PAVEMENT

DESIGN
MANUAL

City of Fort Worth

Department of Transportation
and Public Works

January 29, 2015

(Revised December 14, 2015)
 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

SECTION 1 // Introduction to the Pavement Design Manual 1

SECTION 2 // Geotechnical Parameters 3
SECTION 3 // Pavement Design Input Values 6
TABLE 3.1 DESIGN TRAFFIC AND DESIGN LIFE FOR PAVEMENTS
TABLE 3.2 PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUT VALUES
TABLE 3.3 MINIMUM DESIGN THICKNESS OF RIGID PAVEMENTS
SECTION 4 // Reinforcing Steel, Dowels, and Joints 12
TABLE 4.1 PAVEMENT REINFORCEMENT
TABLE 4.2 SAWED DUMMY JOINT DEPTH
TABLE 4.3 EXPANSION JOINT MINIMUM DOWEL BAR SIZE
SECTION 5 // Summary 17
SECTION 6 // References 18

APPENDIX A // Geotechnical Considerations

APPENDIX B // Pavement Joint Details Link
APPENDIX C // Terminology
APPENDIX D // Graphs and Correlations
APPENDIX E // Example Table for WinPAS Input
APPENDIX F // Example of the WinPAS Pavement Design Printout
 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

SECTION ONE // Introduc on

T he Pavement Design Manual includes design input values for use in pavement design
so ware programs. Design is based on the American Associa on of State Highway
Ocials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993 Edi on and 1998 Sup-
plement. Prepara on of the Manual using AASHTO and WinPAS so ware procedures was
authorized by the City of Fort Worth Department of Transporta on and Public Works.
The Manual also includes general procedures for performing Geotechnical Engineering
studies for street projects, geotechnical considera ons for earthwork , trench backfill and
stabilized subgrade, informa on for reinforcing steel, dowels, and join ng and pavement
design examples using a program tled WinPAS, Pavement Analysis So ware.
NOTE: While this design manual men ons flexible pavement design, it is only provided for reference.
All new streets are to be designed and built as rigid, portland cement, conrete pavement. The primary
reason for this policy is to minimize the impact on maintenance costs and the Citys maintenance forces.
Engineers designing City of Fort Worth street pavements face several challenges in the se-
lec on of appropriate values for input during design of the pavement sec on using the AAS-
HTO Design Guide. In order to bring con nuity to design input values, the goal of this Manu-
al is to provide design parameters for subgrade and pavement materials. The guidelines will
provide consistency to pavement design for the various street classifica ons and promote
consistent use of the 1993 Edi on of AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.
Resources for use in performing the pavement thickness design include WinPAS Version 1.0.4
by the American Concrete Pavement Associa on. The WinPAS so ware was updated in 2012
with version WinPAS 12 and is available for $300. The program is based upon the 1993 Edi on
of AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. WinPAS is only one of several so ware
programs. DARWin 3.1, developed by AASHTO, also follows the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design.
AASHTO has a new pavement design program called AASHTOWare Pavement M-E Design which
incorporates the Na onal Coopera ve Highway Research Program Mechanis c-Empirical pave-
ment design guide. This program is available through AASHTO for a $5,000 annual fee.
January 29, 2015 / Sec on One / Page 1
 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

Many of the so ware input values are well established numbers. However, some values are based
on individual project merits, and can have a significant impact on pavement thickness. Reliability,
Load Transfer, Drainage and Concrete Flexural Strength are typically the top four design inputs hav-
ing the most eect on the pavement thickness. Choice in selec on of these four values can impact
the pavement thickness more than two inches.
The City of Fort Worth has a new set of construc on specifica ons. The specifica ons are ef-
fec ve for projects bid a er October 1, 2011 and can be found on the Citys Buzzsaw website.

DESIGN INPUT VALUES with the most impact on pavement thickness include the following.
RELIABILITY R in general terms is the safety factor to which the pavement is designed. For 90
percent reliability, 10 percent of the pavement will have failed by the end of the design period.
This value has the largest eect on the pavement thickness.
High reliability values result in the design of a thicker pavement sec on.
LOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENT J FACTOR input is intended to reflect the eects of
transverse joint load transfer (aggregate interlock versus dowels) and longitudinal edge support
on slab corner deflec on.
This value has the next highest eect on the pavement thickness, a er Reliability.
Higher values increase the thickness.
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT C d input reflects the quality of drainage to the pavement
structure. The baseline value of 1.00 corresponds to the AASHTO extremely poor road test
condi ons. WinPAS and the 1998 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide to Design recommend a
value of 1.0. See addi onal discussion in Secon Three.
This value has the next highest eect on the pavement thickness, a er Load Transfer.
Lower values increase the thickness, and a value of 1.00 is neutral.
MODULUS OF RUPTURE CONCRETE FLEXURAL STRENGTH, SC input is the average
28-day flexural strength of the concrete in third-point loading.
This value has the next highest eect on thickness, a er the Drainage Coecient.
Lower values increase the thickness.
Recommended design input values for variables required in the pavement design process are
included in Section Three //

January 29, 2015 / Sec on One / Page 2

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

SECTION TWO // Geotechnical Parameters

P avement design using the AASHTO procedure relies on design input data based on a
comprehensive geotechnical engineering study including a well-planned subsurface
characteriza on and laboratory tes ng program with site-specific geotechnical recom-
menda ons and appropriate selec on of pavement design input values.
The project Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Design Consultant should develop a geotech-
nical scope of services based on each specific project. Borings should generally be per-
formed on approximately 500-foot spacing, keeping in mind that cri cal subgrade condi-
ons can change along the roadway, including such items as so wet soils, uncompacted
fill material, shallow perched seepage, intersec ng drainage ways, pumping soils, shallow
rock, and expansive clays. The borings should be drilled to depths of 10 feet minimum,
deeper if u lity line depths exceed 10 feet. Typical sampling should include thin-walled
Shelby tube sampling, standard penetra on tests (SPT), and TxDOT Cone Penetrometer
(TCP) tests as appropriate for the soils encountered. The project Geotechnical Engineer
should make a site visit during the field explora on phase of the project.
Laboratory tes ng should include, but not be limited to, standard geotechnical tests for
classifica on, unconfined compressive strength, moisture, dry unit weight, swell, and sol-
uble sulfate. The type and number of tests performed for each project should be deter-
mined by the project Geotechnical Engineer. A erberg Limits and pH tests, typically re-
ferred to as Lime Series, should be performed on the an cipated subgrade soil type(s).
These tests are usually performed with increasing percentages of the stabiliza on addi-
ve typically ranging up to eight or 10 percent, using lime, cement or combina on of the
two, depending on soil type.
The pavement design input value for material immediately below the concrete or asphalt
pavement sec on will require determina on of a CBR value for the stabilized soil and the

