Incremental Costs and Performance

Benefits of Various Features of

Concrete Pavements

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-04-044 APRIL 2004

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD 

The primary product developed under this study is a software analysis tool that can evaluate the 

relative costs and performance benefits associated with adding different features to a portland 

cement concrete (PCC) pavement design. The tool is for pavement designers who are interested 

in comparing costs versus performance associated with the selection of design features during 

the PCC pavement design process. This software is only a computational tool. It is not intended 

to provide absolute answers on the effect of different design features, but rather to offer insight 

into general cost and performance trends associated with the use of different design features. As 

such, it also may be of use to State and contractor engineers responsible for fulfilling the design, 

as well as to educators and students who wish to better understand the PCC pavement design 

process and its impact on construction costs and pavement performance. 

Sufficient copies of this report are being distributed to provide 10 copies to each Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) Resource Center, 4 copies to each FHWA Division, and a 

minimum of 4 copies to each State highway agency. Direct distribution is being made to the 

division offices for them to forward to the State highway agencies. Additional copies for the 

public are available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal 

Road, Springfield, VA 22161. 

 T. Paul Teng, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Infrastructure 

 Research and Development 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its 

contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the 

document.
Technical Report Documentation Page

 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

February 2004

Incremental Costs and Performance Benefits of Various Features 6. Performing Organization Code

of Concrete Pavements

 8. Performing Organization Report No.

 7. Author(s)

 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.

3001 Research Road, Suite C 11. Contract or Grant No.

Champaign, IL 61822 DTFH61-02-P-00412

 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final

 Federal Highway Administration November 2000 - March 2003

 Office of Acquisition Management

 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4410 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 Washington, DC 20590

 15. Supplementary Notes

 16. Abstract

 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

 concrete pavement, rigid pavement, design features,

 pavement performance, costs, cost effectiveness

 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 210

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

T. E. Hoerner, K. D. Smith, and J. E. Bruinsma

Various design features (such as dowel bars, tied shoulders, or drainable bases) may be added to a PCC pavement design

to improve its overall performance by maintaining a higher level of serviceability or by extending its service life.

However, the addition of these features also increases the initial cost of the pavement design, in some cases quite

significantly. This then raises the question as to whether the improved performance benefits gained by adding the design

features are worth the increase in cost. Furthermore, the effects of adding more and more design features to a PCC

pavement design may produce smaller and smaller performance gains, while significantly increasing the overall costs of

the pavement structure. Unfortunately, current design practices do not always consider this trade-off between performance

benefits and costs when design features are added to a PCC pavement design.

This report presents a methodology for quickly assessing the relative costs and benefits of incorporating various design

features in PCC pavements. That methodology has been incorporated into an analytical software tool that can be used by

pavement design engineers who are interested in investigating the cost versus performance trade-offs associated with the

selection of different design features during the PCC pavement design process. The tool is not intended to provide

absolute answers on the effect of different design features, but rather to provide insight into general performance and cost

trends associated with the use of those design features. 

FHWA COTR: Mr. Peter Kopac, HRDI-11

Mr. John Naughton is gratefully acknowledged for his contributions to the project. 
ii 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha 

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2

 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E e 380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1

Introduction..............................................................................................................................1

Project Objectives....................................................................................................................2 

Overview of Report..................................................................................................................2 

CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES.......................................... 3

Introduction..............................................................................................................................3

Literature Review ....................................................................................................................3 

Questionnaire Survey Development.......................................................................................4 

Design Categories and Alternative Design Features ...........................................................5 

Questionnaire Survey Forms................................................................................................8 

Desired Number of Survey Responses ................................................................................9 

SHA Performance Questionnaire Survey............................................................................11 

Performance Model Evaluation............................................................................................12 

SHA Design Category Ranking Survey ...............................................................................15 

Contractor Cost Questionnaire Survey ...............................................................................16 

Summary.................................................................................................................................17 

CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS METHOD ................................................................ 21

Introduction............................................................................................................................21

Components of the Analysis Approach................................................................................21 

Definition of a Pavement Section ......................................................................................21 

The Standard Pavement Section........................................................................................21 

Cost and Performance Data ...............................................................................................22 

Category Ranking Factors..................................................................................................23 

Simplistic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis..................................................................................28 

Demonstration of the Analysis Method................................................................................30 

Comparing a Custom Pavement Section to the Standard Pavement Section ....................30 

Comparison of Two Custom Pavement Sections (Section A vs. Section B).....................32 

Introduction to the Analytical Software Tool .....................................................................34 

Summary.................................................................................................................................36 

CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY................................................................................... 37 

REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 39 

APPENDIX A. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 41 

Base/Subbase Design..............................................................................................................42

Concrete Mix Considerations ...............................................................................................47 
iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Construction ...........................................................................................................................51

Costs........................................................................................................................................58 

Cross Section ..........................................................................................................................60 

Design and Performance .......................................................................................................61

Drainage..................................................................................................................................96

Joint Design ..........................................................................................................................101

Maintenance .........................................................................................................................110

Reinforcement ......................................................................................................................112

Ride Specifications...............................................................................................................117 

Shoulder Design and Performance.....................................................................................119

Subgrade ...............................................................................................................................123

Surface Texture and Noise ..................................................................................................127

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY FORMS ..................................131 

APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION RESPONSES........149

APPENDIX D. SOFTWARE USER’S GUIDE.................................................155

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................155

Software Capabilities.....................................................................................................155 

Software Structure.........................................................................................................156 

SECTION 2. GETTING STARTED.......................................................................159

System Requirements and Recommendations ............................................................159 

Software Installation......................................................................................................159 

What You See When You Start the Analysis Software ..............................................159 

Menu Bar ...................................................................................................................159 

Toolbar Buttons .........................................................................................................162 

SECTION 3. DEFINING PAVEMENT SECTIONS........................................163

The Default Standard Pavement Section......................................................................163 

Defining Pavement Sections with the Section Definition Tab ....................................163 

Pavement Section Master List Area...........................................................................166 

Variables Secondary Tab...........................................................................................167 

Life-Cycle Costs Secondary Tab................................................................................170 

SECTION 4. COST AND PERFORMANCE DATA SETS...........................175

Grouped Versus Tabular Format.................................................................................175 

Grouped Format.........................................................................................................176 

Tabular Format ..........................................................................................................176 

Defining Cost Data Sets.................................................................................................176 

Example 1: Expected Relative Costs Associated with Different Base/Subbase 

Types.......................................................................................................................178 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Example 2: Expected Relative Costs Associated with Different Initial/Smoothness 

Levels......................................................................................................................179 

Defining Performance Data Sets...................................................................................181 

Example 1: Expected Relative Performance Associated with Different 

Base/Subbase Types................................................................................................181 

Example 2: Expected Relative Performance Values Associated with Different 

Initial/Smoothness Levels.......................................................................................183 

SECTION 5. DEFINING CATEGORY RANKING FACTOR SETS.......185

Introduction to the Category Rankings Tab ................................................................185 

Category Rankings Set Master List Area...................................................................185 

Category Ranking Set Details Area ...........................................................................187 

Defining Category Ranking Sets ..................................................................................187 

SECTION 6. ANALYSIS SESSION SETUP.......................................................191

Introduction to the Analysis Setup Tab........................................................................191 

Choosing an Analysis Type ...........................................................................................192 

Direct Comparison Analyses.....................................................................................192 

Sensitivity Analysis Sessions......................................................................................192 

Defining Direct Comparison Analysis Sessions............................................................193 

Changing the Name of the Direct Comparison Analysis Session .............................193 

Defining the First Pavement Section (Section A)......................................................193 

Defining the Second Pavement Section (Section B)..................................................194 

Selection of Other Settings........................................................................................195 

Additional Information Area......................................................................................195 

Defining Sensitivity Analysis Sessions...........................................................................195 

Changing the Name of the Sensitivity Analysis Session ............................................195 

Selecting a Principal Pavement Section To Be Used as the Basis of the 

Sensitivity Analysis Session ....................................................................................195 

Define the Type and Parameters of the Sensitivity Analysis Session.........................196 

Selection of Fixed Settings........................................................................................198 

Additional Information Area......................................................................................198 

SECTION 7. ANALYSIS SESSION RESULTS.................................................199

Viewing Direct Comparison Analysis Results..............................................................199 

Direct Comparison Analysis—Full Report ...............................................................199 

Direct Comparison Analysis—Basic Tables Only....................................................201 

Viewing Sensitivity Analysis Session Results................................................................201 

Sensitivity Analysis—Detailed Results Report ..........................................................201 

Sensitivity Analysis—Simplified Output Report........................................................202 
vi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Design feature benefits ..................................................................................................1 

Figure 2. Software main window with the Introduction tab displayed.....................................160 

Figure 3. Contents of the File menu..........................................................................................161 

Figure 4. Section Definition tab with the Variables secondary tab displayed...........................165 

Figure 5. Example of the Import pop-up dialog box.................................................................166 

Figure 6. Section Definition tab with the Life-Cycle Costs secondary tab displayed................170 

Figure 7. Global Life-Cycle Cost Parameters pop-up dialog box ............................................171 

Figure 8. Cost/Performance Data Sets tab with the Grouped Format controls for the 

Cost Data Sets secondary tab visible.........................................................................175 

Figure 9. Cost/Performance Data Sets tab with the Tabular Format controls for the 

Cost Data Sets secondary tab visible.........................................................................177 

Figure 10. Example of using the provided custom design feature fields to reflect an 

agency’s custom design features................................................................................179 

Figure 11. Example showing chosen relative cost values associated with a 150-mm (6-inch) 

dense-graded asphalt-treated base............................................................................180 

Figure 12. Example showing defined relative performance values associated with different 

base type choices........................................................................................................182 

Figure 13. Example showing defined relative performance values associated with different 

initial smoothness choices..........................................................................................184 

Figure 14. Category Rankings tab...............................................................................................186 

Figure 15. Example of the Analysis Setup tab.............................................................................191 

Figure 16. Example of the Direct Comparison analysis session setup dialog box .....................194 

Figure 17. Example of the Sensitivity Analysis session setup dialog box ...................................196 

Figure 18. Example of a Sensitivity Analysis session comparing both cost and performance 

data sets......................................................................................................................197 

Figure 19. Example of a Full Report summary resulting from a Direct Comparison analysis ..200 

Figure 20. Example of the Basic Tables Only output report resulting from a 

Direct Comparison analysis.......................................................................................202 

Figure 21. Example of a Detailed Results summary table output resulting from a 

 Sensitivity Analysis session.....................................................................................203 
vii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of the required number of samples for performance questionnaires...........10 

Table 2. Summary of the required number of samples for relative cost questionnaires............11 

Table 3. Summary of performance ratings.................................................................................13 

Table 4. PCC pavement performance models used to evaluate effect of design features .........15 

Table 5. Details of the recommended category ranking factor set.............................................16 

Table 6. Summary of contractor initial cost ratings...................................................................18 

Table 7. Pavement design features defining the Standard pavement section............................22 

Table 8. Example of use of category ranking factors to determine an overall 

 modified performance rating....................................................................................25 

Table 9. Example showing the matching of category ranking factors and performance...........27 

Table 10. Example showing a contradiction in the matching of category ranking factors and 

performance .............................................................................................................27 

Table 11. Design features that differ in the current example.......................................................30 

Table 12. Expected percent changes in cost and performance associated with the 

 changed design features ...........................................................................................31 

Table 13. Cost and performance computation example...............................................................31 

Table 14. Summary of two custom sections being compared (Section A and Section B)............32 

Table 15. Expected percent changes in cost and performance associated with the 

 changed design features of Section B.......................................................................33 

Table 16. Computation details associated with the changed design features of Section B..........33 

Table 17. Summary of comparisons of Sections A and B to the Standard pavement section.....34 

Table 18. Raw data and summary of agency (performance) surveys ........................................150 

Table 19. Raw data and summary of contractor (cost) surveys.................................................152 

Table 20. Available design features organized by design feature category...............................164 

Table 21. Unique set of pavement design features defining the Standard pavement section....165 

Table 22. Summary of Subgrade, Base/Subbase, Drainage dependency..................................168 

Table 23. Summary of Thickness/Slab Size, Cross Section, Joints/Load Transfer, Joint 

 Sealing dependency................................................................................................169 

Table 24. Details of the default ranking factor set.....................................................................186 

Table 25. Example computations using entered category ranking factors ................................187 

1 

Time or Traffic

Serviceability

Enhanced 

Design

Standard

Design

Life

Extension

Critical Serviceability

Improved

Performance

Time or Traffic

Serviceability

Enhanced 

Design

Standard

Design

Life

Extension

Critical Serviceability

Improved

Performance

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

Introduction 

The design of portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements is more than the determination of slab 

thickness. Other components of a PCC pavement “system”—such as transverse joint design, 

base type, drainage design, and shoulder type—have a significant impact on pavement 

performance and therefore must be considered during the structural design process. These 

components, often referred to as design features or design elements, must be carefully selected 

for the environment and traffic loading conditions to which a specific PCC pavement is exposed. 

As shown in figure 1, the careful selection of these features can result in an enhanced design that 

maintains a higher level of serviceability or extends the performance life of the pavement. Over 

the years, various studies have documented the importance of many of these design features to 

overall PCC pavement performance.(1,2,3,4)

Figure 1. Design feature benefits. 

While it is known that the combination of certain design feature choices can have a positive 

effect on pavement performance, the addition of such features to a PCC pavement also increases 

the overall cost of the pavement structure. This raises the question of whether the addition of the 

design features is worth the increase in cost; that is, are the design features cost effective? 

Although the pavement designer may implicitly believe that the design features are cost 

effective, this is not necessarily the case for several reasons. For one, the effects of individual 

design features on pavement performance are not independent from one another, and 

consequently some level of “performance redundancy” may occur. Furthermore, at some point 

the inclusion of additional design features may eventually reach a state of diminishing returns, in 

which fewer performance benefits are gained for ever-increasing costs of new design features. 

