NCHRP 1-32

1-32
Systems for Design

Of Highway Pavements
Final Report
Prepared For
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council
Prepared By
Michael I. Darter
Harold Von Quintus
Emmanual B. Owusu-Antwi
Jane Jiang
Champaign, Illinois
May 1997
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation
with the Federal Highway Administration, and was
conducted under the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program administered by the Transportation
Research Board of the National Research Council.
Disclaimer
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those
of the research agency. They are not necessarily those of the
Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, Federal
Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, or of the individual States participating in the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
Report Preparation
NCHRP Project 1-32 was conducted under the direction of Michael
Darter, Harold Von Quintus, and Emmanuel Owusu-Antwi. Other team
members include Yan (Jane) Jiang, Brian Killingsworth, Jerry Daleiden,
Wayne Seiler, and Kenneth McGhee. ERES Consultants, Inc. served as
the prime and Brent Rauhut Engineering, Inc. served as a subcontractor on
this project.
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Summary ......................................................................................................................................v
Chapter 1 Introduction and Research Approach .......................................................................1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................1
Research Objective ..................................................................................................2
Research Approach ..................................................................................................5
Chapter 2 Findings.........................................................................................................................5
Success of Pavement Design Catalogs/Standards In Europe...................................5
Pavement Design Methods Versus Presentation Formats .....................................11
Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features.............................................12
Feasibility study.....................................................................................................13
The Consensus Meeting.........................................................................................19
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features ..........................................21
Prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES) ...........................................25
Chapter 3 Interpretation, Appraisal, Applications...................................................................27
Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features.............................................27
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features ..........................................27
Supplemental Prototype KBESDesigner ...........................................................43
Chapter 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research ......................................................................53
Conclusions............................................................................................................53
Suggested research.................................................................................................53
References.....................................................................................................................................58
Appendix A:
Summary of European Design Catalogs
Appendix B:
Minutes of NCHRP Project 1-32 Consensus Meeting
ii
Table of Contents (continued)

List of Figures
Figure
Page
1
Percent respondents indicating the prospective users of a catalog .................................15
2
Percent respondents checking the categories of the ways of using a
catalog .............................................................................................................................15
3
Percent respondents indicating the potential advantages................................................16
4
Percent respondents selecting the disadvantages categories ..........................................17
5
Example structural design details for flexible pavement................................................34
6
Example structural design details for rigid pavement ....................................................41
List of Tables
Table
1
2
3
4
Page
Calculation of seasonally adjusted effective resilient modulus for subgrade.................31
Site condition design cells and alternatives for flexible pavement catalog ....................33
Determination of seasonally adjusted effective subgrade k-value..................................38
Site condition cells and design alternatives for the rigid pavement ...............................40
iii
Abstract
Three practical and useful products were developed for the state highway agencies in this
study. The Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features provides a comprehensive
summary of the design practices for flexible and rigid pavements for each state highway agency
in the U.S. The Catalog Of Recommended Pavement Design Features includes (1)
recommended (good practice) design features for highway engineers, administrators, and others
in a format that is easy to use and understand, (2) a model catalog presentation format for
potential usage by agencies, and (3) recommended consensus on many design features for
pavement design for varying site conditions. Many European countries have developed and
successfully used design catalogs for years. The prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System
(KBES) supplements the catalog by (1) providing interactive guidance to the designer in
obtaining design inputs for the catalog site conditions and (2) a rapid catalog database search and
presentation medium that represents the paper catalog and that quickly and efficiently identifies
feasible design alternatives for a given set of site and design conditions.
Keywords: flexible pavement, rigid pavement, pavement design, subdrainage, design catalog.
iv
Summary
The pavement design dilemma (as stated by a former state pavement design engineer): There
is a large amount of knowledge about pavement design available that is not being used. Much of
this knowledge resides with experienced engineers, in FHWA and State highway agency
manuals, pavement performance databases, and in research publications. A large percentage of
experienced engineers and contractors have retired leaving pavement design and construction to
far less experienced engineers. New engineers entering the highway field often do not have the
barest knowledge about pavements. Technical support from industry has been decreased.
Existing design manuals and procedures address thickness design, but do not directly consider
many important details that affect performance and future rehabilitation needs. Many of these
details are specified in agency standards which are seldom improved or updated
consistently. Is there a way to bring more of the available knowledge directly into the pavement
design process, especially for relatively inexperienced engineers?
This study has produced three practical and useful products for the state highway
agencies to address the above pavement design dilemma. These include a Catalog of Current
State Pavement Design Features, a Catalog Of Recommended Pavement Design Features, and a
prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES). The development of the design feature
recommendations through a unique consensus building process and the potential uses of each of
these products by state highway agencies are summarized.
Many European countries use pavement design catalogs. The catalogs, or pavement
standards as they are sometimes called, were initially developed in the 1960s and 1970s. They
v
started out as very simple documents of only a few pages showing diagrams of pavement
sections as a function of traffic and often subgrade support. These simple catalogs or standards
have since evolved into very comprehensive documents. The presentation format of the
European catalogs is such that they are relatively easy to use by practicing engineers. There is
no doubt that pavement design catalogs have become highly popular and successful in many
European countries. In addition to the national highway system, they are actually being
developed for a variety of other roadways such as cities, ports, and toll roads.
Pavement Design Methods Versus Presentation Formats. There is a difference between a

pavement thickness design method and a pavement design presentation format" by which a
design method is made available for use by practicing engineers. They are completely different
things, and this is crucial to understanding the potential value of a pavement design catalog
which is a presentation format, not a design method. A catalog presentation format can be
used to include a combination of engineering experience, road test results, and mechanistic based
thickness design procedures.
Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features. A Catalog of Current State Pavement
Design Features was prepared that provides a highly informative and practical guide on the
details of the design practice for flexible and rigid pavements in the U.S. The catalog first and
most importantly provides information in the form of a large Synoptic Tables Of State Pavement
Design Features. This section provides for the first time for both flexible and rigid pavements a
comprehensive summary of nearly all states design practices.
vi
Second, the catalog provides, for each state highway agency (SHA), a State Factorial Design
Matrix of Pavement Design Features that gives design layer thicknesses for a wide range of
traffic, subgrade, and climatic site conditions for major types of main highway pavement
constructed by the SHA. Third, the catalog provides a Catalog of Key Design Features by
Climatic Region and Pavement Type.
Feasibility study. A detailed evaluation was conducted into the feasibility of developing a
comprehensive catalog of recommended design features for both flexible and rigid pavements
and a supplemental prototype knowledge-based expert system (KBES).
It was concluded that it is feasible to properly develop a such a catalog and a supplemental
KBES having specific objectives and scope. This conclusion was based upon the positive
ratings and general comments of respondents (State highway agencies, FHWA, industry), many
years of successful European experience, and the recent development of catalog-like procedures
by several states (Washington, New York, Missouri).
Consensus meeting. Input from all sectors of the highway industry was required to develop the
catalog. Thus, a resource group of experienced pavement engineers from all sectors of the
industry was assembled. The consensus group discussed and reviewed the draft Catalog of
Recommended Pavement Design Features. The meeting produced a consensus on many design
features and performance criteria. The most valuable aspect of the meeting was the many
interesting and beneficial improvements proposed by the highly experienced and diverse
vii
resource group. This approach was so successful that it should be considered for use on other
studies where expert human experience is important.
Catalog Of Recommended Pavement Design Features. This document presents a catalog of
good practice recommendations for design features of highway pavements for highway
engineers, administrators, and others in an easy to use format. Guidelines are provided for three
main site conditions: traffic loadings, subgrade support, and climate. Based on these inputs,
design feature recommendations are provided in design cells including the pavement cross
section, structural design, materials, and other features required to meet minimum performance
requirements. This pavement design catalog is a relatively simple but effective mode of
presentation of an underlying pavement design methodology that includes both empirical and
mechanistic components. The catalog includes:
Recommended (good practice) design features for highway engineers, administrators, and
others in a format that is easy to use and understand.
A model catalog presentation format for potential usage by agencies.
Recommended consensus on many design features for pavement design for varying site
conditions.
The catalog provides recommendations on design features for highways ranging from heavily
trafficked Interstate and primary highways to secondary highways. The specific pavement types
included in the catalog are as follows:
Flexible Pavements
Asphalt concrete pavement with a crushed aggregate base.

viii
Asphalt concrete pavement with an asphalt treated base.
Asphalt concrete pavement with a cement treated base.
Asphalt concrete full-depth pavement.
Rigid Pavements
Jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCP).
Jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP).
Continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP).
The catalog, as it stands, is not intended for direct use in pavement design by an agency.
Design feature recommendations are provided in the form of acceptable ranges within each cell
of site conditions. The catalog will, however, provide recommendations that are adequate to
identify design features for flexible and rigid pavements that will help guide highway authorities
in selecting suitable and reliable designs. In general, the catalog provides recommended design
features that meet specific minimum performance requirements for a given set of site conditions.
The catalog recommendations are based on many sources, however, the most significant
source is the recommendations achieved by consensus of a resource group of pavement design
experts from Federal, state, industry, consulting, and academia. Contributions were also made
by the NCHRP based on reviews of the documents. In addition, use was made of current SHA
design practices, FHWA design manuals, the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures, and mechanistic-empirical performance models that were used to limit the occurrence
ix
of key distress types for flexible and rigid pavements and adjusted as needed to limit key distress
types within specified performance criteria.
Prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES). A prototype microcomputer-oriented,

KBES for selecting pavement design features was developed under this study. The prototype
KBES is a Windows 3.11 program with standard user friendly Windows graphic user interface.
The prototype KBES includes three main parts:
Input assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in obtaining design inputs for
the catalog site conditions and other inputs;
Database searching and presentation to access a project database which represents the paper
catalog, to quickly and efficiently identify feasible design alternatives for a given set of site
and design conditions;
Evaluation assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in evaluating the

advantages and disadvantages of the various design alternatives and explanations about
various design features.
Chapter 1
Introduction and Research Approach
Problem Statement
A rational pavement design must consider the effects of roadbed soil, climate, traffic loading,
construction materials, and other design details and features on pavement performance and lifecycle costs. The objective of the design process is to identify pavement structures that will
provide acceptable performance and economy over the intended design life. For a given
combination of roadbed soil conditions, climate, and traffic loading, therefore, the goal of a
pavement engineer during design is to determine the pavement structure and the related design
features that will meet the requirements at a particular location.
Given the similarities in environment, traffic, and roadbed soil within and among States, one
would expect similarities in the practices for design and construction in the nation. However,
this is not the case. The practices for design and construction vary widely. A catalog for
pavement design that identifies recommended design structures and features for flexible and
rigid pavements would help guide highway authorities in selecting suitable and reliable designs.
Nearly all European highway agencies have developed and adopted such design catalogs.
Supplementing such a catalog with a microcomputer-oriented, knowledge-based expert system
would further enhance the catalog's use and facilitate its updating.
Research Objectives
The objectives of this research are (a) to evaluate the feasibility of developing a
comprehensive catalog of recommended design features for both flexible and rigid pavements
and a corresponding prototype expert system, and (b) if feasible, to develop such a practical
catalog and prototype expert system for selecting the recommended design features.
Research Approach
The research approach used to accomplish the objectives included the following major items:
(1) A detailed review of existing design catalogs from European countries was conducted and
interviews were held with several experts involved with the development of those catalogs.
In addition, three states (Washington, New York, and Missouri) have recently developed
interesting catalog like documents which were also reviewed.
(2) Three key site conditions were identified for the catalog factorial matrix: traffic loads,
subgrade support, and climate. These site conditions define the factorial matrix which serves
as the main structure of the catalog. Each cell in the factorial matrix represents a specific
combination of traffic loading, climate, and subgrade support.
(3) Key design features were identified for flexible and rigid pavements that should be included
in each of the factorial cells of the catalog. Design features include subgrade treatments,
subdrainage features, shoulder design, layer thickness, material requirements, joint design
and other features. Thus, a large majority of the design features that are specified for design
and construction are included in one document and are easily obtained.
(4) The current pavement design procedures, design inputs, and design features used by each
State highway agency (SHA) for flexible and rigid pavements were obtained, summarized,
2
and checked twice by each state. The many summary tables of design features represent the
first ever compilation of such information for both flexible and rigid pavements.
(5) Based upon this information, a Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features was
developed (15). This catalog consists of three main parts:
(a)
State synoptic tables of many pavement design features (by State).
(b) Individual State factorial design matrix of pavement design features including design
layer thicknesses for a wide range of traffic, subgrade, and climatic site conditions for
major types of main highway pavement constructed by the SHA.
(c )
Catalog of key design features averaged over climatic region and pavement type.
(6) Feedback on the usefulness and advantages/disadvantages of a catalog was obtained directly
from the various segments of the U.S. highway industry through questionnaires and
interviews with experienced engineers.
(7) The objectives, scope, and some critical developmental issues of the catalog were then
further defined, along with key advantages and disadvantages. All of this information was
then analyzed to obtain a comprehensive feasibility evaluation of producing a catalog of
recommended design features. The feasibility of developing a catalog of recommended
design features and a supplemental computer-oriented, Knowledge-Based Expert System
(KBES) were determined. Both were judged to be feasible and after approval by NCHRP,
both were then developed.
(8) A draft catalog of recommended design features for flexible and rigid pavements was first
prepared based upon a review of European catalogs, existing design procedures, mechanisticempirical design checks, and experience of the research staff.
(9) A consensus meeting was held where many experts were brought together to deliberate and
revise the draft recommendations. A consensus was reached on almost all of the issues and
the draft catalog was extensively revised. The catalog was then further reviewed by the
NCHRP and many further revisions were made. Thus, the catalog represents the composite
knowledge of many practitioners as well as traditional sources of existing design procedures
and mechanistic-empirical design checks (16).
(10) A prototype knowledge-based expert system (KBES) was developed to supplement the
paper catalog. The prototype KBES represents the paper catalog in a electronic format and
also adds further capabilities. When fully developed, the prototype KBES will supplement
the catalog in the following ways:
Provide interactive guidance to the designer in obtaining design inputs for the catalog site
conditions and other inputs. This part is well developed and includes all the information that
is included in the printed catalog.
Provide access to a relational database which represents the printed catalog, to quickly and
efficiently identify feasible design alternatives for a given set of site and design conditions.
This goal was also achieved. The prototype KBES can search for the viable design
alternatives very efficiently.
Provide interactive guidance to the designer in evaluating the performance of the various
design alternatives. The prototype KBES provides mock-ups to illustrate this important
concept.
Provide explanations about various design features. An on-line technical help file is under
development to achieve this goal.
A plan for extending the prototype KBES into a fully operational KBES was developed. The
prototype KBES must be developed into a fully operational KBES if its true value is to be
realized.
Chapter 2
Findings
Success of Pavement Design Catalogs/Standards in European Countries

Nearly all European countries, including Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Belgium, Italy,
and Switzerland, use pavement design catalogs. To learn from their experience, the catalogs
from these countries were thoroughly reviewed, and first-hand information was sought from
representatives of the highway agencies. A summary of most of these catalogs is included in
Appendix A.
The pavement design catalogs, or pavement standards as they are called in some countries,
were initially developed in the 1960s and 1970s. They started out as very simple documents of
only a few pages showing diagrams of pavement sections as a function of traffic and often
subgrade support. These simple catalogs or standards have since evolved into very
comprehensive documents. (1-13)
These European catalogs and standards have evolved into what would be considered in the
U.S. as portions of geotechnical manuals, pavement design manuals, geometric design manuals,
a variety of standard drawings and cross sections, drainage manuals, materials manuals, and
some aspects of construction specifications all placed into a single document. However, the
presentation format of the European catalogs is different
There is no doubt that pavement design catalogs or standards have become highly popular
and successful in many European countries since the 1970s. They are actually being expanded
into a variety of other highway systems in some countries such as cities, ports, and toll roads.
Some comments from various European countries about design catalogs are provided.
6
Spain. Professor Carlos Kraemer of the Universidad Polite'cnica de Madrid was involved in the
first catalog developed in Spain in 1975. He noted the following advantages of Spain's pavement
catalog (personal communication):
Establishes uniform design criteria based on standard specified materials of adequate quality.
Improves the average performance of pavements by eliminating through experience underand over-designed solutions.
Provides nonspecialized engineers with a practical tool which reduces the risk of
misunderstandings and errors in theoretical calculations, or even when following a design
guide like AASHTO. The designer can focus on the choice of the most appropriate solution
in each specific case on the basis of availability of materials and of cost.
Reduces the number of alternative pavement structures, which is beneficial for contractors
who soon become familiar with them.
Simplifies the supervision of design, construction quality control, assessment of

performance, and, in short, maintenance management (through a reduction in alternative
pavement structures).
Allows the progressive optimization of the design process through performance observations
and analysis.
Professor Kraemer also listed some disadvantages (personal communication):
There is a risk to introduce routine in the design process. Pavement design is sometimes
considered to be a solved problem; hence, fewer engineers are motivated in becoming
specialists in this area.
New materials may be more difficult to be introduced, even with a standard structural design
open to initiatives (for instance, high-modulus asphalt mixes instead of conventional ones).
7
It may be less adaptable to regional or local conditions, like extreme climates, local marginal
materials, particular local aggregates (for instance, some volcanic materials).
A certain lack of flexibility to adapt to budget limitations.
Professor Kraemer had this to say about achieving a consensus: "Before final approval, the
catalog was submitted for comments to a committee where the asphalt and cement industries
were represented, as well as the union of the most important contractors of the country . . . It was
not difficult to arrive at a consensus. A certain balance in construction cost has been achieved
between pavement structures designed for a given traffic and subgrade category. The different
solutions are reasonably competitive."
Some entities in Spain (regional administrations, particularly those with low traffic volume
roads and ports) have developed their own catalogs, better adapted to their special experiences,
materials, and needs. This demonstrates the popularity of the catalog concept in Spain.
"The catalog is fully accepted in Spain by government officials, asphalt and cement
industries, consulting engineers, and contractors. After 19 years, its practical use can be taken as
proved. The same approach has been extended to other areas such as urban roads, port
pavements, and even mine haulage roads. A revision should be considered about every 10 years.
If after a shorter period, evidence shows a pavement structure as under-designed or a new
solution appears as useful, an addendum should be issued. Every new edition should particularly
take into account new materials (with standard specification drawn up), the evolution of freight
transport and truck wheel loads and the general economic situation." (C. Kraemer, personal
communication)
Germany. Professor Gunther Leykauf of the Technische University at Munich provides the
following comments on the German experience:
"The first design catalog in Germany was published in 1966 and consisted of only one sheet.
Since that time the thickness standardization has been revised several times, and the thickness of
the catalog increased, too. A new version has been installed this year to revise our last RSto
86/89; main goal is to introduce structures for widening, renewal, and reconstruction of
pavements.
"(1) Initially, engineering judgement was the technical basis for the catalog. However, with
each revision the results of theoretical calculations, laboratory and field tests, as well as practical
experiences were introduced. Failure criteria were fatigue cracking for asphalt pavements
(however, not absolute values were considered but a comparison between different structures)
and bending stresses for concrete pavements. Rutting scarcely can be influenced by thickness,
but by the asphalt mixture (crushed aggregates) and a good compound at the layer interfaces.
"(2) A minimum bearing capacity is required on top of the subgrade (foundation level).
Further advantages are a limitation of possible technical solutions; hence, an improved
communication between client and contractor, rationalization effects, and better quality due to
the standardization.
"(3) There is a good cooperation between government engineers, university researchers, and
industries.
"(4) Compromises have been necessary for the final thickness catalog (to achieve a
consensus).
9
"(5) Complaints arise with a certain regularity every 5 to 10 years. Just now there is a
discussion [as to] which kind of wearing course for asphalt pavements must be considered in a
cost-comparison with a concrete structure. However, the problems are settled by the price or by
decisions of government agencies to demand either an asphalt or a concrete pavement (for very
heavily trafficked highways).
"(6) The RSto 86/89 is fully accepted in practice. There exists the need to introduce
structures for the renewal of pavements and for widening of pavements." (G. Leykauf, personal
communication).
Dr. Andreas Zachlehner of Germany stated the following: "The main concept of the German
pavement catalog is to provide ready-made structural pavement alternatives for a given amount
of traffic and, in a minor degree, climatic conditions. Because of this, the traffic catalog is of
great importance, especially for local administrations without a large amount of technical staff or
experience.
"One of the main characteristics of the design procedure is that a fixed value of bearing
capacity is required for the subgrade independent of local conditions. By this means, the
subgrade conditions are eliminated as design parameters. This may not always lead to the most
economical solution.
"Another characteristic is that the different pavement structures considered for given traffic
and climatic conditions are supposed to be technically equivalent. The difficulty consists
precisely in establishing the technical equivalence between those different pavement structures . .
. as the not very well-known, long-term performance may be decisive for this comparison. The
once declared technical equivalence of two different pavement structures theoretically allows the
tender to submit proposals including any of them." (A. Zachlehner, personal communication)
10
Dr. Peter Canisius of the Federal Highway Administration in Germany stated the following:
"Prior to the development of standards or catalogs, lots of people were doing designs, some good
and some poor designs. People said 'Let's find the best design and use that.' Now you can select
alternative designs for given conditions. In Germany, they use the standards (catalog) for most
projects, and thus different designers would get the same designs. If the contractor follows the
standards they will get good performance. Germany designs against frost heave by providing
granular blanket of sufficient thickness.
Advantages of catalog: not enough experienced pavement design engineers in Germany to
design roads. The catalog reduces errors in pavement design from inexperienced engineers. The
subgrade is not a factor in the catalog because every subgrade must meet this minimum standard
bearing capacity. Procedures are included about what to do with poor soils. Contractors try to
optimize standards, if [problems develop with a] pavement, they have to repair because of their
warranty for construction. Does a catalog affect innovation? Germany is not against
innovations. Industry builds roads to standards; however, this does not hamper innovations." (P.
Canisius, personal communication)
France. Mr. J. P. Christory of the Laboratoire Regional de L'Ouest Parisien in France has
provided information concerning his active participation in developing pavement design catalogs
for various cities and regions of France. Pavement design catalogs have been very successful in
France, as evidenced by the fact that the first catalog was developed by the government in 1977
for freeways and has since been updated and expanded greatly. In addition, other catalogs for
toll roads and urban areas (such as Paris) are now available and have had strong support and
success. The French see the catalog format as a highly effective format to communicate
11
pavement design information to all persons interested in pavements. Mr. Christory is involved in
the active development of these catalogs for several entities in France. Thus, in summary,
pavement design catalogs/standards have been very successful in European countries, and are in
use in everyday design.
12
Pavement Design Methods Versus Pavement Design Presentation Formats