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Two / Page 3

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

underlying raw un-stabilized soil. Pavement design so ware usually converts the CBR value to an
Eec ve Modulus of Subgrade Reac on.
Values for the resilient modulus are typically well defined and are available for most soils as well
as stabilized soils. See Section Three, Items 11, 12 and 13 for more informa on on CBR, Re-
silient Modulus, and Modulus of Subgrade Reac on, k. Choice of resilient modulus values is fairly
significant for flexible pavement designs with overall pavement thickness aected several inches.
For rigid pavement thickness the impact is generally less than one-half inch.
CBR tests have been performed on the City of Fort Worths subgrade soils for over 40 years. Many
Geotechnical Engineers have local experience with laboratory performed CBR values for raw clay
subgrade (typical CBR values of two to five) and properly constructed lime stabilized subgrade
(typical CBR values of 10 to 20). Charts are also available for general comparison between soil
classifica on and CBR value. See also the 1998 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures, Part II, for determina on of Eec ve Modulus of Subgrade Reac on (k-
value) including text and graphs. Copying informa on from the 1998 Supplement is prohibited
and therefore not included herein.
During the design phase of the project it may become necessary to perform addi onal borings
and/or increase boring depth, and addi onal tests may be in order to adequately provide the
appropriate geotechnical informa on for the project.
The project civil consultant and Geotechnical Engineer should determine if significant cuts or
fills are proposed along the roadway. If so, the Geotechnical Engineer should provide specific
recommenda ons for fill placement. Situa ons where deep cuts expose expansive soils with the
poten al to undergo swell and rebound, the Geotechnical Engineer should provide op ons to
limit and reduce upli on pavement.
The geotechnical report should address the subgrade condi ons found during the drilling and
sampling phase with emphasis on so , wet subgrade condi ons, shallow subsurface seepage,
old or new fill material and other significant items impac ng design, construc on and the overall
performance of the roadway. These items should be communicated to the projects Civil Engi-
neer. Specific detailed recommenda ons on how to handle fill material, expansive clays, so
subgrade condi ons, shallow seepage, and need for underdrains, etc. should be included in the
report.
The geotechnical consultant and civil design engineer should consider the use of geotex le and/
or geogrids in areas of deep trench backfill and/or so subgrade on a case-by-case basis. The
Geotechnical Engineer should specifically address situa ons where deep excava on will be made
for u li es.
Geotechnical reports should be prepared by or under the direct supervision of an experienced
licensed Texas professional Geotechnical Engineer familiar with the subsurface soil and ground-
water condi ons in the Fort Worth area. The professional Geotechnical Engineer must also have
experience selec ng pavement design input values and performing pavement designs with ap-
propriate so ware.

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Two / Page 4

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

As part of the design team for the roadway project, the project Geotechnical Engineer should
be involved during the design phase to review project plans and specifica ons, consult with
the civil consultant and owner, and determine that geotechnical recommenda ons are being
interpreted as intended. A minimum of one mee ng between the Geotechnical Engineer, civil
consultant, and owner is recommended.
Geotechnical Engineering recommenda ons are based on opinions that can only be verified
during construc on. During the construc on phase, the Geotechnical Engineer of record should
con nue to be involved as part of the project team. This will allow the project Geotechnical En-
gineer to confirm subsurface condi ons are as an cipated and modify recommenda ons when
condi ons are not as expected. //

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Two / Page 5

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

SECTION THREE // Pavement Design Input Values

T he recommended AASHTO design input values used for pavement analysis include
the following. The values provided herein have a brief general comment that should
be considered by the engineer performing the pavement design analysis. The order of
the design input value generally follows the WinPAS so ware format.
1. ANNUAL ESALS
Design Equivalent 18-Kip Single-Axle Loads (ESALs) are provided here for various street
designa ons based on City of Fort Worth experience. The designer should also consider
specific trac data for street projects based on trac counts or other available data
sources including percent trucks.
Table 3.1 Design Trafic and Design Life for Pavements
Annual ESALs Design Life-
Street Classiication (one direction) % Growth Years
Residential-Rural 25,000 0.0 25
(low volume)
Residential-Urban 35,000 0.5 25
(high volume)
Collector 100,000 1.5 25
Industrial 200,000 2.0 30
Arterial 300,000 2.5 30

Convert annual ESALs for design life; use Growth Factor Equa on.
(1+g)n-1 Rate If Annual Growth is zero, Growth Factor
F= g , where g = 100 and is not zero = Design Period.
n = design input in years

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Three / Page 6

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

Example: Arterial with 300,000 annual ESALs (from actual trac study) with 2.5% growth rate
and design period of 30 years.
(1+0.025)30-1
Growth Factor = = 43.90
0.025

300,000 Annual ESALs x 43.90 = 13,170,000 total ESALs for design input.
The geotechnical engineer, civil consultant and City of Fort Worth project manager need to agree
on the ESALs to be used for each project.
2. DESIGN LIFE
See Table 3.1 above or consult with the project Civil Engineer.
3. RELIABILITY, R : 85 percent to 90 percent
Reliability is the sta s cal probability that the pavement will meet its design life. A pavement de-
signed with 85 percent reliability will have 85 percent of the pavement in opera onal condi on
at the end of the design period, and only 15 percent of the pavement will have failed, theore -
cally. AASHTO recommends 80 to 99 percent for Principal Arterials in Urban Areas.
Consult with the Civil Consultant and City of Fort Worth to determine the site specific value for
reliability. Values of 85 percent to 90 percent were selected by the City. In general, consider 85
percent for residen al streets and 90 percent for arterials.
4. OVERALL STANDARD DEVIATION, S O : 0.39 (rigid) and 0.45 ( lexible)
Standard devia on is the amount of sta s cal error present in the design equa ons due to the
variability of materials, construc on, etc. A range of values is provided in the 1993 Design Guide.
AASHTO recommends 0.30 to 0.40 for Rigid Pavement. TxDOT uses 0.39 for urban streets.
AASHTO recommends 0.40 to 0.50 for Flexible Pavement. TxDOT uses 0.45 for urban streets.
5. CONCRETE MODULUS OF RUPTURE, SC : 620 psi
The expected average in-field 28-day flexural strength (Sc) of the concrete should be used in the
design procedure. The City of Fort Worth requires a minimum compressive strength of 3,600 psi
for concrete pavement. If the specified minimum compressive strength is used, the pavement
will be over designed per the WinPAS manual, therefore, use 620 psi for the input value.
A flexural strength of 620 psi is recommended for WinPAS pavement design. Flexural strength is
determined by using simple beam, 28-day, third-point loading.
6. CONCRETE MODULUS OF ELASTICITY, EC : 4,000,000 psi
Ec indicates how much concrete will compress under load. In rigid pavement design equa ons, Ec
is the most insensi ve parameter and has only minor impact on the thickness or performance.
AASHTO recommends 4,000,000 psi.
7. DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT, C d: Set to 1.00 per AASHTO 1998 supplement & WinPAS
WinPAS cau ons using a drainage coecient Cd less than 1.00 with the reason being the ASSHTO
road test subgrade soils were poorly draining soils and the AASHTO design equa ons already

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Three / Page 7

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

account for a large degree of poor drainage in the design equa ons. Values less than 1.00 would
indicate condi ons worse than that of the AASHTO road test. The input value recommended by
the 1998 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide to Design and the WinPAS so ware is 1.00.
Note: For street design situa ons where drainage is an issue, the Civil Design Consultant, Geotechni-
cal Engineer, and City should discuss the situa on and determine if a Cd value less than 1.0 is needed.
The Cd value used in the WinPAS program has a significant impact on the final pavement thickness,
o en a two-inch or more increase for a change of value from 1.00 to a value of 0.70. Considera on
should be given to the use of ver cal moisture barriers and/or sub-soil drains rather than reducing
the Cd value.

8. LOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENT, J : 3.0

The J-factor is based on how stress is transferred across a joint or crack and is dependent on the
type of pavement edge support and how load transfer is provided at the joint. AASHTO recom-
mends values ranging from 2.7 to 3.2 for doweled JRCP with ed or integral curb and gu er; ed
concrete shoulder; or, two lanes or more in one direc on. Higher J values increase the pavement
thickness.
Considering the number of curb cuts, etc. along most city streets, a J value of 3.0 is recom-
mended for design input.
9. INITIAL PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY, P : 4.50 (concrete) and 4.20 (asphalt)
Serviceability is the pavements ability to provide for the type of trac using the roadway. Ser-
viceability is scaled from zero to five represen ng dierent levels of deteriora on with impass-
able rated zero and perfect condi on rated five. Ini al serviceability (Po) is the condi on at the
end of construc on, i.e., new pavement with very good condi on.
AASHTO and TxDOT recommend using 4.5 for concrete pavement and 4.2 for asphalt pavement.
10. TERMINAL PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY, P t : 2.00 to 2.50
Terminal serviceability (Pt) corresponds to the condi on when the pavement requires rehabilita-
on to remain in service.
AASHTO recommends values ranging from 2.00 to 2.50 for concrete and asphalt pavement. For
residen al streets a value of 2.00 to 2.25 can be considered. A value of 2.25 should be consid-
ered for collector and industrial streets, and, a value of 2.25 to 2.50 should be considered for
arterial streets.
11. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO CBR
Typical CBR values for non-stabilized CH CLAY raw subgrade range from approximately two (2)
to five (5). CBR values for properly constructed chemically stabilized CLAY subgrade soils typically
range from about 10 to 20. CBR values used in the pavement design should be reported in the
geotechnical pavement report.
CBR values are used in WinPAS to determine the Eec ve Modulus of Subgrade Reac on, k. A
typical CBR value for raw clay subgrade is 3 and for lime treated subgrade a CBR value of 15 has
been found reasonable for City of Fort Worth projects when City of Fort Worth Specifica on Sec-
on 32 11 29 Lime Treated Base Courses is followed for clay soil condi ons.

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Three / Page 8

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

12. MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION, k

In WinPAS, the modulus of subgrade k psi/in value is a composite (eec ve) value determined
from a background screen, where the CBR value is entered.
WinPAS determines this value based on the CBR input number. A value for the base (stabilized subgrade) and
a value for the raw (non-stabilized) subgrade soils below the base layer will need to be entered in WinPAS.
If WinPAS calculates the values, the following are examples.
CBR = 3 for raw subgrade (Resilient Modulus of Subgrade = 4,118 psi)
CBR = 15 for lime stabilized subgrade (Resilient Modulus of Base = 12,392 psi)
Eight (8) inches of Base (Lime Stabilized Subgrade)
Depth to rock > 10 feet; LS factor = 0.0;
Then the Eec ve k = 221 pci which is used in the pavement thickness calcula ons
13. COEFFICIENTS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT HMA
The values are used in the flexible pavement design equa ons and are provided as reference
only. All new streets are to be designed and built as rigid, portland cement, concrete pavement.
HMA Type D Surface Mix: 0.44
HMA Type B Course Mix: 0.41
Notes: Values are typical for HMA produced in the DFW area.
HMA also known as Hot Mix Asphal c Concrete (HMAC) and other names.
14. LOSS OF SUPPORT, LS: Set to Zero (0) per the AASHTO 1998 Supplement & WinPAS
Loss of support was the primary failure mode of rigid pavements in the AASHTO road test. The
pumping of subgrade (subbase) fines from beneath the paving slab occurred before cracks were
observed. The WinPAS analysis suggests the eects of the Loss of Support factor are inherent
in the equa on predic ng rigid pavement performance or serviceability loss, and, as a result,
the addi onal factor is unnecessary. ACPA and the 1998 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures recommend se ng the loss of support factor to zero for all de-
signs. If the LS factor is set to 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0, the eec ve modulus of subgrade reac on, k (pci)
is reduced and significantly increases the thickness of the pavement.
15. DEPTH FROM TOP OF SUBGRADE TO RIGID FOUNDATION, D SG
In WinPAS enter value. If the value is greater than 10 feet to rock leave blank; if borings indicate
subsurface stra fica on is consistent with five feet of clay over competent rock, enter five feet.
16. GRANULAR BASE (for Flexible Pavement Design)
Coecients ranging from 0.14 to 0.16 are typical for CBR ranges of about 50 to 80 for crushed stone
flexible base. These values are used in the flexible pavement design equa ons.
17. THICKNESS OF STABILIZED SUBGRADE: 8 minimum / 6 for residential streets
A minimum stabiliza on depth of eight inches is recommended for streets above the residen-
al classifica on. Use minimum six-inch stabiliza on depth for residen al streets.

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Three / Page 9

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

Previously presented pavement design input values are summarized in the following Table 3.2.
Property Description Recommended Input Value
Design Equivalent 18-Kip
Single-Axle Loads (ESAL)
Annual ESAL The civil consultant should provide trac data See Table 3.1
for specific street projects based on actual traf-
fic analysis or other available data sources.
Design Life Design Life for Pavement 25 - 30 years
R Reliability 85% - 90%
0.39 for Rigid Pavement
So Overall Standard Devia ons 0.45 for Flexible Pavement
Sc Concrete Modulus of Rupture 620 psi
Ec Concrete Modulus of Elas city 4,000,000 psi
Set to 1.00 per WinPAS & AASHTO 1998
Cd Drainage Coecient (See discussion Page 7)
J Load Transfer Coecient 3.0
4.50 (Concrete)
Po Ini al Pavement Serviceability
4.20 (Asphalt)
2.00 to 2.50 for concrete and asphalt
2.00 to 2.25 for residen al streets
Pt Terminal Pavement Serviceability 2.25 for collector/industrial streets
2.50 for arterial streets
Values range with soil and stabiliza on type. Use
CBR California Bearing Ra o for Stabilized Subgrade experience and/or CBR tests on stabilized subgrade
WinPAS determines this value based on the CBR
kEffective Modulus of Subgrade Reac on values
Coecients for Asphal c Concrete Pavement HMA Type D Surface Mix: 0.44
HMA (ACP) HMA Type B Course Mix: 0.41
DSS Thickness of Stabilized Subgrade 8 inches, minimum (6 inches for residen al)
Depth from top of subgrade to rigid founda on
DSG (bedrock)
Determine from borings

LS Loss of Support Factor Set to zero per WinPAS & AASHTO

Note: Engineering judgment should always be used in applica on of these guidelines for design input
values.
For WinPAS design procedures the following defini ons apply.
Pavement is the final wearing surface, i.e., concrete or asphalt.
The next layer suppor ng the pavement is the base layer (locally this is typically the stabilized
subgrade).
The layer below the base layer is the raw non-stabilized subgrade.
In WinPAS, the entry for CBR of the subgrade is a value for raw non-stabilized subgrade below
the stabilized subgrade. The CBR for the base is the value for stabilized subgrade.

