rd74 33 3

AFWL-TR-73-229, Vol III
FAA-RD-74-33-3
CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT
_,.,
, .~
-
Volume II I
Design Manual for Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements
• Harvey J. Treybig
B. Frank McCullough
W. Ronald Hudson
Austin Research Engineers, In .
Austin, TX 78723
May 1974
----
i
Final Report for Period February 1972 throu h December 1973
Prepared for
DEPARTMENT'OF DEFENSE
AIR FORCE WEAPONS LABORATORY
Air Force Systems Command
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117
US ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMEN STATION

Soils and Pavements Laborator
Vicksburg, MS 39181
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATI N
Systems Research and Development Service
Washington, DC 20591
Approved for public release; distributi n unlimited.


Kirtland Air Force Base
New Mexico 87117
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors. The contents
do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Department of
Transportation or Department of Defense. This report does not constitute a
standard specification or regulation.
.,, ---
When US Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for
any purpose other than a definitely related Government procurement operation,
the Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever,
and the fact that the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way
supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to be
regarded by implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder
or any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to
manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be
related thereto.
DO NOT RETURN THIS COPY. RETAIN OR DESTROY.
CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE AIRFIEL PAVEMENT

• Volume I II
Design Manual for Continuously Reinforced Con rete Pavements
Harvey J. Treybig
B. Frank McCullough
W. Ronald Hudson
Austin Research Engineers, Inc
Austin, TX 78723
Final Report for Period February 1972 throug December 1973
•
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. AFWL-TR-73-229, al III
Prepared for
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117
US ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
Soils and Pavements Laboratory
Vicksburg, MS 39181
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATI N
;; Systems Research and Development S rvice
Washington, DC 20591
Approved for public release; distributio unlimited.

FOREWORD
This report was prepare by the Austin Research Engineers, Inc., Austin,
Texas, under Contract F2960 -72-C-0057. The research was funded by the Air
Force Weapons Laboratory (P ogram Element 63723F, Project 683M), the US Army
Engineers Waterways Experim nt Station (MIPR A35200-2-002), and the Federal •
Aviation Administration (In eragency Agreement FA71-WAI-218).
Inclusive dates of rese rch were February 1972 through December 1973. The
report was submitted 1 Marc 1974 by the Air Force Weapons Laboratory Project
Officer, Mr. L. M. Womack ( EZ).
This is the third of a our-volume series concerning design of co~tinuously
reinforced concrete airfiel pavements. Volume I is a detailed report of (1)
field studies, (2) analyses and (3) support documentation for the development
of design manuals. Volume I is a Design Manual for Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Overlay Pavements ith direct user orientation. Volume III is a
Design Manual for Continuou ly Reinforced Concrete Pavements. This manual is
also a user's document, sup ort data for which is published in Volume I.
Volume IV contains Guide Sp cifications for Continuously Reinforced Concrete
Pavement.
The authors are grateful for the technical support and coordinatfon pro- .
vided by the following pers nnel: Lt Col Oren G. Strom, Major Guy P. York, and
Mr. L. M. Womack of the Air Force Weapons Laboratory; Dr. Frazier Parker and
Mr. Ronald Hutchinson of th US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station;
and Mr. Carl Schulten of th Federal Aviation Administration.
This technical report h s been reviewed and is approved.
~W v ~~~
FREDERICK H. P ERSON
Asst Chief, Aerospace
WILLIAM B. LIDDICOET
Colonel, USAF
-
Facilities Branch Chief, Civil Engineering Research
Division
ii
ABSTRACT
,i (Distribution Limitation Statement A)
This report constitutes Volume III of a four-volume ser·es on design and con-
struction of new and overlay continuously reinforced co crete airfield pavement
and contains a detailed procedure for designing new pav ments. It contains
procedures for evaluating in situ materials, subbase deign, selection of
design subgrade support values, selecting the required lab thickness, design-
ing transverse and longitudinal reinforcing steel, join design and designing
anchorage systems. The design procedures are presented in the form of a series
of charts and nomographs from which design parameters my be obtained by enter-
ing with appropriate input parameters. A detailed proc dure for resilient
modulus testing is also provided .
iii/iv
i
il
T/\BLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I INTRODUCTION
1
1
Background
1
Design Principles
2
Design Procedures
4
II SITE INVESTIGATION
4
Materials Sampling
Laboratory Evaluation of Soils 5
Field Testing of Compacted Subgrade 10
III DESIGN CRITERIA AND DATA . 15
Design Confidence Level 15

Materials Properties 15
Aircraft Traffic 18
Design Process 20
IV SUBBASE DESIGN AND SELECTION OF COMPOSITE K-VALUE 22
Treated Subgrade Considerations . . . 22

Subbase Thickness Design ... . 22
Selection of Composite Design k-value 24
V SLAB THICKNESS DESIGN ANALYSIS 28
Aircraft Traffic Mix and Loads 28

Prediction of Stresses for Design Loads 28
Fatigue Analysis ..... 32
Selection of Pavement Thickness 32
VI REINFORCEMENT AND JOINT DESIGN 38
Longitudinal Reinforcement 38
Transverse Reinforcement 41
Reinforcement Detail 44
Construction Joints 46
VII SLAB END-ANCHORAGE DESIGN 49
Selection of Anchorage System 49

Typical Restraining System Designs 49
V
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This manual outlines the procedures for design of continuously

i
reinforced concrete paveITEnt for a new runway, taxiway or apron. The
procedures for an overlay design may be found elsewhere
BACKGROUND
Continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) my be defined as
a concrete pavement where the longitudinal steel is con inuous throughout
its length and no transverse joints other than construe ion joints are
installed. In actual practice, the continuity may be i terrupted by
expansion joints at intersections, etc. Except for thee, there is
.. technically no limit to the length of CRCP which can be constructed .

Concrete pavement is often used on taxiways, runwa s, and aprons because
of its structural strength, durability, adaptibility to good construction
control, low maintenance, fuel resistance, and high vis bility. By
applying the design principles of this manual, the desi ner can gain the
benefits of concrete pavement plus the additional benef ts of:
1. A smoother ride by elimination of joint roughn ss,
2. Reduced maintenance cost and traffic delay, an
3. Lower annual cost of operation.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The elimination of transverse joints results in th formation of
random transverse cracking in the pavement. The basic rinciples of design
for continuously reinforced concrete pavement is to pro ide adequate longitudinal
steel to minimize these transverse crack widths. Thus, maximum load transfer
is maintained across the crack, and an interior loading condition is achieved
• since the joints have been eliminated. Adequate slab t ickness is then
provided to carry the wheel loads during the design lif for the facility.
This manual also introduces the concept that there are numerous
combinations of subbase and pavement thicknesses that w 11 satisfy the
design requirements. Thus, the designer should conside many combinations
and select the optimum one based on minimum cost and ot er constraints he
wishes to introduce.
1
In addition, a ility concept is introduced to provide the
designer with a new ion. He may now select the reliability desired
for a facility recognizin that the greater the reliability, the more
expensive the pavement st ucture. Thus, the degree of reliability may
depend on the mission of he facility, i.e., the more critical the facility,
the less risk can be acce ted that the facility will not perform to
expectations.
DESIGN PROCEDURES
The basic steps oft e design procedure are shown in Figure 1 in
flowchart form. These st ps are described in Sections II-VII. Section VIII
presents the solution of comprehensive example problem to illustrate the
method.
....
2
,, ,, j,
:• '"'
..
Thickness Design Analysis

1. Aircraft Traffic Consi-
derations
Site Investigation Composite Support Design 2. Prediction of Stresses
1. Soil Sampling 1. Treated Subgrade Consi- 3. Fatigue Analysis
2. Laboratory Testing on Soils deration 4. Thickness Design Curves
3. Soil Classification 2. K-Value on Natural Sub-
4. Plate Load Tests grade Final Design
5. Deflection Tests on Com- 3. Subbase Design
pacted Subgrade 4. Selection of Composite Reinforcement & Joint Design
Design K-Value 1. Longitudinal Steel
2. Transverse Steel
w 3. Reinforcement Detail
4. Construction Joints
I
I
I
I
y
Plans
· mtes
Estir
~
·,
I
1
Contract
~
Construction
Figure 1. Procedure for Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement Design
SECTION II
SITE INVESTIGATION
The pavement desig for a new runway, taxiway, or apron begins with
a site investigation. he character of the investigation will depend on
whether the pavement deign is performed before or after the grading
operations. For the deign prior to the grading operations, the site
investigation consists f:
1. Sampling of th existing soils and materials in place, and
2. Laboratory eva of these soils for their identification,
strength, and of elasticity.
For the design aft r the grading operations, the extent of work
performed in items (1) nd (2) may be reduced substantially through the
use of deflection and plate load tests . in place as described in the section
on field testing of com acted subgrade.
MATERIALS SAMPLING
Materials sampling is normally accomplished in the form of a soil
survey to determine the uantity and extent of the different types of
in-situ soil, the arrangement of layers, and the location of subsurface
water. Samples of soil re usually obtained by means of an auger
or similar device. dition to these disturbed samples, undisturbed
samples should be d at various depths in the natural subgrade.
These undisturbed be wrapped and waxed or adequately protected
against damage and moist re loss for later use. Sufficient materials should
be sampled from each r to run soil identification tests as well as grain
size distributions. rials from near the surface should be sampled in
sufficient quantity to d termine moisture-density curves.
The depth and spaci g of borings can not be specified exactly, but some
guidelines to f o llow are suggested below:
1. Soil borings sh uld be obtained along the centerline of the runway
or taxiway bein designed, and these borings should be spaced 200
feet apart.
2. The depth of th soil borings for the pavement design should be a
minimum of 10 f et b elow the finished grade line of the proposed
pavement. ~t pf r:odi~ intervals deeper borings may be taken for
settlement 1nve t1gat1ons.
4
These sampling requirements may be modified if e isting information
for adjacent pavements such as parallel runways or ta iways is a vailable upon
which to base judgment s . Where applicable, existing nformation such
:-1s l.,1b r e ports, d es ign reports, and plans for pavemcn s should be used to
its fullest extent.
LABORATORY EVALUATION OF SOILS