This section distinguishes between pavement thickness design methods or procedures and
"pavement design presentation formats" by which a design method is made available for use by
practicing engineers. They are completely different things, and this is crucial to understanding
the potential value of a pavement design catalog which is a presentation format, not a design
method.
Several different thickness design methods exist, such as those developed by American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Asphalt Institute (AI),
Portland Cement Association (PCA), Illinois DOT Mechanistic Design, Washington DOT, and
the Texas DOT FPS and RPS. Each thickness design method is based on some underlying
theoretical and/or empirical concepts. Along with the thickness design methods for each agency
there are corresponding materials specifications, mix designs, subgrade treatments, and standard
design drawings for cross-sections, joints, reinforcement, and subdrainage.
In addition to these thickness design methods, and not to be confused with them, are
different "design presentation formats" by which a design method is made available for use by a
designer. For example, the AASHTO thickness design procedure has been utilized by designers
in several different formats: nomograph, spreadsheet, and various computer programs. A
catalog for second overlays of composite pavements was recently developed for the Illinois DOT
based on the AASHTO procedure. The New York DOT used a modified AASHTO thickness
design procedure plus other models to develop a tabular or catalog format for presentation. The
following underlying thickness design methods have utilized various presentation formats for
design engineers:
13
Completely empirical and experience-based methods have utilized tables, graphs, and
catalogs.
Closed form design equation (empirical or semi-empirical) methods have used hand
calculator, nomograph, tables, graphs, spreadsheets, micro-computer software, and catalog.
Complex design algorithms (usually mechanistically based) methods have used computer
software, but have also been simplified into tables, graphs, and catalogs.
Therefore, the design presentation format is not necessarily related to the sophistication of
the thickness design method. Also, in the subsequent feasibility evaluation, a pavement design
catalog utilizes both some underlying thickness design theory and a specific type of design
presentation format (i.e., the catalog format). The underlying design theory can be anything
from engineering experience, to empirical equations from road tests, to sophisticated mechanistic
algorithms, to any combination of these. Some European catalogs that were originally developed
from experience have since been checked and revised using mechanistic theory but retain their
catalog presentation format.
In addition to layer thicknesses, the catalog approach provides an easy-to-use format to
present recommendations for other design features such as shoulders, subdrainage, materials
criteria, joint design, subgrade treatments, etc. all in a single document.
Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features

A Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features (15) was prepared that provides a
highly informative and practical guide on the details of the design practice for flexible and rigid
pavements in the U.S.
14
The catalog first and most importantly provides information in the form of a large Synoptic
Tables Of State Pavement Design Features. This section provides for the first time for both
flexible and rigid pavements a comprehensive summary of nearly all states design practices.
Second, the catalog provides, for each state highway agency (SHA), a State Factorial Design
Matrix of Pavement Design Features that gives design layer thicknesses for a wide range of
traffic, subgrade, and climatic site conditions for major types of main highway pavement
constructed by the SHA. This information is provided for both flexible and rigid pavements, as
constructed in the individual states.
Third, the catalog provides a Catalog of Key Design Features by Climatic Region and
Pavement Type. These results are presented graphically in the form of a catalog of designs for
flexible and rigid pavements in four climatic regions.
Fourth, a summary of key design features for flexible and for rigid pavements are given.
This information will be of interest to highway administrators, pavement designers, contractors,
industry, and others involved in various aspects of pavement design and construction.
Feasibility study
A detailed evaluation was conducted into the feasibility of developing a comprehensive
catalog of recommended design features for both flexible and rigid pavements and a
supplemental prototype knowledge-based expert system (KBES). The feasibility study included
a review of design catalogs and procedures from European countries and U.S. States,
identification of key site conditions and design features, and finally feedback on the usefulness
and advantages/ disadvantages of a catalog obtained directly from the various segments of the
U.S. highway industry.
15
(1) This was accomplished through the development of a "strawman" catalog (and knowledgebased expert system) that illustrates the main catalog format and design features to be
included. This "strawman" was based upon the catalogs from European countries, recent
catalog-like designs by State highway agencies (SHAs), and the Catalog Of Current State
Pavement Design Features and Practices developed under this study.
(2) The "strawman" catalog and accompanying questionnaire were sent to 27 experienced
engineers representing the State highway agencies, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), and the asphalt and concrete paving industries. Nineteen (19) responses were
received and analyzed.
Results of the surveys are as follows:
(A) Who might use the catalog? Figure 1 shows the percentage of respondents indicating
who might use the catalog: local agencies (79%), consultants (79%), central offices (72%),
districts (72%), experienced engineers (68%), new engineers (68%), contractors for
information purposes (58%), and industry (58%). These results show that the respondents in
general believe that there is a lot of interest in the catalog.
(B) How might the catalog be used? Figure 2 shows the percentage of respondents
indicating how the catalog might be used: to review and check designs (95%), to obtain
information on recommended design features for comparative purposes (84%), to
"customize" or adapt the catalog to specific agency conditions and use for routine design
(43% of SHAs responded affirmative), to train personnel in pavement design (42%), and to
update agency design procedures (37%). These results show that catalog could have several
uses, if developed properly.
16
(C) What advantages will the catalog provide? Figure 3 shows the percentage of
respondents indicating what advantages the catalog would provide: simplicity of use (89%),
improvement of the efficiency of the pavement design process (68%), improvement of
communication with administrators about pavement design (63%), easy implementation of a
new (or modified) design procedure (58%), provision of an easy to use source of key design
features for a given project (58%), and enhanced communication in pavement design and
construction (42%). These advantages agree well with those mentioned by European
experts.
Central Offices
72 %
Experienced pavement
design engineers
68%
Local Agencies
79%
Industry
58%
Consultants
79%
CATALOG SURVEY
"Who might use a catalog?"
Contractors
58%
Districts
63%
New inexperienced
engineers
68%
Figure 1. Percent respondents indicating the prospective users of a catalog.
17
Make comparisons
84 %
Review and check
design
95%
CATALOG SURVEY
"How might a catalog be used?"
Update agency design

37%
Training
42%
Customize - Adapt
to agency
43% (SHA respondents only)
Figure 2. Percent respondents checking the categories of the ways of using a catalog.
18
Simplicity of use
89%
Improvement of
communication
with administrators
63%
Easy-to-use source of
key design features
for a project
58%
Improvement of the
efficiency 68 %
Reduction in error
53%
CATALOG SURVEY
"What Advantages?"
Easy implementation
58%
Enhance
communication
42%
Figure 3. Percent respondents indicating the potential advantages.
(D) What disadvantages will the catalog provide? Figure 4 shows the percentage of
respondents indicating what disadvantages the catalog would provide: provides new
engineers with a false sense of security (83%), applicability of the design catalog to some
local site conditions (71%), gives engineers and management too simplified a view of
pavement design (67%), recommended design features may not fit local project conditions
(67%), and incompatibility with current design methodology (44%). The respondents clearly
indicate that there are some significant disadvantages with the catalog also. Some of these
can be dealt with in development.
(E) What aspects of the design catalog would be the most valuable? The percentage of
19
respondents indicated the following aspects would be most valuable:

Layer material properties
89 percent
Layer thickness
74 percent
Subgrade treatments
68 percent
Subdrainage design features
63 percent
Shoulder design features
42 percent
Joint design features
37 percent
Reinforcement design
26 percent
One respondent indicated that they were all equally important to a pavement design.
New engineers
false sense of secuity
83 %
Applicability to
some local conditions
67%
Too simplified
a view of design
67%
CATALOG SURVEY
"What Disadvantages?"
Recommended design features

may not fit local conditions
71%
Incompatibility with
current design methodology
44%
Figure 4. Percent respondents selecting the disadvantages categories.
20
(F) Do you feel that a microcomputer-based knowledge-based expert system (KBES)

would enhance the value of the printed catalog? The percentage of respondents indicated
the following:
Yes, most definitely
Yes, somewhat
No, not likely
66 percent
28 percent
6 percent
There appears to be strong support for the KBES.

(3)
Interviews with experienced pavement researchers, designers, administrators, and

contractors about the feasibility of pavement design catalogs and about a computerbased, knowledge-based expert system (KBES) were also conducted. Several European
experts who have actually been involved in the development of design catalogs for their
counties were also interviewed. The NCHRP 1-32 panel also provided valuable
information.
(4)
The objectives, scope, and some critical developmental issues of the catalog were then
further defined, along with key advantages and disadvantages. All of this information
was then analyzed to obtain a comprehensive feasibility evaluation of producing a
catalog of recommended design features.
Based on all of this input, it was concluded that it is feasible to properly develop a Catalog of
Recommended Pavement Design Features and a supplemental KBES having specific objectives
and scope. The catalog and the KBES had overall good support from a cross-section of the
21
Federal, State, and industry highway engineers and contractors. However, several disadvantages
were identified that must be eliminated or minimized during development.
It is also concluded that a properly developed catalog and KBES has a good chance of being
used for a variety of purposes by a variety of agencies and individuals. These conclusions are
based upon the positive ratings and general comments of respondents (State highway agencies,
FHWA, industry), many years of successful European experience, and the recent development of
catalog-like procedures by several States (Washington, New York, Missouri)(references).
The Consensus Meeting

Input from all sectors of the highway industry was required to develop the catalog. Thus, a
large resource group of experienced pavement engineers from all sectors of the industry was
assembled. The resource group meeting was held in Chicago at the O Hare Hyatt Regency
Hotel from January 22-26, 1996. Sixteen of the eighteen members of the expert resource group
attended along with the research team members and Professor Lorenzo Domenichini from Italy
who gave an overview of the development and use of catalogs in Europe and answered many
related questions. Members of the consensus group, Professor Domenichini s presentation,
and the minutes from the meeting are given in Appendix B.
The consensus group spent the week discussing and reviewing the draft Catalog of
Recommended Pavement Design Features that had been previously provided to them. The
meeting produced two major results: many recommendations on design features and a
consensus on nearly all of the final recommendations.
22
The meeting was very lively, especially during the first two days. Obtaining a consensus
(meaning specifically that no one in the group opposed a given recommendation, although not
everyone was completely satisfied either) was very difficult, and often required considerable
efforts to find a recommendation that could be supported by all. The following definition of
consensus was used as provided by management consultant Peter Scholtes who states that
consensus represents decisions that best reflect the thinking of all persons involved.
"Consensus is . . . finding a proposal acceptable enough that all members can support it; no
member opposes it."
"Consensus is not . . . a unanimous votea consensus may not represent everyone's first
priorities. . . a majority votein a majority vote, only the majority gets something they are
happy with; people in the minority may get something they don't want at all, which is not
what consensus is all about. . . Everyone totally satisfied."
"Consensus requires . . . time, active participation of all group members . . . skills in
communication: listening, conflict resolution, discussion facilitation, creative thinking and
open-mindedness."(14)
The entire group balloted the general design recommendations related to all pavement
types (i.e., approach used for structural design, design checks, design reliability, initial
serviceability, final serviceability). The group was then divided into two groups, one for asphalt
pavements and one for concrete pavements for specific design features. These groups then
balloted on design recommendations specific to that pavement type. Each day, a summary of the
previous days results was provided to the entire group assembled together. Ballots were
conducted on over 40 recommended design features.
The research team is very pleased that a consensus was eventually achieved on practically
every design feature. The most valuable aspect of the meeting was the many interesting and
23
beneficial improvements proposed by the highly experienced and diverse resource group. The
research team was frankly surprised at the ability to eventually reach consensus on so many
recommendations.
24
The consensus building process consisted of the following steps:

(1) A description of the recommendation by a member of the 1-32 research team.
(2) Discussion by the resource group.
(3) Secrete balloting (each group member filled out a ballot that contained a rating scale that
ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree and the reason if the person disagreed or
strongly disagreed).
(4) A display of a frequency distribution of ratings on a computer screen for all to see.
(5) The announcement that a consensus has been reached if no one rated either strongly
disagree or disagree, OR the announcement that a consensus has NOT been reached.
(5) If a consensus was not reached, the reasons why were read from the ballots and further
discussion was held until a the recommendation was modified or clarifying notes attached
that made it possible for all members to support the recommendation. Another ballot was
then taken to verify that indeed a consensus had been reached.
This approach was so successful that it should be considered for use on other research
projects where expert human experience is important. The results from this meeting were used
to develop the catalog as described in the next section.
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features (16)

This document presents a catalog of good practice recommendations for design features of
highway pavements for highway engineers, administrators, and others in an easy to use format.
Guidelines are provided for three main site conditions: traffic loadings, subgrade support, and
25
climate. Based on these inputs, design feature recommendations are provided in design cells
including the pavement cross section, structural design, materials, and other features required to
meet minimum performance requirements. This pavement design catalog is a relatively simple
but effective mode of presentation of an underlying pavement design methodology that includes
both empirical and mechanistic components. The entire document is included in Reference 16.
There are several potential uses for this catalog, as described in Chapter 3.
Description of Catalog. The contents of this Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design

Features for highway pavements include the following:
Recommended (good practice) design features for highway engineers, administrators, and
others in a format that is easy to use and understand.
Recommended consensus on many design features for pavement design for varying site
conditions.
The printed design catalog is organized into the following parts:

Part 1
An introduction to the catalog.
Part 2
How to use the catalog and design criteria.
Part 3
Project site condition inputs (climate, traffic, and subgrade).
Part 4
Guidelines on recommended design features for alternative pavement

structures that will meet the minimum performance requirements of the site
condition cell.
Part 5
Special subsurface conditions.
References
26
Glossary
Definition of terms used in catalog.
Appendices
Detailed information on inputs, design examples, design check models, and

notes on design feature recommendations.
Scope of Catalog. The catalog provides recommendations on design features for highways
ranging from heavily trafficked Interstate and primary highways to secondary highways. The
specific pavement types included in the catalog are as follows:
Flexible Pavements
Asphalt concrete pavement with a crushed aggregate base.
Asphalt concrete pavement with an asphalt treated base.
Asphalt concrete pavement with a cement treated base.
Asphalt concrete full-depth pavement.
Rigid Pavements
Jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCP).
Jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP).
Continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP).
The catalog, as it stands, is not intended for direct use in pavement design. Design feature
recommendations are provided in the form of acceptable ranges within each cell of site
conditions and, thus, are not suitable for use in design. The catalog will, however, provide
recommendations that are adequate to identify design features for flexible and rigid pavements
27
that will help guide highway authorities in selecting suitable and reliable designs, and to check
designs.
The catalog is applicable to project site conditions and construction practices encountered in
the United States with guidelines provided for the appropriate adjustments for special subsurface conditions. In general, the catalog provides recommended design features that meet
specific minimum performance requirements for a given set of site conditions.
A critical issue that is addressed for each type of pavement and cell site condition is material
requirements. The structural and durability requirements for the materials vary between some
site condition cells due to traffic and climatic conditions.
Basis for the Catalog. The catalog recommendations are based on many sources, however, the
most significant source is the recommendations achieved by consensus of a large resource group
of pavement design experts from Federal, state, industry, consulting, and academia. The
resource group met for an entire week and debated and revised many proposed recommendations
until a consensus was reached (Appendix B). Contributions were also made by the NCHRP
based on reviews of the documents. In addition, use was made of current SHA design practices
(15), FHWA design manuals, the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, and
mechanistic-empirical performance models that were used to limit the occurrence of key distress
types for flexible and rigid pavements and adjusted as needed to limit key distress types within
specified performance criteria.
28
Structural Sections in the Catalog. This catalog provides structural sections that are expected
to carry a specified amount of mixed traffic that has been projected to occur over a given design
period. Differing amounts of maintenance and rehabilitation may be required to reach the end of
the design period, and of course life-cycle costs may vary between structural sections.
29
Prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES)

A prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES) was developed to supplement the
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features. This chapter and the Users Guide (16)
document the development and the prototype KBES, called Designer. The software
development will be described first, followed by an overview of the prototype KBES, and a
discussion on the use of the KBES is given in Chapter 3.
Software Development. A prototype microcomputer-oriented, KBES for selecting pavement

design features was developed under this study. The inference engine of the KBES uses the
expert system shell, CLIPS 6.04. CLIPS is an acronym for C Language Integrated Production
System. It was developed by the Software Technology Branch of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administrations (NASA). CLIPS is disseminated under the sponsorship of NASA by the
Computer Software Management and Information Center (COSMIC) in the interest of
information exchange. There is no royalty required to use and further develop the KBES using
CLIPS. CLIPS 6.04 is written in C-language for interactive execution on IBM PC compatible
computers running MS-DOS v5.0 or higher and MS Windows v3.x.
Features of CLIPS include a conventional rule-based expert system, procedural programming
ability, and CLIPS object-oriented programming capability. All these features are utilized in
developing the prototype KBES. The rule-based expert system part is used frequently in the
KBES whenever there is any reasoning or pattern matching involved. The procedural and
object-oriented programming languages make the pattern matching of the pavement conditions
to the catalog factorial cells very easy and efficient.
30
The prototype KBES is a Windows 3.11 program with standard user friendly Windows
graphic user interface. Microsoft Windows programming language, Visual Basic (VB) 4.0, was
used to develop a friendly user interface. The core part of the prototype KBES is programmed
using CLIPS. It can be executed on any IBM PC compatible 486 computer with at least 4Mb
RAM and Windows 3.11 or higher.
The prototype KBES program architecture is a standard modular design and is very flexible
and easy to modify. The link between the VB interface and CLIPS programs is dynamic in the
sense that the inferences and screen framework are completely separated. All the logical
inference, derivations, and technical contents are provided in CLIPS code. CLIPS also provides
all the necessary outputs and screen display instructions to VB. Therefore, the prototype KBES
is easy to modify and enhance in the future.
Overview Of The Prototype KBES. The prototype KBES developed in this project includes
three main parts:
Input assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in obtaining design inputs for
the catalog site conditions and other inputs;
Database searching and presentation to access a project database which represents the paper
catalog, to quickly and efficiently identify feasible design alternatives for a given set of site
and design conditions;
Evaluate assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in evaluating the

advantages and disadvantages of the various design alternatives and explanations about
various design features.
31
Appendix H of Reference 16 describes in detail each of the above modules.
CHAPTER 3
INTERPRETATION, APPRAISAL, APPLICATIONS
As discussed in Chapter 2, several important products have been developed under this study.
The main products of this project include the following: Catalog of Current State Pavement
Design Features, Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features, and the supplemental
prototype KBES. The usefulness and the potential applications to State highway agencies, as
well as the advantages and the disadvantages or limitations of these products are presented in
this chapter.
Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features

A wealth of information about pavement design features has been collected from each State
in the United States and has been compiled into the Catalog of Current State Pavement Design
Features (15). This State catalog provides much useful information to pavement engineers and
administrators. The State catalog may be used in the following ways:
Provides a highly informative and practical guide to the details of design practice being used
for flexible and rigid pavements throughout the U.S.
A reference of pavement design features that may be useful in developing designs;
Can be used for comparison studies of the pavement designs between agencies;
Can be used as a training tool to learn more about the current pavement design practices used
in the U.S.
32
The summary and the statistical analysis part of the key pavement design features provides a
quick reference of the current common pavement design practices for highway authorities.
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features

A catalog of good practice recommendations for highway pavement design features was
developed for highway pavement engineers, administrators, researchers, and others. It is a
relatively simple but effective mode of presentation of an underlying pavement design
methodology that includes both empirical and mechanistic components.
The catalog recommendations are based on many sources, however, the most significant
source is the recommendations achieved by consensus of a large resource group of pavement
design experts from Federal, state, industry, consulting, and academia. The resource group met
for an entire week and debated and revised many proposed recommendations until a consensus
was reached. Contributions were also made by the NCHRP based on reviews of the documents.
In addition, use was made of current SHA design practices, FHWA design manuals, the 1993
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, and mechanistic-empirical performance
models that were used to limit the occurrence of key distress types for flexible and rigid
pavements and adjusted as needed to limit key distress types within specified performance
criteria. The catalog developed under this study is not intended for direct use in design. Design
feature recommendations are in the form of acceptable ranges with each site condition cell, and
thus not suitable for use in design. The catalog provides recommendations that identify design
features for flexible and rigid pavements that can help guide highway authorities in selecting
suitable and reliable designs.
33
The following are the possible applications of the general catalog:
Obtain information on recommended design features for comparative purposes.
Train personnel.
Update aspects of agencies current design procedures.
Review or check current pavement designs.
Remind pavement engineers of design alternatives they might consider for a given set of
conditions.
For example, the process of using this catalog to compare with agency designs can be
summarized as follows:
1. Select pavement type to be compared.
2. Identify the site condition design cell for the project under consideration through estimation
of traffic, subgrade, and climate inputs.
3. Obtain the recommended design features from the design cell.
4. Compare the recommended design features in the catalog with those of the agency.
5. Investigate the reasons for significant differences between the design features.
To illustrate the use of the catalog, examples of using the catalog to identify flexible
pavement design features and rigid pavement design features are provided.
Example to Identify Flexible Pavement Design Features
34
Step 1 - General project description

Conversion of two lane highway into four lane highway by construction of two additional
lanes that will carry one directional traffic.
Primary highway, two lanes in one direction.
Crowned cross-section with 12 ft lanes and 6 ft shoulders on each side.
Design period = 20 years
Climatic zone = wet-freeze
Step 2 - Determine site condition input for traffic (16)
ADT (initial) = 10,000 two-directions
Mean percent trucks = 10.0
Lane distribution factor (trucks) = 0.87
Directional distribution factor (trucks) = 0.5 (same number in each direction)
Future growth of trucks = 5 percent per year, compounded
GF = [ (1 + 0.05)20 - 1 ] / 0.05 = 33.06
Mean truck equivalency factor over 20 years (flexible ESAL/truck) = 1.1
Total ESALs = 10,000 * 0.1 * 365 * 0.87 * 0.5 * 1.1 * 33.06 = 5,774,012 outer lane, one
direction.
Step 3 - Determine site condition input for subgrade (16)
Natural subgrade soil = silty clay
Resilient modulus backcalculated form FWD deflection data from existing pavement.
Mean backcalculated resilient modulus = 15,000 psi
Mean adjusted resilient modulus = 15,000 * 0.35 = 5250 psi
Seasonal adjustment required as shown in table 1.
35
Table 1. Calculation of seasonally adjusted effective resilient modulus for subgrade.