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Three / Page 10

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

18. MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS

MINIMUM PAVEMENT THICKNESS OF RIGID PAVEMENTS
Rigid Pavements should be designed for each street project to determine the thickness of
the pavement. However, no rigid pavement slab should be less than six inches in thickness.
Minimum thickness for rigid pavements placed directly on the stabilized subgrade should be as
shown below.

Table 3.3 Minimum Design Thickness of Rigid Pavements

Street Classiication Minimum Thickness - Inches
Residential 6
Residential Collector 7
Collector 7
Industrial 9
Arterial 9

Notes: (1) Project Managers and Designers must review the pavement design thickness in the im
mediate vicinity for comparison with new design thickness.
(2) Residen al subdivisons with construc on trac on residen al streets being used as a
collector street should be same pavement thickness as collector street classifica on.

MINIMUM THICKNESS FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

Pavement should be designed to determine required thickness of the pavement including any
base layers. Full-depth asphalt concrete pavement should not be less than six inches in thick-
ness. As noted previously this manual men ons flexible pavement design, however, it is only
provided for reference. All new streets are to be designed and built as rigid, portland cement,
concrete pavement. The primary reason for this policy is to minimize the impact on mainte-
nance costs and the Citys maintenance forces. //

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Three / Page 11

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

SECTION FOUR // Reinforcing Steel, Dowels and Joints

REINFORCEMENT
All rigid pavements should be Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavements (JRCP) or con nu-
ously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP). Only steel reinforcement will be allowed.
No plain jointed concrete pavements (JCP) will be allowed. CRCP will be allowed only if
approved in advance in wri ng by the City.
Reinforcement for JRCP shall be as specified in the following table.
Table 4.1 Pavement Reinforcement

T, Pavement Thickness Bar Size and Spacing

6 #3 @ 18 EW
7 #3 @ 18 EW
8 #3 @ 18 EW
9 #4 @ 18 EW
10 #4 @ 18 EW
11 #4 @ 18 EW
12 #4 @ 18 EW

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Four / Page 12

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

PAVEMENT JOINTS AND JOINT PLACEMENT

CONTRACTION JOINTS AND SAWED DUMMY JOINTS
Contrac on and sawed dummy joints work together to relieve the tensile stresses due to tem-
perature, moisture, and fric on, thereby controlling cracking. If contrac on joints or sawed
dummy joints were not installed, random cracking would occur on the surface of the pavement.
Spacing between contrac on joints and sawed joints (in feet) should not exceed 2.5 mes the
pavement thickness in inches. For example, for an 8-inch sec on, the maximum distance be-
tween a contrac on joint and a sawed dummy joint should be 20.0 feet. Contrac on joints and
sawed dummy joints are to be alternated.
CONTRACTION JOINT A contrac on joint is a saw-cut joint across which no reinforcing
steel is placed. Contrac on joints require smooth dowels for load transfer. Dowels are centered
on the joint and are typically placed in prefabricated chairs prior to concrete placement and the
saw joint is cut over the dowel center line following placement of concrete. A construc on joint
can also serve as a contrac on joint if smooth dowels are used. For appropriate spacing, use
either saw joints or contrac on joints at approved joint spacing.
Transverse Contraction Joint Spacing is related to the slab thickness. Contrac on joint
spacing (in feet) should not generally exceed five mes the slab thickness in inches. The ra o of
the transverse contrac on joint spacing to pavement width should not exceed 1.25.
Longitudinal Contraction Joints should be used if the pavement width in feet is greater
than five mes the pavement slab thickness in inches.
DUMMY SAW JOINT A saw-cut joint across which the reinforcing steel is con nuous, and
which does not have dowels. This type of joint includes both transverse and longitudinal joints.
Dummy saw joints are cut following placement of concrete. Transverse dummy saw joints
should be placed halfway between contrac on joints. Longitudinal sawed dummy joints are
placed between contrac on joints or at the center of the pavement for pavements that are
constructed in one pour and do not require a contrac on joint.
Table 4.2 Sawed Dummy Joint Depth

T, Pavement Thickness (inches) T/4 = Joint Depth

6 1
7 1
8 2
9 2
10 2
11 2
12 3

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Four / Page 13

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

MINIMUM SPACING OF CONTRACTION/DUMMY SAWED JOINTS Minimum spacing

between transverse joints (sawed or contrac on) is five feet. This is typically a concern where
drive and/or inlet block-outs do not line up on opposing sides of the street. Recommended
prac ce is to extend block-outs so that block-outs terminate at the same sta on on opposing
sides of the street. This reduces unnecessary joints in the pavement.
CONSTRUCTION JOINTS A construc on joint is a formed joint completely through
the pavement thickness that is necessary at termina on points of concrete placement. A
construc on joint may consist of both transverse and longitudinal joints. Construc on joints
have no reinforcing steel across the joint. Smooth dowels are placed across all construc on
joints as described for contrac on joints.
Transverse Construction Joints should be minimized. Transverse construc on joints will be
allowed only where specifically shown on the drawings or specified, unless approved otherwise
by the engineer for emergency termina on of concrete placement. Where necessary, transverse
construc on joints should coincide with the loca on of what would otherwise be a transverse
contrac on joint.
EXPANSION JOINTS Expansion joints are joints that extend through the full thickness of
the pavement and completely through all adjacent curb and gu er sec ons, and are filled with
expansion-joint material. No reinforcing steel shall extend across expansion joints. Expansion
joints shall have smooth dowels for load transfer.
Expansion joints should be placed at all intersec ons, where pavements abut structures or
similar items, between exis ng and proposed pavement, at end of radius, at points of curvature
and points of tangency on curves, and otherwise at a maximum spacing of 300 feet.
Table 4.3 Expansion Joint Minimum Dowel Size

T, Pavement Thickness (inches) Bar Size (#) Bar Size

6 6
7 7
8-10 8 1
11-12 9 1

JOINTING PLAN
The Consultant shall prepare a site-specific join ng plan for the project. This includes, but is
not necessarily limited to, expansion and contrac on joints for street intersec ons, structures
such as manholes and inlets, and driveways. This join ng plan will be submi ed by the con-
sultant during the plan review stage. The join ng plan will be used by the contractor for joint
layout during construc on. Typical joint details are provided on the latest vesion of the drawing
tled City of Fort Worth Reinforced Concrete Pavement Joint Details for Street and Arterials and
on Buzzsaw. To access the document using Buzzsaw, see https://projectpoint.buzzsaw.
com/fortworthgov/Roundabout/Pavement%20Design