In order to determine the physical properties of the soil and to
estimate its behavior under various conditions, it is necessary to conduct
certain tests. Tests on the disturbed field samples· ill be used to
identify soil characteristics. The undisturbed sampl s obtained in the
field will be tested in conjunction with the pavement design and are not
a part of the soil survey and identification. An ana ysis of the soil
identification and survey will be the selection proce s for further testing
of the und i.s turbed samples.
Testing of Disturbed Samples. Soil tests are no mally identified by
terms indicating the characteristics which they imply or reveal. Where
applicable, ASTM or other test specifications are ind cated for the soil
t e sts. For those tests for which there are no approved standards,
a useful procedure is outlined. The fol lowing is a 1 st of tests which ar,e
required.
1. Dry Preparation of Disturbed Soil Samples fo Test (ASTM D-421
or Wet Preparation of Disturbed Soil Samples for Test (AASHO
T 146). The dry method (ASTM D-421) should e used only for
clean, cohesionless granular materials. The wet method (AASHO
T-146) should be used for all cohesive or bo derline materials.
2. Mechanical Analysis of Soils (ASTM D-422). he mechanical analys i s
of soils is a test for determining, quantita ively, the distribu-
tion of particle sizes in soils.
3. Determining the Plastic Limit of Soils (ASTM -424). The plastic
limit is define d as the minimum moisture content at which the
soil becomes plastic. At moisture contents a ove the plastic
limit, there is a sharp drop in the stability of a soil.
4. Determinin the Liquid Limit of Soils (ASTM D 423). The liquid
limit is the water content at which the soil from a
plastic to a liquid state. The liquid state · s defined as the
condition in which the shear resistance of th soil is so slight
that a small force will cause it to flow.
5
5. Calculating the Pl a sticity Ind~x of Soils. The plas ticity
ind ex is the nu erical difference b e tween the pla s tic limit and
th~ Liquid It indicates the r a nge in moistur e content
over which remains in a plastic state prior to changing
into a 1 iquid.
6. Determination o Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture. For
purposes of com action contr61 during construction, it will be
necessary to pe form tests to determine the maximum density and
optimum moistur content of the different types of soils.
a. Maximum den ity is defined as the maximum dry weight, in
pounds per ubic foot, obtained when a material is mixed
with differ nt percentages of water and compacted in a
standard ma
b. Optimum ture content is the percentage of water at which
maximum ity is obtained with a specified c ompactive
effort. paction Control Te sts are covered in Division VII,
T-611 of AC 150/ 5370-lA, St.andard Specifi cations
for Constru of Airports (Ref. 15).
Supplemental tests may be necessary are dependent upon the
individual site conditio In some cases, unusual soil conditio ns may
require supplemental soi tests. For example, an expansive soil with a
high seasonal moisture c be encountered, which would require
stabilization. Therefor , additional lab work may be needed. In another
instance where in-place ensities cannot be obtained from undisturbed
samples such as granular materials, in-place field densities would be needed.
Testing of Undistur ed Samples. The undisturbed sampl es are tested
in a repetitive loa d tri for det ermining the resilient modulus
( 1aodulus of elasticity). There is currently no ASTM or AASHO standard
method for this test. T erefore, Appendix I contains proce dura l information
on the test.
The resil ient modul s i s obtained by dividing th e applied d eviator
stress by elastic strain of the sample. The measurements are made at
different load repetitio sand when the resilient modulus remains relatively
cont 1nt, that value is s lected.
6
The 10-foot soil borings should be examined and samples taken
from the obvious stratas. The sample nearest the su face should be tested
in all cases along with those in other obvious strat s. The mean value of
resilient modulus should be computed as follows:
+M
n
=
n + 1
Where:
weighted mean resilient modulus, ps

M = resilient modulus at deviator stres of 4 psi for
1
sample near surface, psi
M ,Mn
2
= resilient modulus at deviator stre s of 4 psi for
various depths, psi
n - number of samples considered
Prior to testing the samples, the engineer may require the specimens
to be soaked by procedures described in Reference 21 o simulate the gain in
moisture beneath the pavement. This should be perfor ed only in the
conditions where:
1. The soils may experience capillary d
2. The wat e r tabl e is close enough to supply a of water for
possible capillary action.
Soil Classification. Making use of the three ba ic soil tests, the
mechanical analysis, the liquid limit, and the plasti limit, the soil
classifications can be made. These tests serve as a eans for evaluating
soil for use in. the construction of embankments and p vement subgrades.
These tests identify physical properties which can be compared to those of
soil whose performance and/or behavior is known. Tab e I shows a soil
classification . chart for airport construction (Ref. 1 ).
Because of certain factors relative to particula fine-grained soils,
it is possible that they may be classified in more th none of the groups
shown in Table I. This might happen with soils which contain mica, diatoms,
or a relatively large proportion of colloidal materia The overlapping in
soil classification can be eliminated by using Figure 2 in conjunction with
Table I with the exception of E-5 soils, which should be classified according
to Table I.
7
Table I
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR AIRPORT PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
Mechanical Analysis .,
Soil Material retained Material Finer than No. 10 Sieve - Percent Liquid Plasticity
Group on No. 10 sieve- Limit Index
percent 1 Coarse sand, pass- Fine sand, passing Combined silt and
ing No. 10 retained No. 40 retained clay, passing No.
on No. 40 on No. 200 200
le 1 (I I, <;: /,(\+ i:.n_ 15- 25- 6-

H
tll 15+
..-I E-2 0-45 85- 25- 25- 6-
::,
c
tll
H E-3 0-45 25- 25- 6-
00 t!>
E-4 0-45 35- 35-: 10-
E-5 0-55 45- 40- 15-
E-6 0-55 45+ 40- 10-
E-7 0-55 45+ 50- 10-30

"Cl
(l/ E-8 0~55 45+ 60- 15-40
c
·~
tll 45+ 40-
H E-9 0-55 30-
t!>
(l/
c E-10 0-55 45+ 70- 20-50
·~
i:,:..
E-11 0-55 45+ 80- 30+
E-12 0-55 45+ 80+
E-13 Muck and peat - field examination

1
If percentage of material retained on the No. 10 sieve exceeds that shown, the classification may be raised, provided
such material is sound and fairly well graded.
(After Ref. 19)
~. ft, ., If (y, .•.

i
70
/ 60
/ 50 ,c
/ E- II
40
II>
C:
-
•. / E - 10 E 12
30 ...
/
u
E- 8
en
20 C
/ Et7
10
0..
/
0 20
E -6
30 40 50 60
t. .. 9
70 80 . 90 I
0
00
Liq u Id Limit
Figure 2. Classification Chart for Fine Grained Soils

(After Ref. 19)
9
Soils which exhibit plasticity indic es higher than those which c o rrespond
to the maximum liquid li it of the p a rticular group are not a c orruno n occur-
rence. However, whe n encountered, they s hould be classified into the higher
numb e r ed group as shown in Figure 2. This classification is justified on
the basis that for equal liquid limits, the higher plasticity index the
lower the plastic limit at which a slight increase in moisture causes the
soil to rapidly lose stability.
Frost and Draina e Considerations. In general when conditions are
such that either poor drainage or frost penetration are probable for
the pavement under desig , special subgrade treatment should be consi-
dered in the pavement str cture design analysis. For convenience, the
average annual frost penetration throughout the United States is summarized
in Figure 3. If frost he a problem, then very fine sand, silts, and
clays should be avoided o used only in small quantitites. Design considera-
tions for frost be in accordance with Department of the Army
Technical Design for Frost Conditions (Ref. 10). Also,
references 11, 12, 13, a 14 may be consulted for information on design ..
for frost heave.
.-
FIELD TESTING OF COMPACTE SUBGRADE
If the pavement is signed after the grading, the materials characteri-

zation may be performed o samples from the as compacted subgrade.
Deflection measurements to select the location for sampling and
field plate load tests as in the following subsections.
Deflection Measureme Deflection measurements with mobile, rapid
deflection measuring equi may be used to accurately characte rize the
in-place compacte d subgra a proposed runway or taxiway pavement. A
profile of deflection mea urements spaced at 50 feet will provide an accurate
and adequate deflections pling of the prepared soils. The deflection
measurements should be along the centerline of the proposed runway or
taxiwa y. Measurements the e d ge may be considered for wide runways.
F or apr nn s , th e d ef lectio measur eme nts should be taken on a 50-foot ,.
grid pattern.
The data otted to provide a deflection profile for
distanc e along the facili y. The designer should separate the profile into
areas of equal pe rformanc , i.e., similar deflection. These areas of
10
,. ...
" -·
- ~ -! 0
3t;
60
I! '·\ 60 35
"... --.. /-.. ---1~

21 ,' 48 4~
6 : 30
2. 4 II!
,- - ... f
I - •.!.~
4 ~s
I
118 22
-
--:---~?J I
24 '36 54
I 20 L- · -,--- ... _
.'
•13 1 21 18 : 30 l;e,
, 12 , 6
14\
&O \ ,'I 3t,
, • 18
_, 6 \ 27 12 / 20
_, I
\ .-- ---- --- ·-·-- -----
7 :s 24
3 I I
12 :,o
I
9
4
8
Figure 3. Average Depth of Annual Frost Penetration - in Inches (After Ref. 19)
equal performance are de ignated as design sections for separate considera-
tion in the design proce s. If the separation into test sections by
eye is questionable, the Student-tor Analysis of Variance tests should be
applied to obtain statis ical confidence.
Figure 4 is a sampl deflection profile on a compacted natural subgrade,
Note the length is divid d into six separate performance areas based on
mean deflection.
The material sampli g previously described for the design analysis
should be performed in e ch of these test sections rather than at 200
foot intervals. The testing of the samples from the design sections
should be as described in the section on laboratory evaluation of soils.
Plate Load Testing. Field tests for the modulus of soil reaction or
k value for the naturals bgrade should be made in accordance with military
standard MIL STD-621A Met od 104, Modulus of Soil Reaction. The location
of such tests should be b sed upon deflection profile measurements made
previous to such plate be ring type tests. Normally, a single plate load
test in each area determi ed from the deflection profile should be adequate
for determining the modul s of subgrade reaction from field tests.
Summary. Figure 5 i a summarization of the data derived from the
site investigation for a ypical pavement section. For a runway or
taxiway the table should e developed to clearly summarize the conditions
and materials on the site
12
,. .. • .,,
5...-------.------.------,;------,------.----~.----,----,----r
,.,
I
0 4
;I
C
A I \I 6
\ ~ /
3
C
-
0
~ l I \
.......
w (.)
~ 2
1
2 (\ '-..., ------\ / 5
~I\;~ \.\_ .//

...
~
0
I ~ ' ~ 3
0 i...__ _ _ ___.._ _ _ _ _..__ _ _ _ _.J.__ _ _ __.1._ _ _ _ _..1.-_ _ _ __,,_ _ _ _- - - : ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ : ; - - '
430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500

410 42()
Stations
Figure 4. Sample Deflection Profile on Compacted Natural Subgrade

WORKSHEET NO. 1
Station Along Runway
245 238 194 178 171 164 156
Liquid
39.0 30.0 22.5 30.5 35.0 30.5
.
Limit
Plastic
18.5 19.0 18.5 18.5 20.5 18.0
Limit
p. I. 20.5 11.0 4.0 12.0 14.5 12.5
Soil
E7 E6 E7 E2 E7 E7 E7
Class
Density 110.9 l 06. 3 112.0 116.4 109.7 110.8
Moisture 19.7 21.3 17 .0 14.8 20.2 17. 9
\_* 4100 .!200 10000 15'.iOO 4700 10700
* ~@ deviator stress oj 8 psi.
Figure 5. Summary Subgrade Data From Site Investigation
14
SECTION III
DESIGN CRITERIA AND DATA
DESIGN CONFIDENCE LEVEL

All pavement distress occurring during the life of a facility cannot
be eliminated, but it can be minimized by the design r. Therefore, in the
design stage the permissible or allowable percent of pavement areal damage
must be established for the design period.
C 100% - pd
Where:
c = design confidence level

Pd = allowable percent damage
Normally the percent damage for use in design wuld be in the range
o f 1-10% or possibly as low as 1% in some cases. Th percent damage should
actually be selected for design based upon such fact rs as 1) the length
of time or analysis period for which the pavement is intended to serve,
2) the a ccuracy of the traffic projection, and 3) th accuracy of the data
on aircra ft mix or percentage distribution of the a i craft using the facility.
As the design confidence level is increased the initial construction
c o st is increased. Therefore, the designer may eval ate several design
a lte rna tes based on more than one confidence level.
MATERIALS PROPERTIES
The materials properties for use in slab design include the properties
o f the concrete slab, subbase, subgrade and reinforc ment. In preparation
for a de sign project it is suggested that the materi ls properties be
s umma r i zed for the design sections as shown in Figur 6.
Concrete Strength. The . concrete flexural stren th for thickness design
;.
for proposed concrete mixes shall be based on third oint loading at an
age of 90 d ays, ASTM C78. The strength gain with ti e relationship developed
from tria l mixes is used along with 7 and 28 day tes s for control during
c oncre t e placement. The design strength should bet e average of the 90
day test beams and should be recorded on Figure 6.
15
WORKSHEET NO. 2
Tr ial Thicknesses tl E
C
= 4,000,000 psi
10 f = 750 psi
C
CRCP 12
14
16
t2
ECTB = 200,000
10
Subbase
14
Improved Subgrade - 8 incl tes, with lime
Subgrade
/II\"-'-' I///. 1///"\..'\.''