Season
No. of
In Situ Resilient
Damage
Seasonal
Months
Modulus, psi
Ratio
Damage Ratio
Summer
5,000
0.40
1.20
Fall
6,000
0.30
0.90
Winter
10,000
0.06
0.18
Spring
Thaw
2,000
2.60
2.60
Spring
Total
3,500
0.70
1.40
6.28
12
Average Damage Ratio = 6.28 / 12 = 0.52

Effective Resilient Modulus = 4,000 psi
Step 4 - Determination of subgrade preparation/improvement needed (Part 4A and Part 5

of Reference 16)
The seasonally adjusted resilient modulus falls into the Very Soft class. Subgrade
improvement is strongly recommended for this class of soil to provide a good construction
platform and a more uniform support condition. Since soil was found to be reactive with
36
hydrated lime, the top 12 in of the subgrade will be stabilized and compacted prior to
construction of the pavement layers.
Step 5 - Determine site condition input for climate
Pavement is located in a wet-freeze area of the United States. The freezing index = 500
degree days below freezing, average annual precipitation = 40 in.
Step 6 - Determination of recommended alternative flexible pavement types (Part 4A of

Reference 16)
The pavement design matrix with recommended AC pavement design alternatives is shown
in table 2. The site condition cell and the design alternatives of this example are identified as:
Cell 13: 4-8 million ESALs and Subgrade resilient modulus = 4,000 psi.
Alternative 1: HMAC Surface/Binder over Conventional Unbound Granular Base
Alternative 2: HMAC Surface/Binder over Asphalt Treated Base
Example structural design details of Cell 13 are shown in figure 5.
37
Table 2. Site condition design cells and alternatives for flexible pavement catalog (16).
*These flexible pavement types are considered marginal for the specific site condition cell noted.
38
Structural Layer Thickness - Asphalt Treated Base
Dense Graded Asphalt

Concrete Surface Thickness, in.
Asphalt Treated Base Thickness,
in.
Granular/Aggregate (Pit Run
Gravel) Subbase Thickness, in.
5.5-6.5

5.5-6.5
10.0
(Plant mixed)
11.0
(Roadway
Mixed)
13.0-14.0
13.0-14.0
Asphalt Treated Base Thickness, in.

Granular/Aggregate (Pit Run Gravel)
Subbase Thickness, in.
Improved Subgrade Thickness, in.
Prepared Subgrade(See Section 5)
5.5-6.5
5.5-6.5
8.0
(Plant mixed)
9.0
(Roadway
Mixed)
14.0
14.0
6.0 - 12.0
6.0 - 12.0
Note: A filter layer (or separator) is recommended between the

subbase and very soft subgrades (See Section 5).
Controlled by AASHTO-PSI Criteria

Asphalt Treated Base Thickness, in.
Crushed Stone Aggregate Subbase,
in.
5.5-6.5
10.0
(Plant mixed)
7.0

5.5-6.5
11.0
(Roadway
Mixed)
Asphalt Treated Base

Thickness, in.
7.0
5.0-6.0
Crushed Stone Aggregate

Subbase
5.0-6.0

Prepared Subgrade (See Section 5)
5.5-6.5
5.5-6.5
8.0
(Plant mixed)
9.0
(Roadway
Mixed)
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
6.0 - 12.0
6.0 - 12.0
Improved Subgrade Thickness,

in.
Note: A filter layer (or separator is recommended between the subbase

and very soft subgrades (See Section 5).
Structural Layer Thickness - Cement Treated Base

6.5-7.5
6.5-7.5
12.0
12.0

Cement Treated Base Thickness, in.

Granular/Aggregate Subbase
Thickness, in.
Cement Treated Base Thickness, in.

7.0-8.0
Crushed
Stone
8.0-9.0
Pit Run
Gravel
Improved Subgrade , in.
Prepared Subgrade(See Section 5)
Note: The site condition cells that are shaded represent designs that have been used, but are considered marginal and may not
be able to sustain the expected traffic for the given subgrade conditions (performance is highly dependent on materials).
Figure 5. Example structural design details for flexible pavement.

39
6.5-8.0
13.0
6.0 - 12.0
Flexible
Traffic:
Subgrade:
Cell 14
4-8 million flexible ESALs

Weak (Resilient Modulus, 4.5-9.0 ksi)
General Structural Design Inputs
Initial serviceability
Terminal Serviceability
Overall standard deviation
Reliability
4.5
2.5
0.49
95%
Elastic modulus of surface HMAC

Resilient modulus of subgrade 5 ksi
Drainage coefficient, m
450 ksi
1.00
Note: Subgrade is very weak; some type of improvement should be considered (See Section 5).
Note: See Sections 4A.2 through 4A.5 for detailed guidelines on other asphalt concrete pavement design features.
Structural Layer Thickness - Conventional Unbound Granular Base

Crushed Stone Aggregate Base
Thickness, in.
Thickness, in.
7.0-8.5
7.0-8.5
9.0
9.0
15.0-16.0
Crushed
Stone
16.0-17.0
Pit Run
Gravel
Prepared Subgrade (See Section 5)

Thickness, in.
Thickness, in.
Improved Subgrade Thickness, in.
Note: A filter layer (or separator) is recommended between

the subbase and weak subgrades (See Section 5).
Controlled by Asphalt Concrete Tensile

Strain Under Wheel Load
6.5-7.5
6.5-7.5
9.0
9.0
11.0-12.0
Crushed
Stone
12.0-13.0
Pit Run
Gravel
6.0-12.0
6.0-12.0
Controlled by Asphalt Concrete Tensile

Strain Under Wheel Load
Structural Layer Thickness - Full-Depth Asphalt Concrete

A full-depth asphalt concrete pavement is not recommended for this site condition cell.
Figure 5. Example structural design details for flexible pavement (continued).
40
Step 7 - Determination of material requirements (Part 4A of Reference 16)

Asphalt cement binder: AC-20 viscosity grade, or 60-70 penetration grade.
HMAC surface and binder, crushed stone aggregate base, asphalt treated base,
granular subbase.
Improved subgrade.
Step 8 - Recommended design features for Conventional Unbound Granular Base
(Part 4A of Reference 16)
HMAC Surface and Binder
= 7 - 8 in
= 10 in
Crushed Stone Subbase
= 13 - 14 in
Improved Subgrade
= 12 in hydrated lime stabilized
Step 9 - Recommended design features for Asphalt Treated Base (Part 4A of

Reference 16)
HMAC Surface and Binder
= 5.5 - 6.5 in
Asphalt Treated Aggregate Base
= 8 in (plant mixed)
Granular (Pit Run Gravel) Subbase
= 14 in
Improved Subgrade
= 12 in hydrated lime stabilized
Step 10 - Subdrainage feature recommendations (Table 31 of Reference 16)

Table 31 of Reference 16 recommends Level 3 subdrainage (requiring a treated base)
or Level 4-Full subdrainage system for Design Cell 13. One option would be the asphalt
treated base section with edge drains. Another option would be to design a full
subdrainage design that includes a 4 in permeable asphalt treated layer just beneath the
41
asphalt treated base course (the granular subbase is reduced to 10 in and serves as a
separator for the layer).
42
Step 11 - Cross-Section Of Pavement

The cross section shown in Figure 4 of Reference 16 is appropriate for this project.
Example to Identify Rigid Pavement Design Features

Step 1 - General project description
Reconstruction of rural freeway pavement
Interstate highway, two lanes in one direction.
Uniform cross-section with 14 ft widened outer slab and 10 ft outer shoulder (2 ft
widened lane plus 8 ft shoulder).
Design period = 20 years.
Step 2 - Determine site condition input for traffic (16)
ADT (current)
= 20,000 two-directions.
Percent trucks = 6.0

Lane distribution factor of trucks = 0.81
Directional distribution factor of trucks = 0.5 (same number in each direction)
Future growth of trucks = 6 percent per year, compounded
GF = [ (1 + 0.06)20 - 1 ] / 0.06 = 36.79
Mean truck equivalency factor over 20 years (rigid ESAL/truck) = 2.0
Total ESALs = 20,000 * 0.06 * 365 * 0.81 * 0.5 * 2 * 36.79 = 13.1 million, outer
lane, one direction.
Step 3 - Determine site condition input for subgrade (16)
Natural subgrade soil = silty clay
Elastic k-values backcalculated form FWD deflection data from existing pavement
from different seasons are shown in Table 3. The effective k-value is then calculated
from those values using the procedure provided in Reference 16.
43
Table 3. Determination of seasonally adjusted effective subgrade k-value.

Seasons
Backcalculated
Static k-value
W18
Relative
(3 months
Dynamic k-value
(psi/in)
(millions)
Damage
each)
(psi/in)
Spring
154
77
12.75
0.0784
Summer
196
98
13.15
0.0760
Fall
222
111
13.37
0.0748
Winter
336
164
14.20
0.0704
(1/W18)
Mean damage
W18
Effective k-value
0.0749
13.3 million
110 psi/in
Step 4 - Determination of subgrade preparation/improvement needed (Part 4B, Part

5 of Reference 16)
The seasonally adjusted subgrade k-value falls into the
Weak-fair
class.
Subgrade improvement is strongly recommended for this class of soil to provide a good
construction platform and a more uniform support condition.
Step 5 - Determine site condition input for climate (16)
Freezing index
= 500 degree days below freezing

44
Average annual precipitation = 33 in

The project site is located in a wet-freeze area.
Step 6 - Determination of recommended alternative rigid pavement types (Part 4B.2

of Reference 16)
The rigid pavement design matrix with recommended PCC pavement design
alternatives is shown in table 4. The site condition cell and the design alternatives of this
example are identified as:
Cell 14: Traffic T5 (13.1 million ESALs) and Subgrade Weak-Fair
(effective k-value = 110 psi/in)
Base type selected:
Lean concrete base
Feasible alternatives selected:JPCP with Dowels CRCP

Example structural details for Cell 14 of the rigid pavement design catalog is given in
figure 6.
45
Table 4. Site condition cells and design alternatives for the rigid pavement (16).
Note: Climatic site condition is considered in both the determination of the subgrade
Seasonally adjusted k-value and by specific climatic variables specified within
each design cell.
**
Cumulative in design lane over design period.
46
Rigid
Cell 14
Traffic:
12-18 million rigid ESALs
Subgrade:
Weak/Fair (k-value of 100-200 psi/in)
General Structural Design Inputs

Initial serviceability
Terminal serviceability
Overall standard deviation
Reliability
4.5
2.5
0.39
95%
Elastic modulus of PCC

PCC mean flexural strength
Load transfer coef, J-value
Drainage coef, Cd
4,000,000 psi
650 psi
Varies w/ edge support type
1.05
Structural Layer Thickness - Doweled JPCP/JRCP

Aggregate base
Treated base
Edge support type
Type I
Type II
Type III
Type I
PCC slab thickness, in
10-11
10.5-11.5
11-12
9.5-10.5
10.11
10.5-11.5
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-6
Base thickness, in
Type II
Type III
Prepared subgrade
(See Section 5)
Transverse Joint Design

Maximum Joint spacing, ft.
JRCP:
Joint reservoir and other joint design features
45 ft
JPCP:
For recommended transverse joint reservoir

width and other transverse joint design details,
see Section 4B.8, "Joint Sealant Reservoir and
Joint Sealants" and Section 4B.4, "Transverse
Joints for JPCP and JRCP".
Edge support
Climate
Type I
Type II
Type III
WF, DF
17-19
18-20
18-20
WNF
16-17
16-18
17-19
DNF
14-16
15-16
15-17
Other Design Features

Tie bar design for longitudinal joints:
Subdrainage design:
No. 5 (0.625 in diameter) deformed reinforcing bars spaced at 30 in
Level 3 - Edge drains and non-erodable treated base, or

Level 4 - Full subdrainage system with permeable base.
Minimum % reinforcement content for JRCP: 0.19%-0.21%

Dowel bar design: 1.25 in diameter corrosion-resistant dowel bars spaced at 12 in
Note See Sections 4B.2 through 4B.12 for additional detailed guidelines on all the rigid pavement design
features.
Figure 6. Example structural details for rigid pavement.

47
Step 7 - Determination of material requirements (Part 4B.2, 4B.11, 4C Table 28 of

Reference 16)
Portland cement concrete: 650 psi mean flexural strength of third-point loading at 28
days
Lean concrete base:
Class A base is recommended, e.g. lean concrete with 7-8%

cement
Improved subgrade:
12 in of granular material
Step 8 - Recommended design features for
JPCP with Dowels
(Part 4B of
Reference 16)
Doweled JPCP Slab
= 9.5-10.5 in
Lean Concrete Base
= 4-6 in
Improved Subgrade
= 12 in aggregate
Transverse joint spacing = 17-19 ft

Dowel bar design
= 1.25 in diameter corrosion-resistant dowel bars spaced

at 12 in
Tie bar design
= No. 5 (0.625 in diameter) deformed bars spaced at

30 in
Step 9 - Recommended design features for
CRCP
(Part 4B of Reference 16)
CRCP Slab
= 9.5-10.5 in
Lean Concrete Base
= 4-6 in
Improved Subgrade
= 12 in aggregate
Reinforcement content
= 0.70%
Tie bar design
= No. 5 (0.625 in diameter) deformed bars spaced

at 30 in
48
Step 10 - Subdrainage feature recommendations (Part 4C of Reference 16)

Table 31 in Reference 16 of Part 4C recommends either Level 3 or Level 4 drainage
design for Design Cell 14. Level 3 requires a treated base such as the lean concrete
proposed for this project.
Step 11 - Cross Section (Part 4B.1 of Reference 16)
The cross section provided in Figure 18 in Reference 16 is appropriate for this
project.
SUPPLEMENTAL PROTOTYPE KBESDesigner

A prototype microcomputer-oriented KBES named Designer for selecting the
recommended pavement design features was developed in this project. The inference
engine of the prototype KBES is an expert system shell, CLIPS 6.04, and the user
interface of the software is programmed in Microsoft Windows 3.11 environment using
programming language, Visual Basic 4.0. The goal of the prototype KBES is to
supplement the Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features. A fully developed
KBES companion to the pavement design catalog adds value to the catalog in several
ways:
Increased speed and efficiency,
Guidance on obtaining inputs for site conditions (traffic, subgrade, climate)
Guidance to the designer in searching for solutions,
Explaining the logic of best practice recommendations,

49
Coordinating decisions about many different design features,
Making the catalog more dynamic and easier to update,
Enhanced value as a teaching and training tool,
Increased consistency in considering all feasible options and screening out

infeasible options, and
Evaluate the selected pavement design features.
Most important, the KBES enhances the effectiveness, the implementability, and the
adaptability of the catalog, all important factors in the catalogs success. The KBES will
help to accomplish the catalogs goals and will help the user make better pavement
design decisions more rapidly and more efficiently than before. One of the goals of the
catalog is to put pavement design expertise in the hands of less experienced engineers in
a format which permits them to apply that expertise appropriately. This is an ideal
application for a KBES. The computerized KBES is highly adaptable, as the knowledge
base (made up of the input guidance rules, catalog relational database, and alternative
evaluation rules) is developed and expanded over time. Indeed, the typical program
structure of a rule-based expert system is not rigid and is well suited to later additions
and modifications. If the KBES is customized to an agency, no major change will be
required since the rules and database are separate. If implementability is defined as the
likelihood of the tool actually being put into routine use in State highway agencies, then
the implementability of the KBES is believed to be as great as, if not greater than, that of
the paper catalog.
50
The supplemental KBES will be a very powerful tool when fully developed.
However, what was developed in this project is only a prototype KBES as specified in
the work statement. The prototype KBES includes most of the current printed catalog.
All the structural designs in each factorial design cell and key design features are
included in the program. The prototype KBES is a very useful tool for knowledgeable
users in its current state. It can be used to obtain the recommended design features for all
the site condition cells included in the printed catalog. These recommended features and
structural design ranges can then be used to compare and check the pavement design the
user has selected. However, the prototype KBES needs to be improved in many ways
before it can be used as an operational software product. A plan for extending the
prototype KBES through implementation, evaluation, and validation has also been
developed.
An expert system normally goes through the following development stages:
Development Stage
Description
Demonstration prototype
Solves a portion of the problem undertaken, suggesting that

the approach is viable and system development is
achievable.
Research prototype
Displays credible performance on the core problem but

may be fragile due to lack of testing and revision. Some
areas of the software may be incomplete.
51
Field test prototype
Implements all the technical and software features.