This suggests the need to consider both the performance benefits and the costs of design features 

when contemplating their use in a PCC pavement design. 
2 

Unfortunately, current design practices do not always consider this trade-off between 

performance benefits and costs when considering PCC pavement design features. In fact, these 

relationships are poorly understood. Thus PCC pavements are often designed as “premium” 

pavement structures, incorporating myriad design features without any realistic expectations of 

the performance benefits to be gained. This suggests that there is a strong need for a 

methodology and an evaluation tool that can be used to assess the costs and benefits of 

incorporating design features in PCC pavements. 

Project Objectives 

This project was initiated by the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) and 

continued under the auspices of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the 

objective of developing a simple methodology for comparing the impact of various PCC 

pavement design features on cost and performance of PCC pavements. Specifically, the overall 

objectives of this project are to: 

• Document the relative performance benefits of different PCC pavement design features 

on PCC pavement performance. 

• Establish relative construction costs associated with different PCC pavement design 

features. 

• Develop a computer software tool for comparing and evaluating trade-offs in assessing 

the relative performance benefits and costs of various design features. 

The primary product of this project is a computer software application that can be used to 

evaluate the benefits and costs associated with the addition of different design features to a PCC 

pavement design. The tool provides insight into general performance and cost trends associated 

with those modified pavement designs, and can help design engineers develop more costeffective PCC pavement designs. However, it is emphasized that the tool is not intended for the 

design of PCC pavements, but rather for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of new design 

features by considering the trade-offs between their cost and performance contributions. 

Overview of Report 

This report has three chapters (in addition to this one) and four appendices. Chapter 2 describes 

data collection activities conducted under the project, including a summary of the survey results 

collected from highway agencies and paving contractors. Chapter 3 describes the approach used 

in evaluating relative performance benefits and costs, and introduces the computer software tool 

developed under the project. Chapter 4 summarizes the entire project. 

Appendix A summarizes the results of the comprehensive literature search conducted to identify 

information on PCC pavement design features, performance, and costs. Appendix B contains the 

performance and cost survey forms that were sent to highway agencies and paving contractors, 

respectively. Appendix C contains a summary of the raw survey data collected from the 

highway agencies and paving contractors. Appendix D is a user’s manual for the computer 

software tool. 
3 

CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES 

Introduction 

A significant data collection effort was required to obtain the information needed to fulfill the 

overall project objectives. This data collection effort consisted of: 

• Literature review. A detailed literature review was conducted to identify the available 

information on costs and benefits of various PCC pavement design procedures, and to 

provide a foundation for the pavement design categories and design features to be 

evaluated through the questionnaire surveys. 

• Questionnaire surveys of State Highway Agencies (SHAs). To provide information on 

the relative performance benefits of various PCC pavement design features, questionnaire 

surveys were submitted to targeted SHAs. These surveys solicited information on what 

performance benefits could be expected when adding selected PCC pavement design 

features to a Standard pavement design. 

• Questionnaire surveys of PCC paving contractors. Questionnaire surveys were also sent 

to PCC paving contractors to obtain information on the costs associated with various 

PCC design features. These surveys solicited information on what the relative increase in 

cost might be for adding PCC pavement design features to a Standard pavement design. 

The development, distribution, and collection of the questionnaire surveys as well as the overall 

processing of the data represented a major work effort. The processed and summarized 

performance and cost data serve as the “default” database (i.e., default cost and performance data 

sets) for use in evaluating the relative cost and performance benefits of each PCC pavement 

design feature. 

This chapter describes each of the primary data collection activities mentioned above. The 

overall approach and methodology used in each activity are described, along with a summary of 

how the collected data were used in this project. 

Literature Review 

The detailed literature review for this project aimed to identify pertinent reference documents 

discussing the costs and performance benefits of different PCC pavement design features. A 

previous literature search conducted for a National Highway Institute (NHI) training course was 

the basis for the search conducted for this project.(5) However, the previous search by Smith and 

Hall targeted pavement design and performance information for the three major PCC pavement 

types (jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCP), jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP), 

and continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP)), so portions were not necessarily 

applicable to the current study which focuses primarily on JPCP designs and on the costs and 

performance benefits of PCC design features. Moreover, additional information was sought on 

pavement cross sections, PCC strength, PCC materials, and ride specifications, as these saw 

limited coverage in the original literature review. 
4 

To supplement the applicable documents identified in the original literature review, additional 

targeted searches were completed using the Transportation Research Information Services 

(TRIS), National Technical Information Services (NTIS), and Engineering Index (EI 

Compendex) national bibliographic databases. These searches were limited to recent 

publications (TRIS: 1995 to 2000; NTIS: 1990 to 2000; EI Compendex: 1998 to 2000). The 

search identified more than 100 additional records that were deemed potentially useful to the 

project. 

After reviewing the records identified in the new literature searches, the researchers prepared a 

short annotation describing the record’s content. A final annotated bibliography was prepared 

and grouped by the following topics: 

• Base/Subbase Design. 

• Concrete Mix Considerations. 

• Construction. 

• Costs. 

• Cross Section. 

• Design and Performance. 

• Drainage. 

• Joint Design. 

• Maintenance. 

• Reinforcement. 

• Ride Specifications. 

• Shoulder Design and Performance. 

• Subgrade. 

• Surface Texture and Noise. 

The final annotated bibliography (appendix A) is not intended to be a comprehensive coverage of 

every PCC pavement design and performance study; instead, it is a listing of pertinent recent 

reports and papers (those published within the past 10 years) that provide guidance on the costs 

and performance of PCC pavement design features. The key documents were reviewed and used 

as a foundation for the pavement design categories and design features to be evaluated in the 

study, and also provided insight into general cost and performance trends. 

Questionnaire Survey Development 

This section describes the data collection effort for the performance and cost surveys conducted 

for this project. First, general background information is provided on the PCC pavement design 

features included in the surveys and on the construction of the surveys themselves. This is 

followed by a description of the data collection processes utilized in both the SHA (relative 

performance) surveys and the PCC paving contractor (relative cost) surveys. 
5 

Design Categories and Alternative Design Features

Based on the literature review, 10 primary categories of PCC pavement design features were 

identified, along with a list of possible design feature alternatives within each category. Because 

pavement designs can vary considerably within each of the design feature categories, one feature 

was selected to be the “standard” feature within that category. The collection of “standard” 

features from all design feature categories then represents the Standard PCC pavement cross 

section. The Standard PCC pavement cross section is the basis for comparison and allows for 

the determination of the incremental increase (or decrease) in cost and performance relative to 

that standard design (instead of, for example, each agency’s standard design). 

The final design feature categories and alternative design features considered within each 

category are summarized below. Those design features included as part of the Standard

pavement design are indicated by “STD.” A two-lane roadway (two lanes in one direction and 

part of a four-lane divided highway) is assumed as the Standard construction section. 

• Subgrade 

− Prepared subgrade (natural soil, no other treatment) (STD). 

− 300-mm (12-inch) lime-treated subgrade (and elimination of 150-mm (6-inch) densegraded aggregate base). 

• Base/Subbase 

− 150-mm (6-inch) dense-graded aggregate base on prepared subgrade (STD). 

− No base (PCC pavement placed directly on prepared subgrade). 

− 150-mm (6-inch) asphalt-treated base (ATB). 

− 150-mm (6-inch) cement-treated base (CTB). 

• Drainage 

− No positive drainage system (STD). 

− Open-graded nonstabilized aggregate layer with longitudinal underdrain system. 

(Note: A longitudinal drainage system consists of an open-graded trench wrapped 

with a geotextile material and containing 150-mm (6-inch) flexible longitudinal 

drainage pipe and rigid pipe outlets at 152-m (500-ft) spacings). 

− Asphalt-treated permeable base (ATPB) with longitudinal underdrain system. 

− ATPB with daylighted drainage into drainage ditch or swale (no longitudinal 

underdrain system). 

− Cement-treated permeable base (CTPB) with longitudinal underdrain system. 

− CTPB with daylighted drainage into drainage ditch or swale (no longitudinal 

underdrain system). 

• Thickness/Slab Size 

− 250-mm (10-inch) PCC pavement with 4.6-m (15-ft) transverse joint spacing (STD). 

− 200-mm (8-inch) PCC pavement with 3.7-m (12-ft) transverse joint spacing. 

− 300-mm (12-inch) PCC pavement with 5.5-m (18-ft) transverse joint spacing. 
6 

− 250-mm (10-inch) JRCP with 150 x 300 mm–MW 80 x MW 35 (6 x 12 inch–W 12 x 

W 5.5) welded wire fabric mesh placed on steel chairs at midslab depth. Transverse 

joint spacing is 9.1 m (30 ft) with 32-mm (1.25-inch) diameter epoxy-coated dowel 

bars that are 450 mm (18 inches) long and spaced at 300 mm (12 inches) across the 

transverse joints. 

− 240-mm (9.5-inch) CRCP with 19-mm (0.75-inch) epoxy-coated deformed bars, 200 

mm (8 inches) on-center longitudinally and 900 mm (36 inches) on-center 

transversely. 

− 240-mm (9.5-inch) CRCP with 19-mm (0.75-inch) noncoated deformed bars, 200 mm 

(8 inches) on-center longitudinally and 900 mm (36 inches) on-center transversely. 

• Pavement Cross Section 

− 250-mm (10-inch) thick uniform cross section (STD). 

− Trapezoidal cross section, with the PCC pavement 275 mm (11 inches) thick at the 

outside edge of the truck lane, tapering to 200 mm (8 inches) thick at the outside edge 

of the passing lane. 

− Thickened edge design, with the outer edges of both the truck and the passing lane 

constructed 275 mm (11 inches) thick and tapering to a thickness of 200 mm (8 

inches) at the centerline of the pavement. 

• Joints/Load Transfer 

− 250-mm (10-inch) JPCP, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 32-mm 

(1.25-inch) diameter epoxy-coated dowel bars that are 450 mm (18 inches) long and 

spaced at 300 mm (12 inches) across the transverse joints (STD). 

− 250-mm (10-inch) JPCP, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 32-mm 

(1.25-inch) diameter noncoated dowel bars that are 450 mm (18 inches) long and 

spaced at 300 mm (12 inches) across the transverse joints (no epoxy on the dowel 

bars). 

− 250-mm (10-inch) JPCP, 4.6-m (15-ft) skewed transverse joint spacing, 32-mm (1.25-

inch) diameter epoxy-coated dowel bars that are 450 mm (18 inches) long and spaced 

at 300 mm (12 inches) across the transverse joints. The joints are skewed counterclockwise at 0.6 m (2 ft) per 3.7-m (12-ft) lane. 

− 250-mm (10-inch) JPCP, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular transverse joint spacing, and no 

dowel bars. 

− 250-mm (10-inch) JPCP, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular transverse joint spacing, with 

three 32-mm (1.25-inch) diameter epoxy-coated dowel bars that are 450 mm (18 

inches) long located in the center of each wheelpath on 300-mm (12-inch) spacings. 

• Joint Sealing 

− 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing with 3-mm (0.12-inch) control cut, 9.5-mm (0.38-inch) 

widening cut, backer rod, and hot-poured asphaltic sealant (STD). 

− 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing with hot-poured sealant and a single 3-mm (0.12-inch) saw 

cut for crack control. 
7 

− 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing with 3-mm (0.12-inch) control cut, 9.5-mm (0.38-inch) 

widening cut, backer rod, and silicone sealant. 

− 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing with silicone sealant and a single 3-mm (0.12-inch) saw 

cut for crack control. 

− 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing with 3-mm (0.12-inch) control cut, 9.5-mm (0.38-inch) 

widening cut, and preformed compression sealant. 

− 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing with no sealant and a single 3-mm (0.12-inch) saw cut for 

crack control. 

• Shoulders 

− 150-mm (6-inch) hot-mix asphalt (HMA) shoulders over 250-mm (10-inch) dense 

graded aggregate base (STD). 

− 400-mm (16-inch) gravel shoulders. 

− 150-mm (6-inch) partial-depth, tied PCC shoulder over a 250-mm (10-inch) 

aggregate base (outer lane only, standard HMA shoulder on passing lane). 

− 250-mm (10-inch) full-depth, tied PCC shoulder over a 150-mm (6-inch) aggregate 

base (outer lane only, standard HMA shoulder on passing lane). 

− Standard pavement section with a 0.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab and a 2.4-m (8-ft) 

HMA shoulder. 

• Concrete Strength/Materials 

− 4.5-MPa (650 lb/in2

) flexural strength (28-day value tested under third-point loading, 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C78) (STD). 

− 5.2-MPa (750 lb/in2

) flexural strength (28-day value tested under third-point loading 

(ASTM C78)). Higher strength is obtained by using additional Type I cement. 

− High-early strength, opening to traffic within 48 hours (high-early strength is 

obtained by using Type III cement). 

− PCC mix using a well-graded aggregate gradation. 

• Initial Smoothness (as measured by a California Profilograph with a 5-mm (0.20-inch) 

blanking band) 

− 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) (STD). 

− 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 inches/mi). 

− 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 inches/mi). 

− 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 inches/mi). 

− Less than 16 mm/km (1 inches/mi). 

Clearly, a virtually unlimited number of design feature alternatives could have been selected for 

this project. However, the number of alternatives was limited to not only facilitate the 

questionnaire survey process but also to represent more established design practices (although a 

few unique design features were included to reflect new or innovative practices). 
8 

Questionnaire Survey Forms

After the design feature categories were identified and the various design feature alternatives 

selected, questionnaire surveys were developed: one targeted at highway agencies (to solicit 

relative performance data) and one targeted at PCC paving contractors (to solicit relative cost 

data). Although these were separate surveys, the pavement design variables presented in each 

questionnaire are identical. This allows the results from each data collection effort to be directly 

paired for analysis. Additional data (including a short summary of the agency’s PCC pavement 

maintenance activities and the ranking of the design categories in terms of their impact on 

pavement performance) were also a part of the relative performance questionnaire surveys. 