''' ///A.''"
Design Section
Subgrade
Properties 4 3 2 1
16700 9800 4600
k (From Fig. 7) 180 330 220 110
,,.
Figure 6. Su ary of Trial Design Combinations

fo Pavement Layers and Sections
16
The splitting tensile strength at an age of 7 d ys should be deter-
mined using ASTM C496. If this test is not performe , the tensile strength
should be computed as 0.4 of the flexural strength.
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity. The concrete m dulus of elasticity
shall be determined from the compression test, ASTM 469 at an age of
90 days for design values. The value selected ford sign should be the
mean value of the trials evaluated. This value shou d also be listed in
i
the design information summary (Figure 6).
Reinforcement Working Stress. The design allow ble stress in the
reinforcement shall be based on the relation:
f
s
= 0.75f
y
Where:
f allowable working stress n steel
s
f yield stress of steel
y
Subbase Modulus of Elasticity. The modulus of lasticity of stabilized

subbase materials shall be determined using the indi ect tensile
test (Ref. 2). No standard is published for this te t;
therefore, a suggested procedure is furnished in App ndix III. For
cement-stabilized materials, a 90 day test is sugges ed while for asphalt
treated materials time is less critical, but temper ture should be similar
to the estimated average in-place termperature in th field if the asphalt
subbase were placed beneath a slab. If this is not vailable, 78°F (room
temperature) is suggested.
The modulus of elasticity of the uritreated grav 1 or crushed stone
s hould be determined from a repetitive load triaxial test (Appendix I)
of the materials proposed for use in the constructio The samples should
be prepared in the laboratory at optimum moisture an density conditions
a nd then permitted to cure to the condition expected in the field. Should
the location be an arid area, it may be desirable to permit the sample to
dry 10% or possibly 20%. If the location is an area which receives an
annual rainfall of more than 25 inches per year, it desirable to let
the sample cure for several days at optimum moisture then be tested in
a repetitive load triaxial test to determine its mod lus of elasticity.
17
Laboratory technique shou d approximate the in-situ conditions at the
proposed site as closely s possible.
For any of these mat rials the design value should be something less
than the mean value. It s suggested that the design value be selected
so that only 10 percent o the samples of such material would be less
than the design value, th s:
Where:
esign value of modulus of elasticity of

ubbase, psi
ean value of subbase modulus of elasticity
ests
= tandard deviation of subbase modulus of elasticity
The design values of mate ials under consideration should be tabulated

in Figure 6.
Modulus of Subgrade eaction. The values o f ~ should be used together
with the relationship sho n in Figure 7 to determine the in-place natural
modulus of subgrade react on (k-value). These k-values for each design
section along the pavemen length should be shown in Figure 6.
AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC
Aircraft Mix. The d signer must obtain aircraft mix data from official
traffic projections forte facility being designed. The projections may
b e made by airlines, airp rt owners, consulting engineers, or a combination
of these. The time perio on which the design is based must also be
s e lected at this it affects the total number of movements as well as
the aircraft mix or distr The designer should consider the design
analysis period as a pote tial variable in consideration of total costs.
Aircraft Loads. The charts in the design manuals are based on "
maximum ramp weights of a Some design problems may not require
s uch design loads. In su the stresses predicted should be reduced
by multiplying the chart alues by the weight ratio:
18
;.
500
•
400
300
u
a.
~-
•
,:,
a
>
200
...
k: 110
100
5000 10000 15000 20000

Resilient Modulus ( p s
Figure 7. Relation of Resilie nt Modulus Te s Value

to Modulus of Subg rade Reaction f r Use
in Slab Thickness Design
19
= _.......1,_i_.,g::..n_A_1._·r_c_r_a_f_t_W_e_i...g_h_t_)_i
imum Ramp Weight i
Where:
i = ividual aircraft
we ght ratio
DESIGN PROCESS
This design procedu e is not a closed solution, therefore, to complete
the design for a problem trial and error techniques are employed. The
following technique can e used to estimate the number of design problems
and solutions required.
Where: "' ·
Mdp = n mber of design problems
Mdl = n mber of trial slab thicknesses
Md2 = n mber of trial subbase thicknesses
Mds = of design sections
The number of stress sol tions is:
s
=
Where:
M
s
number of stress solutions
MAC = number of aircraft in the design aircraft mix
To minimize the numb r of solutions and design calculations, the

following suggestions are offered to the designer.
1. For the nt of the slab thickness selection curve, a
minimum of four rial thicknesses should be considered. A
suggested proced re for trial slab thicknesses is to use:
20
a) best e stimate of thicknes s ,
b) best estimate plus and minus one i nch , and
c) best estimate plus and minus thre e inches.
2. Sel e ct subbase thicknesses and type at des ·red levels. The
subbase thickness considerations also incl de the decision as to
- whether a uniform composite k-value will b provided or whether
the subbase design will be varied througho t the length of the
pavement.
3. If k-va lue is available on a runway or tax · ay design, the volume
o f c a lculations can be reduced by doing the thickness calculations
only for the lowest, median, and highest v lue (Figure 6) .
..
21
SECTION IV
SUBBASE DESIGN SELECTION OF COMPOSITE DESIGN K VALUE
The site investigat on and the materials characterization shall furnish

information necessary fo subbase design analyses together with the selection
of composite design k va ues for use in slab stress analysis. In performing
the subbase design ands lecting the composite design k-value, the design
information summarized o Figure 6 is used and entered on the worksheet
shown in Figure 8. The inal selection of a composite design k value for
slab stress analysis sho ld include considerations of in-place subgrade
treatments, subbase thic ness, and type of subbase stabilization.
TREATED SUBGRADE CONSID TIONS

When indicates that the location for the
runway or taxiway being d signed is such that either frost penetration or
poor drainage or both are pr~s~nt, treated subgrade considerations should
become a design factor. n addition to the mechanical treatment of
optimum moisture and density compaction of the natural subgrades, additional
chemical treatment may be warranted. Such chemical treatment might include,
for example, the use of 1·me stabilization of fine-grained soils. Such
stabilization may be acco plished by various construction methods, all of
which are assumed to prov de equal quality products in design. The depth
of such lime-treated subg ade should be a factor relative to the frost
penetration which may be resent at the site.
SUBBASE THICKNESS DESIGN

Selected subbase lay rs for airfield pavements will usually be either:
1. A layer of grave or crushed stone,
2. Cement-stabilize material,
3. Asphalt-stabiliz d material, or
4. Special material depending on location.
For the pavement design a alysis, either one subbase may be selected for
use in subsequent thickness design or designs may be generated for alternate
subbase types. The essential information for any subbase considered is its
modulus of elasticity. Te subbase type should be entered on Figure 8.
22
WORKSHEET NO. 3
t = 10 inches t = 14 inches
i Design 2 2
Section
~ k tl 0
V ~ k kcd tl 0
V
~Mi k kcd
(1) (2) (3) (4) . (5) (6) (7) (8) 4) (5) (6) . (7) (8)
1 4600 110 14 6.7 4700 115 350 14 6.1 4800 115 430
• Figure 8. Worksheet for Computing Composite k-va ue at Top

of Subbase for Use in Slab Design
23
SELECTION OF COMPOSITED SIGN K-VALUE
To complete the tab e in Figure 8, the vertical stress in column (5)
must be obtained from Fi ure 9 for each aircraft in the design aircraft
mix. The value of a li ted in column (5) of Figure 8 is the largest
V
value obtained. If the ritical aircraft represents less than 5 percent
of the total projected m vements, the second or next largest value should
be selected. This appro ch is conservative, but very significantly reduces
the total design computa ion time.
A
The effective resil ent modulus~· listed as column (6) in Figure 8
is obtained by using the laboratory relationship of resilient modulus
(~) and deviator stress "'
Figure 10 illustrates how the~ is obtained.
Enter the horizontal sea e with the a value from column (5) of Figure 8
V
and project vertically t the curve and horizontally to the scale to
""'
determine the~ value.
The composite desig k-value for each combination of values in Figure 8
is determined from 11. These values complete the work table in
Figure 8. Similarly, this should be done for each established design
section along a runway or taxiway.
24
---~--~----~---- ~ - -- , - - -·-, --
i 25!)00_
15,00 0
10,00,,
5,000 ·
3.0
Aircraft
4 .0
-J-- ·
,C'
5 .0
6.0 '
"'a.
7.0
<D
"O
8 .0
...
0
0,
.&l
:J
9.0
CJ)
-0
a.
10.0
11 .0
...
C
i-
C
12.0
0
V' 13,0
V' .
-
q,
U)
14.0
I
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0 I
..
Figure 9. Chart for Determination of Subgrade St ess for
Use in Computing Effective Resilient M dulus
25
\
\
\.
en
::,
----
MR (DC-9)
' '
' __
::,
-0
........... ......_ Design Curve
0
..........
---- ----
~ (~
"'
. qi
C
-0
QI
0
c,,
~ (8 52)
en LI
QI ::,
a:: V)
QI
:,,
.....
0
u
QI
w
for light aircraft <rv for heavy aircraft
heel (DC-9) wheel (852)
St r e ss on Sub g r a d e - <rv
(Deviator Str~ss)
Figure 10. Determination of Effective Resilient

Mo ulus from Laboratory Relation of~
a a
V
26
--, __ _
I _ ___
~ -
,6 -----1--c--+-------+----+--.--+- --+------+-----1---+-----+-
:.
---t6 !
-- - -- - ! - - - - - ! - - - - - I - - --
200 100 0
K-Vol"' -'"I N~tu,oi~abg,od+-e- (p_s_i/in.l
I I
1----+--- - - 900
I __)_ _____.
~=i=
__J_
: : c: 600 I
--~ I
. ,p
II : ..p
'.L/
,-
--C----500
a.
--+----~i
(I)
:,
~"
. >0 ~
>-· -- - 1 -- I 400 /~
:,,::
"'i !11 I
"'
0
Q.
E
300 --+: T-- J_ _ ___,_
0
u
> - - -- + -- - 200
~- - ,oo
15
I
~--- · - - - ~ - - ---'--- - - ' -- - - - ' - -- --1_ _ .:_J____
Figure 11. Composite K-Value Chart
27
SECTION V
SLAB ICKNESS DESIGN ANALYSIS
The slab thickness d analysis consists of four basic phases:

1. Development of d aircraft traffic movements, aircraft loads,
and aircraft mix,
2. Prediction of sl b stresses for the design loads,
3. Fatigue analysis, and
4. Selection of thickness.
In the thickness n analysis the design calculations should be
done and recorded tabularl as shown in Figure 12. This computation table
includes all the data to d velop the design curves.
AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC MIX AND LADS

The designer must dev lop the design aircraft on which the pavement
analysis will be based. e design aircraft mix should include all the
major airplanes which are xpected to use the pavement in the design
period. The traffic movem nts for each traffic area must be established
for the design analysis pe iod. The projected number of movements of
each aircraft in the desig mix must be determined for each traffic area.
The design analysis charts in this manual are based upon maximum ramp weights
of all aircraft.
The predicted aircraf movements are recorded in column (2) of Figure
12. In columns (3)-(6) th traffic factors for the selected design lanes
off pavement centerline ar tabulated for the respective aircraft. Table II
contains the traffic facto s for most aircraft generally used in slab
thickness design.
PREDICTION OF STRESSES FOR ESIGN LOADS