Displays good performance with adequate reliability and
has been revised based on extensive testing in the user
environment.
Operational model
Exhibits high quality, reliable, fast, and efficient

performance in the user environment.
Implementation
A production model used on a routine basis.
52
Designer is currently a research prototype expert system. It is very important to note

that the scope of the current pavement design catalog and KBES is not adequate for
project level design or for pavement type selection. The prototype KBES is intended to
provide recommendations of design features and the framework to demonstrate the
concept and the possible capability of a fully developed pavement design KBES.
Through full development of the software, verification and validation, and rigorous
field testing and evaluation, the prototype KBES can be extended into an operational
KBES. The operational KBES development can be achieved through the following
tasks.
Task 1
Identify Additional Features for the Operational KBES
Designer fulfills most goals of the KBES as described in the previous section.
Credible performance can be expected in representing the paper catalog. A detailed site
condition input assistant was also well developed. On-line help texts provide
explanations, background information, and general guidelines about the selected design
features. However, this is only a research prototype expert system, many
improvements should be made before it becomes a full blown KBES. This section
presents several enhancements that can be made to improve the prototype KBES and
extend it into a fully operational expert system.
Task 1a
Enhancements for input assistant The input assistant for the site
conditions and other design inputs is well developed in the prototype KBES, and
provides all of the information that is in the paper catalog. However, more details can be
53
added to this area, especially for traffic determination. A separate module can be
developed to guide the designer to calculate the design ESALs for example.
Task 1b
Improvements for catalog search capability The paper catalog is also well
included in the program data base and on-line help. Viable pavement design alternatives
are efficiently searched using CLIPS. More work can be done to further refine the
presentation of the design features.
Task 1c
Fully development of the evaluation assistant Only a frame work and
mock-up demonstrations were provided to assist designers evaluating different design

alternatives for certain site condition cells. This is the area that great deal of work is
needed. In the prototype KBES, it is demonstrated through mock-ups that performance
models of the key pavement distresses can be used to predict the future performance of
the pavement design alternative selected. A few synoptic tables of the States' current
pavement designs and practices are also included to illustrate how States' design practices
can be presented to the designers for their reference.
These capabilities need to be implemented fully for all the cells, prediction models,
and design alternatives. Furthermore, linking the program to the LTPP performance data
base, States' PMS data base, and other key performance databases can also be
implemented in the next phase of the KBES development. New research products, new
expertise acquired, and state-of-the-art technologies can also be incorporated into the
KBES in the future. For example, SuperPave's binder grade selection scheme can be
included in a future KBES.
54
Task 1d
Identify additional software features The prototype KBES has most
Windows software features such as multiple project interface, standard Windows buttons,
menus, and mouse functions, some useful icons, and complete save of the user inputs
during a project duration which gives consistent results. However, some additional
features should be added for the operational KBES. For example, save and open menu
items, complete print preview for each project, some additional useful icons, etc.
Task 2 Complete development of the KBES
After the identification of the additional technical and software features being
identified, the following subtasks can then be established to fulfil the development of the
KBES.
Task 2a
Complete development of the input assistant
Task 2b
Improve the catalog search capability
Task 2c
Fully development of the evaluation assistant
Task 2d
Implement all the software features
The research prototype KBES is fragile due to incomplete testing and revision.
Before the KBES becomes a field prototype, extensive debugging, verification and
validation of the program must be accomplished. This is described in the next section.
Task 3 Verification and Validation
According to a research report from a recent FHWA study, Verification, Validation,
and Evaluation of Expert SystemsAn FHWA Handbook, verification shows that the
system is built right while validation shows that the right system was built. Evaluation
55
reflects the acceptance of the system by the end users and its performance in the field.
The following questions should be answered during the verification of the KBES:
Does the design recommendations reflect the requirements?
Does the detailed design recommendations reflect the design goals?
Does the code accurately reflect the detailed design?
Is the code correct with respect to the language syntax?
When the program has been verified, it is assured that there are no bugs or
technical errors.
The following issues should be addressed in the validation process:
How well do inferences made compare with historic (known) data?
What fraction of pertinent empirical observation can be simulated by the

system?
What fraction of model predictions are empirically correct?
What fraction of the system parameters does the model attempt to mimic?
During the verification and validation process, all the questions identified in this
section will be addressed. Detailed guidelines for the rigorous testing of the program will
be provided to ensure each and every feature of the software is tested. This is similar to
the Beta testing of the general software products. This will include verifying that all the
menus, buttons, and all other items are working as expected. The program should also be
robust and user friendly.
56
57
Task 4 Evaluation of the KBES through Field Tests

Real world problems will be used to test the program, and at a minimum, the
following evaluation issues need to be addressed:
Is the system user friendly and do the users accept the system?
Does the system give correct results and is the logic of the system correct?
Does the expert system offer an improvement over the practices it is intended
to supplement?
Is the system useful as a training tool?
Is the system in fact maintainable by other than the developers?
At the evaluation stage, volunteers from various States will be identified to perform
the software testing. Based on the discussion in the pavement design features' consensus
group meeting conducted under Task 5, there is a lot of interest in performing the testing
of the software. With the detailed testing guideline, the above stated questions will be
addressed in the testing.
Task 5
Feedback and Improvements
Based on the feedback from the field test and evaluation, appropriate improvements
will be made to the KBES and this could be an iterative process. Therefore, if additional
testing is needed, the revised software will be tested in the field again, as necessary.
58
Implementation Plan of the KBES

The ultimate goal of the development of the KBES is to provide the States with a
useful design feature recommendation tool. Since the prototype KBES is based on the
printed catalog, it is not intended for design or for pavement type selection.
The current paper catalog was developed to provide general guidelines and
recommendations on the best practices. The structural design outputs are in ranges, and
the recommendations for the design features are the general guidelines. The KBES
should be customized to the specific agency's conditions when being implemented for
design. When implementing, the agency's specific policies, design methodologies, and
local site conditions need to be taken into consideration. Also, accurate thickness design
and very detailed pavement design feature recommendations need to be provided for each
cell combination.
Several States across the United States can be selected as demo installation States for
the implementation of KBES. The general KBES will be first customized to the States
specific policies and local conditions. The customized KBES will be provided to the
States' engineers, and review comments will be requested from them. Then any problems
or barriers will be identified toward implementing the software in the States. Once the
problems are understood, the customized KBES can be improved by addressing all the
problems and concerns.
Some short training courses or workshops may be necessary during the
implementation of the software. The primary objective of the workshop should be to
59
show the engineers that the KBES can help them do their jobs more efficiently and with
few errors. The KBES can also be used to obtain all kinds of pavement design checks,
performance predictions, and train young engineers.
For the distribution of the software, McTrans and PCTrans software distribution
centers are a good possibility. It is also possible to provide the program through Internet
forums software distribution. Another good possibility is distribution as an
AASHTOWare product because the States may wish to sponsor future enhancements to
the KBES.
60
Chapter 4
Conclusions and Suggested Research
Conclusions
This study into European and American highway pavement design systems has
resulted in three major practical products for use by the state highway agencies.
Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features. This document is a highly

informative and practical guide on the details of the design practice for flexible and rigid
pavements in the U.S.
This catalog first and most importantly provides information in the form of a large
Synoptic Tables Of State Pavement Design Features. This section provides for the first
time for both flexible and rigid pavements a comprehensive summary of nearly all states
design practices.
The catalog provides, for each state highway agency (SHA), a State Factorial Design
Matrix of Pavement Design Features that gives design layer thicknesses for a wide
range of traffic, subgrade, and climatic site conditions for major types of main
highway pavement constructed by the SHA.
The catalog provides a Catalog of Key Design Features by Climatic Region and
Pavement Type.
61
A summary of key design features for flexible and for rigid pavements are given.
This information will be of interest to highway administrators, pavement designers,
contractors, industry, and others involved in various aspects of pavement design and
construction.
62
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features. This document includes the

following.
Recommended (good practice) design features for highway engineers, administrators,

and others in a format that is easy to use and understand.
A recommended consensus on many design features for pavement design for varying
site conditions.
The catalog recommendations are based an expert resource group, NCHRP panel, current
SHA design practices, FHWA design manuals, the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures, and mechanistic-empirical performance models that were used to
limit the occurrence of key distress types.
Prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES). This software includes the

following:
An input assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in obtaining design

inputs for the catalog site conditions and other inputs.
A database searching and presentation to access a project database which represents

the paper catalog, to quickly and efficiently identify feasible design alternatives for a
given set of site and design conditions.
63
An evaluation assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in evaluating

the advantages and disadvantages of the various design alternatives and explanations
about various design features.
The KBES is a prototype and must be further developed to be fully useful to state
highway agencies. This is discussed in Chapter 3 under the title: Supplemental Prototype
KBES - Designer.
Consensus Building. The catalog development process required input from all sectors of
the highway industry. Thus, a large resource group of experienced pavement engineers
from all sectors of the industry was assembled. The consensus group spent the week
discussing and reviewing the draft Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features.
The meeting produced a consensus on many design features and performance criteria.
The most valuable aspect of the meeting was the many interesting and beneficial
improvements proposed by the highly experienced and diverse resource group (See
Appendix B for minutes). This approach was so successful that it should be considered
for use on other studies where expert human experience is important.
Suggested Research
The Catalog Of Recommended Pavement Design Features cannot be used for

design by states and local highway agencies until it is adapted or customized to fit
64
their own cross-section designs, thickness design procedure, materials

specifications, mix designs, and other standards. This would result in a
customized design catalog for an agency that could then be used by the agency
for project-level design purposes.
The Prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES) also requires substantial
additional development to make it fully useful to state highway agencies. A plan for
accomplishing that is given in Chapter 3. This electronic version of the catalog was
highly regarded in the survey taken of experienced pavement engineers. The electronic
version would also provide for relatively easier upgrades than the printed version of the
catalog.
65
References
1.
German Federal Ministry of, Guidelines for the Standardization of the Upper
Structure of Traffic-Bearing Surfaces. RSto 86/89.
2.
German Federal Ministry of, "Guidelines for the Standardization of Pavements

During the Renewal of Traffic Surfaces." RSto-E.
3.
Helenven, L., J. Verstraeten, and V. Veverka, "Latest Developments in the

Analytical Methods for the Design of New Pavements and Strengthening
Overlays in Belgium." Proc. Sixth International Conference, Structural Design of
Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, July 1317, 1987, pp. 121-125.
4.
Veverka, V., J. Verstraeten, and F. Fuchs, "The Design of Concrete Pavements

and Overlays(Belgium)." Proc. 6th International Symposium on Concrete Roads,
Vol. I, Madrid, Spain, October 8-10, 1990, pp. 49-57.
5.
Rocci, S. and C. Kraemer, "The New Spanish Standard on Pavement Design."

Proc. 6th International Symposium on Concrete Roads, Vol. I, Madrid, Spain,
October 8-10, 1990, pp. 129-137.
6.
Director General of Highways, "Standards 6.1 and 6.2 -IC for Flexible and Rigid
Roadways." MOPU, Madrid, 1975 (in Spanish)
7.
Director General of Highways, "Instructions 6.1 and 6.2 -IC for Roadway
Sections." MOPU, Madrid, 1975 (in Spanish), 200 pp.
8.
Spanish Institute of Cement and Its Applications, "Manual of Concrete Pavements

for Low-Volume Roads." Madrid, Spain, (1988) 47 pp.
9.
State Ports Board, "Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Port
Pavements." Madrid, Spain, (1994) 164 pp.
10.
Litzka, J. and G. Herbst, "A New Specification for the Structural design of
Pavements in Austria." Proc., The 1986 International Conference on Bearing
Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Plymouth, England, Sept. 16-18, (1986).
66
11.
Scetauroute, "Manual of Design for Superhighway Pavements." Paris, France,

March 1994.
12.
LROP and LREP, "Design Strategies for Pavement Structures for Paris
Roadways." May 1993.
13.
Boissoudy, A. D., M. T. Goux, and P. Genre, "New Concrete Pavement Structures

in the Revised French Catalogue for New Pavements and Guidelines for Overlay
Design." Proc. 6th International Symposium on Concrete Roads, Vol. I, Madrid,
Spain, October 8-10, (1990) pp. 21-30.
14.
Scholtes, Peter R., The Team Handbook, Joiner Associates, Inc. 1988.
15.
Jiang, J., B. Killingsworth, M.I. Darter, H. Von Quintus, E.B. Owusu-Antwi,

Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features, Interim Report, NCHRP
Project 1-32,, Transportation Research Board, 1996.
16.
Darter, M.I., H. Von Quintus, J. Jiang, E.B. Owusu-Antwi, B. Killingsworth,

Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features, Interim Report, NCHRP
Project 1-32, Transportation Research Board, 1997.
67
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF EUROPEAN DESIGN CATALOGS
There are several countries, including Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Belgium,
Japan and Switzerland, that use pavement design catalogs. To learn from their
experience, the catalogs from these countries were thoroughly reviewed, and information
was sought from representatives of their highway agencies. This appendix presents
information obtained from the state-of-the-art review of the catalogs.
It is important to note that these countries are smaller in size than the United States
and generally have more uniformity in climate and, perhaps, other conditions. In
addition, the information was primarily obtained from translation of agency document
and some interpretation problems may exist. However, all possible attempts have been
made to have representative from these countries verify the information obtained.
Following are the details of the findings from the review of the European catalogs.
Germany
The first German catalog was published in 1966. According to Mr. Peter P. Canisius
of the Federal Transportation Ministry, the development of a pavement design catalog in
Germany arose out of the desire by the government to provide guidelines for the
standardization of pavement designs. The goal was to provide standard pavement
structures for building and maintaining pavements for highways and other traffic bearing
A-1
surfaces, that are based on technically suitable and economic methods of construction.
The current German catalog for new pavement design that is fully accepted in practice is
entitled Guidelines for the Standardization of the Upper Structure of Traffic-Bearing
Surfaces (RSto-86/89). A companion catalog entitled Guidelines for the Standardization
of Pavements During the Renewal of Traffic Surfaces (RSto-E) was being finalized in
1994. That catalog supplements RSto-86/89 and is for the renewal (rehabilitation) and
reconstruction of existing pavements.
The guidelines provided in RSto 86/89 relate traffic loading, the method of
construction, and the properties of soil and other materials. Although the catalog was
initially based on engineering judgment, the results of theoretical calculations, and
laboratory and fields tests, as well as practical experience have been incorporated into it
over the years. The failure criteria for the design procedure on which the catalog is based
are fatigue cracking for asphalt pavements (instead of absolute values, a comparison
between the fatigue for different structures was considered), and bending stresses for
concrete pavements. The table of contents of the German pavement design catalog is
provided in table A-1.
A-2
Table A-1. Table of contents of the German pavement design catalog.

Chapter
Content
Page
General
11
Fundamentals
12
2.1
Terms
12
2.2
Evaluation and choice of method of construction
14
2.3
Construction classes and traffic loading
15
2.3.1
Carriageways
16
2.3.2
Bus-traffic-bearing surfaces
17
2.3.3
Parking areas
18
2.3.4
Traffic-bearing surfaces in subsidiary installations and subsidiary

enterprises on Federal trunk roads
18
2.3.5
Abnormal stresses
19
Technical Regulations
19
Determination of the thickness of the frost-resistant upper structure
21
3.1
Frost sensitivity of the soil
22
3.2
Standard values for the thickness of the frost-resistant road structure
22
3.3
Increased or decreased thickness due to local conditions
23
Standardized upper structure for carriageways
24
4.1
Methods of construction and layer thickness
24
4.2
Construction and execution
25
4.2.1
Subsoil or subgrade
25
4.2.2
Base courses
26
4.2.3
Bituminous surfaces
27
2.4
3
A-3
Table A-1. Table of contents of the German pavement design catalog (continued).
Chapter
Content
Page
4.2.4
Concrete surfaces
28
4.2.5
Sett surfaces
28
4.2.6
Drainage
29
4.2.7
Special features
29
Traffic-bearing surfaces in a closed local situation
30
Standardized upper structure for other traffic-bearing surfaces
31
5.1
Carriageways at autobahn junctions and access points
31
5.2
Multipurpose lanes
31
5.3
Hard shoulders
31
5.4
Central reserve crossovers
31
5.5
Buss-traffic-bearing surfaces
31
5.5.1
Methods of construction and layer thicknesses
31
5.5.2
32
5.6
Cycle tracks and footways
32
5.6.1
32
5.6.2
33
Parking areas
33
5.7.1
33
5.7.2
34
Traffic-bearing surfaces in subsidiary installations and subsidiary

enterprises on Federal trunk roads
34
34
4.3
5
5.7
5.8
5.8.1
A-4
Table A-1. Table of contents of the German pavement design catalog (continued).
Chapter
5.8.2
Content
Page
35
5.9
Fire brigade roads
35
5.10
Rail areas in roads
35
Appendix I
Determination of the relevant traffic loading number
36
Appendix II
Illustration of construction methods for roads arranged according to

construction classes
40
The following factors are used in the German catalog to classify the site conditions
for the different structural categories:
1. Traffic is classified using a traffic load index (VB) with 7 levels. VB is the decisive
factor for the classification of the structural categories in the German catalog and is
determined by the following parameters:
the average daily volume of vehicles of heavy traffic type;
the average change in this traffic during the design life
the number of traffic lanes in the cross-section
the width of a traffic lane
the longitudinal profile gradient.
If the VB cannot be computed for a specific pavement because of lack of data, then
the road typesuch as a high speed traffic road, traffic lanes in bus stations, parking
areas that are used continuouslyis used to assign the traffic level.
A-5
2. Frost sensitivity classes are determined by soil classification as F1, F2 and F3. They
are used to determine the thickness of the granular blanket (sand and gravel) for frost
protection for each construction class. Germany believes strongly in preventing frost
heave.
3. The following five local conditions are used to adjust the thickness of the pavement
structure if necessary:
Frost heave protection
Subgrade (cut/fill, embankment)
Location of project (e.g. northern/southern exposure)
Drainage condition
Type of marginal area (e.g. lateral strips, cycle tracks, footway)
4. Guidelines for soil consolidation and improvement with binders are contained
in the German standard ZTVV-StB. The classification of the soilsuitable soil,
conditionally suitable soil, or unsuitable soil and rock typesis used to determine the
applicability of the standard. Rather than include subgrade strength as a design
factor, a minimum bearing capacity is specified on top of the embankment and also
on top of the granular blanket if provided. This provides a uniform subgrade support
(guaranteed minimum support) upon which the AC or PCC pavement is constructed.
Also, construction site traffic and paving equipment can be utilized without problems.
The minimum foundation/embankment bearing capacity required is 45 MPa (6,000
psi), and the minimum bearing capacity on top of granular blanket layer required is
A-6
110 MPa (16,000 psi). Bad areas that are located are removed and replaced with sand
and gravel. Specific procedures are provided for the disposal of bad soils.
The steps involved in following these guidelines include the evaluation and choice of
method of construction (type of pavement), and the determination of construction class,
traffic loading class, and thickness of the frost-protection upper structure. Based on this
information, a pavement section can be selected from the catalogs for asphalt concrete or
portland cement concrete surfaces. Examples from the German catalog for new AC
pavements and PCC pavements fully bonded with the upper pavement layers, and JPCP
overlays are shown in figures A-1 and A-2, respectively.
The German catalog is supported by several specifications and technical guidelines,
including guidelines for earth work and the improvement of the existing soil for road
construction. For example, in German practice, it is believed that rutting of flexible
pavement is scarcely influenced by thickness guideline, but by the quality of the asphalt
mixture (crushed stone) and a good bond at the layer interfaces. Concrete slab are
bonded to treated base courses, and joint are used in lean concrete and cement treated
bases.
In addition to these catalogs, guidelines, and technical recommendations that are
issued by the Federal Government, certain industry organizations have developed
publications using the information available in national catalogs and guidelines, for the
transfer of technology to their constituents. An example is the Concrete Highway
A-7
Engineering and Subbases published by the Federal Association of the German Cement
Industry.
Figure A-1. A portion of the German pavement design catalog for AC and PCC
pavement layers. (Note thicknesses given are in cm.)
A-8
JPCP overlay on interlayer of lean concrete or AC on fractured old pavement.
JPCP overlay on geotextile on fractured old pavement
Figure A-2. A portion of the German pavement design catalog for

JPCP overlays.
With the guidelines provided in these catalogs, for the same inputs, designers,
contractors, and the industry that use them will obtain the same designs. This reduces
errors in pavement design, especially by inexperienced engineers, and good performance
is obtained if these proven guidelines are followed. According to Professor Dr.-ing G.
Leykauf of the Technical University of Munich, another advantage of using the German
catalog for design is that the number of possible technical solutions for any particular
case is limited. This improves communication between the client and contractor.
However, Professor Leykauf points out that, in Germany, there seems to be a certain
regularity in complaints that arise every 5 to 10 years regarding the incorporation of new
innovation into the catalog. The most recent example is a discussion concerning which
A-9
kind of wearing course (dense asphalt concrete or split-mastic asphalt or Gubasphalt) for
asphalt pavement must be used in a cost comparison concrete structures. As a result, the
catalog needs to be regularly reviewed to allow for new innovations to be incorporated.
Also, according to Dr. -ing A. Zachlehner of Germany, the main concept of the
catalog is to provide ready-made structural pavement alternatives for a given amount of
traffic and, to a minor degree, climatic conditions. Because of this, the treatment of
traffic loading in the catalog is of great importance, especially for local administrations
without a large technical staff or experience. Since one characteristic of the design
procedure is to fix the bearing capacity required for the subgrade independent of local
conditions, the influence of the subgrade conditions are eliminated as design parameters.
This may not always lead to the most economical solution.
Belgium
Two catalogs are available for pavement design in Belgium. They are the Code of
Good Practice for Cement Concrete Pavement Design and the Code of Good Practice for
Bituminous Pavement Design developed by the Belgian Road Research Center. The
recommendations provided in the catalogs were prepared in consultation with
representatives from various professional circles: highway agencies, contractors, asphalt
and concrete industries, and material producers. The major advantage of the methods for
design provided in the catalog is that the designs recommended are based on Belgian
A-10
conditions (traffic, pavement materials, soils, and climate). The catalog is also based on
a rational structural design method.
Citing the need to avoid the development and use of complex models that hinder
practical applications as a goal, the Belgian Road Research Center adopted the elastic
layered theory for the development of the structural design method on which the catalogs
are based. Fatigue cracking and rutting due to excessive deformation of the subgrade
were used as the failure criteria for developing the design method for asphalt pavements.
For concrete pavements the failure criteria used were fatigue failure due to combined
traffic loading and thermal curling stresses, and vertical deformation of the subgrade.
The critical state of the pavement is assessed from cracking, rutting, and longitudinal
profile measurements. JPCP and CRCP are the types of the concrete pavements utilized.
The following variables are required as inputs for the catalog:
1. Traffic is categorized into three levels using the cumulative number Nc of
commercial vehicles which is determined from the following:
the spectrum of traffic loads
the average number of axles per commercial vehicle
the impact coefficient of the dynamic effects on different roads
the maximum gradient of temperature: 70 oC/m (frequency 0.1%)
2. Subgrade is characterized by the dynamic modulus Es, which can be estimated by the
soil CBR value or the soil class and drainability of the subgrade. For Nc greater than
104 (i.e. heavy trafficked highway), Es is required to be equal to or greater than 20
A-11
MPa (2,900 psi). The subgrade must be treated or improved with added material if
the 20 MPa minimum bearing capacity requirement is not met. However, there are
four other levels of Es for low volume roads.
The table of contents of the Belgian pavement design catalogs for asphalt and
concrete roads are shown in the tables A-2 and A-3, respectively. Examples of the
thickness design for concrete, flexible and semi-rigid (e.g. asphalt over lean concrete)
pavements are provided in figures A-3 through A-6.
A-12
Table A-2. Table of contents for the Belgian design catalog of asphalt roads.
Chapter
Part One
Content
Synopsis
Input parameters
Input parameters for conditions generally encountered in Belgium
Design method for conditions generally encountered in Belgium
Cases in which typical conditions are realistic, with respect to traffic
Design for freezing and thawing
Design examples
Part Two
Comments on the design method
Destructive effects of loads: equivalency laws (rules)
1.2
Taking traffic into consideration
1.3
Determination of the number of commercial vehicles traveling in the right

lane during the service life of the pavement
Consequences on the design of pavements of error in the estimation of the
number of commercial vehicles
Particular traffic conditions
23
33
41
43
46
46
51
52
Soil
Soil modulus (Es)
57
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Geotechnical study
2.3
Modulus of the foundation soil
2.4
22
Traffic
1.1
1.5
13
35
Number of commercial vehicles to consider
1.4
26
Introduction
1
Page
59
59
Frost-susceptibility of foundation
A-13
62
68
A-14
Table A-2. Table of contents for the Belgian design catalog of asphalt roads (continued).
Chapter
3
Content
Page
Climatic effects
3.1
Introduction
75
3.2
Seasonal variations in water content
75
3.3
Seasonal variations in temperatures
76
3.4
Methods for protection against climatic effects
78
Materials
Choice of materials
4.1
Introduction
83
4.2
The role and functioning of the layers constituting the structure
83
4.3
The rules governing the behavior of materials
88
The design method