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Four / Page 14

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

DOWEL BARS, TIEBARS, AND REINFORCEMENT

Dowel bars, ebars, and reinforcement are used in concrete pavements to help the concrete
carry tensile stresses (i.e., stresses that pull the concrete apart) and/or to transfer loads across
joints.
DOWEL BARS Dowel bars (smooth bars), or simply dowels, are placed in concrete across
expansion joints to provide ver cal support and to transfer loads across joints. Dowel bars
reduce the poten al for faul ng, pumping, and corner breaks in jointed concrete pavements.
The recommended dowel bar diameter and spacing is provided on the City Pavement Detail
sheets.
DEFORMED BARS Deformed bars are placed across construc on joints (longitudinal or
traverse where slabs meet). For contrac on joints use same size rebar as pavement reinforcing.
Tiebars prevent faul ng and lateral movement of the slabs and assist with load transfer between
slabs. Tiebars are also used to connect edge fixtures such as curbs and gu ers to the pavement.
Because ebars are deformed, they bond to the concrete and do not allow movement (unlike
smooth dowel bars, which by design allow such movement). Tiebars thus minimize longitudinal
joint opening between slabs and so maintain aggregate interlock.
Tiebar size, spacing, and length shall be as per City standards. Steel is the most common mate-
rial for dowels, ebars, and reinforcement. Dowels and e bars should conform to ASTM A 615
/ AASHTO M 31. Their typical yield strength is 60 ksi.
SAWING
The op mum me to saw contrac on joints in new concrete pavement occurs within the sawing
window. The window is a short period of me a er placement when sawing is cri cal in prevent-
ing uncontrolled shrinkage cracking. The window begins when the concrete strength is adequate
for sawing without excessive raveling and ends when random cracking begins. Generally, joints
should be sawed within 12 hours of concrete placement, however, the length of the sawing
window depends on many factors such as the concrete mixture, weather and the type subbase.
Sawing too early will cause the saw blade to break or pull aggregate free from the pavement
surface along the saw cut, resul ng in rough, jagged edges (raveling). Sawing too late allows
random shrinkage cracks to develop ahead of the sawing opera on.
Sawing of transverse contrac on and longitudinal joints can be performed in a two phase opera-
on, where the ini al sawing is intended to cause the pavement to crack at the intended joint.
The second saw cut can be made to provide the necessary joint for the sealant material. Ini al
saw cut should be made to a minimum of T/4 with a minimum -inch wide saw blade, if a two
stage saw opera on is used. Otherwise, the saw cut should be -inch wide, minimum. Trans-
verse contrac on joints should be sawed in succession.

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Four / Page 15

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

Per research by the Federal Highway Administra on (FHWA) and other concrete paving asso-
cia ons, skip sawing is not recommended, since it o en results in a wide range of crack widths
forming beneath the sawed joints. Skip sawing involves cu ng every other or every third joint
and results in variable width joints.
Uncontrolled full-depth cracking in new concrete pavements con nues to be a problem on both
longitudinal and transverse cracks on many projects. Uncontrolled cracks shorten pavement life
and are usually the result of not sawing soon enough, deep enough or both. A properly sawed
joint produces a weak plane that generates a full-depth crack at the desired loca on.
Joints must be sawed as soon as this can be done without major spalling of the saw cut. Con-
tractors must have sucient saws and crew available to accomplish this. A backup saw is need-
ed and is typically required by the project specifica ons. The sawing sequence should follow
the sequence of concrete placement. The minimum depth of the saw cut is one-fourth of the
slab thickness (T/4). Widening joints for the sealant reservoir is not me sensi ve and can be
done at a later me.
All pavement joints, including sawed joints, should be cleaned and sealed as quickly as possible
to prevent infiltra on of water. Joint sealant type should be as specified. A regular maintenance
program should be employed to seal cracks and joints to prevent water infiltra on into the
subgrade soils. //

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Four / Page 16

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

SECTION FIVE // Summary

T he objec ve of this Pavement Design Manual is to provide consistency in pave-
ment design input values for so ware programs that follow the AASHTO Design
Guide, including but not necessarily limited to WinPAS and DARWin 3.1, and provide
guidelines for geotechnical aspects of the pavement design and construc on pro-
cess.
A supplement to the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide was published in 1998 and several
improvements were made in the design approach including alterna ve design pro-
cedures for use in place of or in conjunc on with Part II - Sec on 3.2 Rigid Pave-
ment Design and Sec on 3.3 Rigid Pavement Joint Design. Geotechnical consul-
tants may want to obtain the Supplement for review.
This Manual primarily includes design using the latest so ware version of WinPAS,
the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide and the 1998 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide to
Design. It does not include AASHTOWare M-E design informa on since it was not a
part of the scope of services. //

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Five / Page 17

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

SECTION SIX // References

AASHTO 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Associa on
of State Highway and Transporta on Ocials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO 1998. Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structure, Part
II - Rigid Pavement Design and Rigid Pavement Joint Design.
American Concrete Ins tute ACI
American Concrete Pavement Associa on ACPA
DARWin 3.1 Pavement Analysis So ware prepared by AASHTO
Federal Highway Administra on FHWA
Na onal Coopera ve Highway Research Program NCHRP
Portland Cement Associa on PCA
Texas Department of Transporta on TxDOT
Texas Transporta on Ins tute TTI
U.S. Department of Transporta on, Federal Highway Administra on, Publica on No.
FHWA, NHI-05-037, May 2006, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements
WinPAS Pavement Analysis So ware for New Pavement and Overlay Design Based on
the 1993 AASHTO Guide Procedure for the Design of Pavement

January 29, 2015 / Sec on Six / Page 18

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

APPENDIX A // Geotechnical Considera ons

1.0 STABILIZED SUBGRADE DESIGN
Geotechnical engineering design for stabilized subgrade is directed toward s ness and
strength. The standard measure of acceptance for constructed stabilized subgrade is
generally only two criteria; density and moisture content of the final compacted sub-
grade. These two measures are uniquely dierent; one measure does not necessarily
confirm the other since the contractor can achieve the compac on specifica on on the
wet or dry side of op mum moisture content.
The important measurement is s ness, i.e., the Resilient Modulus, since this is the
value used for the subgrade in design of the pavement. There are a number of ways
to measure whether the design intent has been sa sfied. These measures include field
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests, CBR and plate load tests, correla on studies,
and/or laboratory tests performed on undisturbed samples obtained from the subgrade.
Other methods include nondestruc ve tes ng with ground-penetra ng radar and falling
weight deflectometers.
The need to measure layer s ness proper es during construc on is an ac vity that is
not presently a typical component in the acceptance of the completed project. Using DCP
tests or other means should be incorporated into the construc on phase tes ng. The
DCP test (ASTM D6951) is a quick, ecient field test resul ng in direct correla on with
CBR and Resilient Modulus. The next genera on of pavement design so ware programs
use resilient modulus of base and subgrade materials in the design process.
Quality Assurance (QA) observa on and tes ng provided by the City of Fort Worth and/
or their sub-contracted geotechnical engineer / construc on materials engineering and
tes ng firm is an important part of providing construc on quality for the project. Ob-