For each design secti n, the stresses shall be predicted using the
design analysis chart ure 13, which presents the slab tensile stresses
calculated for 1) the ft considered, 2) various thicknesses of slab,
3) modulus of subgrade reaction, and 4) concrete modulus of elasticity.
All the slab analysis param ters are included in this single chart. The
stresses determined from ure 13 for each design section are input data
to the fatigue analysis, th next step in the design procedure.
28
• .. .. ,,
Allowable n. n.
1 1
Projected Traffic Factors (Tf) Weight Design Stress Tf
Movements for Design Lanes Stress Ratio Stress Repetitions Ni N.1
Aircraft
A B C D (J
WR A
(J
N. A B C D
l
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (lS) I
J
:,
'
i
'
Figure 12. Fatigue Analysis Worksheet

Table II
AIR.CRAFT TRAFFIC FACTORS FOR VARIOUS DESIGN LANES
DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE OF PAVEMENT TO DESIGN LANE

Aircraft 6'-7' 7'-8' 8'-9' 9'-10' 10'-ll' ll'-12' 12'-13' 13 I -14 1 14'-15' 15'-16'
B-707 0.466 0.579 0.686 O. Z63 0 804 0.$04 Q, 7€iJ 0.686 9.583 E)-;-4-6-6
B-720 0.398 0.525 0.643 0.733 o. 782 0. 782 0.733 0.643 0.525 0.398
B-727 0.637 0. 728 0. 794 0.809 0. 788 o. 728 0.637 0.525 0.407 0.294
B-737 0.693 0. 764 0.789 0. 764 0.693 0.587 0.462 0.337 0.226 0.139
w
0 B-747 0.858 0.865 0.857 0.841 0.824 0.814 0.812 0.821 0.837 0.853
DC-8-55 0.462 0.587 0.693 o. 764 0.789 0.764 0.693 0.587 0.462 0.337
DC-8-63 0.493 0.605 0.698 0. 760 0.782 0. 760 0.698 0.605 0.493 0.376
DC-9 0.680 0. 742 o. 755 o. 717 0.634 0.521 0.396 0.278 0.179 0.105
DC-10-10 0.132 0.189 0.259 0.340 0.429 0.522 0.612 0.694 0.763 0.815
DCl0-30 0.440 0.405 0.401 0.427 0.479 0.548 0.625 0 . 700 0. 766 0.815
L-1011 0.098 0.145 0.205 0.278 0.361 0.452 0.543 0.631 0.709 0. 772
L-500 1.405 1.544 1.642 1.692 1. 692 1.642 1.544
Concorde 0.179 0.278 0 . 396 0.521 0.634 o. 717 o. 755 0. 742 0.680 0.580
C-880 0.454 0.579 0.666 0.693 0.653 0.556 0.438 0.305 0.190 0.105
C-580 0.122 0.213 0.332 0.465 0.590 0.679 o. 711 0.679 0.590 0.465
F-27 0.104 0.196 0.322 0.461 0.580 0.642 0.626 0.538 0.406 0.268
KC-135. 0.455 0.571 0.675 0. 752 0. 795 0.795 0.752 0.675 0. 571 0.455
C-130 1.005 1.055 0.896 0.317 0.184 0.088 0.034 0.010 0.003 0.001
C-141 0.661 o. 740 0.778 o. 768 0.713 0.620 0.504 0.381 0.267 0.173
B-52 o. 789 0. 738 0.653 0.439 0.427 0.314 0.218 0.141 0.084 0.047
C-5 1.5456 1.6304 1.7020 1.760 1.803 1. 832 1.846 1.846 1.832 1.803
F-4 0.129 0.234 0.361 0.319 0.234 0.129 0.052 0.016 0.004 0.001
F-111 0.386 0.254 0.135 0.058 0.020 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
~
~
•
{pSi/·, ,, J
k=zoo
...mmo
... 0
"'
...
k:350
I ... t-1'>
'- \/
V
k=soo
.
N
wi il \~ ((
~U -t'-
Z
~~~u.h~tD,...r!-.n
I
Ir--- I
"" OJ
8 g~ g~~~gCQ(ri~
q' I I
QC'Jft")
IJ) ,...,.._ - ..,
0
(71
u
I
"'"'
0 0
Aircraft
Exomple
500~~~-+--~~-11-~ ~
Given:
A/C - D C- I O - 3 0
~ 600+-~~-+-~~-H-~~~
t = 14 inches "'
"'
k = 350 pci "'~ 700+-~~ + - ~~ ll---~~~ ~
Cl)
Ee= 4xl0 6 psi

800-t--~~ +-~~+!-~~-+-~--+
From Chart
0-c = 411 p si
900~~~-+--~~-41---~~-I-~ ~-+~
Figure 13. Stress Analysis Chart
31
Because of the techni ues used in the fatigue analysis and the thick-
ness selection process, th stress analysis must be completed over a
range of thicknesses which must encompass the design thickness for the
proposed pavement. This i true for each design section or set of design
conditions included in the design problem.
The predicted stresse are tabulated on the thickness analysis worksheet
in column (7), Figure 12. If the design requires load factors other
than the maximum load, the weight ratio, WR as computed in Section III
should be listed in column (8) of Figure 12 and then multiplied by the
stress value in column (7) The design stress values, "d' are tabulated in
column (9) of Figure 12.
FATIGUE ANALYSIS
The fatigue analysis onsists of two basic steps:
1. Prediction of fat gue damage for each aircraft in the design mix
for each pavement thickness considered,
2. ation of fatigue damage versus thickness for
percent ed pavement or confidence level selected for
design.
These two steps are ed in this section step-by-step. Each of these
steps is unique for sign section considered.
Columns (10)-(15) completed for a single confidence
level selected for the If more than one confidence level is to be
considered, columns (10)-( 5) must be repeated for each. Column (10) is
the allowable stress determined from the fatigue analysis
chart in Figure 14. Colu (11) is the fatigue damage ratio which is equal
to the value in column (2) divided by the value in column (10). Columns
(12)-(15) are the values o tained when multiplying the fatigue damage ratio
by the traffic factor.
SELECTION OF PAVEMENT THIC

After the computation summarized on the Worksheet in Figure 12 are
completed over a range of a single k-value, the thickness
curve can be plotted e confidence level selected. The thickness
selection curve is a of fatigue damage ratios and
slab thickness. Figure 15 of such curves. For illustrative
purposes the graph in Figu contains curves for numerous confidence
32
(N) SUO!l!lid9ij S19JIS •IQDMOIIV
N
N N 0
N N N
,1
0
( ::, ) 4 I 6 u 9 J IS ~ J :> uo::,

I
19
"':
r--i
uo I at. 91 9:; U9P:Juo::, (.)
OICl ICl/
cn dI
,nr--
111 II I
o o cn
r-- cn en
--... b
L.....:.....J
I
0
I C
0
0
0
,...:-
I 0::, z•
I CT
UJ
I
I
I
' .,...
VI
>,
,....
n,
s::
c::C
I Q.J
:::,
e u !1 I OA ! d en
\ ...,
.,...
n,
\. l.J..
\ ( ! s d) SS8JIS 91!SU91
.
-=:I'"
\ ,....
0 0
\ d 0 0 0 0
0
Q
0
0
cn
0
0
co
0
,..._ 0
ID
0
0
,n
0
IC)
"<t
.,.
0
0
..,
IC)
..,0 IC)
N
0
N
0
~
0
Q
0
cn
\ .,...
l.J..
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0 0 0 0 0 0
I{)
0 IC)
,..._ 0 0 0
co ,..._ <.O <.O II'>
( ! s d) 41liU9J1S 1DJIH91.,j 19 J:) U o::,
33
6.0
~
4.0
'6.,,,..
3.0 .,.
"'" ?
Cl
t,
~ 2.0 (
t,
-..;::
C: "'"/'
w
.........
•
Cl
C
E
C I. 0
0
•:,
.7
99
"'
Cl
C
I.L 95
.5
- 0
.4
90
C:
75
-
0
.3
"E
E 50
:,
(fl
.2
8 10 12 14 16 18
Slab Thickne11 (inches)
Figure 15. Analysis of Summation of Fatigue Damage and CRC Pavement

Thickness for Various Confidence Levels
34
levels to show the relative affect of confidence level on thickness. If
the designer selects only one confidence level to desi n for he will have
only one curve similar to the family shown in Figure 1
• A cumulative damage ratio of 1,0 is an indicator f failure. Thus,
the horizontal line is drawn through the ordinate of 1.0 in
Figure 15. The values of slab thickness at which the orizontal line
through the ordinate of 1.0 intersects with each curves are the
design thicknesses for the respective confidence If more than
one confidence level or tolerable percent damage lyzed, curves similar
to those shown in Figure 16 can be plotted. The shown in Figure 16
is for a single design condition with three design s. The uppermost
curve is the critical curve for use in design.
If numerous design sections are selected for or taxiway, it
is suggested that one section be analyzed to determine the critical design lane
and other sections only be analyzed for the critical design lane. If a
range of composite support is encountered on a design problem, an additional
curve may be developed to minimize the total computations for a design
project. A curve similar to that shown in Figure 17 ay be developed for
a selected confidence level and also for the critical This
curve can then be used to extrapolate designs for sup ort conditions other
than the few actually calculated in detail. To use a as illustrated
in Figure 17, a uniform thickness and type of subbase ould be required
for all the conditions to be compatible. Similar cur es could be developed
if the subbase is also considered a variable •
35
15
14
C:
c/1
c/1
Cl>
C:
""'u 13
.c
t-
.0
0
(/)
12
II
IOO 90 80 70 60 50
Confidence Le Ve I O/o
0 10 20 30 40 50
Predicted Percent Do mo g e at end of D_esign Period
Figure 16. a mple Thicknes s Design Curves for Three

esign Lanes
36
16
14
,....
~
..
Ill
0
C
12
"'
"'Cl>
C.
-"'
0
.s::.
I-
10
..0
Cl
(/)
O L - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - L - -+ ---:--::-"':"::--:------
O 5000 10000 15000 20000
Subgrade
;;
F i g ur e 17. Sampl e Re l a tio n ship of S l ab Thie ness Req uir eme n t

a nd Subg rade MR for a Fixe d Subb s e De s i g n and
Tr aff ic Cond it i ons
37
SECTION VI
REINF RCEMENT AND JOINT DESIGN
This section the design of longitudinal and transverse

reinforcement for reinforced concrete pavements, together
with suggested joint design for both longitudinal and transverse construc-
tion joints.
LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT
The percentage itudinal reinforcement in a continuously

reinforced concrete t should be checked by three methods and meet
all of these criteria:
1. The requirement o the design equation for continuous reinforce-
ment,
2. Temperature, and
3. Concrete strength to steel strength ratio.
The first check of lo gitudinal reinforcement requirements shall be
made using the design nomo raph shown in Figure 18 (Ref. 6), which
involves three parameters:
1. The allowable wor stress of the steel,
2. Tensile strength f the concrete, and
3. Friction factor o the subbase which should be selected from Table III.
The check of required longitudinal reinforcement involved computing
the percentage of steel to resist temperature changes (Ref. 7). The
following equation is used with the variables quantified for the proposed
pavement site under design
p lOOf
r
s
2(f - Ta E)
S C S
Where:
P
s
= the ercent reinforcement,
f
r
= tens'le strength of the concrete, psi
f = work'ng stress in the reinforcement, psi

s
38
..
Tensile St•enoth ,,f

Concrete tr, p11 E ~amp le Problem
(I )
fr='300p~
700 t,; 45 k•i
F : I 5
Jl.nswe r: P 5 : 0 66 °/0
600 tr
Solves P9 -(i3-02F) f
s
Required Steel
Per c Int a Q I P1 °/o
500 (4)
03
Allowable Steel
Stress t 5 , ks1
(2) 04
400 Fr1,t,on Factor F
vJ
'° 70 (3)
0.5 2 0
60
52.5 _____ ....._

06
Ui
300 ----...-.-----
50
45
48 _
75 _ _ _,.._ _ _ _ _ _ ---~---- 0 .7
1.0
40 0 8
375 0.9
;.o
30
200 20
..
C
I 5
.J
-
0
>
2 0
Q.
Figure 18. Design Chart for Continuous Longitudinal Reinforcement

; 50
TABLE III
RECOMMEND D SUBBASE FRICTION FACTORS
FOR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN
Subbase Type 1
Friction Factor
Surface Treatment 2.2

Lime Stabilizatio 1. 8
Asphalt Stabiliza ion 1.8
Cement Stabilizat · on 1.8
River Gravel 1.5
Crushed Stone 1.5
Sandstone 1.2