Variations of the solution researched
5.1
Introduction
97
5.2
The rational method
97
5.3
The practical method
98
Economic aspects
105
References
109
A-15
Table A-3. Table of contents for the Belgian design catalog of concrete roads.
Chapter
Content
Page
General
11
Fundamentals
12
2.1
Terms
12
2.2
Evaluation and choice of method of construction
14
2.3
Construction classes and traffic loading
15
2.3.1
Carriageways
16
2.3.2
Bus-traffic-bearing surfaces
17
2.3.3
Parking areas
18
2.3.4
Traffic-bearing surfaces in subsidiary installations and subsidiary enterprises

on Federal trunk roads
18
2.3.5
Abnormal stresses
19
Technical Regulations
19
Determination of the thickness of the frost-resistant upper structure
21
3.1
Frost sensitivity of the soil
22
3.2
Standard values for the thickness of the frost-resistant road structure
22
3.3
Increased or decreased thickness due to local conditions
23
Standardized upper structure for carriageways
24
4.1
Methods of construction and layer thickness
24
4.2
25
4.2.1
Subsoil or subgrade
25
4.2.2
Base courses
26
4.2.3
Bituminous surfaces
27
4.2.4
Concrete surfaces
28
4.2.5
Sett surfaces
28
2.4
3
A-16
Table A-3. Table of contents for the Belgian design catalog of concrete roads (continued).
Chapter
Content
Page
4.2.6
Drainage
29
4.2.7
Special features
29
Traffic-bearing surfaces in a closed local situation
30
Standardized upper structure for other traffic-bearing surfaces
31
5.1
Carriageways at autobahn junctions and access points
31
5.2
Multipurpose lanes
31
5.3
Hard shoulders
31
5.4
Central reserve crossovers
31
5.5
Buss-traffic-bearing surfaces
31
5.5.1
31
5.5.2
32
5.6
Cycle tracks and footways
32
5.6.1
32
5.6.2
33
Parking areas
33
5.7.1
33
5.7.2
34
Traffic-bearing surfaces in subsidiary installations and subsidiary enterprises

on Federal trunk roads
34
5.8.1
34
5.8.2
35
5.9
Fire brigade roads
35
5.10
Rail areas in roads
35
Appendix I
Determination of the relevant traffic loading number
36
Appendix II
Illustration of construction methods for roads arranged according to

construction classes
40
4.3
5
5.7
5.8
A-17
Figure A-3. Examples of Belgian standard concrete pavement structures for heavily
trafficked roads.
Figure A-4. Belgian standard design of semi-rigid pavement structure.
A-18
Figure A-5. Belgian design chart for the thickness of the bituminous layer and thickness
of the crushed stone base in relation to traffic.
Figure A-6. Belgian design thickness of the granular subbase in relation to traffic and
subgrade modulus.
A-19
The catalogs are available in a simple computer program that includes the equations
of the various charts and structures (flexible, semirigid and rigid pavements) provided in
the catalog. JPCP and CRCP are the types of the concrete pavements utilized. The
design methods on which the catalogs are based, are periodically updated to take new
conditions (mainly traffic) into account.
Spain
The first Spanish catalog was issued in 1975. Using the experience acquired from the
application of the 1975 catalog, and to take into account new materials and the evolution
of traffic, the second and current edition of the catalog was issued in 1989. Given the
time that elapsed between the two editions, there were corrections of some underdesigned structures, the incorporation of new possible solutions, improvement of
standard specifications for existing materials, and the inclusion of standards for new
paving materials like porous asphalt, lean concrete and RCC in the current catalog. The
current catalog also incorporates the knowledge from procedures that were urgently
developed in 1986, for the design of pavements during the "Autova" (freeway)
construction program (1984-1991).
The catalog is for the design of all pavement types for all categories of heavy traffic,
and provides the design engineers with a range of solutions for different heavy traffic and
subgrade bearing capacity categories. Final solutions are selected based on technical and
A-20
economic reasons, such as type and availability of local materials. The table of the
content of the Spanish pavement design catalog is given in table A-4 for illustration.
Table A-4. Table of contents of the Spanish pavement design catalog.
Chapter
Content
Page
Presentation
Object
11
Scope of Application
13
Factors of Dimensioning
15
3.1 Heavy Traffic
15
3.2 Subgrade
16
3.3 Materials of the Pavements
19
Catalog of Pavement Sections
27
Shoulders
31
5.1 Categories of Heavy Traffic T0 and T1
31
5.2 Category T2
31
5.3 Categories T3 and T4
32
Joints of Vibrated or Compacted Concrete
35
6.1 Longitudinal Joints
35
6.2 Transverse Joints
37
Appendix I
Schemes of Solutions of Pavements with Mainline and shoulders for Each

Type of Section in the Catalog
39
Appendix II
Definitions
197
A-21
Although the Spanish pavement design catalog is empirically based, sections have
been checked using analytical methods to estimate stresses and strains under loads, and
their fatigue strength. Asphalt pavements were modeled as multi-layer systems using a
mechanistic approach that took factors such as material elastic parameters and fatigue
laws into account.
The rigid pavements were verified using the PCA (1984) procedure. The failure
criteria used in these analyses were fatigue cracking for asphalt pavement and cracking
and faulting for concrete pavements. Faulting was only considered for undowelled
jointed PCC pavements.
As further mitigation against failure, dowels, as well as lean concrete bases, are
required for concrete pavements to avoid faulting failures. Also, very stiff asphalt mixes
(approximately 6,000 MPa [870 ksi] at 25 oC) that are highly resistant to rutting are used
for flexible pavements. It should be mentioned that these stiff mixes for flexible
pavements were introduced prior to 1975 through new specifications, to withstand much
heavier loads (130 kN [29,224 lb] legal single axle loads and 210 kN [47,208 lb] legal
tandem axle loads), and tire pressures in excess of 0.9 MPa [130.5 psi], than are
experienced in the United States.
Table A-5 shows the five categories (T0 to T4) that are specified in the catalog for
classifying traffic loading for pavement design. The classification is on the basis of the
average daily truck traffic (ADTT) in the design lane during the first year of service. As
shown in table A-6, there are three categories (E1 to E3) of subgrade support established
A-22
in the catalog based on the CBR value. There are additional specifications for subgrade
grading, plasticity of granular materials, and the minimum binder percentage or
compressive strength for soil cement and lime treated layers.
The design catalog includes tables that provide layer thicknesses for the different
traffic categories. Examples are shown in tables A-7, A-8 and A-9. The thicknesses
shown in the tables are minimum requirements; slightly thicker layers are constructed to
assure compliance at all points. Design features such as dowel presence, joint spacing
and shoulder design are determined by the traffic load classification.
Table A-5. Categories of truck traffic in Spanish catalog.
ADTT
T0
> 2.000
T1
2.000 - 800
T2
800 - 200
T3
200 - 50
T4
< 50
A-23
Table A-6. Subgrade categories in Spanish catalog.
E1
5 < CBR < 10
E2
10 < CBR < 20
E3
20 < CBR
Table A-7. Examples of AC pavement structures from Spanish catalog (thicknesses in

cm).
Traffic
T1
Section no.
Asphalt concrete
121 122 123 124 131 132 133 134

30
25
25
CTB
30
25
22
22
Soil-cement
20
Crushed gravel
20
Uncrushed
gravel
Subgrade
15
25
20
20
20
25
25
E1
E2
A-24
15
E3
20
Table A-8. Minimum layer thicknesses provided in Spanish catalog for vibrated plain
concrete pavements (in cm).
Heavy traffic
T0
T1
T2
Vibrated concrete
28
25
23
Lean concrete or
CTB
15
15
15
Uncrushed gravel
20
20
20
Subgrade
E2
E3
E2
E3
E1
E2
E3
Table A-9. Minimum layer thicknesses provided in Spanish catalog for pavements with
roller compacted concrete (in cm).
Heavy traffic
T0
T1
T2
Asphalt concrete
10
10
RCC
25
22
20
Soil-cement
20
20
20
Uncrushed gravel
20
Subgrade
E2
E3
E2
E3
E1
E2
E3
A-25
The practicality of the Spanish catalog after 20 years of use has been proven, and it is
fully accepted by government officials, the asphalt and cement industries, consulting
engineers and contractors. Consequently, apart from the national catalog for highway
pavement design issued by the government, there are other catalogs available for
pavement design for other facilities. Two examples are the Manual of Concrete
Pavements for Low-Volume Roads published by the Spanish Institute of Cement and Its
Applications (IECA) and the Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Port
Pavements of the State Ports Board.
Professor Carlos Kraemer of the Polythenic University of Madrid, Spain, who
contributed to the development of all the three catalogs cited in this section, points to
several advantages that have been experienced in Spain by the catalog design approach
doing the following:
1. Establishing uniform design criteria that are based on standard specified materials of
known quality.
2. Providing engineers (including those who are not specialized in pavement design),
contractors, and politicians, with a practical tool that reduces the risk of
misunderstandings and errors inherent in the communication of pavement design
solutions.
3. Improving the average performance of pavements by eliminating, through experience,
under- and overdesigned solutions.
A-26
4. Allowing the designer to focus on the choice of the most appropriate solution in each
specific case on the basis of the availability of materials and cost.
5. Reducing the number of alternative pavement structures that contractors have to
become familiar with.
6. Simplifying supervision of design, construction quality control, assessment of
performance and, in short, maintenance management.
7. Allowing the progressive optimization of the design process through performance
observations.
8. Protecting the civil engineers from politicians, who are sometimes more interested in
cheap, short life solutions (slightly longer than their election term), but that may
essentially be non-economical.
9.
Some of the noted disadvantages of using a catalog are as follows:
1. There is a risk to introducing a routine design process. Pavement design is
sometimes eventually considered as a solved problem. Hence, fewer engineers are
motivated to become specialist in the area.
2. It may be more difficult to introduce new materials, even with standard structural
designs that are open to initiatives (for instance, high modulus asphalt mixes used
instead of conventional ones).
A-27
3. The catalog may be less adaptable to regional or local conditions, such as extreme
climates, local marginal materials, particular local aggregates (e.g. volcanic materials
that may not be in catalog).
4. There can be a certain lack or flexibility to adapt to budget limitations.
Austria
The Austrian specifications for the structural design of pavements provides thicknesses
based on the design traffic level and the bearing capacity of the subgrade. The catalog
allows for a minimum bearing capacity of 35 MPa (5,075 psi) for the subgrade as
determined by plate load tests. The traffic level is determined from the daily traffic load
volume (DTLV), a distribution factor and truck factor. The catalog requires the
application of necessary subgrade strengthening measures, including soil stabilization or
replacement with better materials, in order to obtain the appropriate bearing capacity for
all soils.
For each traffic class and the specified minimum subgrade bearing capacity, the
catalog provides designs for the following five construction types:
1. Flexible pavement consisting of bituminous surfacing and road base, on unbound
base of natural gravel or crushed material.
2. Flexible pavement consisting of bituminous surfacing and road base, on an unbound
base of wet-mix aggregate.
A-28
3. Semi-rigid (composite) pavement type consisting of a bituminous layer on a cement

treated base.
4. Concrete pavement on an unbound subbase.
5. Concrete pavement on a cement treated subbase.
The most appropriate choice is made based on an economic evaluation. The design
thicknesses are presented in the design tables for rigid pavements and for flexible and
composite pavements, respectively, presented in figures A-7 and A-8.
The catalog is based on a design procedure that involved the use of a variety of
closed-form equations and an equation derived from correlation studies, to determine the
permissible number of load applications to failure, N, for each of the pavement types.
For the flexible pavement types, for a 20-year design life and by applying multi-layer
elastic theory using the BISAR computer program and taking seasonal effects into
account, Miner's hypothesis was used to determine the required pavement structure for
each of the traffic loading and subgrade bearing capacity combinations. Similarly, for
rigid pavements and for a 30-year design life, using Eisenmann's method for computing
stresses in pavements and Westergaard's closed-form solution for computing stresses at
the slab edge due to traffic loading, the required pavement structure was determined for
the various traffic loading and subgrade bearing capacity combinations. Thermal curling
stresses were taken into account in the computations.
A-29
Minimum subgrade elastic modulus
A-30
Figure A-7. Design table for rigid pavements in Austria (thicknesses in mm).
A-31
Figure A-8. Design table for flexible and composite pavements in Austria (thicknesses in
mm).
A-32
The pavement thicknesses provided in the catalog are reported to be valid only for
normal conditions (e.g. free flowing traffic, usual subsoil, climate and favorable drainage
conditions), and for pavements that do not involve engineer structures. Special
provisions, including the use of specific mix design procedures for road materials, are
required for road sections that experience predominantly slow moving commercial traffic
or high shear stresses. Also, the catalog provides specific guidelines for pavements on
bridges and in tunnels.
France
There are several catalogs that are used for pavement design in France. The current
national catalog was developed in a collaborative effort by three governmental agencies
(SETRA, LCPC, and CETE), with the participation of representatives from the French
ministry in charge of transportation, the highway sector, and the highway engineering
profession. A semi-private tollway company called SCETAUROUTE, published the
third edition of its catalog for superhighways (or freeways) in March 1994. Regional and
local catalogs are also available. An example is the catalog entitled Design Strategies for
Pavement Structures of Paris Roadways, developed by the West and East (LROP and
LREP) Greater Paris Region, Road Research Laboratories, in collaboration with the
Department of Highways of the City of Paris. These examples provide evidence that a
national catalog can serve as basis for the development of specialized catalogs for
specific regions, locales, or highway types.
A-33
The first national catalog issued in 1977 for both AC and PCC pavements, was
developed by the Service of Technical Studies of Roads and Superhighways (SETRA)
and the Central Laboratory for Bridges and Pavements (LCPC). Initially, this catalog
proposed the design of rigid pavements using the California technique (non-dowelled
short slabs). This catalog was updated in 1988 by SETRA, LCPC, and the Southeast
Center for Technical Studies of Equipment (CETE), to include continuously reinforced
pavements, doweled pavements, and non-erodible foundations (stabilized layers).
The current SETRA-LCPC-CETE catalog is a comprehensive document that consists
of the following:
a catalog of standard structures for new pavements,
a technical guide for establishing cross-sections of pavements, and
a users guide.
A number of computer programs are also available with the catalog that can be used for
economic comparisons of different pavement structures and material quantities for the
different techniques.
The catalog of standard structures provides guidelines for the design of 26 types of
pavements structures, including flexible, semi-rigid (composite), and seven concrete
pavement types. Typical examples for flexible and rigid pavements are shown in figures
A-9 and A-10. The design lives for the flexible, composite, and rigid pavements are 15,
20 and 25 years, respectively. In general, due to better construction control, the
A-34
thicknesses provided for freeways are 2-3 cm thinner than those of the primary and
secondary roads.
Figure A-9. Typical structure for flexible pavement in the French catalog.
A-35
Figure A-10. Typical structure for a CRCP on lean concrete base in the French catalog.
The technical guide for establishing transverse pavement cross-sections summarizes
certain directives concerning the geometry, construction and constitution of various
elements of the pavement. Examples of the recommendations provided for the pavement
cross-section, site vegetation, and drainage are shown in figures A-11 and A-12,
respectively.
For all the pavement structures, in order to use the catalog, it is necessary to
determine the traffic level and subgrade or platform support using procedures explained
in the user's guide. Four categories of traffic loading (T0 to T3), corresponding to the
initial average daily truck traffic (ADTT) count in the design lane for trucks with weights
A-36
greater than or equal to 50 kN (5 tonnes), are defined in the catalog. An annual traffic
growth rate of 7% during the design life is assumed. The subgrade is classified into three
"platforms" (PF1 to PF3), with corresponding subgrade modulus values that range from
200 to 1,200 MPa (29 to 174 ksi). Charts with guidelines for frost protection of the
pavement are the only adjustments made for climatic conditions.
All the other catalogs, such as the SCETAUROUTE catalog for superhighways and
the regional catalog for Greater Paris, are based on the same basic principles introduced
in the national catalog. In fact, the SCETAUROUTE catalog includes several references
to the SETRA-LCPC catalog. The table of contents for SCETAUROUTE pavement
design catalog is given in table A-10. Examples of charts from the SCETAUROUTE
catalog for flexible and concrete pavement design are shown in figures A-13 and A-14,
respectively. For each type of structure, the thickness of the pavement layers can be
determined from a chart using the two parameters Ti (traffic loading) and PFi (subgrade).
A-37
Figure A-11. Recommendations for pavement cross-section in the French catalog.
Figure A-12. Example of site vegetation and drainage guidelines in the French catalog.
A-38
Table A-10. Table of Contents of SCETAUROUTE pavement design catalog.

Chapter
Content
Page
Introduction
Methodology
Traffic
Support platform of pavement subgrade
13
Techniques of pavement construction
21
Pavement structures
53
Transverse cross section
71
Maintenance scenarios
85
Verification of freeze-thaw
89
Pavement structures for (traffic) areas
95
10
Final surface finishing
99
Appendix 1
101
Appendix 2
103
Appendix 3
105
Appendix 4
107
Bibliography
111
A-39
Figure A-13. An example of flexible pavement design in SCETAUROUTE catalog

(thicknesses in cm).
A-40
Figure A-14. An example of rigid pavement design in SCETAUROUTE catalog

(thicknesses in cm).
A-41
An annual traffic growth rate of 4% is assumed in the SCETAUROUTE catalog. For

a different annual growth rate, the catalog recommends changes in the dimensions of the
pavement structure. In an apparent reference to the rate of 7% used in the national
catalog, the SCETAUROUTE catalog notes that the use of a 7% annual traffic growth
rate instead of 4%, will lead to an overestimation of the base thickness by 1 cm (0.4 in).
For a given traffic and subgrade bearing capacity, and the condition that the required
surface maintenance is carried out, the different structures proposed in the catalog will
more or less guarantee equivalent life spans.
Swiss Catalog
The Swiss pavement design standard consists of technical specifications for the
subgrade and a catalog of pavement structural designs. The Swiss pavement design
catalog is also based on thickness determination for classifications of the traffic loading
and subgrade properties. Tables A-11 and A-12, respectively, show the classification for
traffic loading and subgrade support provided in the Swiss catalog.
A-42
Table A-11 Classification of traffic in Swiss catalog.
Traffic Class
Equivalent daily traffic weight

(TF)
T1 very light
10 to 30
T2 light
> 30 to 100
T3 medium
> 100 to 300
T4 heavy
> 300 to 1000
T5 very heavy
> 1000 to 3000
Table A-12. Classification of subgrade in Swiss catalog.