Both surveys were structured so that only one design feature (from the Standard design) was 

changed at a time, and the survey participants were then asked to assess what effect that change 

might have in terms of the relative performance (agency questionnaire) or costs (contractor 

questionnaire). In this way, the relative effects of the change in that one design feature could be 

determined. For example, one scenario is to change the base from the 150-mm (6-inch) 

aggregate base in the Standard design to a 150-mm (6-inch) CTB. Considering this single 

change, the highway agencies were asked to assess what effect this would have on the relative 

performance of the modified pavement design in comparison to the Standard design. Assigning 

the relative performance of the Standard design as 1.0, if the modified pavement (with the CTB) 

is believed to be capable of carrying 5 percent more 80-kN (18-kip) equivalent single-axle load 

(ESAL) applications than the Standard pavement, the relative performance rating is 1.05. On the 

other hand, if the design feature change is believed to result in a 5-percent decrease in the 

number of 80-kN (18-kip) ESAL applications that the pavement can carry, the relative 

performance rating is 0.95. Again, all performance ratings are made relative to the Standard

design performance rating of 1.0. 

A similar approach is employed for the cost surveys. Using the same example (changing the 

aggregate base of the Standard section to a CTB), PCC paving contractors were asked to 

estimate what the change in relative cost of the modified pavement design might be, assuming a 

relative cost of 1.0 for the Standard section. If the cost for the modified pavement (containing 

the CTB) is believed to be 15 percent more than the Standard section, the relative cost rating is 

then 1.15. 

Survey respondents provided these relative ratings for the entire group of design feature 

alternative changes listed above. Respondents were asked to not enter a rating if they had no 

experience with a particular design feature. 

As part of the survey development, several design and construction assumptions were established 

to provide a common foundation for all respondents and to help to maintain overall consistency 

in the responses. These assumptions include the following: 

• The pavement is assumed to be located on a rural divided highway. 

• The average daily traffic (ADT) is assumed to be 20,000 vehicles per day in each 

direction with 15 percent trucks. This represents approximately 700,000 to 800,000 

ESALs per year in the design lane (no growth in annual ESALs is assumed during the life 

of the pavement). 
9 

• The project is located within 80 km (50 mi) of the contractor’s mobilization center. 

• The project is 8 km (5 mi) long and has four lanes of traffic (two lanes in each direction). 

• The project is constructed at grade with no earthwork and all paving is on longitudinal 

slopes less than 5 percent. 

• The pavement is constructed during normal daytime business hours. 

• Standard slipform paving equipment will be used for construction. 

• A portable PCC batch plant will be utilized. 

• The PCC for this project is a typical local mix. 

• Local environmental regulations will govern the project. 

• Local specifications for construction apply to the highway work. 

• Local load restrictions will be used. 

Appendix B contains the final questionnaires used in conducting both surveys. 

Desired Number of Survey Responses

Prior to sending out the questionnaire surveys, the researchers performed an initial statistical 

evaluation to determine the desired number of questionnaire responses required to have a 

reasonable estimate of the relative performance and cost. In determining the desired sample size, 

it is assumed that the total population has a normal distribution. The purpose of the 

questionnaires is to predict the average of the population (for example, the average PCC 

pavement life or the average PCC pavement relative construction cost). Thus the following 

equation is applicable to estimate the desired sample size: 

 (1) 

where: 

 n = desired number of survey samples. 

σ = estimated standard deviation. 

z = number of standard error units (based on the desired confidence level and obtained 

from a normal probability table). 

T = required precision or tolerance. 

With this approach, the standard deviation of the to-be-determined average value is yet 

unknown. Furthermore, the desired confidence levels and the desired precision levels must also 

be selected. However, by running a range of values with an initially assumed, reasonable 

average, the effects of these inputs on the resulting number of samples can be determined and 

reasonable target values can be selected. 

For the purposes of estimating the number of samples, the analyses for the performance and cost 

questionnaires are broken out separately, as described below. 

2

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ = T

z

n

σ
10 

• The relative performance questionnaires essentially ask, “What is the performance life of 

PCC pavements?” Assuming the average result is approximately 40 years, standard 

deviations of 4, 6, and 10 years (roughly equivalent to coefficients of variation of 10, 15, 

and 25 percent) were selected as estimates of the true standard deviation. Next, three 

levels of desired precision (the desired closeness of the life estimates) were selected for 

consideration: 2, 5, and 10 years. Based on these assumptions and using equation 1, table 

1 was generated. 

• The relative cost questionnaires consider the basic question, “What is the cost of 

constructing a PCC pavement?” Assuming the average result is approximately $35.90/m2

($30/yd2

), standard deviations of $3.60, $7.20, and $10.80/m2 ($3.00, $6.00, and 

$9.00/yd2) (roughly equivalent to coefficients of variations of 10, 15, and 20 percent) 

were selected as estimates of the true standard deviation. Again, three levels of required 

precision were selected for consideration: $2.40, $4.80, and $7.20/m2

 ($2.00, $4.00, and 

$6.00/yd2

). Based on these assumptions and again using equation 1, table 2 was 

produced. 

Table 1. Summary of the required number of samples for performance questionnaires. 

 Number of Required Samples 

 90% Confidence (z = 1.645) 95% Confidence (z = 1.960) 

 Precision of Average Performance 

Life Estimate (T) 

Precision of Average Performance 

Life Estimate (T) 

 Within 2 

years 

Within 5 

years 

Within 10 

years 

Within 2 

years 

Within 5 

years 

Within 10 

years 

4 years 10.8 1.7 0.4 15.4 2.5 0.6 

6 years 24.4 3.9 1.0 34.6 5.5 1.4 

Estimated 

Standard 

Deviation of 

Performance 

Life Estimates 

(σ) 10 years 67.7 10.8 2.7 96.0 15.4 3.8 

As expected, table 1 shows that for higher levels of precision, higher standard deviation values, 

and higher confidence levels, greater numbers of relative performance responses are needed. For 

this project, a 95 percent confidence level and a precision level of 5 years are considered 

appropriate. Assuming a high variability in the life estimates (10 years), a minimum of 16 

surveys (rounded up from the corresponding value of 15.4 in table 1) is desirable for the 

performance surveys. 

Similarly, table 2 shows that for higher levels of precision, higher standard deviation values, and 

higher confidence levels, more relative cost responses are needed. For this project, a 95 percent 

confidence level and a precision level of $4.80/m2

 ($4.00/yd2) are probably appropriate. 
11 

Assuming a high variability in the responses ($10.80/m2 ($9.00/yd2)), a minimum of 20 surveys 

(rounded up from the corresponding value of 19.4 in table 2) is desirable for the cost surveys. 

Table 2. Summary of the required number of samples for relative cost questionnaires. 

 Number of Required Samples 

 90% Confidence (z = 1.645) 95% Confidence (z = 1.96) 

 Precision of Average Cost 

Estimate (T) 

Precision of Average Cost 

Estimate (T) 

 

Within 

$2.40/m2

($2.00/yd2

)

Within 

$4.80/m2

($4.00/yd2

)

Within 

$7.20/m2

($6.00/yd2

)

Within 

$2.40/m2

($2.00/yd2

)

Within 

$4.80/m2

($4.00/yd2

) 

Within 

$7.20/m2

($6.00/yd2

)

$3.60/m2

($3.00/yd2

) 6.1 1.5 0.7 8.6 2.2 1.0 

$7.20/m2

($6.00/yd2

) 24.4 6.1 2.7 34.6 8.6 3.8 

Estimated 

Standard 

Deviation of 

Cost 

Estimates (σ) $10.80/m2

($9.00/yd2

) 54.8 13.7 6.1 77.8 19.4 8.6 

The above analysis is very approximate, but it was used as an initial goal for the number of 

questionnaires to be obtained for the performance and cost surveys. 

SHA Performance Questionnaire Survey 

A project summary and request for participation was faxed to 43 SHAs; 25 agencies ultimately 

agreed to participate. Once appropriate contacts within each agency had been identified, the 

relative performance questionnaire forms were faxed or mailed to the participants; 45 days were 

allotted to them to submit completed forms. During this time, typically three deadline reminders 

were faxed to the volunteers. These reminders were sent during the third and fourth weeks and 

on the survey completion date. 

 

A total of 12 SHA responses were received, despite several concentrated efforts to increase that 

number. This falls slightly lower than the original target of 16, but is believed to still be 

sufficiently high to provide meaningful results. Agencies providing responses to the 

questionnaire surveys were: 

• Florida. 

• Illinois. 

• Indiana. 

• Kansas. 

• Minnesota. 

• New Jersey. 
12 

• Ohio. 

• Oklahoma. 

• South Dakota. 

• Tennessee. 

• Washington. 

• West Virginia. 

A summary of the raw SHA relative performance ratings is provided in appendix C; a concise 

summary of the responses is shown in table 3. This table shows several different columns of 

information related to the relative performance ratings. The column titled Average Survey 

Results contains the direct averages of the performance ratings provided by all SHAs. However, 

because of the considerable variability associated with many of these responses, perceived 

outlier data points were removed and the resultant performance ratings presented under the 

column titled Modified Survey Results. Outlying data points were identified as those 

performance values that 1) grossly contradicted the expected performance trends or 2) were 

greatly different in magnitude from the reasonable performance range. 

The column titled Average Model Results in table 3 presents the average performance ratings as 

computed by available performance models; it is used as a basis for checking the reasonableness 

of the survey results (see Performance Model Evaluation section below). Based on the 

consideration of the survey results and the performance models, the recommended ranges of 

performance ratings for each design feature category are presented in the column titled 

Recommended Values. 

A quick review of the recommended values shown in table 3 indicates that slab thickness has the 

largest effect on relative pavement performance, as might be expected. Other factors noted to 

have a major effect on relative pavement performance include the type of base (including the 

absence of a base course), drainage, dowel bars (the absence of dowel bars considerably 

decreased performance), and widened slabs. 

Performance Model Evaluation 

Due to the variability observed in the performance-related survey responses, available PCC 

pavement performance models were used to develop relative performance ratings for certain 

design features that may be added to or deleted from the Standard pavement section. 

Unfortunately, not all design features could be evaluated using these models because many 

features are not direct input variables in the models. Table 4 summarizes the models that were 

used in this study and the corresponding design features that could be evaluated with each model. 

The average performance ratios coming from an investigation of all of the aforementioned 

models are presented in the Average Model Results column of table 3. As previously mentioned, 

using a combination of the results from the modified performance ratings and the results from 

the available performance models, recommended ranges for each design feature category were 

developed and are presented in table 3. The recommended ranges are used to define the default 

performance changes (i.e., the default performance data set) used in the analytical software tool 

developed for this project. 
13

Table 3. Summary of performance ratings. 

Design 

Feature 

Category 

Design Feature 

Average 

Survey

Results 

Modified 

Survey 

Results 

Average 

Model 

Results 

Recommended 

Values 

Untreated prepared subgrade (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Standa

Subgrade 300-mm (12-in) lime treated subgrade (and elimination of aggregate 

base) 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.85 to 0.95 Base c

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base on prepared subgrade (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 StandaNo base (placed directly on prepared subgrade) 0.76 0.83 0.89 0.70 to 0.90 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded ATB 1.11 1.16 1.25 1.00 to 1.20 

Base 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded CTB 0.88 1.09 1.29 1.00 to 1.20 

No drainage layers, no underdrains (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Standa150-mm (6-in) open-graded, nonstabilized aggregate base (with underdrains) 1.32 1.22 1.19 1.00 to 1.20 150-mm (6-in) ATPB (with underdrains) 1.52 1.34 1.33 1.00 to 1.20 150-mm (6-in) ATPB (without underdrains) 1.27 1.17 n/a 0.90 to 1.20 150-mm (6-in) CTPB (with underdrains) 1.28 1.24 1.33 1.00 to 1.20 

Drainage 

150-mm (6-in) CTPB (without underdrains) 1.28 1.17 n/a 0.90 to 1.20 

High suvalidatPerformwithousubsta

250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Standa200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) joint spacing 0.57 0.82 0.44 0.40 to 0.80 300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) joint spacing 2.05 1.17 13.64 1.20 to 1.80 Models 

thickne

250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing (32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 150- x 300-mm (6- x 12-in) mesh) 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.80 to 1.00 Long jo

perform

240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) epoxy-coated deformed bars, 200-mm (8-in) o.c. longitudinal, 914-mm (36-in) o.c. transverse) 1.05 1.05 0.74 0.90 to 1.10 

Thickness/ Slab Size 

240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) noncoated deformed bars, 200-mm (8-in) o.c. longitudinal, 914-mm (36-in) o.c. transverse) 1.12 1.12 0.74 0.90 to 1.10 

AmericHighwa(AASHthicknetypes. 

250-mm (10-in) thick uniform cross section (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Standa

Cross Trapezoidal cross section, 275 to 200 mm (11 to 8 in) 1.00 1.00 n/a 0.95 to 1.05 Section Thickened edge cross section, 200 mm (8 in) at centerline to 275 mm 

(11 in) 1.00 1.00 n/a 0.95 to 1.05 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Standa250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) noncoated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.90 to 1.00 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) skewed joints 0.96 0.96 n/a 0.95 to 1.00 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, no dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 0.59 0.59 0.50 0.50 to 0.60 

Joints/Load Transfer 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, reduced # of 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 0.85 0.85 n/a 0.80 to 0.95 

Key: STD = Standard; ATB = asphalt-treated base; CTB = cement-treated base; ATPB = asphalt-treated permeable base; CTPB = cement-treated 

center; n/a = not available. 
14

Table 3. Summary of performance ratings (continued). 

Design 

Feature 

Category 

Design Feature 

Average 

Survey

Results 

Modified 

Survey 

Results 

Average 

Model 

Results 

Recommended 

Values 

Hot-poured rubberized asphalt with widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 StandHot-poured rubberized asphalt without widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 0.99 0.99 n/a 0.95 to 1.00 Silicone sealant with widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 1.06 1.06 0.64 1.00 to 1.05 Silicone sealant without widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 0.98 0.98 n/a 0.95 to 1.05 

Modefrom s

Preformed compression sealant (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 1.05 1.07 2.97 1.00 to 1.10 Mode

perfor

Joint Sealing 

No sealant 0.86 0.95 0.56 0.90 to 1.00 

150-mm (6-in) HMA over 250-mm (10-in) dense graded aggregate base(STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stand400-mm (16-in) gravel 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.95 to 1.00 150-mm (6-in) partial-depth tied PCC over 250-mm (10-in) aggregate base 1.14 1.14 1.73 1.00 to 1.15 250-mm (10-in) full-depth tied PCC over 150-mm (6-in) aggregate base 1.30 1.18 1.73 1.00 to 1.30 

Shoulders 

0.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab and a 2.4-m (8-ft) HMA shoulder 1.34 1.21 2.74 1.10 to 1.40 

Modeperfoand w

4.5-MPa (650 lb/in2) flexural strength (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stand5.2-MPa (750 lb/in2) flexural strength 1.17 1.17 4.35 1.00 to 1.20 Mode

streng

High-early strength 0.97 0.97 n/a 0.95 to 1.05 

Strength/ Materials 

Well-graded mix 1.26 1.08 n/a 1.00 to 1.10 

Note: These smoothness performance values are assumed to be the same regardless of the base type used. Reported smoothness 

measurement with a 5-mm (0.20-in) blanking band. 