Natural Subgrade 0.9
1
These recommendations were derived from a field study reported in
Reference 20.
40
T = range of temperature expected that the
pavement will be subjected to in degrees
Fahrenheit,
O' = thermal coefficient of the co crete, and
C
E = modulus of elasticity of the teel, psi
s
Prior to the formation of a crack, the stress in the steel and the
concrete are the same. When the tensile stress excee s the strength of
the concrete, a crack forms and all the force is carr"ed in the reinforce-
ment. The third check for percent longitudinal reinf rcement is the
computation of the ratio of the concrete tensile stre gth tto steel strength.
This ratio is the required percentage longitudinal reinforcement from a
strength basis.
After checking the longitudinal steel requiremen s by all three of
the above methods, the largest percentage evaluated s ould be selected
as the design requirement. In no case should the lort itudinal steel be
less than 0.5 percent.
TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
Because of loading artd load placements, it is ommended that a
minimum of the interior 100 feet of pavement width tied toge ther to
prevent edge loading conditions. This concept is strated in Figure 19.
Recent experience at O'Hare International Airport . 16) and
the C-5 heavy load test track (Ref. 17) showed that ~ vere failure developed
at longitudinal joints not properly tied. In should the center-
line construction joint be left free to move, is joint experiences
the largest and heaviest traffic volume.
The transverse steel design will be based on the subgrade drag
theory similar to the method outlined by McCullough ef. 18). The amount
of tr a nsverse steel can be reduced when moving away om the center of
the tied area as shown in Figure 19. A considerable eduction in cost can
be realized if a lesser amount of transverse reinforc ment is used in the
areas labeled lighter transverse reinforcement in Fig 19. The design
variables are summarized into a transverse reinforce design chart and
shown in Figure 20,
41
-
t»
c,,
"C
-C
·-
..,0 .
-
C
0 •
~
UJ ~
"D
UJ
t» Cl:
...
Cl)
u.
...
Cl)
He v,t:st transve,.se reinforcement
Lighter transverse reinforcement
Figure 19. Desirable Construction Joint Layout and

Transverse Reinforcement Pattein
42
;
NOMOGRAPH
SOLVES : P. =Ws F x 100
. s 2 fs
(3)
0.005
(I) 0.006
150 0.007
0.008
0.009
120 0.01
(4)
110
100
90 (2) 0.02
80
0,5
70 0.03 70
0.04 60
60
0.05 52.5
50 0.06 48.75
0 . 07
0.08
40 0.09 40
0.1
30 30
0.3
20 20
0.4
0.5
0 .6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
10 10
Ws Turning f s. ks i
Line
Example Problem: Where:

Ws = 100 ft. Ps : ReQuire steel percentage - %.
Ws: Width slab-feet.
F = I. 5
f 5 = 45,000 psi F " Friction factor of subgrade.
f s = Allowabl working stress in steef-ps i
Answer= P =0./6 %
(0.75 o yield strength recommended,
.;; the eQ ivalent of safety factor of 1.33)
Figure 20. Transverse Reinforcement D sign Chart
43
Some continuously reinforced pavements have been designed without
transverse reinforcement. These pavements should perform satisfactorily
unless longitudinal cracking occurs. We reconunend that all CRC pavements
contain transverse reinfo cement because if longitudinal cracking occurs,
the transverse reinforce ent will restrain lateral movement and maintain
the slab continuity.
REINFORCEMENT DETAIL
The reinforcement ailing chart shown in Figure 21 shall be used

to select a series of rnate bar or wire spacing designs for the longitudinal
reinforcement. These alt rnates should include various bar spacings. The
bond area to concrete vol ratio should be calculated for each proposed
design. This ratio shall be computed using the following formula:
=
4A
R s
av
~
C
Where:
R = th . 2,.1.n2
ratio of bond area to concrete volume in 1.n
av
2
A
s
= ar a steel, in
2
A
C
= ar a of concrete, in
d = th diameter of the bar or wire, in
In order to assure m nimum crack widths, the bond area to concrete

0
2 3
volume ratio should alway be greater than 0.03 in /in •
Vertical placement o longitudinal steel should be based upon the
following considerations. When slab thicknesses of 8 inches or less are
utilized, the longitudina reinforcement should be placed at mid-depth in
the slab. When pavement hicknesses are greater than 8 inches, the longi-
tudinal. steel should be p aced slightly above the mid-point, but in no
case should the steel hav less than.three inches of cover to provide the
necessary protection agai st corrosive elements.
Reinforcement detail should be such that longitudinal reinforcement
be maintained continuousl through intersections of two continuously
reinforced pavements. Th se pavements would not require transverse rein-
forcement in the intersec ion area.
44
NOMOGRAPH
SOLVES y. ~ . 100
(I) t Ps
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08 (3)
.09
.I ( 2)
•11 1.56
•,o 1.27
20
•9 1.0
15 •a 0 ,79
12
II
10
.2 9
8
7
6
!e "5 0.31
5 (4)
.3 4 "~" •4 0 .22
0 .20
0 .18
3
"
ex,
0 .16 15
0 . 14
,4 0.12
•3
2
8:/b
0.09
0.08
.5
0 .07
10
0 .06
.6 9
•2 0.05
B
.7 0.04
7
.8
,9 l (in) 6
A ( in2 )
1.0 6
~
Ps (%)
Examp~ Problem
..
"
::; Where , 3
P5 :0.6% 0> Ps • Re qu ired ,teal percento;e - •;"
Answer :
t • IOin,
A5 :0, 4 4 in.2
Y • 7. 33 in.
0:
As= Cr
y • C
..
t • Th ckness
Sectional
ter lo Cante,
of Concrete
Area
Po\tament - in.
of steel
SpacinQ - in. y (in l

~-
Figure 21. Reinforcement Design Detail Chart
45
CONSTRUCTION JOINTS
There are normally to types of construction joints in continuously

reinforced concrete pavem nt, these being longitudinal and transverse
construction joints. The longitudinal construction joints are the joints
between adjacent paving 1 nes, and the transverse construction joints are
those joints which appear between the beginning and ending of any two
successive paving operati ns. It is possible that there might be still
another longitudinal join, which might be known as a warping joint. Such
a joint would be created hen paving lanes were placed in widths up to
50 feet. Normally, airfi ld paving is done in lanes of 25 feet, which
require no additional lon itudinal jointing, however, modern construction
equipment makes it possib place widths up to 50 feet at one time,
thus requiring an interme or sawed joint down the center of such a
wide paving lane. Exarnpl longitudinal and transverse joints of the
type mentioned are illust in Figure 22.
Transverse Construct·on Joints. The transverse construction joints
should be designed to pro ide slab continuity by continuing the regular
longitudinal steel throug such joints. This regular longitudinal steel
should be supplemented by additional steel to provide adequate resistance
to repeated shear and bending stresses caused by aircraft loads. Generally
a minimum of 1% longitudi al steel should be provided across such transverse
construction joints. A cedure which has worked well and is recommended
here is the addition of a foot long bar between every other regular
longitudinal reinforcing b r. This practically doubles the amount of
longitudinal reinforcement across this transverse plane in the pavement.
Thus in most cases the tot 1 percentage of steel will be 1% or greater.
Normally transverse constr ction joints are not sealed with a joint sealant
material, because if const ucted properly such construction joints normally
perform and behave as conv ntional volume change cracks which are present
elsewhere in the pavement.
Longitudinal Joints. Typical longitudinal joints are illustrated
in Figure 22. Normally lo gitudinal joints in runways or taxiways will
be construction joints: Sch construction joints should be adequately
tied together to maintain he continuity of such slabs. The transverse
steel through longitudinal construction joints should be equivalent
in load carrying capacity o that which is in the interior of the slab.
46
' '•. '
. . ' ... ~ .•
.
' .'
.. '
lo'
I-
'
..
Hcriz?11tu I
~lnpe 1:4
Longitudinal Construction Joi n1

( Tongue and Groove)
JO In t Seol1n9 Lon11 1t · nol Steel
D•formed Tie Trans 11e : s 1: S I ee I
,.
Longiiudinol Construction Joint

( Butt Type)
Ste e I
ud,nal Steel
Warping JO irit
'-lin . of 4 feet First Lo

Add I I Steel ao rs - 2.5
. . • o(
, , .. .
'Gi
,J .
~
, lf
"· '
...
(
, '
, ., : ' , ,·.. ., ., . ·c- •. (>
., ~ .~
f'.
; Old Stab New Slob Re11ular

' ong : lu d : no! S :ee 1
Transverse tee 1
Tronsvers~ C..ons1 ruction J In 1 5
Figure 22. Examples of Longitudinal and T ansverse Joints
47
Any tie bars which might be used across such longitudinal construction
joints should be a m of 60 diameters in length with one half of the
length on each side oft e joint. When multiple piece or coupled tie
bars are used the multip e piece combinations should be required to develop
a failure force of 1.5 t·mes the yield strength of the steel. Normally
tie bar spacing will be omewhat less than the spacing of the transverse
steel. As a result oft e use of different grades of steel, when tie bars
are to be bent only defo or bars of ASTM designation: A-615 Grade
40 should be used. Thus, the spacing will be somewhat less than that for
Grade 60 bars used as tr nsverse reinforcement.
The longitudinal co struction joints may be of two details, either
the tongue and groove ty or the butt joint. In thick pavements
both joints work well. owever, in thinner pavement such as 10 inches
or less, the tongue and roove joint may cause problems during construction.
Thus, for pavements less than 10 inches thick, the butt type joint is
recommended, whereas for pavements 10 inches thick or greater either type
may be used satisfactori y.
The last type of jo nt is the longitudinal warping joint. This is
the joint which is sawed along the centerline of a paving layer which is
wider than 25 feet. The depth of any sawcut which is made for this type
of joint should not be 1 ss than 1/4 the depth of the slab and in no case
should the sawcut be dee er than the depth to the transverse reinforcement.
48
SECTION VII
SLAB END-ANCHORAGE DESIGN
When continuously reinforced concrete pavements are not continuous

through intersections, end-anchorage design must be provided to restrain
movements to prevent pavement damage. Terminal a chorages are normally
not required and should not be included at runway ends unless connecting
taxiways are tied to such pavements, in which case terminal movement would
