a few considerations, e.g.,
• For unbonded designs, essentially assume existing pavement is the
same as subbase in new design and that no friction/bond exists
right under surface slabs
• For bonded over concrete, all calculate a required new concrete
thickness and adjust to account for the effective existing
pavement thickness
• Bonded over asphalt/composite is a different game!
Overlay Design – Accounting for Existing Surfaces
• Unbonded Concrete on Asphalt (UCOA)
• Treats existing asphalt as a subbase layer
• Unbonded Concrete on Concrete (UCOC)

• 𝑇𝑈𝐶𝑂𝐶 = 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 2 − 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 2 =

2
𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 2 − 𝐴𝐹 𝑗𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 ∗ 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑠

• Bonded Concrete on Concrete (BCOC)

• 𝑇𝐵𝐶𝑂𝐶 = 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 − 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 = 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 − 𝐴𝐹 𝑗𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 ∗
𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑠
𝐴𝐹𝑓𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 ∗ 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
Bonded over Asphalt/Composite
• AASHTO 93: not applicable
• AASHTO ME: SJPCP Module released 2016
• ACPA BCOA and StreetPave: account for bond to
asphalt and short slab size, fibers, etc., but
supplanted by….
FHWA pooled fund TPF-5(165)
 BCOA ME failure modes 10 x 12 ft
5 to 7 ft 12 x 12 ft
< 4.5 ft Long. & Diag 12 x 15 ft
Corner Break Crack Trans. Crack

Positive ΔT
Negative ΔT Positive ΔT
BCOA-ME

PCA Model
Stress for
Jt. Spacing corner cracks
< 4.5 ft
ACPA
Model
Jt. Spacings
5 to 6 ft Stress for long. Fatigue
Inputs hpcc
& diag. cracks model
Pitt Model
Jt. Spacings
10 x 12 ft Stress for
12 x 12 ft trans. cracks
15 x 12 ft
CDOT Model
Agenda
• PavementDesigner Project Intro
• Brief History of Pavement Design
• JPCP Street Design with PD
• Break (2 p.m.)
• Overlay Design with PD
• Parking Design with PD
• Intermodal Design with PD
• Future Updates
• Further Tools for Design (~3 p.m. w/ Dan King)
WHAT ABOUT PARKING LOTS?
ACI 330

• ACI 330R-08
• Guide for Concrete
Parking lots
• Uses Design Tables
ACI 330
Parking Lot Design

• ACI 330 Guide based on

StreetPave design runs
• StreetPave is another
accepted design
methodology for Parking
Lots
Parking Lot Design with PavementDesigner

• PavementDesigner uses a
slightly modified version of
StreetPave for the sake of
simplicity
• Allows for various design
lives, reliabilities, and
percent slabs cracked at the
end of the design life
Agenda
• PavementDesigner Project Intro
• Brief History of Pavement Design
• JPCP Street Design with PD
• Break (2 p.m.)
• Overlay Design with PD
• Parking Design with PD
• Intermodal Design with PD
• Future Updates
• Further Tools for Design (~3 p.m. w/ Dan King)
BUT WHAT ABOUT THESE?
What Designs are Available for Heavy Intermodal/Industrial
Vehicles
• ACI 330.2R-17 – Guide for the
Design and Construction of
Concrete Site Paving for
Industrial and Trucking Facilities
• Uses design tables
• Lists additional design software:
• ACPA StreetPave
• Pavement ME
• TCPavements / Optipave
• ACPA AirPave
AirPave Methodology for Heavy Equipment
AirPave Load Distribution

Nose Gear: 5%
of Total Weight
Landing Gears:
47.5% of Total Weight
Demo Time!

Try it out at:

preview.pavementdesigner.org
Agenda
• PavementDesigner Project Intro
• Brief History of Pavement Design
• JPCP Street Design with PD
• Break (2 p.m.)
• Overlay Design with PD
• Parking Design with PD
• Intermodal Design with PD
• Future Updates
• Further Tools for Design (~3 p.m. w/ Dan King)
PavementDesigner.org Workshop
Future Updates
Flexibility with PavementDesigner

• Online platform allows for

immediate updates as new
designs need to be
incorporated
• Change log will allow users to
see what’s changed
• Simple changes can be applied
with in-house development
• Significant changes may require
professional help
No More Patches to Download
Potential Updates
 Faulting Design in PavementDesigner

• If dowels used, faulting mitigated & fails by cracks

• No faulting data collected at the AASHO road test so model
developed in 1980s using field performance data from WI,
MN, ND, GA, and CA
• Similar to cracking models, the pavement is made thicker, as
necessary, until faulting model predicts that the pavement
will not fail by faulting during the design life
• PD’s weak point
Potential Updates

• Potential new erosion model

based on Professor Zollinger’s
research at Texas A&M
University
Potential Updates
Check it out now at:
pavementdesigner.org

Eric Ferrebee, P.E.

Director of Technical Services
American Concrete Pavement Association
eferrebee@acpa.org