110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stand79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.00 to 1.05 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.00 to 1.10 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.12 1.12 1.10 1.00 to 1.14 

Initial Smoothness 

< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.00 to 1.16 

All ratings are relative to the performance of the Standard pavement section. 

Key: STD = Standard; n/a = not available. 
 15 

Table 4. PCC pavement performance models used to evaluate effect of design features. 

Model 

Performance 

Indicator 

Design Features 

Evaluated 

1993 AASHTO(6) Serviceability 

Base 

Drainage 

Slab Thickness 

Load Transfer 

Shoulder Type 

PCC Strength 

Initial Smoothness 

1998 AASHTO(7) Serviceability 

Subgrade 

Base 

Slab Thickness/Slab Size 

Shoulder Type 

PCC Strength 

Initial Smoothness 

1990 Ripper(8) Slab Cracking 

Slab Thickness/Slab Size 

PCC Strength 

Shoulder Type 

Slab Cracking 

Base Type 

Slab Thickness/Slab Size 

PCC Strength 

Shoulder Type 

Joint Faulting 

Base Type 

Drainage 

Slab Thickness/Slab Size 

Load Transfer 

Shoulder Type 

1997 Ripper(9)

Joint Spalling Slab Size 

Joint Sealant 

SHA Design Category Ranking Survey 

In addition to the relative performance ratings, SHA respondents were asked to rank the relative 

importance of each design feature category to PCC pavement performance. That is, of the 10 

design feature categories (see below) respondents were asked to rank each factor on an integer 

scale of 1 to 10, with 10 representing the most important and 1 the least important. No two 

design features were allowed to share the same ranking, so the result was a “forced ranking” of 

the importance of each design feature category. These rankings were incorporated into the 

analysis approach as a way of accounting for the effects of multiple design feature changes on 

pavement performance (see discussion in chapter 3). 

The final recommended category rankings are presented in table 5 and are based on the collected 

survey results. It is readily acknowledged that a designer or agency could have different 
 16 

opinions about the ranking factors. Therefore, although the category ranking factor set displayed 

in table 5 is used as the default ranking factor set in the software, an agency may create their own 

ranking factor set that reflects their expected relationships between design categories and 

concrete pavement performance. 

Table 5. Details of the recommended category ranking factor set. 

Design 

Category 

Ranking 

Factor 

Joints/Load Transfer 10 Most Important 

Thickness/Slab Size 9 

Base/Subbase 8 

Drainage 7 

Strength/Materials 6 

Subgrade 5 

Initial Smoothness 4 

Joint Sealing 3 

Cross Section 2 

Shoulders 1 Least Important 

Contractor Cost Questionnaire Survey 

A project summary and request for participation was faxed to 216 contracting companies 

provided by the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). A total of 53 firms 

responded to the request; 38 volunteered to participate in the study. The relative cost 

questionnaire forms were faxed or mailed to each volunteer. Forty-five days were allotted to 

complete the questionnaire surveys. As with the relative performance questionnaire surveys, 

typically three deadline reminders were faxed to the volunteers. These reminders were sent 

during the third and fourth weeks and on the survey completion date. 

Sixteen responses were received from contractors. As with the SHA surveys, this value falls 

slightly lower than the original target of 20, but it is believed to be sufficiently large to provide 

meaningful results. Paving contractors responding were: 

• Baker Concrete Construction, Monroe, OH. 

• Berns Construction Company, Indianapolis, IN. 

• Cedar Valley Corporation, Waterloo, IA. 

• Duit Construction Company, Edmond, OK. 

• Flynn Company, Dubuque IA. 
 17 

• Gale Tschuor Company, Muncie, IN. 

• The Harper Company, Hebron, KY. 

• Irving F. Jenson Company, Sioux City, IA. 

• K-Five Construction, Lemont, IL (estimator A). 

• K-Five Construction, Lemont, IL (estimator B). 

• K-Five Construction, Lemont, IL (estimator C). 

• Koss Construction, Topeka, KS. 

• The Sundt Companies, Tucson, AZ. 

• Weaver-Bailey Contractors, El Paso, AR. 

• Western Plains Construction, Lincoln, NE. 

• Wittwer Paving Inc., Wichita, KS. 

A summary of the raw relative cost data collection responses is provided in appendix C. The 

averages of all survey results for each alternative design feature are displayed in table 6. An 

initial review of the data indicates that comprehensive drainage systems result in a substantial 

increase in pavement costs. Other design features that contribute significantly to pavement costs 

are PCC shoulders and high-early strength PCC mixtures. On the other hand, factors such as 

pavement cross sections (trapezoid or thickened edge), widened slabs, and joint sealing appear to 

have very little effect on pavement construction costs. Note that the cost associated with 

achieving different levels of initial smoothness is dependent on the selected base type. 

Summary 

This chapter summarizes the data collection activities for this project. A description of the 

literature search is first presented, which provided many useful resource documents that served 

as the basis for the development of the questionnaire surveys. The approach used in developing 

the questionnaire surveys is also provided, which produced two separate questionnaire surveys: 

one targeted to state highway agencies and intended to collect relative performance ratings for 

changes in design features, and one targeted to PCC paving contractors and intended to collect 

relative cost ratings for changes in design features. Each questionnaire survey was structured in 

the same manner so that the performance and cost data could be matched up for each design 

feature. 

The results of the performance and cost surveys are summarized in this chapter, with raw survey 

results presented in appendix C. The performance ratings that were received from the highway 

agencies were evaluated in conjunction with available performance models to check their 

validity and reasonableness. Overall, these data serve as one “data set” for use in the computer 

program developed under this project (see chapter 3). 
 18 

Table 6. Summary of contractor initial cost ratings. 

Design Feature 

Category Design Feature Average SurveyResults 

Untreated prepared subgrade (STD) 1.00 Subgrade 

300-mm (12-in) lime treated subgrade (and elimination of aggregate base) 0.98 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base on prepared subgrade (STD) 1.00 

No base (placed directly on prepared subgrade) 0.85 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded ATB 1.16 

Base 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded CTB 1.06 

No drainage layers, no underdrains (STD) 1.00 

150-mm (6-in) open-graded, nonstabilized aggregate base (with underdrains) 1.22 

150-mm (6-in) ATPB (with underdrains) 1.33 

150-mm (6-in) ATPB (without underdrains) 1.28 

150-mm (6-in) CTPB (with underdrains) 1.28 

Drainage 

150-mm (6-in) CTPB (without underdrains) 1.27 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing (STD) 1.00 

200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) joint spacing 0.87 

300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) joint spacing 1.09 

250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing 

(32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 150- x 300-mm (6- x 12-in) mesh) 1.08 

240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) epoxy-coated deformed bars, 200-mm (8-in) o.c. 

longitudinal, 914-mm (36-in) o.c. transverse) 1.20 

Thickness/ 

Slab Size 

240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) non-coated deformed bars, 200-mm (8-in) o.c. 

longitudinal, 914-mm (36-in) o.c. transverse) 1.15 

250-mm (10-in) thick uniform cross section (STD) 1.00 

Trapezoidal cross section, 275 to 200 mm (11 to 8 in) 0.99 

Cross 

Section 

Thickened edge cross section, 200 mm (8 in) at centerline to 275 mm (11 in) edges 1.00 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 

(STD) 1.00 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) noncoated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 0.99 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) skewed joints 1.01 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, no dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 0.94 

Joints/Load 

Transfer 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, reduced # of 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular joints 0.97 

Hot-poured rubberized asphalt with widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) (STD) 1.00 

Hot-poured rubberized asphalt without widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 0.99 

Silicone sealant with widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 1.03 

Silicone sealant without widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 1.02 

Preformed compression sealant (4.6-m (15-ft) joints) 1.07 

Joint 

Sealing 

No sealant 0.95 

150-mm (6-in) HMA over 250-mm (10-in) dense graded aggregate base (STD) 1.00 

400-mm (16-in) gravel 0.90 

150-mm (6-in) partial-depth tied PCC over 250-mm (10-in) aggregate base 1.13 

250-mm (10-in) full-depth tied PCC over 150-mm (6-in) aggregate base 1.17 

Shoulders 

0.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab and a 2.4-m (8-ft) HMA shoulder 1.07 

4.5-MPa (650 lb/in2) flexural strength (STD) 1.00 

5.2-MPa (750 lb/in2) flexural strength 1.05 

High-early strength 1.12 

Strength/ 

Materials 

Well-graded mix 1.01 

Key: STD = Standard; ATB = asphalt-treated base; CTB = cement-treated base; ATPB = asphalt-treated permeable base; 

CTPB = cement-treated permeable base; o.c. = on center. 
 19 

Table 6. Summary of contractor initial cost ratings (continued). 

Design Feature 

Category Design Feature Average Survey Results 

Note: these smoothness performance values differ based on the base type used. Reported smoothness values assume measurement with a 5-

mm (0.20-in) blanking band. 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base on prepared subgrade (STD) — 

110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD) 1.00 

79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 

47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.00 

16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.02 

< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.04 

No base (placed directly on prepared subgrade) — 

110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD)

79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 

47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 

16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 

< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 

Base type not included in survey. 

Assumed to be similar to costs 

associated with the 150-mm densegraded aggregate base. 

150-mm (6-in) ATB — 

110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD) 1.03 

79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.04 

47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.04 

16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.05 

< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.07 

150-mm (6-in) CTB — 

110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD) 1.01 

79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.01 

47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.01 

16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.03 

< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.04 

150-mm (6-in) open-graded, nonstabilized aggregate base — 

110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD)

79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 

47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 

16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 

< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 

Base type not included in survey. 

Assumed to have higher costs than any 

of the other included base types due to 

the difficulty of constructing on this 

base type. 

Open-graded stabilized drainage layers — 

110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD) 1.03 

79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.03 

47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.03 

16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.05 

Initial 

Smoothness 

(measured with a 

5-mm (0.20-in) 

blanking band) 

< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.06 

All ratings are relative to the cost of the Standard pavement section. 

Key: STD = Standard; ATB = asphalt-treated base; CTB = cement-treated base. 
 
 21 

CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS METHOD 

Introduction 

As described in chapter 2, the analysis approach used in this project is a simple method to 

investigate the cost and performance implications of changing design features in a PCC 

pavement. The primary purpose of the analysis method is to compare two different defined 

pavement sections (i.e., two sections with different design features) to determine the relative 

differences in their expected costs and expected performance (in terms of allowable ESALs). 

Although the calculations used in the methodology are simple and straightforward, many 

components are involved in the overall process. This chapter defines the basic components of 

the methodology, provides illustrative examples demonstrating the computational methods of the 

approach, and introduces the analytical software that automates the methodology. 

Components of the Analysis Approach 

Before discussing the detailed performance and cost computations, it is important to first explain 

the general components making up the approach. Specifically, this section discusses the 

definition of pavement sections (and in particular the Standard pavement section), cost and 

performance data sets, category ranking factors, and the simplified life-cycle cost analysis 

(LCCA) included as part of an analysis session. 

Definition of a Pavement Section

A pavement section is defined as a unique combination of specific pavement features chosen 

from the following 10 different design feature categories: 

• Subgrade. 

• Base/Subbase. 

• Drainage. 

• Thickness/Slab Size. 

• Cross Section. 

• Joints/Load Transfer. 

• Joint Sealing. 

• Shoulders. 

• Strength/Materials. 

• Initial Smoothness. 

For practical purposes, the number of available design feature options had to be limited to those 

alternative design features (organized by design category) previously outlined in the Design 

Categories and Alternative Design Features section of chapter 2. 

The Standard Pavement Section

Because the goal of the survey of user agencies and contractors was to estimate the expected 

changes in cost and performance associated with making one design feature change at a time, a 

Standard pavement design was defined to serve as a baseline. The unique combination of design 
 22 

features for the Standard section are listed in table 7. This defined Standard pavement section is 

expected to carry approximately 700,000 to 800,000 ESALs per year over an assumed 20-year 

design life (design life is defined as the time until first major rehabilitation). 

Table 7. Pavement design features defining the Standard pavement section. 

Design Category Design Features 

Subgrade Untreated prepared subgrade 

Base/Subbase 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base 

Drainage No drainage layers, no underdrains 

Thickness/Slab Size 250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing 

Cross Section 250-mm (10-in) uniform thickness 

Joints/Load Transfer 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 

Joint Sealing Hot-poured asphalt with widening cut 

Shoulders 150-mm (6-in) HMA over 250-mm (10-in) dense graded aggregate base 

Strength/Materials 4.5-MPa (650 psi) flexural 

Initial Smoothness 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (measured with a 5-mm (0.2-in) blanking band) 

Note: ADT is 20,000 vehicles per day in each direction with 15% trucks. This is approximately 700,000 to 800,000 

ESALs per year in the design lane. Assume no growth in annual ESALs during the life of the pavement. 

As part of the survey, the respondents were asked to use the expected cost and performance of 

the Standard section as a basis while they systematically replaced one of the Standard section’s 

features with one of the other available alternative design features. With every feature 

replacement, respondents were asked to estimate expected percent changes in terms of cost and 

performance ratios. That is, the cost and performance ratios for the Standard pavement section 

were assumed to be 1.0. If a particular design feature change was expected to result in a 5-

percent increase in cost and a 2-percent decrease in performance, then the survey respondent 

would have reported cost and performance ratios of 1.05 and 0.98, respectively. 