need to be restrained. The primary use of end anc ors on runways and
taxiways will be in the intersections areas of new runways or taxiways with
existing runways and/or taxiways.
SELECTION OR ANCHORAGE SYSTEM

There are numerous terminal anchorage systems hich have been proven
satisfactory for use on continuously reinforced co highway pavements
(Refs. 8, 9). These anchorage systems include two very successful designs
which have been utilized. These are the anchor lu or key type restraining
system and the wide-flange beam joint. There are ther anchorage systems
such as piles in the base which behave similar to ugs but are probably
less effective. The keys or lugs as well a s the w ' de-flange bea m joint
have both been .used on continuou s ly reinforced con ret e pavement s on
airfield runways. Both of these have performed sa isfactorily. Therefore
either of these two anchorage systems is recommend continuously
reinforced concrete pavements where restraining sy terns are nece s sary .
TYPICAL RESTRAINING SYSTEM DESIGNS

For the two types of restraining systems ment'oned above, typical
sections are shown in Figure 23.
49
Expansion Joints
Anchorage SI eei:,e r
Lu gs SI ab
1 1
17 I7 11'
Terminal Anchorage Treatment ·-
RCP
__ .....
Reinforcement
~
,,
6"
0
I
~
I'()
I I
'---~
I
I~
2'-0"
~
Anchorage Lugs
Continuously reinforce 11 11
concrete pavement
X r 9 or 10
X
pavement
3;4' groove, hot poured seal

I
H ea vi I y
greased hot-poured seal
Load transfer
dowels----
<5'-o"
Toper
(Styrofoam or e uivalent) Expansion
10'-o" 11 11
No. 4 bars 20!...6 l'ii) 12 o.c.
1 11 11
breaker No. 5 bars 23 -8 ® 8 o.c.
Details f a Wide Flange Beam Joint ..
Figure 23. T pical CRCP Terminal Treatments
50
SECTION VIII
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE DESIGN PROBLEM
This section illustrates the use of the design nual through the
solution of an example design problem including prima ily 1) the slab
thickness design analysis, and 2) the subbase analysis and determination
of a composite k-value.
DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN PROBLEM

The design problem is to prepare a thickness design for one of the
design sections established along the length of a runway at a
major hub airport. The site investigation data arized in Figure 24.
Figure 25 shows the runway divided into four designs This example
design problem is for Design S~ction 1.
Other design data developed from laboratory studies for this runway
includes the concrete strength and modulus of elasticity (Figure 26).
The traffic projection for this runway is summarized in Table IV. Other
design features pertinent to the problem include:
1) Experience at the site with other runways s ggests the use
of 8-inch lime treated subgrade,
2) No problems of frost heave or settlement based on
experience with similar materials at the site,
3) Because of economic considerations, a cement stabilized subbase
is selected over other materials,
4) A minimum composite design k-value of 350 pci is desired, and
5) Maximum ramp weights of aircraft are used, t us WR 1.0
SUBBASE DESIGN AND COMPOSITE K-VALUE

In considering the subbase design, the trial design thicknesses for
both the slab and subbase are noted in Figure 26. F all the aircraft in
the traffic projection, the subgrade stress was comp using Figure 29
for both the possible subbase thicknesses and for a thickness of 14
inches, which is a preliminary estimate of the slab t ickness. After the -
critical cr value was found, it was listed in Figure 27 (column 5), after-
v A
which Figure 30 was used to determine the effective resilient modulus,~-
51
WORKSHEET NO. 1
Station Along_~\.l_~ay
Item 156 164 171 178 185 194 205 214 222 220 238 245
LL 30.5 35.0 30.5 22.5 30.5 30.0 30.5 29.5 38.0 36 39.0
PL 18.0 20.5 18.5 18.5 18.0 19.0 18.5 18.5 18.0 19.0 18.5
PI 12.5 14.5 12 .o 4.0 12.5 11.0 12.0 11.0 20.0 17 .o 20.5
Soil Class E7 E7 E7 E2 E7 E7 E7 E7 E7 E7 E6 E7
Density 110.8 109.7 116.4 117 .o 112 .o 114.0 111.0 109.0 108.4 106.3 110. 9
Moisture 17. 9 20.2 14.8 15.0 17.0 16.5 17. 3 20.3 19.8 21. 3 19.7
Vt
I',.)
9000 5500 4600 4200 4100

\ 10700 4700 15500 18000 16500 10000 10500
Figure 24. Surrunary Subgrade Data for Example

Design Problem Site Investigation
•. '•
.. ,.. •
I
I
Design
Sect i on I
Design
Section
I Design I Design
4 I 3 I
Sect i on
2
I Section
200001-- I I I
I
I
I
I
150001- I I '\ I I
I
I
Vl
w I ii I\ I
I
10000~ '\ I I -.............. I
I
I
5000
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
Figure 25. Profile Display of Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Along

Alignment of Runway with Division of Length Into
Design Sections
WORKSHEET NO. 2
I rrial Thicknesses tl E
C
= 4,000,000 psi
)
CRCP
10 f
C
= 750 psi
12
14
16
t2
10
Subbase ECTB = 200,000
14
Lime-treated Subgrade - 8 ii.nches
Subgrade
/flt'-.'-'' ,,,.,,,,,. ,,, .............. 11,, , , ,
Design Section
Subgrade
4 3 2 1
Properties
~ 7700 16700 9800· 4600
k (From Fig. 28) 180 330 220 110
Figure 26. Trial Design Combinations for

Pavement Layers and Sections
54
TABLE IV
PROJECTED TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS FOR EXAMPLE DESI N PROBLEM
.
AIRCRAFT PROJ CTED MOVEMENTS
B-707 48723
B-727 88556
B-747 30601
PC-8-61 16822
DC-9 83666
DC-10-30 65813
55
WORKSHEET NO. 3
Design
t
2
= 10 inches t
2
= 14 inches
Section
\. k tl a
V f{R k kcd tl a
V
""
MR k kcd
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 4600 110 14 6.7 4700 115 350 14 6.1 4800 115 430
Figure 27. Works 1eet for Computing Composite k-value at Top

of Su >base for Use in Slab Design
·~-
56
500
C)
a.
0
>
5000 10000 1500 20000
Resilient Modulus ( p
Figure 28. Relation of Resilient Modulu Test Value to

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for Use in
Slab Thickness Design
•
57
25,000
15,000
10,000
5,000-
;;
3.0
Aircraft
4.0
5.0
Cit
6.0
Q.
1.0
<D
-0
8.0
...
0
C'
.0
::, 9.0
en
-
0
Q.
10.0
11.0
C
C
12.0
0
.,..,. 13,0
...
Cl•
14.0
U)
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
Figure 29. Chart for D termination of Subgrade Stress for Use

in Computin Effective Resilient Modulus
58
10000
,,.
a.
-- 7500
,,.
:,
:,
~
0
~
:;:
Laborat ry Curve
.
-
C
Cl>
5000
,,.
Ill
a:
2500
0 2 4 6 8 10
Suborade Stress (psi
(Deyiator Stress)
Figure 30. Laboratory Relation of Resilient Mo ulus and Subg rad e

Stress for Determining the Effe ctiv Re silie nt Modulus
(MR) for Design Section 1
..
59
"'
The~ was used to obtain the effective k-value of the natural subgrade,
A.
k (column 7), using Figur 28.
The composite design k-values (column 8) for the examples in Figure 27
were found to be 350 and 30 pci using the composite k-value chart,
Figure 31. The problem d scription required a minimum composite design
k-value of 350 pci, thus he 10-inch cement stabilized subbase is selected
"
over the 14 inch.
SLAB DESIGN
Stress Analysis. Us ng the composite k-value of 350 pci and the
selected concrete modulus of elasticity of 4,000,000 psi, the slab stresses
are predicted using the s ress analysis chart in Figure 32. To develop
the thickness design curv s for this example problem, the stresses are
determined for each airer ft in Table IV for thicknesses of 10, 12, 14,
and 16 inches. The stres es are determined by the following projections
in Figure 32:
1. Enter the aircra t scale with the selected aircraft and project
vertically to th thickness curve(s),
2. Project horizont lly from the thickness curve to the modulus of
subgrade reactio curve labeled "k = 350",
3. Project downward to the concrete modulus of elasticity line
labeled, "E = 4,
4. Project horizont lly from the intersection with the modulus
6
of elasticity l i e (4 x 10 ) to the stress scale, and
5. Read the resulti stress in psi on the "stress" scale.
The stresses for thi knesses of 10, 12, 14, and 16 inches for the
example are summarized in the worksheet shown in Figure 33.
The aircraft, traffic fac ors for the selected design lanes, and number
of projected movements of each aircraft are also shown in Figure 33. Since
this design problem is ba ed on maximum aircraft weights, WR= 1.0, thus
A
cr = cr (columns 7 and 9 on Figure 33).
Fatigue Analysis. e fatigue analysis is performed by considering
the projected number of aircraft (Column 2, Figure 33) and the traffic
factors for the design es selected. This example is for two design lanes,
A and B, 9-10 feet and 12 feet from runway centerline. The traffic
factors shown in Columns and 4 are taken from Table II.
60
16
8
-0
400 300 200 100 0
K-Vol"' '"I"''""'1 - s,bg,od,

(psi/in)
;:
- - -_: : J__ -
I
700
'
c:
V,
0.
600 - - ---- -----
~
.....-~ ./
/.,_.....
---'--- 500 ---+-------4l:>
Q)
-r::; Uni'torm--+--+--+----+--
::,
- - ,;J
C,
>
I 400
~
/
- Q)
rn
0
300
C.
E
0
u
200
f----f---- 100
15
•
Figure 31. Composite K-Value Chart
61
,.
rnr m
~ ~ I- rt) , I -
o o"'<D"-oo'°
(.J-t-. 1,-..-- I
( ( 200
0
a,
N
II')
a,
Z I .Q)'Q' I
8 g:og:;;8g8
I 'l>
"'u
I
0
0
300
..
Ai rcroft
500 -t-----11----+-- -
~ 600 + - -- + -- ----I-- ---'--
..
"'
"'
~ 700 +-- -+------11--------+~
en
800 +-- ~-
900 -+-- -+--- ----l- - --+-- - - I - ~
.•
Figu e 32. Stress Analysis Chart
62
• •• •1 t/
•
HORKSHEET NO. 3
Traffic Factors (Tf) Allowable Stress Repetitions for '1{ x (ni/Ni) for Design L:rne A Tf x (ni/Ni) [or Design Lane B
for Desifjn Lanes Des i~n Conf idenc·e Le\'e l ( in 1000 1 sJ Confidence Level Con f iclt->ncc Level
Aircraft ni
(2)
A
(3)
B
(4)
C
(5)
D
(6)
:J
(7)
WR
(8)
+
(9)
N50
(LO)
N75 N90 ,l95 N99
, 11) (12) (13) (14)
50
(15)
75
(16)
90
(17)
95
(18)
99
{ 19)
50
(20)
75
(21)
90
(22)
95
(23)
99
(24)
(1)
-
B-707 48723 0.763 0.804 592 1. 0 592 46 34 26 22 16 .8082 1.0934 1.4299 1.6898 2. 3235 .85 16 1. 1522 1. 5067 l. 7806 2.4484
B-727 88556 0.809 0.728 582 L.O 582 48 35 28 24 17 1.4925 2.0469 2.5586 2.9851 ~. 2142 1. 3431 l.8420 2. 302 5 2.6862 3. 7923
B-747 30601 0.841 0.814 634 1. 0 634 35 26 20 17 12 .7353 .9898 1. 2868 1. 5138 2. 1446 , 7117 .9580 1.2455 1.4652 2.0758
DC-8-61 16822 0. 764 o. 764 599 1.0 599 46 32 25 22 15 . 2779 .3995 .5114 .5811 .8523 .2779 .3995 . 5114 .5811 . 8523
DC-9 83666 o. 717 0.521 441 1.0 441 130 9.8 75 64 45 .4625 .6136 .8017 .9395 1. 3362 .3361 .4459 .5826 .6827 . 9710
DC-10-30 65813 0.427 0.548 628 1.0 628 36 "6 "o 17 13 .7806
4.5570
1.0808
6;2240
1.4051
7.9935
1.6531 2.1617
9. 3624 13.0325
1.0018 1. 3871
4.5222 6.1847
l. 8033 2.1215 2.7742
7. 9520 9.3173 12.9140