ME1 (kN/m2)
CBR (%)
k (MN/m3)
6000 to 15,000
3 to 6
15 to 30
S2 medium
> 15,000 to
30,000
> 6 to 12
> 30 to 60
S3 strong
> 30,000 to
60,000
> 12 to 25
> 60 to 100
> 60,000
> 25
> 100
Subgrade class
S1 weak
S4 very strong
A-43
The catalog contains matrices of designs for several flexible and concrete pavement
types. Figure A-15 shows an example of the design matrix for AC pavement on hot-mix
asphalt and aggregate base, and figure A-16 gives an example of the design matrix for
PCC pavement on aggregate subbase. The catalog also provides specifications for layer
stabilization, minimum layer thickness for freeze/thaw conditions, base and subgrade
uniformity, and layer compaction.
A-44
Figure A-17. Swiss design matrix for AC pavement on hot-mix asphalt and aggregate
subbase.
A-43
Figure A-18. Swiss design matrix for PCC pavement on stabilized subbase.
A-44
Appendix B
MINUTES OF NCHRP PROJECT 1-32
CONSENSUS MEETING
January 22-26, 1996, Chicago
In Attendance:
1. Resource group members (note, where ever the following text refers to resource group
members, it means only the following individuals):
Sohila Bemanian
James Brown
Ray Brown
Bill Cape
Max Grogg
Wouter Gulden
Marlin Knutson
Roger Larson
David Lippert
James Mack
Dick Moore
Mark McDaniel
Dave Newcomb
Linda Pierce
Chuck Van Dusen
Duane Young
*
Robert Packard substituted for Mr. Knutson for a portion of the meeting. Mark Snyder and
Dario Pedigo were unable to attend.
2. European Expert:
Lorenzo Dominichini, Italy (assisted by Francesca La Torre)
3. Research team (ERES/BRE):
Michael Darter
Harold Von Quintus
Brian Killingsworth
Jane Jiang
Wayne Seiler
Jerry Daleiden
Emmanuel Owusu-Antwi
Ken McGhee
Overview
NCHRP project 1-32 consensus meeting on pavement design features was held in Chicago from 1 pm on
January 22 to noon on January 26, 1996. The objective of this meeting was to reach consensus on key
pavement design site conditions and design features recommended for inclusion in the pavement design
catalog. Participants were sent a copy of the draft design catalog prior to the meeting for review. A copy
of the meeting agenda is provided in the appendix. A brief summary of workshop activities is as follows.
Monday afternoon: introductions, objectives of NCHRP Project 1-32 and of this meeting, overview
of the draft catalog, European experience presentation, consensus building process, and an open
discussion on the catalog development.
Tuesday: more discussion on catalog development, the entire group discussed and took consensus
ballots on some general issues concerning both flexible and rigid pavements including site conditions,
the pavement design process, and general design criteria (e.g. design reliability).
B-1
Wednesday: the group was split into a flexible pavement group and a rigid pavement group. Each
group discussed, built consensus on pavement design features and took ballots on many
recommendations.
Thursday morning: the entire group met to summarize each groups activities and discuss the
progress of the consensus building on the previous day. Then the group discussed and took ballots on
the initial and terminal serviceability to be used in the catalog. After that, the group broke into the
same two groups again to continue discussions and balloting on pavement design feature
recommendations. The flexible pavement group finished at noon, so some members joined the rigid
pavement group in the discussion and consensus building on PCC pavement design features during
the afternoon.
Friday morning: the entire group again summarized Thursdays progress. A presentation was made
on the knowledge-based expert system (KBES) development plan, and the group had a discussion on
the usage, development, and implementation of the KBES. After that, terminal serviceability and slab
on grade option for PCC pavement design were further discussed and balloted. In conclusion, the
entire group had an open discussion on the future development and other general aspects of the
catalog.
The consensus building process included the following steps for each design recommendation. First, a
member of the research team briefly presented a specific design recommendation (i.e., subgrade
treatment, design reliability). Second, the consensus group freely discussed the recommendation. Third,
if it was apparent that most members agreed with the recommendation, a consensus ballot was completed
by each member (see appendix for consensus ballots). Fourth, the ballot results were entered into a
personal computer (Excel spreadsheet) and a frequency distribution was projected onto a screen for all to
see. Fifth, if a consensus was reached (meaning no one disagreed with the recommendation), the group
moved on to the next recommendation. Sixth, if one or more participants disagreed as indicated by a 40
or lower rating, their reason was read to the group (anyone who disagreed had to write the reason on the
ballot), and additional discussion was held until either a consensus was achieved or it became apparent
that it was impossible to achieve a consensus at the time.
Nearly always, the further discussion resulted in either a modification of the recommendation, or the
attachment of notes to the recommendation indicating the concerns of the consensus group. When
agreement could not be reached, the recommendation was brought up at a later time and discussed and reballoted, which usually resulted in a consensus at that time. A summary of all ballots for each
recommendation voted, histograms of the voting results, and all comments provided by the resource
group members are given in the appendix.
Overall, the consensus meeting was very successful and a consensus was reached on almost all the issues,
often after various revisions were made. A virtual wealth of knowledge and experience existed in the
consensus group and many good ideas were brought out in the discussions. The group generally appeared
to have a positive feeling about the achievements of the consensus group meeting.
Monday January 22, 1:00-5:00pm
Introductions
B-2
Mike Darter welcomed everyone, and each attendee and the research team introduced themselves. He
then presented the NCHRP Project 1-32 Research Problem Statement, objectives, the work tasks, and the
objective of this meeting. This objective was: for the resource group to reach decisions about the
pavement catalog that best reflects the thinking of all group members (i.e., reach consensus). The
resource group will have an extremely important role in the final set of recommendations given in the
pavement catalog.
European Catalogs: Uses and Development
Professor Lorenzo Domenichini of Italy made a presentation on the concept, usage and development of
European catalogs. A brief summary follows.
A catalog is a hard version of an expert system and tries to represent simplistically a very complex
issue. A catalog is:
A design tool providing guidelines and rules of good practice.
Not a tailored design for all possible conditions.
A research tool promoting the achievement of better quality in pavement construction and
reduction in the scatter of the results in the pavement performance studies.
A pavement catalog aims to:
Provide guidelines for the standardization of pavement structures in traffic areas.
Provide a simple means to present an agencies policy on pavement management.
Introduce good practices in pavement design and construction (more than just pavement
thickness; i.e. subdrainage).
The development of pavement design catalogs dates back to 1932 in France, where the first catalog
appears to have been proposed, however, most were developed in the 1960's and 70's. Pavement design
catalogs developed in Europe are shown in table 1.
Table 1. European pavement design catalog development.
Country
France
Year of first release

1971
Revisions
Rev A 1977; Rev B 1988
Germany
1986
Rev A 1989; Rev B 1990
Spain
1963
Rev A 1976; Rev B 1990
Belgium
1983-1985
Swiss
1989
Italy
1993
European catalogs use number of heavy vehicles as the traffic input as opposed to equivalent
single axles used in the US because they feel the transition is "unreliable" and "tedious".
European catalogs include semi-rigid pavements (composites).
Allow variable thickness across transverse cross-sections (especially France).
Graphical representation of thickness designs and cross-sections.
B-3
German catalog includes solution for bus lanes and bus stops.
Belgium includes overloaded design structures as well as "normal" traffic structures.
Spanish Catalog:
Introduces roller-compacted portland cement concrete over a soil cement with a bituminous wearing
course to meet smoothness.
B-4
Swiss Catalog:
Includes section on splitting out the wearing course from the bituminous base. Also includes
recommendations for staged construction for asphalt pavements.
Italian Catalog:
Developed over a 3-year period using a working group approach where 5 different groups studied
specific items regarding pavement design.
Climatic regions not differentiated in this catalog (below 1000 meters above sea level). The
catalog included checks by mechanistic analysis. Therefore, designed to most severe climatic
conditions.
One concept that Europeans (especially the French) have moved forward is the concept of
developing local catalogs for specific regions and cities within a national system.
Also some catalogs refer to standardizing rehabilitation techniques for pre-existing systems (i.e.
reconstruction).
France has developed a catalog for low volume roads and residential areas. They have introduced
some new ways to present pavement design in terms of the functional criteria (as opposed to
structural criteria).
Initial French Catalog - 15,000 copies distributed over 3 years, very successful.
Helped clarify the difficulties in designing pavement.
Helped in promoting research and continuing pavement design process (engineers did not stop
with catalog provided designs).
European catalogs assume that designs between flexible and rigid pavement are equivalent about
the structural characteristics (i.e. structural design life), however are not necessarily equivalent in
terms of maintenance.
Questions: (to Lorenzo Domenichini)
What about equivalency between pavement types in terms of maintenance? European catalogs
are based on a structural solution. They do not include functional conditions, such as wearing
courses, so differences in future maintenance/rehabilitation may exist.
What about modes of failure, are they discussed? Yes in notes to cells.
Validation of catalogs? Revised every few years, but after 25 years they are still very much on
the stage.
Why a catalog, as opposed to other procedures? Actual design process knowledge is held in a
limited number of people; a catalog helps to disseminate information. Catalog makes people
realize the difficulty in pavement design. It increases interest in pavement design and in
maintenance and rehabilitation.
What about the potential loss of pavement expertise if a catalog is used by an agency?
Domenichini indicated just the opposite occurred in Europe, where catalogs increased interest in
pavement design.
Consensus Building
Ken McGhee made a presentation on the consensus building concept, guidelines, and ground rules to
be used in this meeting.
Consensus Building
All can support; none oppose.
B-5
Not a majority vote.

Mutual understanding of views.
Reached fairly and openly.
Win-win situation.
Guidelines:
Talk, but listen
Encourage others
Share information
Do not bargain or trade support
Differences = strength
Disagree without being disagreeable
Silence is not consensus
Chaos is also not consensus
Most People Will Support If:
1. Opportunity to express views.
2. They think views were heard and understood.
3. Feel views were considered by entire group.
Ground Rules
I. Topic Recommendations by Research Team (5-10 min.)
II. Open Discussion by Entire Group (15 min. max.)
A. New Ideas
B. Proposed Changes
C. Objections
(Limit Individual Discourse 5 min.)
III. Seek Group Consensus (20 min.)
A. Consider Ideas, Objections, Changes
B. Ballot - Degree of Consensus
Description and Discussion of Draft Catalog
Mike Darter and Harold Von Quintus made a brief presentation on the content, basis, and development of
the draft catalog. The group had a very comprehensive discussion on different aspects of the catalog and
its development.
Group Discussion:
Negative aspects: Cookbook; Positive aspects: Captures knowledge of outgoing experts.
Future of the draft catalog. It is desirable to reconvene consensus group with final product.
Concerned about the catalog being written in stone. How to change it?
Catalog should compliment but not replace current knowledge.
Catalog will help standardize practice and help inexperienced engineers.
"Policy" concerns; people may be forced to use catalog.
Need to "stupid proof" the catalog.
Usage for low volume roads may be good because of lack of engineering knowledge.
B-6
Catalog should be intermediate step and not final product. Actual best use could be Internetbased knowledge-based expert system. Could be a tool by which information could be shared.
B-7
January 23, Tuesday, Entire Group

Continued Discussion on Catalog Concept
Concern about whether or not this catalog is applicable to local agencies. This catalog is aimed at
state highway agencies as per problem statement/guidance by NCHRP. But will local agencies
use it, when it may not be applicable?
Possible that local agencies will default to the lowest level which is still too high for local roads.
Implementation statement (of KBES) should also include information regarding implementation
of the paper catalog.
Concern that the catalog could be used to optimize design. The research team answered that the
catalog produced under NCHRP 1-32 is NOT recommended for use in optimizing a project level
design. That is not the purpose of this research study. Actually, the ranges given for design
features like layer thicknesses make this impossible. The purpose of this catalog is to provide a
knowledge base of recommendations achieved through analytical methods and the consensus
of experts that would provide guidance to highway agencies on good practice. Any agency
wishing to use the catalog for project level design must tailor it to their specific materials,
climate, soils, traffic and policies.
Another idea would be to identify to designers the optimum type of design in terms of initial cost
& LCC. Answer, this catalog will not provide life-cycle cost procedures.
Customizing should be separated into two levels:
Site (project)
State adaptability
Washington State catalog is used for determining an approximate design so that an appropriate
amount of money can be set aside at the network level. After that, project level designs are
conducted using normal design procedures.
Also can be used to help simplify pavement management in that only a few structural sections
would be tracked for performance.
A section on How To Implement or tailor to a SHA is needed in the catalog.
Will stage construction will be given in catalog? None will be provided.
Basis for Development of Design Catalog

The 1993 AASHTO design guide is recommended as the basis for initial development of the structural
sections in the catalog. They would then be checked using mechanistic-empirical models. Other design
features would be based on the best of state practice and experience from the consensus group.
Group Discussion:
The question of exactly what was to be the basis of the structural designs included in the catalog was
discussed at length. After much discussion, the resource group balloted and reached consensus on the
following proposed design catalog developmental process (see appendix page B-1 for a summary of
balloting results and comments by participants):
1993 AASHTO design guide will be used to develop the initial structural designs. These designs
would then be checked and other key design features added using the following.
FHWA pavement manuals
Available mechanistic/empirical performance models
B-8
State highway agencies (SHAs) pavement design practices

LTPP and other pavement performance databases
Design guidelines from industry
Performance modeling/limiting criteria
There was considerable discussion as to the equivalence of flexible and rigid pavement designs as
produced by the AASHTO Guide. Nothing is provided in the AASHTO Guide on this topic. The
following statement was prepared by the research team concerning this topic based on the discussion and
will be placed in the catalog (after review by the Resource Group).
Equivalence Of Pavement Designs
What type of design equivalency does the AASHTO Design procedure provide between different
pavement types (i.e., full-depth AC, AC with conventional aggregate base, JPCP, JRCP, AC with
treated base, CRCP)?
The AASHTO design procedure, used correctly with proper inputs, provides pavement structures that
carry a specified amount of mixed traffic loadings between an initial serviceability level and a
terminal serviceability level, at a specified level of design reliability. The design is based on data
from one climate, thus, the procedure is not directly applicable to other climatic regions of the
country, however, that is a different issue.
Since the procedure is based on full-scale field testing of flexible and rigid pavements over a 2 year
period only, the method does not include aging effects beyond two years. Aging is defined
herein as any process that causes damage (reduction in serviceability) to a pavement other than traffic
load. The effects of aging is mostly a durability issue and relates heavily to materials selection,
mixture design, and the subgrade. Some examples include the following for all pavement types: frost
heave, swelling soils, settlements of foundations, and disintegration of any pavement layer from
freeze-thaw effects. For flexible pavements specifically: hardening of asphalt binder resulting in
thermal or shrinkage related cracking, reflection cracking from treated bases, and stripping of asphalt
resulting in increased potential for rutting. For rigid pavements specifically: D cracking, reactive
aggregates, and incompressibles that result in joint spalling, and corrosion of steel that results in
various problems.
As aging damage occurs, traffic loading may result in a more rapid deterioration because of the
existing fractures or softening or disintegration of materials and other effects (dynamic loads).
None of the AASHO Road Test pavements received any maintenance or rehabilitation during the
time they were considered in test. The application of maintenance or rehabilitation may, therefore,
extend the design life of any pavement designed by the AASHTO procedure.
Therefore, two different types of pavements (either two different flexible pavements, two different
rigid pavements, or one flexible and one rigid pavement) designed for the same mixed traffic would
not necessarily perform the same (same trend of serviceability) if one pavement was trafficked over a
2 year time period and the other over a 20 year time period. The pavement trafficked over a 20 year
time period may develop a lot of aging damage to the pavement that could reduce the serviceability
of the pavement, causing it to reach a terminal level long before the design traffic was applied.
Maintenance and/or rehabilitation may be needed to extend the pavements life until it carries the
design traffic.
B-9
Therefore, even if a flexible and a rigid pavement, or for that matter two different types of flexible or
two different types of rigid pavements, could be designed to carry the same amount of mixed traffic
loadings using the AASHTO Guide, they would not necessarily perform the same over the a given
time period or require the same amount of maintenance or rehabilitation due to the differences in
aging of the pavements. This catalog provides structural sections that are expected to carry a
specified amount of mixed traffic that has been projected to occur over a given design period.
Differing amounts of maintenance and rehabilitation may be required to reach the end of the design
analysis period.
Site Conditions
Traffic
Predicted 18-kip ESALs and the corresponding ranges in the draft catalog were proposed to be used for
pavement structural design because this is the input for AASHTO, is the most widely use traffic input for
design, and incorporates many traffic variables (lane distribution, axle type, axle load distribution, growth
rates over time, etc.). Due to the different equivalence factors for flexible and rigid pavements, the
catalog will refer to flexible pavement ESALs and rigid pavement ESALs.
Group Discussion
Someone suggested that we put limiting axle weight (load) on low type designs. Recommend
that we should add a note about low type roads with overloads should use different traffic class.
High end on traffic may be too low (i.e. 40-year design). Suggest 100 million for flexible and
150 million rigid.
Someone asked if high end rigid ESALs is actually correct because it was noted that most of the
concrete pavements at AASHO road test did not fail.
Design Life vs. Total Life. Maintenance treatments will still be required due to durability
failures.
Flexible ESALs vs. Rigid ESALs. Should we use another class that combines (i.e. load class,
commercial truck traffic, ADT, AADT (present))?
Concern that two pavement types in a traffic class are equal. However, they may not be equal in
terms of overall life cycle cost. Catalog is misleading in this regard.
Add statements regarding maintenance and rehabilitation to reach terminal serviceability levels.
"Designs are based solely on structural issues and not durability or functional issues". "Cross
sections may require different maintenance with time".
Consensus was reached to use predicted cumulative 18-kip (80 kN) ESAL for pavement structural design,
and a higher range of 100-150 million ESALs will be added to the catalog structural design charts. See
summary of balloting results and comments in the appendix, page B-3.
Subgrade
The research team proposed to use a laboratory determined resilient modulus (MR) value of the subgrade
for flexible pavement design and elastic k-value of the subgrade for rigid pavement design, as is utilized
in the AASHTO design guide.
Group Discussion
B-10
What about the granular subgrade material? Answer: granular is included in the strong
category for each pavement type.
Should put * on the structural design resulting from any minimum value required.
k-value: can be determined from AASHTO/ASTM procedures plate load testing, backcalculation,
or correlations with soils tests or classification. Some recommendations will be provided based
on NCHRP 1-30 results.
The k value shown in the catalog represents the subgrade support value only, not the base or
subbase. It is also the seasonally adjusted k value (the same is true for resilient modulus).
Is there a connection between the Mr and k-values? Approximate only.
MR can be determined from laboratory testing, backcalculation, and soil test/classification
correlations. A composite MR may be needed where different layers of soil type exists when
using lab or soil class or soil test results.
Consensus was achieved on this recommendation, see appendix page B-2 for summary of balloting
results.
Climate
It was proposed to use the LTPP four climatic regions as general climatic zones to differentiate different
designs and design features in the catalog. After discussion, the resource group balloted and reached a
consensus on this recommendation. See appendix page B-4 for the summary of balloting results and
comments.
General Design Criteria
Design Reliability
The recommended design reliability levels the increase with increasing ESALs were presented. After
discussion, the resource group balloted on the reliability levels shown in the draft catalog, however, the
design reliability of the lowest traffic level would be set at 75% for both pavement types. Consensus was
not reached because one person disagreed with this scheme and suggested to use only 3 levels of design
reliability. The group also discussed other possible modes or methods such as defining reliability as a
function of ADT, functional class, or heavy truck traffic volume. This item was reballoted at a later time
and a consensus was reached where the lowest traffic level would use R = 75 percent, and the other levels
as recommended in the draft catalog. See appendix page B-5 for summary of balloting results and
comments.
Local Conditions
Subgrade Treatment
The draft catalog includes some text and recommendations as to the treatment of the subgrade where poor
soil conditions exist, however, it is incomplete.
Discussion of group
Subgrade preparation should be included so that a proper working platform can be established.
Uniformity of grade along job is very important. Must be able to provide information/ guidelines
in transition areas (i.e. cut/fills). Someone mentioned that when they repair existing pavements,
many times these repairs are required over a cut/fill transition.
For swelling soils and frost susceptible soils minimal discussion and guidance should be provided
with numerous references to existing information on these topics. Treatment for swelling soils
should be level up overlays.
B-11
Discuss how to recognize these conditions and the associated consequences. These things affect
performance, but cannot deal with increasing pavement structure.
Provide some guidance on recognizing subgrade problems and their consequence. There is an
assumed quality subgrade in design. If not achieved then performance problem.
Do not change slab thickness based on subgrade treatment.
The group reached consensus on the need to provide guidelines on improving the subgrade under certain
conditions, which include subgrade treatment/modification, compaction, uniformity, frost susceptible soil,
swelling soil, etc. This section of the draft catalog will be rewritten using the above comments and others
provided in the summary of balloting results in the appendix, page B-6.
Subsurface Drainage
Cross-sections of flexible and rigid pavements containing a permeable drainage layer were included in the
draft catalog. Also, a section on determining the need for subsurface drainage and other details is
provided in the draft catalog. Considerable discussion occurred on this topic throughout the workshop
which showed it to be highly controversial. The overall feedback was that the jury is still out on the
costs, benefits, and risks of permeable bases for flexible and rigid pavements and that we should not
include them in the catalog as a recommended section at this time.
Discussion:
This is a project level decision.
Complex issue; however does the catalog provide minimum guidelines or does the catalog not
include any comments at all?
Do not want to recommend subdrainage in flat areas when water has no place to go. Just want to
try to keep water out.
Concern over stability of untreated permeable aggregate base courses under PCC pavements.
Some cracking of slabs has resulted. Slab cracking has resulted on some projects with treated
bases immediately after construction due to increased friction and inadequate sawing. One
project on I80 having a lime treated subgrade just beneath the permeable layer has pumped the
layer full of fines and caused punchouts in the CRCP.
Questions about drains:
When do we use drains?
How effective and what conditions are they cost effective?
A permeable base under a CRCP does not perform well.
The group achieved consensus on the following guidelines of developing the drainage section (see
summary of balloting results and comments in appendix, page B-7):
Take the cross-sections with permeable bases out of the catalog. Place some general
recommendations in the drainage section in the catalog. The jury is still out on the benefits and
liabilities of a permeable base drainage system.
If an agency elects to provide subdrainage, provide a fully functional drainage systems as
opposed to just providing drainage.
Discuss advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
B-12
January 24, Wednesday, Asphalt Session