Cost and Performance Data

The most basic part of the methodology is based on estimating the total change in cost and 

performance associated with changing one or more design features from the Standard pavement 

section. Within the analysis tool, these relative percent changes in cost and performance are 

summarized into cost and performance data sets. Each data set is defined as a summary of the 

relative percent changes in cost or performance associated with all available design feature 

values in each of the 10 design categories (i.e., all of the available design features outlined in 

chapter 2). The following sections contain specific discussions of how the summarized cost and 

performance data are used to estimate an overall section cost and performance within the 

analysis procedure. 

Relative Cost Data 

When multiple design features are changed from the Standard section, the percent change in 

costs of each feature can be simply summed to determine the cost of the modified section (i.e., 

cost changes are cumulative). This procedure is believed to be valid because most of the costs of 
 23 

additional design features are independent construction variables. For example, assume that a 

pavement section differs from the Standard pavement section in that the 150-mm (6-inch) densegraded aggregate base is replaced with a 150-mm (6-inch) cement-treated base, and the hotpoured asphalt with widening cut joint seal is replaced with a preformed compression sealant. 

Next, assume that the base type and joint sealant changes are expected to result in 6.0 and 7.0 

percent respective cost increases. The construction of these two design features is completely 

independent, so these costs can be directly added for a total expected cost increase of 13.0 

percent for this pavement section. 

Relative Performance Data 

Unlike cost data, the impact of individual design features on performance is not necessarily 

cumulative because most, if not all, design variables are interdependent. This means that 

performance impacts are also different depending on what other design features are present in the 

pavement section. For example, tied PCC shoulders might have a larger impact on performance 

if the pavement is constructed with an aggregate base rather than a stabilized base. Similarly, the 

effect of a permeable base may be greater if the joints are not doweled. To address this 

challenge, the underlying methodology relies on a simple method to calculate the impact of 

performance when multiple design features are changed simultaneously. This method uses a 

ranking system that rates the design features based on impact and importance. These impact 

rankings, referred to as Category Ranking Factors, are discussed in greater detail in the next 

section. 

Category Ranking Factors

One of the most difficult steps in the analysis approach is the assignment of category ranking 

factors that accurately reflect an agency’s assessment of which design feature categories have the 

largest impact on overall performance. Because the assignment of realistic ranking factors is 

imperative for computing realistic overall performance values, a detailed discussion illustrating 

the importance of these ranking factors is helpful to explain the meaning of ranking factors, 

illustrate their use, and identify possible pitfalls to avoid. 

Background 

For those cases when multiple design features change at the same time, a method is needed to 

estimate the overall expected performance change. Historically, many different methods of 

different complexity levels have been used to make this performance estimate. By far the most 

complex approach is to conduct extensive research to develop mechanistic performance models 

as functions of the changing design features. While this most complex approach would likely 

provide the most accurate results, it is obviously beyond the scope of this project. More simple 

methods that have been used include estimating overall performance as the product, sum, 

average, or weighted average of the different individual performance changes associated with 

each changing design feature. 

For this project it was decided to adopt a method in which the relative importance of the 10 

different design categories would be used to weight each individual performance change. These 

relative weighting factors are referred to as category ranking factors. More specifically, ranking 
 24 

factors are used to determine how much of each individual performance value is added to the 

overall modified performance. 

Obtaining more accurate estimates of overall performance would have required including the 

entire spectrum of design feature combinations in the questionnaire surveys, or the use of reliable 

performance prediction models that incorporate every design feature. Because these approaches 

were not possible under this project, the described approach was adopted as a simple and 

expedient measure of estimating overall performance. 

Practical Range for Overall Performance 

Before discussing the detailed computations associated with applying category ranking factors, it 

is helpful to conduct a reasonableness check by estimating the practical range for the overall 

expected change in performance. For the category ranking factor method adopted in this 

analysis approach, the following may be used to define practical limits that establish a range of 

reasonable values: 

• If all individual percent changes in performance are positive, the overall modified value 

for all practical purposes lies between the smallest individual value and the sum of all 

individual values. 

• If all individual percent changes in performance are negative, the overall modified value 

most likely lies between the greatest individual value (i.e., that closest to zero) and the 

sum of all individual values. 

• If the individual percent changes in performance contain both positive and negative 

values, the overall modified value most likely lies between the sum of the negative 

performance ratings on the lower end, and the sum of the positive performance ratings on 

the upper end. 

To demonstrate these practical limits with an example, assume that relative performance values 

of +8.0 percent, –1.0 percent, and +15.0 percent are associated with changes in Subgrade, 

Base/Subbase, and Drainage, respectively. Because this example contains both positive and 

negative performance changes, the third practical limit situation applies. Therefore, the modified 

performance value should be expected to be between –1.0 and +23.0 percent. The application of 

category ranking factors will always result in a modified performance value that lies within these 

established practical limits. 

One might argue that the largest individual performance change would define the minimum 

expected overall performance for every analysis case. For example, if individual performance 

values of +6.0 percent, +2.0 percent, and +12.0 percent are associated with changes in Subgrade, 

Base/Subbase, and Drainage, one might conclude that the overall performance would be 

between +12.0 percent (the largest individual value) and +20.0 percent (the sum of all values). 

While this approach may hold true for some cases, without understanding all of the 

interdependencies among individual design features, it is more conservative to describe the 

practical limits as defined in the bulleted list above. 
 25 

Category Ranking Factors Sets 

A category ranking factor set is a prioritized list of the 10 different design categories; it reflects 

their relative importance on the overall performance of a PCC pavement. A ranking factor set is 

defined by first sorting all 10 design feature categories in order of decreasing importance. Next, 

integer values from 10 to 1 are assigned to the sorted category list (10 is assigned to the category 

deemed most important and 1 to the least important category). For the analysis procedure to 

work as intended, no two design categories are allowed to be assigned the same integer ranking 

value. To form a basis for this process, SHA survey respondents were asked to submit their 

assumed category ranking set along with their complete performance data set. The survey results 

were then used to prepare the default category ranking factor set presented in table 5. It is 

emphasized that the resulting overall performance change predicted using category ranking 

factors is merely an estimate of the true performance change that would be realized. 

Application of Category Ranking Factors 

Category ranking factors are defined as relative because for a given investigation, normalized 

ranking multipliers are computed by dividing each individual ranking factor by the largest of the 

included ranking factors (i.e., for only those design features changing from the Standard

pavement section). This method can be demonstrated by using the example displayed in table 8, 

where relative performance values of +1.0 percent, +7.0 percent, and +10.0 percent are 

associated with changes in Subgrade, Base/Subbase, and Drainage. Next, assume individual 

ranking factors of 5, 8, and 7 are associated with the three respective design feature categories. 

The largest impact factor of the three included feature categories is the “8” associated with 

Base/Subbase. Therefore, all three of the included impact factors are divided by “8” to compute 

normalized ranking multipliers. These normalized ranking multipliers are then multiplied by the 

associated expected relative performance values to give a modified performance value for each 

design category. The overall section performance is then determined as the sum of all modified 

performance values. For this example, the expected increase in performance is estimated to be 

16.4 percent. 

Table 8. Example of use of category ranking factors to determine an overall modified 

performance rating. 

Design Feature 

Category 

Expected 

Relative 

Performance 

(%) 

Category 

Ranking 

Factor 

Normalized 

Ranking 

Multiplier 

Modified 

Performance 

(%) 

Subgrade +1.0 5 (5/8) = 0.625 +0.6 

Base/Subbase +7.0 8 (8/8) = 1.00 +7.0 

Drainage +10.0 7 (7/8) = 0.875 +8.8 

TOTAL +16.4 
 26 

In this example, because Base/Subbase is assigned the largest ranking factor, by definition its 

whole associated individual performance is added to the overall modified performance value 

(i.e., its individual performance change is deemed the most important of the three associated 

individual performance values). That is, the +7.0 percent expected relative performance 

associated with Base/Subbase is the starting point for the overall performance computations. 

Next, the individual performance changes associated with the other included design feature 

categories (Subgrade and Drainage) are, therefore, diminished by dividing each associated 

ranking factor by the largest included ranking factor. 

It is important to note that within this methodology, the relative differences between ranking 

factors (rather than the actual ranking factor values) are important when determining overall 

modified performance. For example, one might think that the design feature assigned an impact 

factor of 10 is always going to be important when determining the overall pavement section 

performance. The previous example shows that this is not the case, as none of the three 

changing design feature categories had a category ranking factor of 10. Normalizing all 

individual ranking factors to the largest of the included factors ensures that the performance of 

the most important included design feature becomes the starting point of the modified 

performance computation. In the example, it is noted that if Base/Subbase were the only design 

feature category that was changing, then the total modified performance would be +7.0 percent. 

Therefore, the other design features deemed less important are, in a sense, used to adjust the 

+7.0-percent value associated with Base/Subbase. The normalized ranking multipliers give an 

indication of the relative impact of the adjustments. 

Selection of Appropriate Ranking Factors 

As mentioned previously, the assignment of realistic category ranking factors is one of the most 

important and challenging steps of the analysis approach. As with any methodology that has 

built-in functionality, it is possible to misuse this method and achieve results that are counterintuitive. This section is intended to provide guidance on selecting ranking factors so as to avoid 

such pitfalls. 

The first recommendation is that it is very important to assign category ranking factors that do 

not contradict the performance values observed within different design categories. That is, those 

design categories where the largest percent increases or decreases in performance are observed 

should most likely be the design categories with the largest category ranking factors. For 

example, assume that investigated Thickness/Slab Size choices result in individual performance 

changes from –40.0 to +50.0 percent, while different Joint Sealing choices result in a range of 

individual performance between –5.0 and +5.0 percent. For this case, the category ranking factor 

assigned to Thickness/Slab Size should be significantly larger than that assigned to the Joint 

Sealing. To illustrate this point, the two examples (although extreme) shown in tables 9 and 10 

illustrate how important it is to assign category ranking factors that reflect the largest impacts on 

overall performance. 
 27 

Table 9. Example showing the matching of category ranking factors and performance. 

Design Feature 

Category 

Expected 

Relative 

Performance 

(%) 

Category 

Ranking 

Factor 

Normalized 

Ranking 

Multiplier 

Modified 

Performance 

(%) 

Thickness/ 

Slab Size 

+50.0 10 (10/10) = 1.0 +50.0 

Joint Sealing –5.0 1 (1/10) = 0.1 –5.0 

TOTAL +45.0 

Table 10. Example showing a contradiction in the matching of category ranking factors 

and performance. 

Design Feature 

Category 

Expected 

Relative 

Performance 

(%) 

Category 

Ranking 

Factor 

Normalized 

Ranking 

Multiplier 

Modified 

Performance 

(%) 

Thickness/ 

Slab Size 

+50.0 1 (1/10) = 0.1 +5.0 

Joint Sealing –5.0 10 (10/10) = 1.0 –5.0 

TOTAL +0.0 

Note that in table 9 the category ranking factors are intuitively assigned to reflect the relative 

importance of the two design feature categories; the total modified performance value appears 

reasonable at +45 percent. Table 10 illustrates the same example but with the category ranking 

factors reversed. For this case, the overall modified performance is computed to be 0.0 percent, 

which appears to be a counterintuitive value as one would expect the larger percent performance 

change associated with the Thickness/Slab Size to control. While the analysis method and 

associated software will allow the user to set these category ranking factors to any number, it is 

very important to understand how they will be used in the computations. 

It is equally important to remember that the modified performance values resulting from the 

application of ranking factors are additive. The individual performance associated with the 

largest ranking factor is used as the starting point (e.g., 7.0 percent was used as the starting point 

of the overall performance computation in table 8). This is because the category with the largest 

associated ranking factor is assumed to have the largest influence on overall performance. That 

is, in many cases, one should expect the overall performance to be close to the one individual 

performance value associated with the largest ranking factor as it, by definition, is the governing 

performance value. As mentioned previously, the ranking factors associated with other included 

design features are used to diminish those associated individual performance changes before 

adding them to the overall performance calculation. That is, all design feature categories that are 

not deemed to be the most important category (i.e., their ranking factors are less than the largest 

included ranking factor) are simply used to adjust the individual performance change associated 

with the largest ranking factor. It is the defined ranking factors that are used to determine the 
 28 

ranking factor ratios (normalized ranking multipliers) that determine the how much of each 

individual performance change is added to the overall performance value. 

Another way to assess the relative meaning of these impact factors is to compare the included 

values directly. For instance, in the example presented in table 8, based on the entered Subgrade, 

Base/Subbase, and Drainage ranking factors of 5, 8, and 7, respectively, one can deduce that the 

user assumed the following: 

• The individual performance value associated with Subgrade is 5/8 as important as the 

individual performance associated with Base/Subbase. 

• The individual performance value associated with Drainage is 7/8 as important as the 

individual performance associated with Base/Subbase. 

• The individual performance value associated with Subgrade is 5/7 as important as the 

individual performance associated with Drainage. 

An earlier section of this chapter (Demonstration of the Analysis Method) illustrates how 

ranking factors are used in the computations. This should help emphasize the importance of 

selecting appropriate impact factors that correspond with the assumed impact on performance 

associated with each design category. The selection of user-defined category ranking factor sets 

should be carefully considered so that appropriate values reflective of observed performance are 

developed. 

Simplistic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Because design feature changes alter the expected performance (estimated service life) of a given 

pavement section, the associated life-cycle cost (LCC) stream is also affected. To investigate the 

magnitude of the impact of design feature changes on LCCs, the analytical tool does provide a 

means of conducting a simplistic LCCA as part of the analysis. However, because of its 

simplistic nature, the user of the software tool is warned that the results of the LCCA results 

should be viewed with caution. While the cost trends may be realistic, the actual computed 

dollar values may or may not be accurate. If more accurate LCCA results are desired, it is 

recommended that a more rigorous LCCA be conducted using established methods.(10)

The LCCA conducted within this software is described as simplistic in that the cost stream 

values (annual maintenance, rehabilitation, and salvage value costs) can all be determined using 

simplified methods. Specifically, the following important components are included in the 

simplistic LCC approach: 

• Standard Pavement Section Design Life—The expected design life (in years) of the 

defined Standard pavement section. Based on the design features used to define the 

Standard pavement section, this design life is assumed to be 20 years (note: this 20-year 

design life is hard coded in the software). Other pavement section design lives are 

computed by multiplying this 20-year design life by the expected performance ratio 

computed by using the analysis methodology. For example, if a custom section was 

found to have an overall modified expected performance of +7.0 percent, the expected 

service life of the custom section is computed as 1.07 * 20 years = 21.4 years. 
 29 

• Initial Construction Cost for the Standard Pavement Section—Fence-line-to-fence-line 

pavement-related cost expressed in dollars per lane-mile. 