B-707 48723 0.763 0.804 471 1.0 471 115 79 61 52 37 • 3233 .4706 .6095 . 7149 1.0048 .3406 .4959 .6422 .7533 1. 0588
B-727 88556 0.809 o. 728 463 1.0 463 115 85 66 55 39 .6230 .8428 1.0855 1. 3026 1. 8370 .5606 .7585 .9768 1.1722 1.6531
B-747 30601 0.841 0.814 505 1.0 505 91 68 51 45 30 .2828 • 3785 .5046 .5719 .8578 .2 737 .3663 .4884 .5535 .8303
DC-8-61 16822 o. 764 o. 764 477 1.0 477 105 76 59 49 35 .1218 . 1682 .3167 .2609 .3653 .1218 .1682 .2167 .2609 . 3653
~ DC-9 83666 o. 717 0.521 355 1.0 355 305 225 17 5 150 105 .1972 .2672 . 3436 .4009 .5727 .1433 .1942 .2497 . 2 913 .4161
DC-10-30 65813 0.427 0.548 500 1.0 500 98 69 53 46 32 .2868 .4073 .5302 .6109 .8782 • 3680 . 5227 .6805 . 7840 1.1270
1. 8349 2.5346 3.3901 3.8621 5.5158 1.8080 2. 5058 3.2543 1.8152 5 .4506
B-707 48723 o. 763 0.804 382 1.0 382 250 190 145 125 88 .1487 .1957 . 2253 .2974 .4225 . 1567 .2062 .2702 .3134 .4452
B-727 88556 0.809 0. 728 371 1.0 371 285 215 165 140 98 .2514 .3332 .4342 .5117 . 7310 .2262 .2999 . 3907 .4605 . 6578
B-747 30601 0.841 0.814 377 1.0 377 265 200 155 130 92 .0971 .1287 .1660 .1980 .2797 .0940 .1245 .1607 .1916 .2708
DC-8-61 16822 0. 764 0. 764 387 1.0 387 240 180 140 115 83 .0532 .0710 .0913 . 1111 . 1540 .0532 .0710 .09 13 . ll 11 .1540
DC-9 83666 0.717 0.521 280 1.0 280 875 660 sos 425 305 .0687 .0911 . 1191 .1415 .1972 .0499 ,0662 .0865 . 1028 .14J3
DC-10-30 65813 0.427 0.548 406 1.0 406 200 150 115 97 69 .1405 . 187 3 .2444 .2897 .4073 . 1803 .2404 .)136 .3718 .5227
.7596 1.0070 1.2803 1. 5494 2 .1917 .7603 1.0082 l.illO 1. 5512 2 .1938
B-707 48723 0.763 0.804 319 1.0 319 520 395 300 255 180 .0715 .0941 .0978 .1458 .2065 .0753 .0992 .1306 .1536 .2176
B-727 88556 0.809 o. 728 301 1.0 301 655 495 J80 320 225 .1094 .1447 .1885 .2239 .3184 .0984 .1302 .1697 .2015 .2 865
B-747 30601 0.841 0.814 314 1.0 311, 555 420 320 270 190 .0464 .0613 .0804 .0953 .1354 .0449 .0593 .0778 .092J .Ull
-DG-8 61 16622 0 764 0 764 32 3 l 0 32 : 495 325 . 285 240 110 02 58 034] 0449 0533 0152 0258 034] Ol!li9 05 33 0752
DC-9 83666 0.717 o. 521 226 1.0 22b 2060 1560 1190 1000 715 .0292 .0385 .0505 .0601 .0841 .02 12 .0280 ,0367 .0437 .0611
DC-10-30 65813 0.427 0.548 338 1.0 338 410 310 240 200 145 .0685 .0907 .1171 .1405 .1938 .0880 .1163 .1503 .1803 .2487
.3508 ~ .5792 -:Tiii9 1.0134 --:Ts36 .4~71 .6100 . 7247 1. 0202
Figure 33. Fatigue Analysis Worksheet Showing Design

Computations for Example Problem
For this example a ange of design confidence level is considered
to illustrate its effect on design thickness of CRCP. For the five confidence
levels selected the allo able number of stress repetitions have been
determined from Figure 3 , the fatigue analysis chart. These are tabulated
in columns 10-14 of Figu e 33 in thousands.
The next step is to compute the fatigue damage ratios for each air- .
craft, for each confiden e level, and for each thickness considered.
These computations ares mmarized in Figure 33 in columns 15-19 for
Design Lane A and Column 20-24 for Design Lane B. For each of the
individual slab thicknes es the fatigue damage ratios are summed. These
summations are shown in igure 33 for each confidence level, thickness of
slab and design lane. N xt these summations are plotted as shown in
Figures 35 and 36. Figu e 35 relates the sununation of fatigue damage to
slab thickness for each onfidence level considered on Design Lane A while
Figure 36 relates the s e parameters for Design Lane B. In both Figures
35 and 36 a horizontal 1 drawn through the ordinate of 1.0 which is
fatigue failure by defin tion. The abscissa values at which the line through
1.0 intersects each curv represent the design thickness for the indicated
confidence level.
The design thicknes values at the different levels of confidence are
summarized in Table V. he two design lanes are identical with the exception
for the thickness at the 90% confidence level, they differ by 0.1 inch.
Figure 37 summarizes the design data into a curve for Design Lane B.
For the example, th confidence level selected for design is 90
percent, which correspon s to a 10% failure allowable. Thus, entering the
horizontal scale in Figu e 37 with 90 percent confidence level and projecting
vertically to the curve nd horizontally to the vertical scale, a design
thickness requirement of 14.7 inches is determined.
64
(N) $UO!l!i9d9~ $19JIS lfqDMOll'I
N
N N N N N 0
( :::, ) tp t, u II JI s
I
1'
• , • J :> uo:::,
0
..,.·
,--,
uo I er. 111 e:;uep : 1uo:::,
(..>
Oll'l ll'l
I
int-- 0I
--
C1>
\:>
111 II I
0,0 C1> u
,.._ 0) (71
L...:......J
I 0
0
I C
0
0
,...; 4-'
s...
I
z•
re,
ci .c
I :,
u
CT
I
I '
I
IJJ
VI
, ,-
VI
>,
re,
C
I c::t:
I (lJ
:::,
C'l
U.! 1 10/\ !d ,,-
.µ
\ \
re,
u....
.
\ ( ! s d) SSIIJIS a1 , sua1
'-:I"
C")
0
\ Q)
0 0
0
0
0 g\
,.._
0
0
0
0
0
..,.
I(')
0
..,.0 ,..,
0
11)
0
,..,0
0
11)
0
0 0 0
0 0 s...
:::,
2 C1> Cl) U) I() N N
11)
C1>
Ol
,,-
u....
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,n 11)
0
Cl)
,.._ 0
,.._ <.D 0
<.D
11)
on ..,
0
• (!Sd) 416uens JDJnxe1.:1 111 i:iuo:::,
65
20.0 - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;
10.0
7.0
60
5.0
CII
,:,, 40
1:1
e
1:1
o 3 .0
2 .0
-
0
10 99 -
CJ
E
E
::,
.7 95
(/)
90
.5
75
70
.4
50
.3
.2
8 10 12 14 16 18
SI ab Thickness
Figure 35. Graphical nalysis of Damage Summation Ratios

and Slab T ickness - Design Lane A
66
;
•
10
70
5. 0
('o.,o.,, .
(\
Q)
" "()'
....~ (!I~
Cl' 4 0 .,, C'
0 • (!I
E
0
0 3.0
Q)
:,
0 .,
Cl'
-0
LL
20
-0
C
C
10
0
E
E
:,
7 95
(/)
90
.5 75
70
4
50
8 iO 14 16 18
SI ab T h k n s s
• I C 8
Figure 36. Graphical Analysis of Damage Summation Ratios and

Slab Thickness - Design Lane B
67
TABLE ·. V
SUMMARY OF DES] N THICKNESSES AND DESIGN CONFIDENCE
LEVELS FOR DES GN LANES A AND B OF EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Design
Confidence Percent Damaged
Level Pavement Design Design
Lane A Lane B
50 50 13.4 13.4 ·
70 30 13.9 13. 9
75 2-5 14.0 14.0
90 10 14.6 14.7
95 5 15.1 15.1
99 1 16.0 16.0
68
;:..
16
15
"'
"'
.s::.
...
-
C:
I
"' I
"' 14 I
"'C:
.. -""
u
i
.s::.
I- l
I
I
..0
0
I
13 I
U)
I
I
I
I
I
I
12 l
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent Damage
Figure 37. Thickness Design Curve for Design ection 1
69
...
APPENDIX 1
RESIL ENT MODULUS TESTING FOR

PAVEM NT EVALUATION AND DESIGN
...
70
RESILIENT MODULUS TESTING FOR PAVEMENT EVALUATI N AND DESIGN
General
The use of elastic layer theory in the prediction of stresses and

deflecti.::ms in pavement systems gives added importance to . accurate
determination of the modulus of elasticity of base, su base and subgrade
materials. Overwhelming evidence indicates that them dulus of elasticity
for most s.oils is stress sensitive and varies with rep ated loading. An
adequate laboratory simulation of soil in a base or su grade then requires
application of loads repetitiously to model the intens ties and durations
of wheeled as well as air cushion vehicles.
The triaxial load cell was developed years ago to allow better
simulation of a sample of soil in place in the field. The lateral pressure
in the cell simulates the resistance of surrounding so 1 to lateral dis-
placement of the soil sample under vertical load. Equ pment capable of
applying closely controlled vertical load pulses to re resent the intensity
and duration of the stresses indµced by a passing vehi le was recently
introduced. Linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) are used
to produce electronic signals proportional to the amou t of movement in
the sample. These signals are conditioned for input t a strip recorder,
which plots the deformation versus time. The Resilien Modulus MR is the
ratio of stress to strain taken after an appropriate ri mber of cycles of
loading and at an appropriate level of vertical stress
The Resilient Modulus derived under conditions cl sely simulating
those the sample will experience in the field is used ·n lieu of a static
modulus of elasticity (derived from long-term one-cycl tests) to characterize
the material for the particular analytical procedure.
Failure to recognize the effects of repetitive lo ding on soils will
involve overestimation of the modulus of elasticity fo clay soils and
underestimation for granular soils.
Sample Requirements for Resilient Modulus Testing
Resilient Modulus testing may b~ conducted on und"sturbed samples

representing natural state in the field,. samples compa ted to optimum
71
density or samples compact d to some intermediate density. Samples may
be delivered to the labora ory as undisturbed samples wrapped to avoid
moisture change and packed to protect the structural integrity of the
sample or as disturbed sam les to be compacted to some density.
As most of the resili nt modulus testing done is conducted on samples
with a diameter of 2.8 inc es, a 3-inch thin'-wall tube should be used
for collection of undistiJr ed samples whenever possible. For cohesive
soils, larger·tubes may be used and the samples trimmed in the laboratory.
Samples with a diameter of 1.4 inches may be tested but require considerable
more effort and the result are not considered to be quite as accurate.
If the material to be test dis to be used in a new subbase or subgrade
for a pavement system, the density must be furnished or determined.
This density should be con istent with the density control planned in the
0
field; i.e., if 95% of mod fied AASHO compaction is to be specified, the

optimum density can be est blished using modified AASHO compactive energy
and compact the sample to 5% of that amount. If some natural density
is desired, it may be spec fied and the samples can be compacted to that
amount. The latter requir s some trial and error to determine the required
compactive effort. Moist1.i e contents to simulate those in the field must
also be specified or deter ined. Samples to be compacted in the laboratory
may be sent in disturbed s ate in bags. Four pounds is sufficient for a
single triaxial specimen.
Test Design
The repetitive loadin triaxial machine allows considerable flexibility

in simulation of anticipat conditions. Those parameters that
may be varied include inte sity of deviator stress, lateral pressure,
load period from 1/lOth of a second upward, rest period between cyclic
loads on the specimen, seq ence of loading and cycles of loading prior
to reading test values.
As an example of vari tions in loading period, 1/lOth of a second
is typically used for airc on airport pavement and highway traffic.