Initial Serviceability
A value of 4.5 was used to develop the draft catalog and is recommended for all pavement types.
Discussion. Are these values used to determine the initial designs appropriate with current construction
specifications? Very smooth pavements are being achieved where smoothness specifications area being
used. Should they have been a function of pavement type?
Consensus was reached by the flexible pavement group on using 4.5 as the initial serviceability for both
types of pavements. Note, that this topic was discussed with both groups together on Thursday and the
results of those ballots are presented later.
Terminal Serviceability
A value of 2.5 was used to develop the draft catalog and is recommended for both pavement types (with
the exception that 3.0 was used for the higher traffic level flexible pavements).
Discussion. For terminal serviceability, you must determine what you are talking about. Terminal
serviceability would require a major rehabilitation.
Comment that we should look at total loss in serviceability as opposed to initial/terminal levels.
Should not go with PSI > 2.0.
Presently the draft catalog includes levels where the drop is 1.5 or 2.0
Harold mentioned the smoothness competitions in relation to the comparison between initial
serviceability levels. Should they be the same?
Consensus was reached by the flexible pavement group showing that all agreed with the terminal
serviceability of 2.5 for both types of pavements. Note, that this topic was discussed with both groups
together on Thursday and the results of those ballots are presented later.
Cross Sections
Full-depth pavements
Shaded Cells
The flexible pavement portion of the catalog includes some cells in the design matrix as shaded to
indicate that these designs might not be practical.
Discussion
Washington catalog has shaded cells based upon functionality not necessarily best practice (i.e.
75% reliability on high traffic roads vs. full-depth on weak (unstabilized) subgrade).
A consensus ballot provided the following agreement for each type of AC pavement (see appendix pages
B-8, 9,10, 11 and 12): Show cells of good practice (#s); Show cells of questionable design (#s with
shade); and Show cells of bad practice (no #s).
B-13
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Suggestion that all options (cross-sections) for a given traffic level be on one page.
Check titles - take out non-frost/frost.
Take out stabilization sections and just mention that subgrade should be at least the minimum
effective Mr (3,000 psi).
Change in cross-sections from lime-treated subgrade to stabilized subgrade.
Show stabilization of subgrade for 3000 psi and 5000 psi subgrades (not 9000 and 14000 psi).
Concerns regarding subbase materials; all should be shown as "unbound granular" subbase.
Someone asked for explanation of ranges provided in cells or elimination of same. An
explanation will be given. The ranges in the flexible catalog were based on the range of traffic
loading for the cell. Subgrade Mr was held at the mean for the cell.
Weak subgrades (resilient modului of 3000 and 5000 psi) need subbase cover (at least 4 in).
Eliminate subbase for CTB sections with stabilized subgrade.
Define shaded areas as marginal and provide an explanation of why they are considered so.
Limit subbase to 8 in max. for CTB sections without stabilized subgrade.
Group agreed that range of values should only be used in one layer only (HMAC).
Permeable bases should not be shown as structural sections (see consensus ballot page B-13).
Materials Characterization
No breakout of HMAC layers (i.e. wearing, binder, base)
Material characteristics of HMAC
- Generalize regarding stability, moisture damage, etc.
- State that "premier mix design and construction practices should be specified"
Binder selection
- No guidelines on binder selection required
- State that: "Proper binder selection is required for existing climate" and, "detailed discussion
is beyond the scope of this report"
Structural Layer Coefficients
- Unbound base (crushed stone) 0.14
- Subbase (unbound granular material) 0.10
- ATB (include cold mix) 0.25
- CTB 0.22
- HMAC 0.42
Seasonal Adjustments
- Note that none have been made because the subgrade resilient modulus is defined as the
effective seasonally adjusted value.
Consensus ballots were taken for materials characterization for dense graded AC asphalt stabilized base,
unbound granular base/subbase, and cement treated bases (see appendix pages B-14, 15, and 16).
Mechanistic Checks
- Roughness
- Fatigue; Limit tensile strain at bottom of HMAC or ASB or tensile stress at bottom of CTB
- Deformation; Limit subgrade vertical compressive strains
- Deflection; Limit surface deflection
A consensus ballot was taken on mechanistic checks as shown in the appendix, page B-17.
B-14
January 24, WednesdayConcrete Pavement Session

PCC Pavement Cross Sections
Recommendations for specific cross sections were provided in the draft catalog. Extensive discussion on
this topic occurred as follows.
Must define edge support better (three levels of edge support defined)..
Base layer normally goes beyond slab edge, a widened base.
Show drainage right outside of shoulder.
Trapezoidal slabs are normally designed for outside lane and then reduced toward the inner lane.
Trapezoidal slabs: increase 1 in at outer lane and decrease 1 in at the inner lane.
A crowned pavement cannot be constructed as smoothness as a uniform cross slope pavement
across traffic lanes.
Based on the discussion, 6 cross sections were identified to be shown in the catalog:
1. Conventional lanes with no edge support, i.e. Gravel or AC shoulder.
2. Conventional lanes with medium edge support, e.g. tied shoulder with longitudinal joint not
monilithically placed (shoulder is added after traffic lanes placed).
3. Conventional with super edge support, e.g integral tied shoulder (traffic lane and shoulder
included in same placement), or widened slab, or integral curbs.
4. Trapezoidal with no edge support, i.e. AC shoulder.
5. Trapezoidal with medium edge support, e.g. tied shoulder.
6. Trapezoidal with super edge support, e.g integral tied shoulder, widened slab, integral curbs.
For trapezoidal sections, discuss widening for future traffic. Show some cross-sections from states for
illustration. Check thin slabs for longitudinal cracking when widened slab is utilized. Consensus was
reached on the first ballot as shown in the appendix on cross sections (see many comments on ballots
also, appendix page B-18).
PCC Pavement Design Features
PCC pavement structural design- General design inputs
The following design inputs were proposed in draft catalog:
P0 = 4.5; Pt = 2.5; ( will be discussed with AC group)
Overall standard deviation: 0.39
Mean 28-day, 3rd point flexural strength: 650 psi (method for adjustment of design for other
values will be provided in catalog)
PCC slab elastic modulus: 4,000,000 psi
Cd: use 1.0 since no drainage system will be shown with the cross section
J-value: Use AASHTO recommended values and modify for the three edge support conditions.
The first balloting did not reach consensus due to some disagreement on selecting J-values (page B-19).
After discussions and comparing with PCA recommendations, J-values under different situations were
proposed as shown in table 2. The group reached consensus on this recommendation (page B-20).
B-15
Table 2. Load transfer coefficient, J-value

Pavement Type
Joint load transfer
Edge support
J-value
JPCP/JRCP
Doweled
Super
2.7
Medium
3.0
None
3.2
Super
3.7; if ESAL<1.5mill.: 3.4
Medium
3.9; if ESAL<1.5mill: 3.6
None
4.1; if ESAL<1.5mill: 3.8
Super
2.6
Medium
2.9
None
3.1
Non-Doweled
CRCP
NA
PCC pavement structural design: Minimum slab thickness requirement

Recommendations given in the draft catalog called for a minimum of 6 in slab for all types of concrete
pavement.
Discussion. A lot of discussion occurred concerning minimums. After discussion, the group balloted
on: Use no minimum requirement for JPCP/JRCP and specify 8 in minimum thickness for CRCP. One
person disagreed and asked for 6 in minimum for JPCP/JRCP, especially for PCC slab laid directly on the
subgrade. This person also pointed out that if we do not specify minimum thickness requirement for
JPCP/JRCP, we need to add a note of caution. This item was not reballoted. It appears that it was
impossible to achieve a consensus because some members clearly wanted a minimum thickness and
others did not agree that it was necessary (see page B-21). The draft catalog included a minimum of 6 in.
PCC pavement structural design: Base types
Three base types were included in the draft catalog: dense graded aggregate, dense graded treated
(asphalt, cement, lean concrete), and permeable base.
Discussion:
Someone suggested that for ESALs < 3 million, a PCC slab placed directly on subgrade would be
an optional design.
Wisconsin experience indicated there was lots of success with PCC slabs placed directly on the
subgrade.
B-16
The group voted on this proposal twice without consensus. On Friday, the group reached consensus of
using no base as an option in the structural chart if:
The weak subgrade was deleted from these cells.
Shade medium and strong subgrade type cells as marginal practice (meaning that local experience
should be used to judge the effectiveness of this design).
Provide cautions on this design and let the designer decide based on local experience.
See the appendix for the summary of balloting results and comments (page B-22, 23, and 24).
PCC pavement structural design: Permeable base
This topic was revisited. Note that a consensus was reached on Tuesday to take the permeable base
designs out of the catalog. After lots of discussion, the same consensus was reached. The permeable base
options will be eliminated from the structural design charts. See appendix page B-25 for consensus ballot
that failed to reach consensus.
PCC pavement structural design: Base thickness range
The draft catalog recommended a 4-6 in range for base thickness.
Discussion. The group consensus was to use base thickness of 4-6 in with the following comments:
Should be minimum of 6 in for aggregate base if to be used as working platform
Could be less that 6 in if not to be used as a platform, e.g. a separate layer
See the appendix for summary of balloting results and comments (see page B-26).
PCC pavement structural design: Subbase (beneath the base course)
The draft catalog included an aggregate subbase, placed beneath the base course, for certain poor soil
conditions and heavier traffic. A considerable discussion occurred on this recommendation.
Discussion. The main issue was should we show an aggregate subbase as a structural layer? One thing
this layer does is decrease erosion of the subgrade beneath the treated base course. It also provides a
construction platform, and provides some slow drainage. Several states definitely use this layer with poor
soils. Would we decrease the slab thickness based on the presence of the subbase beneath the base? The
group reached consensus after two rounds of balloting on eliminating subbase layer in the structural
design charts but adding verbiage to emphasize its performance benefit. For example, AASHO road test
showed an average of about 30% extension of life (number of heavy axles) when using an aggregate
subbase. Try to create a table to show the percentage of pavement life extended by using subbase. See
the appendix for a summary of balloting results and comments (page B-27, 28 and 29).
Another discussion was held on this issue and another consensus vote taken on expressing subbase
benefit in terms of extension of pavement life. Consensus was reached that this is a good idea and
should be included in the catalog as possible. See the appendix for a summary of balloting results and
comments (page B-30).
B-17

PCCP transverse joints: Saw-cut depth
The recommended depth was 1/4 to 1/3 of the slab thickness.
Discussion. The group reached consensus on using minimum saw-cut depth of T/4 for granular base, T/3
for treated bases, and specification of 1 in for green sawing. For green sawing, if it is cracked, no
resawing should be required. Otherwise, resaw the slab. The appendix contains the summary of
balloting results and comments.
PCCP longitudinal joints: Forming and saw-cut depth
Recommended depth was T/3 for longitudinal joints. Consensus was achieved on specifying T/3 as
minimum saw depth and adding a recommendation for longitudinal construction butt joints. Caution on
using keyways should be provided.
For design with slab bonded to notched LCB, use 0.4-0.45T, and tie bars T/3 from bottom. If
unbonded, double wax based curing compound should be used.
Had good experience with plastic inserts in Wisconsin.
See the appendix for a summary of balloting results and comments (page B-31).
PCCP transverse joints: Dowel bar design
Recommendations are provided for when to use dowel bars, their diameter and spacing, and their layout
across the traffic lanes. Considerable discussion occurred which culminated in the following consensus
recommendations.
Dowel recommend for > 3 million ESALs, but this may not be necessary for dry areas.
Specify grade 40 or higher steel dowel bars
Use minimum dowel bar diameter of 1.25 in
Review the dowel layout; Use FEM to check the design. Use uniform 12 in spacing.
The appendix provides a summary of balloting results and comments (page B-32).
B-18
January 25, ThursdayAsphalt Session

The group went through design check examples. The group wanted the research team to explain how the
ranges in thickness were determined (using the range in traffic while holding the subgrade resilient
modulus at its mean for that cell). The following minimum thickness values will be added to the catalog
as determined by consensus ballot (see appendix page B-33).
Material
Minimum
Total
Thickness
Increment
HMAC
Base
3 in
6
0.5 in
1.0
Note that minimums expressed above should be based on local construction practice. The suggested
increments of layer thickness should be based on constructability and placement/compaction of
material (see consensus ballot page B-34).
Trapezoidal cross section

A discussion on the concept of trapezoidal cross sections was held. The following was concluded.
*
*
*
Agreed to note as follows: Trapezoidal sections are not considered acceptable practice in
flexible construction. The individual state can select variable thicknesses based on site specific
conditions. ( See consensus ballot page B-35.)
Agreed to leave cross-sections as is; with shoulder same as travel lanes
Also suggested note up-front indicating: "Many good practices exist. Not all can be addressed
here". (See consensus ballot page B-36.)
B-19
January 25, Thursday, Combined Session

Serviceability
This topic was discussed by the combined group. A consensus was achieved after 3 rounds of voting on
the following recommendations:
Use initial serviceability of 4.5 (see page B-37) and terminal serviceability of 2.5 for all the traffic
levels (see page B-38, 39, and 40).
Emphasize serviceability loss and note that this is what we used in our design. However, this is a
policy issue and should be determined according to local experience.
This is used in our design, but it does not reflect any rehabilitation policy.
B-20
January 25, Thursday, PCCP Session

PCCP transverse joint design: Joint sealant design
Recommendations are provided in the draft catalog on three types of sealants: hot poured, silicone, and
preformed compression seals. The group basically agreed with the research teams recommendations, to
use SHRP results as much as possible. The only exception is that we should also mention that non-sealed
joints may also be a possibility, depending on local experience. Add references from Wisconsin on joint
without sealant. Only general design guidelines should be provided. Shrink joint seal diagrams.
Mention installation problems and seasonal effect. Non-joint opening is a problem. See the appendix for
a summary of balloting results and comment (page B-41).
PCCP transverse joint design: Joint sealant reservoir design
Recommendations are provided in the draft catalog on joint sealant reservoir designs. Again, the group
agreed with the draft catalogs recommendations, but pointed out that it should state that following
manufacturers recommendations should be emphasized. It was agreed that we would send the
recommendations to specific manufacturers for their comments (page B-42).
PCCP longitudinal joints: Tie bar size
The recommendations given in the draft catalog were based on the subgrade drag theory, where the tie bar
size and spacing required are based on limiting the strain in the steel to some specified value. This results
in tie bar design that increases the requirement with treated bases due to the increased slab/base friction
coefficient. Indeed, if this friction were very, very high, the theory would show that a huge amount of
steel was needed to avoid high stresses in the reinforcement. Some group members did not believe this
was correct, and that the subgrade drag theory does not apply to tie bar design. A consensus vote failed to
reach consensus on the catalog recommendations. After discussion, the following revised scheme was
agreed to be used to specify tie bar sizes:
Replace the table (and simplify it) with a consensus of States recommended practices.
Reconsider the effect of base type
Put a note on coating tie bars in corrosion environment
Tie traffic lane and shoulders together, but not two roadways
A second ballot gave a consensus given the above modifications will be made to the catalog. The
appendix contains the summary of balloting results and comments (page B-43, B-44).
JRCP reinforcement design
The group agreed that the subgrade drag theory produces insufficient reinforcement, and agreed with the
research teams approach of utilizing models based on field experience that makes it possible to limit the
number of deteriorated transverse cracks (maximum 25 per mile) as the design criteria. The following
comments are made:
25 failure/mile which was used may be high.
B-21
Include recommendations for different climatic zones.
A consensus was reached on the catalog recommendation and the summary of balloting results and
comments is provided in the appendix, page B-45.
CRCP reinforcement design
The draft catalog recommended an approach of using 0.02 in maximum crack width in the AASHTO
Guide procedure, and then to check this value (in freeze climates) using the IDOT prediction model with
a maximum of 5 punchouts/mile. The group reached consensus on this recommendation and the
summary of balloting results and comments are included in the appendix, page B-46.
PCC pavement material properties
Some recommendations are provided in the draft catalog on PCC material properties. The group
generally agreed with this and added the following items.
More of a local experience.

Be sure to identify the values that are used in the catalog
Base/subbase specification/minimum requirement, see PIARC-Purdue guidelines
Consensus was reached on using SHAs local specifications and definitions generally, but also specify
what we will use in the catalog. A summary of balloting results is given in the appendix, page B-47.
PCCP transverse joints: JPCP joint spacing
Recommendations were provided in the draft catalog where joint spacing was determined generally by
considering a maximum of 2 * Slab Thickness(in) = Joint spacing (ft). This was checked using the
NCHRP 1-30 new design/performance model. Also, a minimum of 12 ft and a maximum of 20 ft were
specified.
Discussion comments:
Should have a note on using shorter joint spacing for recycled PCCP since the modulus of rupture
of the slab will change.
Note the importance of joint spacing and provide a guideline.
Use skewed joint for non-doweled JPCP, but not for doweled JPCP.
Consensus was reached on using the following procedure in catalog development:
Minimum: 12 ft, maximum: 20 ft transverse joint spacing.

Use NCHRP project 1-30 design model to check the joint spacing adequacy.
Specify different joint spacings for different climatic zones if applicable.
Add footnote about aggregate type (thermal coefficient) effect.
The appendix contains the summary of balloting results and comments, page B-48.
B-22
JRCP transverse joint spacing

Research field data and models shows that increased joint spacing results in more of the transverse cracks
deteriorating. The group agreed to specify 45 ft as maximum joint spacing because the pavement crack
deterioration is controlled by increased reinforcement content by the new prediction model.
A consensus was reached as given in the appendix with the summary of balloting results and comments,
B-49.
B-23
January 26, Friday, Entire Group

Wayne Seiler made a presentation on the concept and planning of KBES. The following are comments
recorded from the open discussion:
Engine to run the KBES will be off the shelf in the public domain. Rule Based - Shell type of
KBES. Select tools after you know the knowledge that you have. Make sure that it is in public
domain so there will be no user fees.
How will the information be stored? Program hopefully will not be large.
System must be efficient and quick. No one way to do the KBES.
How do you take the paper catalog down to the next level in the KBES for customizing? Will the
prototype be that far along so that SHAs can take it and modify it for their own use? Current
system is still a demonstration of KBES even though it was called a Research System. Data bases
going into the KBES is the key.
Research team: Database could include the LTPP data for showing how pavements that fit into
specific site condition cells actually performed.
Research team: The prototype will show performance trends for selected features.
How do you use the information? It simply is a sorting tool. More of a search and show.
Can you include testimonial in data base?
Difficulty will be the construction differences and how they vary in different areas.
Include the references on where data can be found and what research reports can be included in
the KBES.
Need all information in the KBES and not refer the user to other areas or systems, for example, to
the AASHTO Guide.
The paper catalog will be the preferable one. Distribution is the key. Many of those individuals
that need it, would not use the KBES; but would use a paper copy.
Software and the DOT simply do not mix very well. Viruses and other such
Problems complicate the issue. Paper copy will be the easiest.
Going to the paper is the best: KBES could be used by a few to prepare a paper copy and
distribute to others.
Computer version would be preferred by a select few.
Modify and send out to others. There is a need at the research level, but not at the district or
residency level.
Customization of the catalog - Best way is to use the software and implementation - the paper
copy is a must. KBES for producing the agency catalog.
What about using the KBES with and through the PMS?
Sohila: Level of detail may not be sufficient via PMS for use in project designs.
What about having it on the Internet? Would it be available or of use?
Mechanistic software in Washington was used but there are only a few that have access to it.
TRB paper from France - Software to support the paper catalog (to supplement the paper copy).
Number of possible solutions gets immanageable. At the national level - but trying to customize
it to city and counties. This is only done at the national or research level right now.
Do you have enough funds to do the KBES in the current plan?
Do only one pavement type in each category.
B-24
Maybe you chose only one subgrade treatment type. Once architecture is selected, process is
simpler. To take it from preliminary design to project design is a large effort and will take a long
time.
The rules are what is going to take all the time to develop - in other words - defining the decisions
to be made and what affects the decision.
Most individuals indicated an interest to be part of the test group for the KBES.
Additional Consensus Ballots
Use of a terminal serviceability of 2.5 for all the traffic levels was voted again and a consensus was
achieved. However, it should be noted that 2.5 is a minimum value and that higher values can be used,
and this is a design issue that should not affect rehabilitation issues.
PCC slab laid directly on subgrade issue was also reballoted and a consensus was reached by showing it
as an optional design for ESAL < 3 million. Someone noted that the prepared subgrade was allowed to
settle over a winter in a freezing area, the pavement without base will perform well. Otherwise, the
pavement may not perform well.
The group also agreed to use the mean subgrade strength value in each of the matrix cells. Therefore, the
thickness range will only reflect the change in traffic for that cell.
The presentation format of pavement structural design alternatives was also discussed. The two proposed
formats are:
Tabulated format as shown in the draft catalog right now.
Group different design alternatives for the same traffic levels together in the same page.
The majority of the group would like to see both formats presented in the catalog. Perhaps, one format
will be shown in the main text, and the other shown in an appendix.
The research team agreed to send the catalog to everyone for review by mid-March. An acknowledgment
section noting all individuals involved in the consensus group in the final catalog was also mentioned. It
was suggested that under the basis of the catalog section, this consensus building workshop should be
listed as an important source.
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
SUMMARY OF BALLOTING RESULTS

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Overview
Basis for Development of Design Catalog
Base on 1993 AASHTO design guide with design checks/modifications
Distribution of Rating
Number of Raters
Average = 77
StDev = 11
6
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. With modifications including LTPP data based on performance.
2. More emphasis on the catalog of state designs would be better though difficult.
3. Agree in concept but checks need to look for "over-design" as well as "underdesign".
4. What else can we use?
B-29