• Analysis Period—Period of time over which future maintenance and rehabilitation costs 

are to be considered in the LCCA. Based on FHWA recommendations, the analysis 

period must be a minimum of 35 years. 

• Discount Rate—The discount rate, entered as a percentage, is the estimated difference 

between the interest and inflation rates over a long time period. It is used to translate 

actual LCCs into equivalent present worth costs. Historically, the discount rate has been 

in the range of 3 to 5 percent. 

• Salvage Value—The user has the choice whether or not to include a salvage value in the 

LCCA. If it is included, a linear deprecation of the rehabilitation cost is used to 

determine the salvage value at the end of the analysis period. For example, if a 

rehabilitation with an expected life of 10 years and a cost of $50,000 is applied 3 years 

before the end of the analysis period, the salvage value would be computed as $50,000 * 

(10 – 3)/10 = $35,000. The salvage value is essentially a negative cost applied at the end 

of the analysis period.

• Time Until First Rehabilitation—The time until first rehabilitation may either be defined 

as a percentage of the expected design life or as an actual pavement age (in years). This 

input is used to determine the time at which the rehabilitation cost is to be included in the 

LCCA. For example, if the design life is 20 years, and the time until first rehabilitation is 

entered as 80 percent, then the rehabilitation cost included in the LCC stream would be 

applied at a time of 20 years * 0.8 = 16 years. 

• Assumed Rehabilitation Life—The assumed life (in years) of the chosen rehabilitation 

activity. As subsequent rehabilitation activities are assumed to be applied until the end of 

the analysis period, this LCC input determines the years in which those subsequent 

rehabilitation activities will be applied. 

• Cost of Annual Maintenance—The cost of annual maintenance may either be entered as a 

percentage of the provided initial construction cost or as an actual cost. This input is 

used to determine the maintenance cost applied annually within the LCCA. For example, 

if the initial construction cost is $300,000 per lane-mile, and the cost of annual 

maintenance input is set to 5 percent, then the annual maintenance costs included in the 

LCC stream are computed as 0.05 * $300,000 = $15,000/lane-mile per year. 

• Rehabilitation Cost—The cost of rehabilitation may either be entered as a percentage of 

the provided initial construction cost or as an actual cost. This is used to determine the 

cost of the rehabilitation activity that is to be applied at regular intervals (after first 

application) until the end of the analysis period. 

It should be noted that all annual maintenance and rehabilitation-related LCCA inputs are 

section-specific within the analysis approach. That is, all of these LCC inputs may be 

customized for each unique pavement section that is defined. The primary purpose of linking 

these cost inputs to a section is to accommodate the many cases where the inclusion of a design 

feature directly influences the future maintenance and rehabilitation costs associated with that 

section (e.g., including edge drains will result in the additional cost of cleaning the edge drains). 
 30 

The LCCA for a given pavement section is dependent on the expected cost and performance 

ratios computed for that section. Specifically, as a first step, these ratios are used to compute the 

expected initial cost (in actual dollars) and expected design life (in actual years) used to compile 

an associated cost stream. As an example, assume that cost and performance ratios of 1.07 and 

1.05, respectively, are computed for a given pavement section. In addition, assume a design life 

of 20 years and an initial construction cost of $500,000 for the Standard pavement section. 

Therefore, the custom pavement section is assumed to have an expected service life of 20 years * 

1.05 = 21 years, and an initial construction cost of $500,000 * 1.07 = $535,000. These values 

are used as the basis of the LCCA associated with the custom pavement section. For a given 

pavement section, the primary outputs of the simplified LCCA are the individual computed costs 

(annual maintenance, rehabilitation, and salvage value), their total present worth values, the 

summarized equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC), and ratios of the EUACs between the 

different sections being compared. 

Demonstration of the Analysis Method 

As previously discussed, the underlying analysis method, in its most basic form, is based on 

making cost and performance comparisons between a user-defined pavement section and the 

Standard pavement section. This underlying methodology can be expanded so that two userdefined sections can be compared to each other after each has been individually compared to the 

Standard pavement section. The computation methodology used to make such comparisons is 

described below. 

Comparing a Custom Pavement Section to the Standard Pavement Section

The following example illustrates the computations involved when comparing a user-defined 

(modified) pavement section to the Standard section. In this example, the modified pavement 

section is defined by changing three different design features from the Standard section. The 

specific feature changes are summarized in table 11. The expected cost and performance 

changes and applicable category rankings for the example are defined in table 12. 

Table 11. Design features that differ in the current example. 

Design 

Category 

Standard Pavement Section Design 

Features 

Modified Pavement Section Design 

Features 

Base/Subbase 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate 

base 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded asphalttreated base 

Joints/Load 

Transfer 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) 

epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular joints 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) 

uncoated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular joints 

Joint Sealing Hot-poured asphalt with widening cut Preformed compression sealant 

As mentioned previously, the costs associated with different design feature changes are 

cumulative. Therefore, for this example (table 12), the change in cost is computed to be +16.0 – 

1.0 + 7.0 = +22.0 percent (i.e., the modified section is expected to cost 22.0 percent more than 

the Standard pavement section). 
 31 

Table 12. Expected percent changes in cost and performance associated with the changed 

design features. 

Design Category Modified Pavement Section Design 

Features

Expected 

Change in 

Cost (%) 

Expected 

Change in 

Performance 

(%) 

Category 

Ranking 

Factor 

Base/Subbase 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded asphalttreated base +16.0 +5.0 8 

Joints/Load 

Transfer 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) 

uncoated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular joints 

 –1.0 –5.0 10 

Joint Sealing Preformed compression sealant +7.0 +5.0 3 

Because the performance changes include both positive and negative values, the practical range 

of performance is estimated to be between the sum of the negative values on the lower end and 

the sum of the positive values on the upper end. Therefore, for this example the overall 

performance change is expected to be between –5.0 percent (the one negative value) and +10.0 

percent (the sum of the two positive values). The category ranking factors are used to estimate 

the weighted contributions of each individual performance rating. The details of this 

computation process are illustrated in table 13. 

Table 13. Cost and performance computation example. 

Design 

Feature 

Category 

Standard

Pavement 

Section Design 

Features

Modified

Pavement 

Section Design 

Features

Expected 

Relative 

Cost (%) 

Expected 

Relative 

Performance 

(%) 

Category 

Ranking 

Factor 

Normalized 

Ranking 

Multiplier 

Modified 

Performance 

(%) 

Base/ 

Subbase 

150-mm (6-in) 

dense-graded 

aggregate base 

150-mm (6-in) 

dense-graded 

asphalt-treated 

base 

+16.0 +5.0 8 (8/10) = 0.80 +4.0 

Joints/ 

Load 

Transfer 

250-mm (10-in) 

JPCP, 32-mm 

(1.25-in) epoxycoated dowels, 

4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular 

joints 

250-mm (10-in) 

JPCP, 32-mm 

(1.25-in) 

uncoated dowels, 

4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular 

joints 

–1.0 –5.0 10 (10/10) = 

1.00 

–5.0 

Joint 

Sealing 

Hot-poured 

asphalt with 

widening cut 

Preformed 

compression 

sealant 

+7.0 +5.0 3 (3/10) = 0.30 +1.5 

TOTAL +22.0 +0.5 

Normalized ranking factor multipliers are determined for each changing design feature category 

by dividing each individual category ranking factor by the largest of the included category 

ranking factor value. For this example, the largest included category ranking factor is the 10 

associated with the Joints/Load Transfer design feature category. Modified performance values 

are computed by multiplying the individual expected relative performance values by the 

computed normalized ranking multipliers. Summing the individual modified performance 

ratings for this example gives a total estimated increase in performance of 0.5 percent. 
 32 

Comparison of Two Custom Pavement Sections (Section A vs. Section B)

Although the previous example compared a defined custom pavement section to the Standard

pavement section, the methodology also allows the user to compare one custom section to 

another (e.g., Section A to Section B). The first step of this process is to make the following two 

independent comparisons: 1) compare Section A to the Standard pavement section and obtain 

expected percent cost and performance changes, and 2) compare Section B to the Standard

pavement section and obtain expected percent cost and performance changes. The final step of 

the process is to compare the individual results so that the expected cost and performance of 

Section B can be reported in terms of the expected Section A cost and performance. The 

following example demonstrates this process. 

Step 1: Compare Section A to the Standard Pavement Section 

Assume that the goal of this example is to compare the two pavement sections summarized in 

table 14 (note that the shaded cells in table 14 indicate that those design features do not differ 

from the Standard pavement section). As indicated, the first step is to compare each individual 

pavement section to the Standard pavement section. Noting that Section A is the pavement 

section used in the previous example, its analysis details were those summarized in table 13. 

Therefore, comparing Section A to the Standard pavement section found that the expected cost 

and performance change expected with Section A are the following: 

• Expected relative cost change: +22.0 percent. 

• Expected relative performance change: +0.5 percent. 

Table 14. Summary of two custom sections being compared (Section A and Section B). 

Design Category Standard Pavement Section Design 

Features Section A Design Features Section B Design Features 

Subgrade Untreated prepared subgrade Same as Standard section Same as Standard section 

Base/Subbase 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded 

aggregate base 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded 

asphalt-treated base 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded 

cement-treated base 

Drainage No drainage layers, no underdrains Same as Standard section Same as Standard section 

Thickness/Slab Size 250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m 

(15-ft) joint spacing 

Same as Standard section Same as Standard section 

Cross Section 250-mm (10-in) uniform thickness Same as Standard section Same as Standard section 

Joints/Load Transfer 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm 

(1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-

m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-

mm (1.25-in) dowels w/o 

epoxy, 4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular joints 

Same as Standard section 

Joint Sealing Hot-poured asphalt w/widening cut 

(4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing) 

Preformed compression 

sealant 

Same as Standard section 

Shoulders 150-mm (6-in) HMA over 250-mm 

(10-in) dense graded aggregate base 

Same as Standard section Same as Standard section 

Strength/Materials 4.5-MPa (650 psi) flexural Same as Standard section 5.2-MPa (750 psi) flexural 

Initial Smoothness 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) 

(measured with a 5-mm (0.2-in) 

blanking band) 

Same as Standard section Same as Standard section 
 33 

Step 2: Compare Section B to the Standard Pavement Section 

A closer look at Section B finds that only Base/Subbase type and Strength/Materials differ from 

the Standard pavement section. The analysis details for Section B are summarized in table 15. 

Table 15. Expected percent changes in cost and performance associated with the changed 

design features of Section B. 

Design Category Section B Design 

Features

Expected Change in 

Cost (%) 

Expected 

Change in 

Performance 

(%) 

Category 

Ranking 

Base/Subbase 150-mm (6-in) cementtreated base (CTB) +6.0 +5.0 8 

Strength/Materials 5.2-MPa (750 psi) 

flexural 

+5.0 +10.0 6 

Since the costs associated with different design feature changes are cumulative for this example, 

the change in cost +6.0 + 5.0 = +11.0 percent (i.e., Section B is expected to cost 11.0 percent 

more than the Standard pavement section). 

The true measure of performance for Section B is assumed to be somewhere between the lowest 

individual performance value and the sum of all of the values. Therefore, for this example the 

performance rating is between +5.0 percent (the lowest individual value) and +15.0 percent (the 

sum of all of the values). The category ranking factors are used to estimate the weighted 

contributions of each individual performance rating. This computation process is illustrated in 

table 16. 

Table 16. Computation details associated with the changed design features of Section B. 

Design 

Feature 

Category 

Standard

Pavement 

Section Design 

Features

Section B

Design 

Features

Expected 

Relative 

Cost 

Change 

(%) 

Expected 

Relative 

Performance 

Change (%) 

Category 

Ranking 

Factor 

Normalized 

Ranking 

Multiplier 

Modified 

Performance 

(%) 

Base/ 

Subbase 

15-mm (6-in) 

dense-graded 

aggregate base 

150-mm (6-in) 

cement-treated 

base 

+6.0 +5.0 8 (8/8) = 1.00 +5.0 

Strength/ 

Materials 

4.5-MPa (650 psi) 

flexural 

5.2-MPa (750 

psi) flexural 

+5.0 +10.0 6 (6/8) = 0.75 +7.5 

TOTAL +11.0 +12.5 
 34 

Step 3: Comparison of Sections A and B 

Finally, a simple comparison of the expected relative cost and performance changes for both 

Sections A and B is made by reporting the Section B cost and performance as ratios of the 

expected Section A values. Table 17 summarizes the expected relative cost and performance 

changes from the individual comparisons with the Standard pavement section. 

Table 17. Summary of comparisons of Sections A and B to the Standard pavement section. 

Pavement 

Section 

Total Relative Cost 

Change (%) 

Total Expected Modified 

Performance (%) Benefit/Cost Ratio 

Section A +22.0 +0.5 (1.005/1.22) = 0.82 

Section B +11.0 +12.5 (1.125/1.11) = 1.01 

B/A Ratio 1.11/1.22 = 0.91 1.125/1.005 = 1.12 

Therefore, a ratio of expected Section B costs to expected Section A costs is computed as 

(1.11/1.22) = 0.91 (i.e., the cost of Section B is expected to cost 0.91 times the cost of Section A). 

Using the same approach, a ratio of expected Section B performance to expected Section A

performance is computed as (1.125/1.005) = 1.12 (i.e., Section B is expected to carry 1.12 times 

as many ESALs as Section A). 

Step 4: Interpreting Benefit/Cost Ratios 

Other interesting information can be gleaned by looking at the benefit/cost (B/C) ratios 

computed for each pavement section. These B/C ratios are informative in that they allow an 

assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a defined combination of different design features. In a 

comparison of two pavement sections, the section with the largest B/C ratio is the most cost 

effective section to construct. Another way to interpret this B/C ratio is that the larger the B/C 

ratio, the more performance achieved per dollar spent. 