January 29, 2015 / Page A1

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

serva on and tes ng of fill placement, subgrade proof-rolling, subgrade stabiliza on including
grada on, depth checks, moisture/density during construc on of the stabilized subgrade are
important to the long-term success of the pavement sec on.
2.0 GENERAL EARTHWORK
2.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION, PROOFROLLING
Stripping should consist of the removal of all topsoil, roots, vegeta on, and rubbish not removed
by the clearing and grubbing opera on. The actual stripping depth should be based on field ob-
serva ons with par cular a en on given to old drainage areas, uneven topography, and exces-
sively wet soils. The stripped areas should be observed to determine if addi onal excava on is
required to remove weak or otherwise objec onable materials that would adversely aect the
fill placement.
The subgrade should be firm and able to support the construc on equipment without displace-
ment. So or yielding subgrade should be corrected and made stable before construc on pro-
ceeds. The subgrade should be proof rolled to detect so spots that, if existent, should be re-
worked. Proof rolling should be performed using a heavy pneuma c red roller, loaded dump
truck, or similar equipment weighing approximately 25 tons. The proof rolling opera ons should
be observed by the project geotechnical engineer or the field representa ve.
Exis ng slopes that will receive fill should be loosened by scarifying or plowing to a depth of not
less than six inches. The fill material should be benched into the exis ng slope in such a man-
ner as to provide adequate bonding between the fill and slope, as well as to allow the fill to be
placed in horizontal li s.
Prior to placement of compacted fill in any sec on of the embankment, and a er depressions
and holes have been filled, the founda on of such sec ons should be compacted to the same
density and moisture requirement as the embankment.
2.2 PLACING OF MATERIAL
Embankment materials should be placed on a properly prepared subgrade as specified. The
combined excava on, placing, and spreading opera on should be done in such a manner to
obtain blending of material, and to provide that the materials, when compacted in the embank-
ment, will have the most prac cable degree of compac on and stability. Materials excavated
from cut sec ons and/or borrow sources and hauled to construct fills must be mixed and not
segregated, except where such segregated soil zones are required. All fill should be placed in
horizontal li s. Filling along (parallel to) slopes should not be permi ed. In areas where slopes
will be constructed using fill, the fill should extend beyond finished contours and cut back to
grade.
If the surface of the embankment is too smooth and hard to bond properly with a succeeding layer,
the surface should be roughened and loosened by discing before the succeeding layer is placed.
Where fill is to be placed next to exis ng fill, that fill should be removed to unweathered, dense
material. Each layer should be benched and disced as adjoining li s are placed. Material hauling
equipment should be so routed over the embankment surface to distribute the added compac-

January 29, 2015 / Page A2

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

on aorded by the rolling equipment, and to prevent the forma on of ruts on the embank-
ment surface.
2.3 MOISTURE AND DENSITY CONTROL
Following the spreading and mixing of the soil on the embankment, it should be processed by
discing throughout its thickness to break up and provide addi onal blending of materials. Disc-
ing should consist of at least two passes of the disc plow. Addi onal passes of the disc plow
should be made necessary to accomplish breaking up and blending the fill. The recommended
loose li thickness is eight inches. The moisture content of the soil should be adjusted, if neces-
sary, by either aera on or the addi on of water to bring the moisture content within the speci-
fied range. Water required for sprinkling to bring the fill material to the proper moisture content
should be applied evenly through each layer.
Any layers which become damaged by weather condi ons should be reprocessed to meet speci-
fica on requirements. The compacted surface of a layer of fill should be lightly loosened by disc-
ing before the succeeding layer is placed.
When the moisture content and the condi on of the fill layer are sa sfactory, compac on should
be made with a tamping-foot roller. Vibratory tamping rollers may be required for compac ng
some types of fill material.
The fill material should be compacted to the project specifica on outlining moisture-density
requirements. The moisture content and density of all fill material should be maintained at the
specified range of moisture and density.
Fill behind below-grade walls should be compacted with hand-operated tampers or light com-
pac on equipment immediately adjacent to the wall. A loose li thickness of four to six inches
is typically required for hand-operated tampers. Backfill on structures receiving fill on both sides
should be kept within two feet of the opposite side.
3.0 DEEP UTILITIES BELOW PAVEMENT
Deep u lity trench backfills (generally over 10 feet deep) require special a en on when it comes
to backfill material type, li thickness, compac on equipment and the resul ng moisture-densi-
ty requirement. Without proper compac on, se lement of several inches can occur within the
deep backfill, resul ng in movement of supported pavement, sidewalks, and drives placed on
fill, and shear loads on u li es crossing through the fill.
Trench backfill should typically be placed in horizontal li s if at all possible. In some cases a
sloped backfill face will be necessary in short reaches. The backfill should be compacted in uni-
form li s of eight to 12 inches with each li tested for moisture and density on a regular basis.
Each li should be tested for moisture and density with test loca on spacing of 200 to 300 feet
along the trench. In some cases, closer test spacing may be required, especially where several
u li es come together, as in junc on boxes, manholes and/or other types of structures. Test
loca ons for subsequent li s should be oset as much as possible to avoid tests falling at the
same ver cal loca ons.
Compac on and moisture content requirements should be as per The City of Fort Worth Stan-
dard Specifica ons.