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Site Conditions
Traffic
Using predicted ESALs as design traffic measurement
Number of Raters
Average = 77
StDev = 12
6
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Supporting higher ranges for design.
2. ESALs can be used to develop the catalog but I think that we can use a basic traffic input
for both AC & PCC , it would be more simple and logic.
3. Add a higher range 100 million - 150 million ESALs.
4. A method to deal with axle load spectra (e.g. ADTT) should be discussed in catalog.
B-30

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Site Conditions
Subgrade
Use of resilient modulus for flexible pavement and k-value for rigid
pavements for subgrade characterization.
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 79
StDev = 12
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Establish baseline values and have agencies meet that value by whatever means, as a
minimum. No adjustments should be provided to the value at which the designer
determines, yet the adjustments made to the catalog values should be documented.
2. A reduced Mr for the mechanistic check on subgrade strain should probably be used in
wet climates.
3. Soil texture classifications need to be expanded. The AASHTO and the Unified
classification should probably be shown for the respective categories.
4. Agree w/ k-value, though it looks to me that the k-values in catalog do not match the
explanations given. For Mr, the sensitivity of the design to Mr and the noncorrelations
between back calculation and design value worries me. Also worried about
composite-effective k-values.
5. Agree not to use composite k- generally - better way to consider base! Need to consider
granular material - correct verbiage. Base can increase its life? AASHTO- (CTB or
LCB) bad chart to compare resilient modulus to k-value.
B-31

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Site Conditions
Climate
Use LTPP climatic zones (WF, WNF, DF, and DNF) as minimum
climatic zone differentiation.
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 77
StDev = 10
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Always disagreement
2. Each state that customizes the catalog should attempt to find if micro-climates are useful
in their catalog.
3. Believe that this is a major step forward, but it is difficult to find where the climate zones
were considered in draft catalog.
4. Didn't show how 4 climatic areas affects cells.
5. Need more zones or re-evaluate weather separation points.
B-32

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Reliability Level
Use the proposed R% levels
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 67
StDev = 18
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Reliability should be consistent between pavement types. Validity of minimum values?
2. Agree w/ even lower reliability levels. Provide for other means of determining reliability
than by ESALs.
3. Could possibly have 2 tables - 1 based on ADT and 1 based on ESALs and lot designer
choose which is more appropriate for them.
4. Indicate that reliability may be based on ADT, functional class, local conditions (no
alternate routes), etc.
5. Note a number of possible ways that can be used to determine reliability as an example in
the report show the ESAL method.
6. Too low, don't believe that means difference in thickness on AC. Add discussion on
ESAL/class ADT in document to address different ways of reliability use.
7. Highway classification may be used for selecting reliability.
8. This number should be set by State and should be based on consequences of failure
9. Incorporate ADT, somehow.
10. 1). Vary by ADT/lane and functional class, 2). Three levels only, low, mod, high
(suggest 90, 95,98). For more reliability than 3 levels provide other factors (materials
quality, construction quality, maintenance quality must be addressed.
Note: Another vote was taken on resetting the reliability level to 75% for the lowest traffic level, and a consensus was reached. The paper ballots were not
B-33
utilized.
B-34

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Local Conditions
Improve Subgrade
Provide guidelines on where and how to improve subgrade
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 76
StDev = 10
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Add organic content to figure 5.2- for limiting non-reactive soil. Statement up front on
importance of proper support-> refer to improvements section.
2. Do not use the discussion in the draft but replace with view graph. Do not use P 5-2, 5-3.
3. As modified during the discussion and shown on the overhead by Ken McGhee.
4. General guidance only
5. Modified as discussed - statements of caution and problem recognition
6. Identify problems, consequences, references (swelling, frost heave), cut fill transition need to verify design assumptions are met during construction.
7. This is a list that may grow as you need to address.
8. If you are going to include this, then some discussion on the importance of compaction
and uniformity should be included.
9. State minimum values used in catalog again.
B-35

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Local Condition
Subdrainage
Provide guidelines on subdrainage, delete cross-sections showing
drainable bases
Comments:
1. Would you like to see a brief historical overview of the efforts (national) promoted with the
water in the pavements workshops in 1975, repeated in 1978 the various trial since current
state of practice what has worked? What has not? School is still out.
2. Much more observation required. Specify references in addition to minimum presentation in
catalog for additional information.
3. Agree with taking out open graded layers. Let other research studies prove benefit.
4. Need to emphasize good design, construction, and maintenance if permeable bases used.
5. Need to add section that questions the cost effectiveness. First question is it cost effective &
beneficial; then next question is what do we use.
6. Must try to update this section as rapidly as information becomes available.
B-36

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Conventional AC Pavement Structure (aggregate base)
Appropriateness of cells identified or shown as good (or acceptable)
practice, questionable design practice, and those not recommended;
as modified during discussions.
Comments:
1. As Modified
B-37

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Structures containing Asphalt-Treated Bases
Comments:
1.
I have not seen satisfactory cold mixes that can be used in this manner.
B-38

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Asphalt Treated Bases
Second Ballot: Material Definition, use and appropriateness of cells.
Comments:
1.
These materials are ill defined and infrequently used.
B-39

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Structures Containing Cement Treated Bases
as modified during discussions
Comments:
1. I have not seen satisfactory cold mixes that can be used in this manner.
B-40

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Full-Depth Asphalt Concrete Pavement Structures
Appropriateness of cells identifies or shown as good (or acceptable)
Comments:
B-41

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Permeable Bases for Asphalt Pavements
Exclusion on the use of Permeable Bases (Unbound or Bound) from
the cross sections presented in the catalog.
Comments:
1.
Probably work good in many situations but not enough information.
2.
Lack of knowledge keeps us from addressing this subject adequately.
B-42

Discussion Topic: AC Materials Characterization
Item:
Dense Graded Asphalt Concrete Mixtures
Issue:
Definition of material: Use and appropriateness of the structural layer
coefficient and values used for determining layer thicknesses and the
value used for the design checks modulus.
Comments:
1.
I still recommend 0.44 for surface/binder and 0.34 for base.
B-43

Discussion Topic: AC Material Characterization
Item:
Unbound Granular Base/Subbase
Issue:
Definition of Material: Use and appropriateness of the structural layer
coefficient and values used for determining layer thicknesses and the
modulus value used for the design checks.
Comments:
B-44

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Material Characterizations
Treated Bases
Definition of Material: Use and appropriateness of the structural
layer
coefficient and values used for determining layer thickness and the
modulus value used for the design checks of sections containing
asphalt and cement treated bases.
Comments:
1.
CTB looks good, not sure about cold-mix asphalt.
B-45

Discussion Topic: Design Process for Catalog Development for AC Pavements
Item:
Mechanistic Design Checks for Distress
Issue:
Use of other failure criteria for checking the designs based on the 1993
AASHTO Design Guide. These include minimizing the asphalt concrete
tensile strains, cement stabilized tensile stresses, asphalt stablilized base
tensile strains and subgrade vertical compressive strains based on the
criteria given in the catalog text.
Comments:
1. Need to make sure that moduli selected give reasonable number. Would like to see
comparison to AASHTO.
2. These topics were never covered in Contractor Design 101.
3. I would like to see a comparison of deflection criteria vs. others.
B-46

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
PCCP Design Features

Cross sections
Use 6 cross sections for PCC pavements
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 73
StDev = 5
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Again be sure to show adequate number of cross section - crown pavements, pavements
w/ asphalt shoulder; Drainage details- edge drain along pavement edge & also show a
permeable design. Drainage detail could be shown as an insert.
2. Uniform crown slope, crown section, trapezoidal (2.5% top - 4% subgrade slope);
AC/added tied shoulder; integral tied shoulder, widened lane, integral curbs; Show
drainage options separately.
3. Include sections with super, medium, no edge support for both conventional &
trapezoidal, --> include various drainage options: Have trapezoidal section in subgrade.
I think trapezoidal CRCP section should at least be looked at.
4. As modified during the discussions. Include discussion on when "thinning up" shoulder
be considered.
5. I think lean concrete base shoulder should be considered in edge support sections.
6. Need good discussion on cross section details/ options this is a policy issue - state needs
freedom to use what works in their state.
7. We covered a lot of terms. Hope you got them all.
8. As modified by Darters comments.
B-47

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Design Inputs for PCCP Structural Design

General design inputs; Vote No. 1
Use the proposed input values
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 62
StDev = 21
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Believe that CRCP *widened lane should be 2.5; Tied = 2.8; Based on what Mike says,
AC = 3.1; even poorly tied shoulders significantly reduced punch out.
2. Question split for doweled vs. undoweled pavements; CRCP use of 2.6 only if steel
reinforcement design improved and very good base support provided.
3. Disagree on J-factor for undoweled joints, J-value should be lowered for low traffic
situations.
B-48
Discussion Topic: Design Inputs for PCCP Structural Design Vote No. 2
Item:
Issue:
General Design Inputs; Vote No. 2

Use the proposed input values (include adjustments of J Values)
Comments:
1. Make more compatible w/AASHTO Low volume Road Chapter.
2. Other model results have evaluated relative to thickness.
B-49

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
PCCP Structural Design

Minimum slab thicknesses
Use no minimum slab thicknesses for JPCP/JRCP; 8 in for CRCP
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 59
StDev = 25
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Check for tensile strain at bottom of concrete slab.
2. Models should be used to check thicknesses to ensure adequacy. FEM analysis may be
required.
3. 6 min needed-especially if on grade; need to add note of cautions if allowed.
4. No min for JPCP & JRCP; min for CRCP = 8"
B-50

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Base Usage; Vote No. 1
Design PCC slab on grade as an optional design
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 65
StDev = 22
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Don't recommend deleting subbase.
2. Should require base at all traffic levels shown; need to add note of caution if allowed.
3. Add box for on subgrade for 0.75-1.5 & 1.5-3.0 ESALs.
B-51

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Base usage; Vote No. 2
Design PCC slab on grade as an optional design for ESALs < 3 million
8
Number of Raters
7
6
5
Average = 58
StDev = 27
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. I don't believe that this is a nationwide good practice.
2. Show concrete on subgrade as marginal for strong subgrade.
3. Eliminate weak; medium-marginal; acceptable strong; could extend strong on grade up to
6 million.
B-52

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Base usage; Vote No. 3
Design PCC slab on grade as an optional design for ESALs < 3
million;
8
Number of Raters
7
6
5
Average = 67
StDev = 12
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
eliminate weak and put marginal on medium and strong soil

Comments:
1. Show all cells, but weakest subgrade at 0.75-1.5 ESALs " marginal"
2. Should include mechanistic check- change thickness as needed; comments on marginal
design / grading limits in some cases weak subgrade out.
3. Add caution note about potential for vol. change in subgrade to cause failure.
4. Must provide cautiously-mechanistic analysis and any other models to verify cracking
and faulting.
5. Only medium support should be shaded; also no minimum thickness requirement should
be included. No arbitrary artificial constraints on AC or PCC arbitrarily.
6. I would like a cautionary note on heavy over loaded trucks or a mechanistic check
using such a truck.
7. As long as limitations have been addressed.
8. With write up of why this practice is marginal.
9. Mechanistic check on thickness- thickened edge 7-5-7.
10. If k=300 psi, regardless of concrete thickness, the design is not marginalit is better
thickness is not the issue.
11. Both medium & strong subgrade should be shaded as marginal list items that have
made this design successful, such as wintering
B-53

Discussion Topic:
Item:

Keep permeable bases as structural design alternatives
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 51
StDev = 28
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Some early failure may be first indication of major problem w/ permeable base. Do we
need 10 yr of construction & 100's of miles before questioning design?
2. As original w/ no base option.
3. Cement stabilized should be recognized in a different category than either unbond or
asphalt bound bases. Structural value needs to be assigned to cement base.
B-54

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Base thickness range
Use 4-6 in for base thickness range
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 77
StDev = 8
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Stabilized base 4-6 in; unstabilized 6 in. less if not used for working platform;
2. For aggregate base: if working platform, 6" minimum ; Non- may be <6"; for treated 4-6"
B-55

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Subbase Usage; Vote No. 1
Show subbase as a structural layer
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 66
StDev = 16
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. Good performance - need subbase.
2. Add notes about frost protection etc.
3. Subbase types and thickness should be in accordance with local policy.
4. Only agree if note is added that subbase may be need for a variety of reasons such as
local experience.
5. Should be noted that frost or excessive water may require an additional treatment of soil
beneath pavement.
B-56

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Subbase- No. 2
Put strong verbiage in text counting the benefit of subbase
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 73
StDev = 4
5
4
3
2
1
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Add verbiage telling about performance benefit.
2. To subgrade & reference performance of support to maintain structure.
B-57
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Implementation of subbases performance benefit
Express subbase benefit in terms of extension of pavement life
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 78
StDev = 9
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. AASHTO equations break down- discussion should show how and why subbase cannot
be truly equations to thickness for long term performance.
2. State that subbase do not really affect structure but do increase performance 30%
increase but affects it in a way that cannot be effected by thickness.
B-58

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Transverse joint designSaw cut depth
T/4 for granular base, T/3 for treated base
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 76
StDev = 7
5
4
3
2
1
Comments:
1. As discussed; T/3 - stab; T/4 granular; Green sawing.
2. With qualifier given.
B-59
80-90
90-100
Rating Scale
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Longitudinal joint designSaw cut depth
T/3 recommended
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 74
StDev = 4
5
4
3
2
1
80-90
70-80
90-100
Rating Scale
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Comments:
1. As modified in the discussion.
2. As discussed: add longitudinal construction butt joints are recommended.
3. Caution on keyways; butt joints recommended; separate paragraph for design with slab
bonded to notched LCB (0.4 to 0.45D) and tie bar D/3 from bottom. If unbonded double
wax/cure application.
B-60

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Transverse joint designDowel bar layout
Use the proposed dowel bar recommendation
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 71
StDev = 9
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. For dowel use recommendation come up with a recommendation to when to start to use
dowels in dry regions.
B-61

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Cross-Sections for AC Pavement

Minimum layer thicknesses
Suggested minimum layer thicknesses used in the catalog for each
material and/or layer type for AC pavement.
Comments:
B-62

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Thickness Increments
Suggested increments of layer thickness as used in specifying the
thickness of each layer (as shown in catalog) based on constructability
and placement/compaction of material.
Comments:
B-63

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
AC Cross-Sections
Trapezoidal X-Sections
Exclusion of the use of trapezoidal cross-sections in the catalog.
Comments:
1. No use trapezoidal section on HMA but states can select what they want.
B-64

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:
Shoulders
AC Full Cross-Section Shoulders
Use of extending the full layer thicknesses for the base & subbase and
improved subgrade layers under the shoulder.
Comments:
1. I believe that many pavements will not be built full width and therefore we should
discuss extending the pavement 2 into the shoulder.
B-65

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Initial Serviceability
Use initial serviceability of 4.5
8
Number of Raters
Average = 81
StDev = 9
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rating Scale
Comments:
B-66
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Terminal Serviceability; Vote No. 1
Use terminal serviceability of 2.5-3.0
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 72
StDev = 21
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Change to 2.5 for all traffic
2. I believe terminal in ACP as these pavements are designed should be 3.0 for ACP only.
For PCC 2.5 is ok. I also understand the political ramifications of this statement.
B-67

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Use terminal serviceability of 2.5-3.0
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 76
StDev = 26
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. I still believe the numbers used for the current catalog are sufficient.
2. No states go down to 3.0; only adding thickness & thickness does not fix all distress;
only 3 states use different values.
B-68

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Use Pt = 2.5 for all the traffic levels
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 77
StDev = 13
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Serious wording stating that policy issues. Require customizing/revising the catalog.
2. Terminal PSI = 2.5 for all levels; Note: this is what we used.
3. With proper explanations that this PSI is a minimum recommended value , this values
can be acceptable in accordance w/ agency policy- Prescribe effects on PSI value on
thickness etc.
4. The vote of change on high volume facility suggests a higher terminal number.
5. As long as its for design purposes- I agree.
6. Indicate policy issue implication of using 3.0, etc.
7. This is only an example and will include notes providing some guidance for actual
situation.
8. Strongly worded discussion on policy issue, many state use higher Pt for higher traffic
levels to increase serviceability & performance period.
9. Add discussion that Pt is often changed by ESAL class or type of road or ADT.
B-69

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Transverse joint design- Joint sealant design
Use proposed material for joint sealant design guidance
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 77
StDev = 8
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. As long as section indicated sealants may not always be appropriate and that open graded
base joint info is not yet available.
B-70

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Transverse joint sealant reservoir design
Use SHRP and manufacturer recommendations
8
Number of Raters
Average = 72
StDev = 4
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Stress manufacture recommendations.
2. Add " follow manufacturer recommendation.
3. Need to add applied in accordance with manufacturer direction.
B-71
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Longitudinal joint design- Tie bar size; Vote No. 1
Use the modified FHWA tie bar size table
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 69
StDev = 13
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Simplify existing table.
2. I still believe that there needs to be differentiation between base types.
3. Beware of reflected longitudinal cracking from lean concrete base not caused by tie
bars but acerbated by it.
B-72

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

Longitudinal joint design- Tie bar size; Vote No. 2
Use the revised scheme to specify tie bar sizes
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 78
StDev = 11
5
4
3
2
1
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Check data base to check the effect of base type.
2. Take into ACCT. Sohila's comment on construction.
B-73
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

JRCP reinforcement design
Reinforcement recommendations
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 69
StDev = 12
5
4
3
2
1
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Add section on JRCP: 25 failure/mile may be high.
2. Include for different climatic zones.
B-74
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

CRCP longitudinal reinforcement design
Use the recommended reinforcement
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 68
StDev = 7
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Agree 0.02 max crack width.
2. I still think 5 punchouts/mile is low. I did like the split between Urban & Rural.
B-75

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

PCC pavement material characterization
Use SHAslocal specifications and definitions
8
Number of Raters
Average = 75
StDev = 9
6
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Define desirable base properties (non-erodible); PIARC-PURDUE guidelines.
B-76

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

JPCP transverse joint spacing
Use the proposed procedure to determine JPCP joint spacing
8
Number of Raters
7
6
5
Average = 74
StDev = 13
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Addition of climatic zones with maximum & minimum spacings.
2. There should be source relationship shown with thickness (if possible).
3. If skewed, non-doweled joints max skew- 1/10, not 2/12 per FEM solutions add in
climatic zones (recommended max) min 12 ft; footing on aggregate types.
4. Use max = 20 and min = 12 and the warping model described.
5. Add a footnote about aggregate type, also relate joint spacing to thickness rather than
ESAL!
B-77

Discussion Topic:
Item:
Issue:

JRCP transverse joint spacing
8
Number of Raters
7
6
Average = 66
StDev = 7
5
4
3
2
1
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
Rating Scale
Comments:
1. Add comment pavement crack deterioration is controlled by steel.
2. 45 ft max recommended spacing- coated dowel bars- improved jt sealant; sawed (warped
joint design).
B-78

NCHRP 1-32

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NCHRP 1-32

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1-32

Systems for Design

Summary of European Design Catalogs

Minutes of NCHRP Project 1-32 Consensus Meeting

Table of Contents (continued)

Pavement Design Methods Versus Presentation Formats. There is a difference between a

A model catalog presentation format for potential usage by agencies.

Asphalt concrete pavement with a crushed aggregate base.

Asphalt concrete pavement with an asphalt treated base.

Asphalt concrete pavement with a cement treated base.

Asphalt concrete full-depth pavement.

Jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCP).

Jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP).

Continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP).

Prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES). A prototype microcomputer-oriented,

Evaluation assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in evaluating the

State synoptic tables of many pavement design features (by State).

Success of Pavement Design Catalogs/Standards in European Countries

Simplifies the supervision of design, construction quality control, assessment of

Professor Kraemer also listed some disadvantages (personal communication):

A certain lack of flexibility to adapt to budget limitations.

Pavement Design Methods Versus Pavement Design Presentation Formats

Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features

Figure 1. Percent respondents indicating the prospective users of a catalog.

Update agency design

Figure 3. Percent respondents indicating the potential advantages.

respondents indicated the following aspects would be most valuable:

Subdrainage design features

Shoulder design features

Joint design features

Recommended design features

Figure 4. Percent respondents selecting the disadvantages categories.

(F) Do you feel that a microcomputer-based knowledge-based expert system (KBES)

There appears to be strong support for the KBES.

Interviews with experienced pavement researchers, designers, administrators, and

The Consensus Meeting

The consensus building process consisted of the following steps:

Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features (16)

Description of Catalog. The contents of this Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design

A model catalog presentation format for potential usage by agencies.

The printed design catalog is organized into the following parts:

An introduction to the catalog.

How to use the catalog and design criteria.

Project site condition inputs (climate, traffic, and subgrade).

Guidelines on recommended design features for alternative pavement

Special subsurface conditions.

Definition of terms used in catalog.

Detailed information on inputs, design examples, design check models, and

Asphalt concrete pavement with a crushed aggregate base.

Asphalt concrete pavement with an asphalt treated base.

Asphalt concrete pavement with a cement treated base.

Asphalt concrete full-depth pavement.

Jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCP).

Jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP).

Continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP).

Prototype Knowledge-Based Expert System (KBES)

Software Development. A prototype microcomputer-oriented, KBES for selecting pavement

Evaluate assistant to provide interactive guidance to the designer in evaluating the

Appendix H of Reference 16 describes in detail each of the above modules.

Catalog of Current State Pavement Design Features

A reference of pavement design features that may be useful in developing designs;

Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features

The following are the possible applications of the general catalog:

Obtain information on recommended design features for comparative purposes.