A loading period of 1/2 se ond typifies a tracked air cushion vehicle
operating at 120 mph. Any load per.iod of 0.1 sec or greater that is
desir e d may be set on the riaxial machine.
72
Deviator stresses as low as 1 psi and as high as 6 psi may be
applied. Lateral pressures from 1/2 psi may be used. he low
deviator stresses do not occur for pneumatic-tired vehi les, but are
applicable to tracked air cushion vehicles. Lateral pr ssures as low
as 1/ 2 psi are :!:lot generally applicable as lateral p1:es ure near the
surface should be based on an estimate of the horizonta stresses induced
by the load rather than by the deadload of the overlyin material alone.
It has been found that 1000 cycles at a specific 1 ading is sufficient
to stabilize the resilient modulus for a material and a particular set
of loading ~onditions. 200 cycles will generally be su ficient for
granular materials and is frequently adequate for cohes·ve soils as well.
Standard Test Procedure
The specimen is placed on the triaxial cell base, membrane applied,

the LVDT's clamped in place so that they measure vertic 1 deformation
of the middle third of the specimen and a vacuum is app ied within the
sample and a vacuum chamber to insure that there is no eakage through
the membrane. The triaxial cell is then assembled and laced in the
triaxial machine. The sample is conditioned by 1,000 c cles of loading
at the lowest deviator stress to be applied and at the ateral pressure
specified. Measuring equipment is then zeroed after anther 200 cycles of
loading at the lowest deviator stress. The cyclic load is applied and
increased subsequent to test readings at the specified umber of cycles
for each load level.
The output of the LVDT's is combined for averaging and fed through
a signal conditioner to a strip recorder with very rapi response. The
recorded cyclic deformation plus the established deviat r stress and sample
dimensions provide all the information necessary to cal ulate the resilient
modulus at any load level. A resilient modulus is calc lated as follows:
Where: Resilient Modulus
ad Deviator Stress
E
r
= Resilient Strain in in/in
73
· The resilient moduli at t e various load levels are then plotted to give
clear .insight as to the v riation in resilient modulus with stress
intensity.
Test Results
Test · results are s arized in the form of a· curve relating resilient

modulus level at the specified lateral pressure and -
loading conditions (See F g. · I-1). Additional information ·. arid recommenda-
.tions may also be provide from irisight into soil behavior gained during
test observations.
-~
74
~
•
Granul r
•
::, 10
::,
'O
0
~
.. CJ a 'I
..
C:
5
~
....
er
0 L--------L---
0 10
----'--i------
20
Ai:, p Ii e <:I Stress (p ) .
Figure 1-1 Typical Relationships of Applied

Stress and Resilient Modulus
75
APPENDIX II ...
P OCEDURE FOR TESTING FOR
SIGNIF CANT DIFFERENCE IN ADJACENT
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
76
Procedure for Testing for Significant Diff rence
in Adjacent Pavement Sections
When a runway, taxiway or other length of pavemen is tested at points

throughout or sampled for subsequent testing, these da a formulate a profile
representation of this pavement. The designer divide s the profile of data,
e.g. deflection measurements into areas of similar res onse (Figure II-1).
These sections are then checked for significant differ nee by applying
the statistical on the hypothesis for equal means (Ref 1).
The following are the terms used in the procedure
A, . B = individual measurements or variates in sections

designated A or B
A, B = mean value of measurements of varia es in Section A
nA' nB = number of variates in Section A
df = the number of degrees of freedom
Step 1 - Calculate the mean (A) from the section A data:

;
2:.A
A
6.58 X 10- 3
A 14
A = 0.470 X 10 -3
Step 2 - Calculate the mean (B) from the section B data;
2-. B
B =
~
12.45 X 10- 3
B =
32
B = 0.389 X 10- 3
Ste p 3 - Calculate the "pooled estimate of the sta dard devia tion"
(S) from the two sections. This way the tandard deviation
determined is not affected by any differe ce which may exist
between the means of each section.
s =
77
0.1 ........---~~-----~------r----------.-------,-------,------.,----------,
Section A Section 8
0.6
.....
..._
I
0
=
>(
"
00
-·-
C
0
- 0.4
- (..>
--"'"'
0
03
o.________,._______.______...._______..______ ---1._ _ _ _ __ . __ _ _ _ __ , __ _ _ __ _ _ ,
30+00 40+00 50t00 60+00 70t00 80+00 901'00 100+00 110+00

·s t O t i O n S
Figure II-1. Illustrative Test Profile Se par a ted into Sections

to Be Checked by Statistical Test
fl ,, ,
1,
(0.005 + 0.01924) X o-6 2
s = [ 14 + 32 - 1 J
s :;: [ 0.0005386 X 10- 6
J 2
1,
Step 4 - Determine the best estimate of the sta dard deviation of

,.- the mean of samples of n variates for ection A (SJ)
(Since nA < 30, use nA - 1)
=
s
(0.0005386 X 10 -6) 1,2 .

2
(14 - 1)
= (0.0000414 X 10- 6 )~
Step 5 - Do Step 4 for Section B, but since 30, us e nB.

~
'-
""
= --1,
s
SB
(~) 2
10- 6
1,
2
(0.0005386 X
SB = 1,
2
32
10- 6
1,
2
SB = (0.0000168 X
St e p 6 - Calcul a tion from Step 4 and Step 5.
= (SA2 +SB2) ~
6
= [ (0.0000414 + 0. 000168) X 10- ]
B) = 0.00763 X 10- 3
Step 7 - Hypothesis : MA - ~ - 0 where MA an ~ are me ans of

two norma lly a nd independently distribu ed sections. Calcu-
l a t e t-va lue for Student's t-distributi n.
(A - B) - M,:- -
t ft - B
s (,:"ft -
-)
B
79
. -3 .
(.47 - .389) X 10 . - 0
t
CJ.00763 X i0- 3
t = +10.62 ...
Step 8 - Obtain t va ue from Student's t-distribution in Re f. 1 or
other stati tics book to check hypothesis. t-val ue t able
not r e pordu ed here because of copyright l aws.
df ·- nA + nB 1
df = 14 + 32 -1
df = 45
Therefore, for the 5% level with df = 45, ·
t.05 = 2.016
Step 9· - Check hypot sis ...

Since ltJ 10.62 > 2.016, the hypothesis is rejected.
Therefore,. e difference between means of the two sections
is significa t, which leads to the conclusion that the two
sections are truly different.
..
80
•
APPENDIX III
TEST PROCEDURE FOR INDIRECT TENSILE
81
IND ECT TENSILE TEST PROCEDURE
To determine the t nsile strength and other elastic propert i es of

concrete and other stab ' lized subbase materials, the indirect tensile test
should be performed as escribed. For detailed description of the equipment
configuration, instrume tat ion, etc., Reference 2 is suggested.
TEST PROCEDURE
(1) Detennine the height and diameter of the test specimen.
(2) Carefully cen er the test specimen on the lower loading strip.
(3) Slowly bring head down until light contact is made with
the test spec en.
(4) Apply the loa at a controlled deformation rate of 2 inches per
minute and de ermine the maximum pressure at failure of the
specimen.
CALCULATION OF INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH

Tensile strength f r nominal 4-inch and 6-inch-diameter specimens
can be calculated from he following equations:
4-inch-specimens
p ·1
== 0.156 Fa1.
h
6-inch-diameter s
PFail
= .105 h
whe r e
indirect t e nsile s trength, in psi;
PFail total applied vertical load at failure, in

pounds; and
h height of specimen, in inches.
82
DETERMINATION OF POISSON'S RATIO, MODULUS OF ELASTIC 1Y, AND
TENSILE STRAIN AT FAILURE
In order to estimate the Poisson's ratio, modul s of elasticity, and

tensile strains, it is necessary to measure the verti al and horizontal
deformations of the specimens and to relate these deformations to the
applied load. Thus, deformation measuring equipment swell as continuous
load-deformation recording equipment is required.
83
I· UNCIA$5IEIED
...
UNCLASSIFIED
•
.
i
j,
.•I

rd74 33 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

rd74 33 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

rd74 33 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFWL-TR-73-229, Vol III

CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

Final Report for Period February 1972 throu h December 1973

US ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMEN STATION

Approved for public release; distributi n unlimited.

AIR FORCE WEAPONS LABORATORY

CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE AIRFIEL PAVEMENT

Final Report for Period February 1972 throug December 1973

Approved for public release; distributio unlimited.

Section Title Page

III DESIGN CRITERIA AND DATA . 15

Design Confidence Level 15

IV SUBBASE DESIGN AND SELECTION OF COMPOSITE K-VALUE 22

Treated Subgrade Considerations . . . 22

V SLAB THICKNESS DESIGN ANALYSIS 28

Aircraft Traffic Mix and Loads 28

VI REINFORCEMENT AND JOINT DESIGN 38

VII SLAB END-ANCHORAGE DESIGN 49

Selection of Anchorage System 49

This manual outlines the procedures for design of continuously

.. technically no limit to the length of CRCP which can be constructed .

Thickness Design Analysis

LABORATORY EVALUATION OF SOILS

weighted mean resilient modulus, ps

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR AIRPORT PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION

le 1 (I I, <;: /,(\+ i:.n_ 15- 25- 6-

E-5 0-55 45- 40- 15-

E-6 0-55 45+ 40- 10-

E-7 0-55 45+ 50- 10-30

E-12 0-55 45+ 80+

E-13 Muck and peat - field examination

~. ft, ., If (y, .•.

Figure 2. Classification Chart for Fine Grained Soils

If the pavement is signed after the grading, the materials characteri-

"... --.. /-.. ---1~

~I\;~ \.\_ .//

0 i...__ _ _ ___.._ _ _ _ _..__ _ _ _ _.J.__ _ _ __.1._ _ _ _ _..1.-_ _ _ __,,_ _ _ _- - - : ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ : ; - - '

430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500

Figure 4. Sample Deflection Profile on Compacted Natural Subgrade

Station Along Runway

245 238 194 178 171 164 156

p. I. 20.5 11.0 4.0 12.0 14.5 12.5

Density 110.9 l 06. 3 112.0 116.4 109.7 110.8

Moisture 19.7 21.3 17 .0 14.8 20.2 17. 9

\_* 4100 .!200 10000 15'.iOO 4700 10700

* ~@ deviator stress oj 8 psi.

Figure 5. Summary Subgrade Data From Site Investigation

DESIGN CRITERIA AND DATA

DESIGN CONFIDENCE LEVEL

c = design confidence level

Improved Subgrade - 8 incl tes, with lime

/II\"-'-' I///. 1///"\..'\.''

16700 9800 4600

k (From Fig. 7) 180 330 220 110

Figure 6. Su ary of Trial Design Combinations

Subbase Modulus of Elasticity. The modulus of lasticity of stabilized

esign value of modulus of elasticity of

The design values of mate ials under consideration should be tabulated

5000 10000 15000 20000