January 29, 2015 / Page A3

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

4.0 SURFACE WATER PONDING BEHIND CURBS OR IN DRIVEWAY CUTS

Surface water ponding behind curbs and within driveway cuts should be drained by the con-
tractor as quick as possible and not allowed to stand. Standing water can cause satura on of
the pavement subgrade resul ng in loss of strength and/or heave. Satura on of the subgrade
reduces the support for driveway concrete placed in the leave out along the curb line. Surface
water standing behind non-backfilled curbs can cause the curb and gu er to heave and crack.
Curb backfill should be placed as soon as prac cal a er the curb and gu er has cured to proper
strength.
5.0 SUBGRADE SAMPLING AND TESTING FOR STABILIZATION
5.1 GENERAL
The subgrade soil type and consistency will o en vary considerably along the roadway. Subgrade
soils ranging from residual soils and weathered bedrock to alluvial deposits could be encoun-
tered. Filling along the roadway from adjacent or osite borrow areas will also introduce addi-
onal types of materials along the roadway.
Subgrade soils consis ng of sand, silty sand and clayey sand would typically need to be stabilized
with Portland cement to provide suitable subgrade for pavement. These soils are typically classi-
fied as SM, SC, SP or combina ons thereof based on the Unified Soil Classifica on (USC) System.
Other areas where the final subgrade is medium to high plas city clay will require a lime stabi-
lized subgrade. The soils are typically classified as CL and CH, based on the USC System.
5.2 SAMPLING AND TESTING
The actual applica on rate should be determined at the me of construc on by sampling the
finish subgrade soil on a frequent basis, not exceeding 200-foot intervals, and tes ng specimens
to determine the op mum stabiliza on content and type of stabiliza on. Once the subgrade el-
eva ons for the pavement have been achieved in the field, the subgrade soil should be sampled
to determine the final overall subgrade condi ons and the plas city index. Generally if the PI
is 10 or below, cement treatment should be used, and, if the PI is 11 and above, the subgrade
can be treated with hydrated lime. The project geotechnical engineer should determine the ap-
propriate stabiliza on addi ve based on the subgrade tests. Laboratory tes ng should include
sieve analysis (generally as a minimum #4, #40 and #200 sieves), and a series of tests where the
raw subgrade soil is mixed with various percentages of the stabiliza on addi ve with A erberg
Limits tests performed along with pH. Typically, the A erberg Limits / Soil / Addi ve series in-
volves tes ng with raw soil (no addi ve) and then with 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% by dry weight of the
selected stabiliza on addi ve. The geotechnical engineer may need to make some adjustments
in the percentages, depending on the raw PI of the soil.
5.3 APPLICATION RATE
Once the Proctor of the raw subgrade material is known, the applica on rate is based on a soil
unit dry weight (pounds per cubic foot) and the percent stabiliza on addi ve determined in the
soil-lime series test.
For example if the addi ve percentage is determined to be six percent and the soil dry unit
weight is 100 pcf, and the stabiliza on depth is eight inches, the applica on rate is 36 pounds

January 29, 2015 / Page A4

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

per square yard for the eight-inch stabiliza on depth.

Subgrade samples should also be tested for soluble sulfates. Published informa on on sulfate-
induced heave in lime or Portland cement-treated soils tend to indicate that there is low poten-
al for sulfate-induced heave where levels of soluble sulfates are below approximately 3,000
ppm in the soil and proper drainage is maintained.
6.0 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER DCP TESTING OF STABILIZED SUBGRADE
Verifica on of the contractors actual applica on rate for the stabiliza on addi ve, grada on
of the soil-addi ve mixture, depth checks, moisture and density tests are typical items on the
construc on materials tes ng checklist. In addi on to these items, the in-situ CBR value of the
stabilized subgrade should be checked. A CBR value of the stabilized subgrade is used in design
of the pavement thickness and is therefore a cri cal value to achieve in actual construc on.
Therefore, DCP tests should be taken in the completed stabilized subgrade prior to placement
of the pavement. Ini ally the DCP test informa on should be recorded for a database of values
for stabilized subgrade and not for conformance to specifica ons, since the City inspectors and
paving contractors are not familiar with this type of tes ng. A er collec on of DCP test data on
several projects, the City may incorporate the use of DCP tests into tes ng specifica ons as a
point of compliance, alongside moisture and density tests.
The tests should be performed approximately 7 to 14 days a er achieving passing moisture/
density tests and certainly before the pavement is placed. The DCP tests should be taken at the
rate of one test per each 500 linear feet of lane direc on, with a minimum of three tests. The
DCP field values can be quickly converted to CBR values and compared to the design CBR value.
The field values should equal or exceed the design value. Tests must be performed with DCP
equipment conforming to ASTM D6951.
Many agencies are currently using the DCP test to provide ecient and rapid data collec on
for subgrade characteriza on. The DCP test can provide informa on without sampling dis-
turbance with data collected con nuously on a real me basis. Since the DCP tests are taken
during field opera ons, there are no laboratory samples to be tested saving considerable me
and expense. //

January 29, 2015 / Page A5

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

APPENDIX B // Pavement Joint Details - Buzzsaw Link

Pavement joint details can be found on Buzzsaw at the link:
https://projectpoint.buzzsaw.com/client/fortworthgov/Resources/02%20
-%20Construction%20Documents/Construction%20Plans/Construction%20
Details/500%20-%20PAVING

January
January
29, 29,
2015 / Page
2015 / Page
B1 1
 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

APPENDIX C // Terminology
T he following provides a defini on of the pavement components, along with other
terms common to the geotechnical aspects of pavements. Defini ons were taken
from NCHRP 1-137A where available.
PRIMARY PAVEMENT COMPONENTS
SUBGRADE The top surface of a roadbed upon which the pavement structure and
shoulders are constructed.
SUBBASE The layer or layers of specified or selected materials of designed thickness
placed on a subgrade to support a base course.
Note: The layer directly below the PCC slab is called a base layer, not a subbase layer.
BASE The layer or layers of specified or select material of designed thickness placed on
a subbase or subgrade to support a surface course. The layer directly beneath the PCC
slab is called the base layer.
SURFACE COURSE One or more layers of a pavement structure designed to accom-
modate the trac load, the top layer of which resists skidding, trac abrasion, and the
disintegra ng eects of climate. The top layer of flexible pavements is some mes called
the wearing course.
GEOTECHNICAL PAVEMENT COMPONENTS
CRUSHED STONE BASE A base course of designed thickness and constructed of grad-
ed and mechanically crushed mineral aggregate compacted above a subbase course or
subgrade. Also, aggregate base (AB), graded aggregate base (GAB), and crushed aggre-
gate (CA).

January 29, 2015 / Page C1

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

GEOGRID GG A geosynthe c formed by a regular network of tensile elements with aper-

tures of sucient size to interlock with surrounding fill material, used primarily as reinforcement
of base and subbase layers and in stabiliza on of so subbgrade layers. Also used in overlays for
asphalt reinforcement.
GEOTEXTILE GT A permeable geosynthe c made of tex le materials, used as a separator
between base, subbase and subgrade layers, used as filters in drainage features, and used in
stabiliza on of so subgrade layers. Also used in asphalt overlays as a membrane absorp on
and/or waterproofing layer.
STABILIZED SUBGRADE A prepared and mechanically compacted mixture of selected stabi-
liza on addi ve, water, and soil suppor ng the pavement system.
NONGEOTECHNICAL COMPONENTS
ASPHALT CONCRETE AC A controlled mixture of asphalt cement and graded aggregate
compacted to a dense mass. Also, hot-mixed asphalt (HMA), hot-mixed asphalt concrete (HMAC),
bituminous concrete (BC), plant mix (PM).
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT ACP A pavement structure placed above a subgrade or
improved subgrade and consis ng of one or more courses of asphalt concrete or a combina on
of asphalt concrete and stabilized or unstabilized aggregate courses.
CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT CRCP Portland cement concrete
pavement with no transverse joints and containing longitudinal steel in an amount designed to
ensure holding shrinkage cracks ghtly closed. Joints exist only at construc on joints and on-
grade structures.
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT A pavement structure that maintains in mate contact with and dis-
tributes loads to the subgrade and depends on aggregate interlock, par cle fric on, and cohe-
sion for stability.
RIGID PAVEMENT A pavement structure that distributes loads to the subgrade, having as
one course a Portland cement concrete slab of rela vely high-bending resistance.
JOINTED REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT JRCP Jointed Portland cement concrete
paving containing distributed steel reinforcement to control random cracking and usually con-
taining joint load transfer devices.
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PCC A composite material consis ng of a Portland or
hydraulic cement binding medium and embedded par cles or fragments of aggregate.
DESIGN TERMINOLOGY
In the context of current design prac ce, pavement designers and geotechnical specialists must
communicate using design terms with consistent defini ons. Terms related to design as used in
this Manual include:
DESIGN LIFE The length of me for which a pavement structure is being designed, including
the me from construc on un l major programmed rehabilita on.