In the example above, the Section A numbers indicate that the chosen set of design features will 

cost 22 percent more, but will only result in a 0.5 percent increase in performance. These cost 

and performance numbers translate to a B/C ratio of 0.82. In contrast, the Section B numbers 

indicate that the chosen set of design features will cost 11 percent more, but will result in a 12.5 

percent increase in performance. These Section B numbers translate to a B/C ratio of 1.01. 

Therefore, a comparison of B/C ratios indicates that Section B is more cost effective to construct 

than Section A (1.01 is greater than 0.82). 

Introduction to the Analytical Software Tool 

A major part of this project is the development of an analytical software tool that automates the 

analysis method described in the subsequent sections of this chapter. The software is provided as 

a tool for pavement engineers or contractors who are interested in investigating estimated cost 

versus performance trade-offs associated with the selection of different design features during 
 35 

the concrete pavement design process; it is absolutely not intended as a “design” tool. Instead, it 

provides a “reasonableness” check regarding the “justification” or “questioning” of the addition 

of different design features. Also, because the default cost and performance changes in the 

software are estimated based on collected survey data from all over the United States, it is 

strongly suggested that the user define cost sets, performance sets, and category ranking factor 

sets that reflect local experiences and conditions. That is, the results from this tool are only as 

good as the data on which they are based. Finally, it is again emphasized that the output results 

from this tool are solely “estimates” of cost and performance associated with changing design 

features and, therefore, should be used with caution. 

The software utilizes a “modular” data storage approach in that all unique user-defined pavement 

sections, cost sets, performance sets, and category ranking factors sets are defined, named, and 

saved to respective “master lists” within the software. Therefore, the process of defining an 

analysis session is simplified in that the user simply builds an analysis session by selecting these 

named and saved data groups from their respective master lists. This approach was adopted 

because of the large number of data elements that need to be defined when conducting an 

analysis. When getting started with the software, users are encouraged to define all of the 

modular data groups anticipated for use in the analysis sessions. Much more detailed 

descriptions of the software’s components are contained in the Software User’s Guide included 

as appendix D of this report. 

Once all unique pavement sections, cost data sets, performance data sets, and category ranking 

factor sets of interest are defined and saved within the software, the user may then focus on 

building specific analysis sessions of interest. Specifically, two general types of analysis 

sessions may be conducted using the software: 

1) Direct Comparison—The Direct Comparison analysis is used to compare two defined 

pavement sections to assess expected differences in cost and performance. A by-product of 

this type of analysis is the B/C ratio associated with each section. In a comparison of two 

pavement sections, the section with the largest B/C ratio is the most cost effective section to 

construct (the larger the B/C ratio, the more performance achieved per dollar spent). 

2) Sensitivity Analysis—The Sensitivity Analysis is provided as a method of defining more 

complex relationships among pavement designs. Specifically, the following two general 

types of sensitivity analyses may be defined in the software: 

• Comparison of multiple pavement sections—The first sensitivity analysis type that 

may be defined is the comparison of one pavement section to a number of other 

pavement sections with different design features. This series of direct section 

comparisons is conducted while holding all other analysis inputs constant. 

• Sensitivity of a chosen pavement section to other process inputs—The second 

sensitivity analysis type allows the user to investigate the sensitivity of one defined 

pavement section to changes in the other inputs of the process. Specifically, these 

sensitivity analyses are used to compute cost and performance changes associated 

with subjecting a chosen pavement section to a series of different cost data sets, 

performance data sets, category ranking sets, or a combination of both cost and 
 36 

performance sets. Each of these different data sets is discussed in detail in the 

Software User’s Guide included as appendix D. 

The results of any defined analysis session are summarized in a customizable output report that 

may be previewed in an on-screen window or printed. The detailed output report contains all 

details of the analysis session including a list of input values, tables of intermediate cost and 

performance computations, and a series of summary tables for cost, performance, and LCCA 

results. 

Summary 

This chapter outlines the simple analysis approach used in this project to estimate overall cost 

and performance changes associated with changing pavement design features. The basis 

components of the analysis procedure are first discussed in detail to explain the underlying 

theory used to estimate overall changes in cost and performance. Next, the analysis method is 

demonstrated through examples to further clarify the details of the analysis method. Finally, the 

associated analytical software tool is introduced with specific discussion of the intended usage 

and limitations of the software. A detailed explanation of how to define and conduct analysis 

sessions using the analytical software tool is contained in the Software User’s Guide (included as 

appendix D). 
 37 

CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY 

Various design features (such as dowel bars, tied shoulders, or drainable bases) may be added to 

a PCC pavement design to improve its overall performance by maintaining a higher level of 

serviceability or by extending its service life. However, the addition of these features also 

increases the initial cost of the pavement design, in some cases quite significantly. This then 

raises the question of whether the improved performance benefits gained by adding the design 

features are worth the increase in cost. Furthermore, the effects of adding more and more design 

features to a PCC pavement design may produce smaller and smaller performance gains, while 

significantly increasing the overall costs of the pavement structure. Unfortunately, current 

design practices do not always consider this trade-off between performance benefits and costs 

when design features are added to a PCC pavement design. 

To address this need, this project was initiated to develop a methodology and an evaluation tool 

that can be used to assess the costs and benefits of incorporating design features in PCC 

pavements. To establish a foundation for quantifying the relative performance benefits and costs 

of the various PCC pavement design features, two detailed surveys were conducted. The first 

survey targeted SHAs and collected relative performance ratings for changes in design features; 

that is, the expected percent change in performance if a selected design feature is added to the 

Standard PCC pavement design. The performance ratings received from the SHAs were 

evaluated in conjunction with available PCC pavement performance prediction models to check 

their validity and reasonableness. The second survey targeted PCC paving contractors and 

collected relative cost ratings for changes in design features; that is, the expected percent change 

in cost if a selected design feature is added to the Standard PCC pavement design. 

Each questionnaire was structured in a similar manner so that the relative performance and cost 

data could be matched up for each design feature. The results from these surveys form the basis 

of the default data sets used in the evaluation tool. Copies of the questionnaires sent to the 

participating agencies and contractors are presented in appendix B, with the raw data and 

summarized results presented in appendix C. 

The primary product developed under this project is an analytical software tool that can be used 

to evaluate the relative performance benefits and costs associated with the addition of different 

design features to a PCC pavement design. The software tool can be used by pavement design 

engineers who are interested in investigating the cost versus performance trade-offs associated 

with the selection of different design features during the PCC pavement design process. By 

allowing pavement design engineers to compare the impact of different design features on a 

pavement’s expected performance and its construction and life-cycle costs, insight can be gained 

on the most cost-effective combinations of design features for a particular PCC pavement design. 

A detailed explanation on the use and application of the analytical software tool is provided in 

appendix D. 
 38 

It is important to recognize that the software developed under this project is merely a 

computational tool that allows for the comparison of costs and performance of PCC pavements 

with different design features. The tool can use the default cost and performance data sets that 

were developed in this study or it can use custom-defined data sets that are based on an agency’s 

local conditions and experience. The tool is not intended to provide absolute answers on the 

effect of different design features, but rather to provide insight into general performance and cost 

trends associated with the use of different design features. In this way, the tool can be used in 

developing more cost-effective PCC pavement designs, and reflects the strong need to consider 

both the performance benefits and the costs associated with the inclusion of PCC pavement 

design features. 

The anticipated users of the software tool include State highway engineers, design engineers, 

paving contractors, and industry representatives. It is recommended that the tool be distributed 

by FHWA to these users, either through direct mailings or through establishment of a Web page 

containing the software in downloadable format. In addition, regional workshops could be 

hosted by FHWA (either in conjunction with the FHWA’s resource centers or perhaps with local 

ACPA chapters) as a further aid in implementing the software. 

 
 39 

REFERENCES 

1. Darter, M. I. 1977. Design of Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed Concrete Pavement, 

Volume I—Development of Design Procedure. FHWA-RD-77-111. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

2. Smith, K. D., D. G. Peshkin, M. I. Darter, A. L. Mueller, and S. H. Carpenter. 1990. 

Performance of Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume I—Evaluation of Concrete 

Pavement Performance and Design Features. FHWA-RD-89-136. Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean, VA. 

3. Smith, K. D., M. J. Wade, D. G. Peshkin, L. Khazanovich, H. T. Yu, and M. I. Darter. 

1998. Performance of Concrete Pavements, Volume II—Evaluation of Inservice 

Concrete Pavements. FHWA-RD-95-110. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, 

VA. 

4. Khazanovich, L., M. I. Darter, R. Bartlett, and T. McPeak. 1998. Common 

Characteristics of Good and Poorly Performing PCC Pavements. FHWA-RD-97-131. 

Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

5. Smith, K. D. and K. T. Hall. 2001. Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction 

Practices. Reference Manual for NHI Course 131060. National Highway Institute, 

Arlington, VA. 

6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. 

AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. 

7. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1998. 

Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Part II—Rigid 

Pavement Design and Rigid Pavement Joint Design. American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. 

8. Smith, K. D., A. L. Mueller, M. I. Darter, and D. G. Peshkin. 1990. Performance of 

Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume II⎯ Evaluation and Modification of Concrete 

Pavement Design and Analysis Models. FHWA-RD-89-137. Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean, VA. 

9. Yu, H. T., K. D. Smith, M. I. Darter, J. Jiang, and L. Khazanovich. 1998. Performance 

of Concrete Pavements, Volume III⎯Improving Concrete Pavement Performance. 

FHWA-RD-95-111. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

10. Walls, J. and M. R. Smith. 1998. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design―Interim 

Technical Bulletin. FHWA-SA-98-079. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 
 
41 

APPENDIX A. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The focus of the literature review was to locate references discussing cost/benefits of concrete 

pavement design features. The basis for the current project reference list was a previously 

conducted literature review completed for the FHWA/NHI training course Concrete Pavement 

Design Details and Construction Practices. The results of that literature search focused on 

references that discussed pavement design features and their effects on pavement performance. 

As a means of upgrading this existing reference list, additional targeted searches were completed 

using the TRIS, NTIS, and EI Compendex national bibliographic databases. These searches 

were limited to recent publications (TRIS: 1995 to 2000; NTIS: 1990 to 2000; EI Compendex: 

1998 to 2000). The search identified slightly more than 100 additional records that were deemed 

potentially useful to the project. 

After reviewing the records identified in the new literature searches, a short summary (or 

annotation) describing the contents of each relevant document was prepared. A final annotated 

bibliography was created by combining the initial results of the FHWA/NHI training course 

bibliography with the pertinent records found in the more recent searches. 
42 

Base/Subbase Design 

1. American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). 1995. Subgrades and Subbases for 

Concrete Pavements. Technical Bulletin TB011.02P. ACPA, Skokie, IL. 

This bulletin provides guidance on preparing subgrades and subbases for concrete 

pavements. Emphasis is on the establishment of uniform support for the pavement that will 

prevail throughout its life. Guidance is included on the preparation of subgrade, 

identification and treatment of expansive soils, protection against frost action, subbase 

drainage requirements, and the design and construction of cement-treated, lean concrete, 

and permeable subbases. 

2. Crovetti, J. A., and B. J. Dempsey. 1993. “Hydraulic Requirements of Permeable Bases.” 

Transportation Research Record 1425. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The design requirements of open-graded permeable materials (OGPM) to handle surface 

water infiltration are reported. Infiltration rates and required permeabilities of the OGPM 

are calculated for a range of conditions typical for pavement design. The effects of 

pavement geometry on required permeabilities, including cross slope, longitudinal gradient, 

and drainage layer thickness and width, are discussed. Analysis of selected materials, 

typical for use in Illinois, is completed to determine appropriate permeabilities. 

3. Hajek, J. J., T. J. Kazmierowski, H. Sturm, R. J. Bathurst, and G. P. Raymond. 1992. 

“Field Performance of Open-Graded Drainage Layers.” Transportation Research Record 

1354. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The results of a field study to investigate the performance of pavements incorporating opengraded drainage layers (OGDL) are presented. Five paving projects built since 1975 and 

incorporating OGDLs are described and evaluated. The projects encompass flexible, 

composite, and rigid pavements, and include both asphalt-treated and untreated OGDL 

materials. The results show that the existence of OGDLs alone does not guarantee better 

pavement performance. This can be achieved only if the OGDL is part of a properly 

designed internal drainage system. 

4. Hall, M. 1994. “Cement-Stabilized Open-Graded Base Strength Testing and Field 

Performance Versus Cement Content.” Transportation Research Record 1440. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The use of cement-stabilized open-graded base (CSOGB) to provide a drainage system and 

construction platform for concrete pavements is explored. Extensive laboratory testing was 

combined with a field evaluation project to assess the capabilities of CSOGB. Low-, 

medium-, and high-cement content material was placed on grade and used as a haul road 

during paving. The condition of the CSOGB was monitored during construction; and 

trucks loaded with concrete and empty were counted. Performance under load was found to 

depend on cement content, truck traffic, sublayer stability, segregation, and surface 

irregularities. A cement content of 119 kg/m3

 (200 lb/yd3) was suitable for general use; 89 

kg/m3

 (150 lb/yd3) was adequate for low trucking volumes, and 148 kg/m3 (250 lb/yd3) was 

appropriate for high trucking volumes or poor support conditions. 
43 

5. Heckel, L. 1997. “Open-Graded Drainage Layers: Performance Problems Under 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements in Illinois.” Proceedings, Sixth International 

Purdue Conference on Concrete Design and Materials for High Performance. Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, IN. 

Illinois has recently constructed 14 pavement sections that contain OGDLs. The pavement 

types include CRCPs, jointed concrete pavements, and full-depth asphalt pavements. Three 

of the CRCPs have begun to show a higher level of distress than would be otherwise 

expected, so an in-depth investigation has been conducted consisting of visual distress 

surveys, core analysis, analysis of Shelby tube samples, analysis of OGDL gradations, 

separation layer gradations, subgrade gradations, deflection tests, and inspection of slabs 

removed in patching operations. The distresses evident on these pavements may be related 

to the characteristics of the OGDL, separation layer, and subgrade. The bonding of the 

CRCP to the OGDL, as well as crack spacing, may have contributed to the poor 

performance of these pavements. 