January 29, 2015 / Page C2

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

EQUIVALENT SINGLE AXLE LOAD ESAL A numerical factor that expressed the rela on-
ship of a given axle load to another axle load in terms of the rela ve eects of the two loads on
the serviceability of a pavement structure. O en expressed in terms of 18,000-pound (80 kN)
single axle loads.
RELIABILITY The probability that a given pavement design will last for the an cipated design
performance period.
RESILIENT MODULUS MR The resilient modulus is the ra o of the repeated deviator stress
divided by the recoverable axial strain. The test procedure consists of subjec ng a soil or granu-
lar base specimen to a sequence of confining pressure and cyclic deviator stress levels in a tri-
axial cell and measures the s ness of the material. The resilient modulus can be related to the
CBR and the modulus of subgrade reac on, k.
TRAFFIC GROWTH FACTOR A factor used to describe the annual growth rate of trac vol-
ume on a roadway. //

January 29, 2015 / Page C3

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

APPENDIX D // Graphs and Correla ons

January 29, 2015 / Page D1

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

PSI/IN

, PSI

January 29, 2015 / Page D2

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

Table 5-34. Correlations between resilient modulus and various material strength
and index properties (NCHRP 1-37A, 2004).

Strength/Index
Modela Comments Test Standard
Property
California MR (psi) = 2555(CBR)0.64 CBR = California AASHTO T193The
Bearing Ratiob MR (MPa) = 17.6(CBR)0.64 Bearing Ratio (%) California Bearing Ratio
AASHTO T190
Stabilometer MR (psi) = 1155 + 555R Resistance R-Value and
R = R-value
R-value MR (MPa) = 8.0 + 3.8R Expansion Pressure of
Compacted Soils
AASHTO Guide for the
AASHTO layer MR (psi) = 30,000 (ai/0.14)3 ai = AASHTO layer
Design of Pavement
coefficient MR (MPa) = 207 (ai/0.14)3 coefficient
Structures (1993)
AASHTO T27Sieve
wPI = P200*PI Analysis of Coarse and Fine
75 P200 = % passing Aggregates
Plasticity index
CBR No. 200 sieve size AASHTO T90
and gradation 1  0.728( wPI )
PI = plasticity index Determining the Plastic
(%) Limit and Plasticity Index of
Soils
ASTM D6951Standard
CBR = California
Test Method for Use of the
Dynamic Cone 1.12 Bearing Ratio (%)
CBR= 292/(DCP ) Dynamic Cone
Penetrationc DCP =Penetration
Penetrometer in Shallow
index, in./blow
Pavement Applications
a
Correlations should be applied to similar conditions i.e., CBR measured at optimum moisture and density vs.
soaked conditions correlates to MR at corresponding moisture and density conditions.
b
NCHRP 1-37A strongly recommends against use of the older Heukelom and Klomp (1962) correlation Eq.
(5.13) between MR and CBR specified in the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide.
c
Estimates of CBR are used to estimate MR.

January 29, 2015 / Page D3

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

Table 5-35. Default MR values for unbound granular and subgrade materials at
unsoaked optimum moisture content and density conditions (NCHRP 1-37A, 2004).

Material Classification MR Range (psi)* Typical MR (psi)*

AASHTO Soil Class
A-1-a 38,500 42,000 40,000
A-1-b 35,500 40,000 38,000
A-2-4 28,000 37,500 32,000
A-2-5 24,000 33,000 28,000
A-2-6 21,500 31,000 26,000
A-2-7 21,500 28,000 24,000
A-3 24,500 35,500 29,000
A-4 21,500 29,000 24,000
A-5 17,000 25,500 20,000
A-6 13,500 24,000 17,000
A-7-5 8,000 17,500 12,000
A-7-6 5,000 13,500 8,000
USCS Soil Class
GW 39,500 42,000 41,000
GP 35,500 40,000 38,000
GM 33,000 42,000 38,500
GC 24,000 37,500 31,000
GW-GM 35,500 40,500 38,500
GP-GM 31,000 40,000 36,000
GW-GC 28,000 40,000 34,500
GP-GC 28,000 39,000 34,000
SW 28,000 37,500 32,000
SP 24,000 33,000 28,000
SM 28,000 37,500 32,000
SC 21,500 28,000 24,000
SW-SM 24,000 33,000 28,000
SP-SM 24,000 33,000 28,000
SW-SC 21,500 31,000 25,500
SP-SC 21,500 31,000 25,500
ML 17,000 25,500 20,000
CL 13,500 24,000 17,000
MH 8,000 17,500 11,500
CH 5,000 13,500 8,000
*Multiply by 0.069 to convert to MPa.

January 29, 2015 / Page D4

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

Figure 5-17. Correlations between subgrade resilient modulus and other soil properties
(1 psi = 6.9 kPa; from Huang, 1993, after Van Til et al., 1972).

January 29, 2015 / Page D5

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

APPENDIX E // Example Table

A table similar to the one presented here should be included in the Pavement Design por on of the Geotechnical Report.
TABLE XX
Pavement Design Summary and Input Data
<street name>, from <sta on> to <sta on>
Fort Worth, Texas
<report date>

Item Description/ Design Input Value

Recommended Pavement Thickness 10.0 inches*
Street Classiication Arterial
Pavement Type Reinforced Concrete
Subgrade Soil Type Clay, dark brown to brown
Uniied Soil Classiication (USC) CH (raw subgrade)
Subgrade Stabilization Lime Stabilized
Subgrade Thickness 8 inches minimum
Annual Growth Rate 2.5%
Design Life 30 years
Annual ESALS 300,000 ** Actual Trac Study
Design ESALS 13,000,000
Reliability 85
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.50
Overall Deviation 0.35
Load Transfer 3.0
Drainage Coeficient, Cd 1.0
Design CBR (raw subgrade) 3.0
Resilient Modulus (raw subgrade) 4,118 psi
Design CBR (lime stabilized subgrade) 15.0
Resilient Modulus (lime stabilized subgrade) 12,392 psi
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 221 pci (this is a composite)
Loss of Support 0.0
Depth to Rigid Foundation >10 feet
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity 4,000,000 psi
Concrete Modulus of Rupture 620 psi
Design Software WinPAS
* Include printout from so ware program.
** Provide source of trac informa on (trac study, NCTCOG, TxDOT, etc.)

January 29, 2015 / Page E1

 PAV E M E N T D E S I G N M A N U A L
,

APPENDIX F // Example of the WinPAS Design Printout

January 29, 2015 / Page F1

PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL
City of Fort Worth
Department of Transportation
and Public Works