6. Heckel, L. 1997. “Performance Problems of Open-Graded Drainage Layers Under 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements In Illinois.” Transportation Research 

Record 1596. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Illinois has constructed 14 pavements that contain OGDLs. The pavement types include 

CRCPs, jointed pavements, and full-depth asphalt concrete pavements. Three of the 

CRCPs have begun to show a higher level of distress than would be expected from 

pavements of that cross section and age. An in-depth investigation into the cause of the 

distress has begun and is expected to be completed early in 1997. The investigation 

includes visual distress surveys, core analysis, analysis of Shelby tube samples, deflection 

tests, and inspection of slabs removed in patching operations. The State has placed a 

moratorium on the construction of new OGDLs pending the outcome of the investigation. 

The investigation indicates that possible causes of the problems are the incompatibility of 

the OGDL and CRCP, the lack of a separation layer on two of the three sections, the 

cement content in the OGDL, the percentage of reinforcing steel and epoxy-coating of the 

steel in the slab, and the design of the CRCP and shoulders. The current maintenance plan 

includes patching and undersealing of problem areas. No recommendations for the future 

use of OGDLs can be made until the investigation narrows the possible causes. 

7. Ioannides, A. M., L. Khazanovich, and J. L. Becque. 1992. “Structural Evaluation of Base 

Layers in Concrete Pavement Systems.” Transportation Research Record 1370. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

A theoretically sound and practical approach is described for determining maximum 

responses in concrete pavement systems that incorporate a base layer. Equations presented 

may be used with either an elastic solid or a dense liquid foundation under any of the three 

fundamental loading conditions. These formulas are extensions of available closed-form 

solutions and account for the compressions in the two placed layers that are ignored by 

plate theory. The proposed methodology may be easily implemented in a personal 

computer spreadsheet or on a programmable calculator. Research activities for its full 

verification and refinement are continuing. It is anticipated that such theoretically based 
44 

investigations will encourage the elimination of theoretically questionable empirical 

concepts, such as that of deriving a composite “top-of-the-base” subgrade modulus. 

8. Kazmierowski, T. J., A. Bradbury, and J. Hajek. 1994. “Field Evaluation of Various Types 

of Open-Graded Drainage Layers.” Transportation Research Record 1434. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

In 1990, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario initiated a demonstration project to 

evaluate alternative methods of increasing the constructibility of open-graded drainage 

layers beneath concrete pavements. Three types of OGDLs were placed in this study: 

cement-treated OGDL with varying cement contents, untreated OGDL, and an asphalttreated OGDL. All three met the requirements for permeability and stability, including the 

ability to carry construction traffic without any significant damage. The cement- and 

asphalt-treated bases required some minor adjustments to conventional construction 

practices. The untreated base exhibited some sloughing at the edges of the pavement and 

exhibited somewhat lower strength characteristics than the treated materials. 

9. Mathis, D. M. 1989. “Permeable Base Design and Construction.” Proceedings, Fourth 

International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper summarizes the state of the practice in use of permeable bases for drainage of 

asphalt and concrete pavements. Open-graded or “permeable” bases are used to allow 

infiltrated water to rapidly drain through the base and out from beneath the pavement 

structure. The practices of several States with respect to permeable base gradations, 

dimensions, collector systems, filter layers, and construction are described, and 

observations presented on performance, ride quality, and cost of pavements with permeable 

bases. 

10. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). 1994. Permeable Aggregate Base 

Drainage Systems—Design Guidelines. Final Report. Minnesota Department of 

Transportation, Maplewood, MN. 

These drainage guidelines are intended to aid the design engineer in determining when, 

where, and how to use permeable aggregate bases. Permeable bases, used in conjunction 

with edge drains and discharge pipes, are currently seen as the most positive method of 

removing excess moisture from beneath a pavement structure. This type of drainage system 

is expected to improve the overall performance and service life of the pavement structure 

and reduce maintenance costs. However, the indiscriminate use of permeable bases beneath 

all pavement structures is not recommended. Traffic, subgrade soil type, pavement type, 

and functional class are just a few variables to be considered in determining the 

appropriateness of the system for a given project. 
45 

11. Nelson, T. B. and S. Owusu-Ababio. 1999. Effects of Thick Subbases on Pavement 

Design, Construction, Performance and Life Cycle Costs. Final Report. Report No. 

WI/SPR-14-99, WisDOT Study # 94-09. Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

(WisDOT), Madison, WI. 

In an effort to improve the performance of pavements in Wisconsin, WisDOT was 

interested in reviewing the practice and performance of thick subbases within pavement 

structures. While some pavements have been constructed in Wisconsin using subbases of 

thicknesses between 300 mm and 600 mm (12 inches and 24 inches), the design inputs, the 

pavement performance, and the life cycle costs associated with these pavements have not 

been documented. This study evaluated 20 pairs of adjacent asphalt and 8 pairs of jointed 

reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) sections that were constructed with thin and thick 

subbases. These adjacent pairs were selected to minimize differences in performance due 

to traffic, soils, or environment. An evaluation of time to first overlay indicated that thick 

subbases provided an additional 1.6 to 13.7 years for asphalt pavements, and an additional 

4.8 to 13.7 years for concrete pavements. A life cycle cost analysis showed costs of thick 

and thin subbases to be comparable for both flexible and rigid pavements. While this trend 

toward longer pavement life due to the use of thick subbases is important, the lack of 

detailed design-construction data and maintenance records, and the small number of 

sections available for study precluded detailed analysis to definitively correlate increased 

service life to increased subbase thickness for the JRCP. For the asphalt pavements, service 

life was found to increase with increasing subbase thickness. 

12. Reed, C. M. 1995. “Impact of Open-Graded Drainage Layers on the Construction of 

Concrete Pavements in Illinois.” Transportation Research Record 1478. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The first portland cement concrete pavement test section containing an OGDL was 

constructed by the Illinois Department of Transportation in 1989. Since then more than 20 

centerline miles of concrete pavements have been built using an OGDL. Although the 

benefits of using OGDLs to improve concrete pavement performance are widely accepted, 

the practical impact of the design details on the constructibility of concrete pavements 

requires additional attention. Examples of problems encountered during the construction of 

concrete pavements with OGDLs include the placement of the layer itself, anchoring dowel 

baskets to the OGDL, obtaining a pavement with adequate ride characteristics, and using 

the OGDL to support paving operations. From the experience acquired while constructing 

several pavements with OGDLs in Illinois, it is clear that concrete pavements with OGDLs 

can be constructed to meet today’s high construction standards. 

13. Signore, J. M. and B. J. Dempsey. 1998. Accelerated Testing of Separation Layers for 

Open-Graded Drainage Layers. Final Report, Project C960014. Illinois Department of 

Transportation, Springfield, IL. 

An accelerated testing procedure was developed to evaluate the performance of separation 

layers used between open-graded bases and lime-stabilized subgrades. Of significant 

concern was assessing the performance of the separation layer with regard to the degree of 

pumping into the open-graded base and the magnitude of the deformations occurring during 

the testing. A low plasticity clay and a silty clay till soil were tested in the research along 
46 

with two separator materials: nonwoven geotextile and dense-graded base aggregate blend. 

Geotextiles consistently provided separation between the soils and open-graded aggregates, 

although pumping of fines occurred. The dense-graded separation layer showed a marked 

drop-off in performance when the material was wet. Although the dense-graded layer often 

prevented the soil layer from intruding into the open-graded layer, the dense-graded layer 

itself intermixed into the open-graded layer. A distinct breakpoint in performance occurred 

at a soil strength of CBR 4 under accelerated testing. Soils below a CBR of 4 showed 

considerable pumping and deformation while soils above that value yielded minimal 

pumping and deformation. Based upon performance comparisons with nonseparated test 

cases, the use of a separation layer between lime stabilized subgrades and open-graded 

aggregate bases is imperative. 

14. Smith, K. D., H. T. Yu, and M. I. Darter. 1993. “A Performance Evaluation of PCC 

Pavements Constructed on Permeable Bases.” Western States Drainable PCC Pavement 

Workshop—Summary Report. FHWA-SA-94-045. Federal Highway Administration, San 

Francisco, CA. 

In recent years, many highway agencies have used permeable base courses to provide 

positive drainage to their pavement structures. However, little information is available 

regarding how these permeable bases actually affect the performance of the concrete 

pavement. This paper presents a summary of the performance of 30 concrete pavement 

sections that incorporate permeable bases in their design. Direct comparisons between 

permeable and nonpermeable base sections were possible for many of the projects. The 

permeable base sections had less faulting than the nonpermeable base sections. This was 

more apparent for nondoweled joints than for doweled joints. No discernible difference 

between the performance of permeable aggregate, permeable asphalt-treated, and permeable 

cement-treated bases was observed. However, the results of this investigation are 

considered preliminary, as the pavement sections evaluated are not very old and have not 

been subjected to significant traffic levels. 

15. Tarr, S. M., P. A. Okamoto, M. J. Sheehan, and R. G. Packard. 1999. Bond Interaction 

Between Concrete Pavement and Lean Concrete Base. Preprint No. 991273. SeventyEighth Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

In the past, concrete pavement design procedures have been based on stresses computed 

with the assumption of either a frictionless or fully bonded interface between pavement 

layers, but neither of these assumptions is realistic for layers not intentionally bonded. The 

purpose of the research described in this paper is to provide information on the degree of 

interaction between pavement layers. Sponsored by the Portland Cement Association, fullscale load-induced strain and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing was conducted to 

measure the degree of bonding between PCC pavement and a lean concrete base (LCB) 

layer prepared using five commonly specified interface treatments. For each interface 

treatment, the effect of extending the LCB layer beyond the slab edge was also evaluated. 

Strain gages installed at different pavement depths measured the load-induced edge and 

wheelpath stress profiles, which allowed the degree of layer interaction to be evaluated. By 

analysis of load-induced stress and deflection, it was verified that a double layer of 

polyethylene promotes an unbonded interface with very little frictional interaction. Other 

interface treatments create varying degrees of friction or partial bond between the layers, 
47 

which reduces the load-induced stress. Slab bottom tensile stress reductions were 

computed in comparison to measured slab top compressive stress, measured polyethylene 

interface tensile stress, and theoretically calculated unbonded stress. Overall, the most 

effective stress-reducing interface treatments included in this study were asphalt emulsion 

and plain (no treatment) conditions where tensile stress reductions of more than 40 percent 

were measured. 

16. Winter, M. G., J. R. Cross, and J. Oliphant. May 1997. “Use and Cost-Effectiveness of 

Permeable Geosynthetics on Scottish Road Projects.” Proceedings of the Institution of 

Civil Engineers-Transport. Volume 123, Issue 2. 

The use of permeable geosynthetics on Scottish trunk roads was studied between 1980 and 

1994. Questionnaires were sent to 55 organizations and details of a total of 103 

applications were received. Calculations show that permeable geosynthetics are generally 

more cost effective than conventional solutions; this is supported by a review of the 

available literature. Relatively few data were obtained on alternative solutions. If the 

increasing use of permeable geosynthetics is to be justified economically, then alternative 

solutions need to be considered and costed. However, their use is expected to increase 

regardless, as justification is frequently on technical grounds. Problems identified in 

relation to the use of permeable geosynthetics in soil environments emphasize the 

importance of correct design and specification, careful installation and adequate site 

drainage. In addition, problems were encountered with reinforcement of pavements. The 

use of geogrids in bound pavement structures is not currently allowed on Scottish trunk 

roads and motorways. There is no evidence of contractual claims arising from the use of 

permeable geosynthetics. 

Concrete Mix Considerations 

1. Chini, S. A., J. P. Duxbury, S-S. Kuo, W. J. Mbwambo, and F. Monteiro. 1998. Guidelines 

and Specifications for the Use of Reclaimed Aggregates in Pavement. Final Report. Report 

No. WPI 0510797. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

The objective of this research study was to evaluate the performance of nine recycled 

concrete aggregate (RCA) design sections through both theoretical and experimental 

analyses. Five of these sections were 254 mm (10 in.) thick slabs of concrete pavement 

with varying percentages of recycled and virgin aggregates. The remaining four sections 

were composed of an 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) layer of hot mix asphalt (HMA) with a 12.7 mm 

(0.5 in.) friction wear course, over different thicknesses of RCA base material. Both types 

of pavements had control sections to which the test data could be compared and contrasted. 

For the analytical approach, the KENSLABS and KENLAYER computer programs were 

used to determine the stresses in the concrete slabs along with the tensile and compressive 

strains in the HMA sections. These parameters were then used to estimate the theoretical 

number of allowable repetitions for failure to occur in the individual sections. Part 1 of this 

report presents the results of the study of the use of RCA in rigid pavement. It includes a 

literature review, a review of the use of RCA in the United States, and laboratory test 

results. Part 2 presents the results of the study of the use of RCA as a base course in 

flexible pavement. It includes a literature review, a review of the state of concrete recycling 

in Florida, a look at aggregate properties important for base courses, and a review of 
48 

international standards and U.S. Department of Transportation standards. Part 3 gives the 

results of the performance tests, and Part 4 the results of the theoretical analysis. 

2. Cramer, S. M., M. Hall, and J. Parry. “Effect of Optimized Total Aggregate Gradation on 

Portland Cement Concrete for Wisconsin Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 

1478. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Most State paving specifications for PCC pavement allow a broad range of total aggregate 

gradation for concrete mixes. It has long been debated whether special efforts to control 

total aggregate gradation provide concrete improvements that justify potential increased 

costs. The results of an investigation examining the effect of optimizing total aggregate 

gradation on the properties of concrete used for paving in Wisconsin are reported. The 

investigation optimized gradations consisting of carefully selected proportions of locally 

available aggregate. Unit weight, shrinkage, change in the water-to-cement (w-c) ratio at 

constant slump, change in slump at a constant w-c ratio, compressive strength, and possible 

segregation under vibration were measured in field test sections and laboratory mixes. This 

use of optimized total aggregate gradations instead of near-gap-graded gradations in 

pavement resulted in an increase in compressive strength of 10 to 20 percent, reduced water 

demand by up to 15 percent to achieve comparable slump, air contents achieved with 20 to 

30 percent reductions in air entraining agent, potentially higher spacing factors in the air 

void system of hardened concrete, and reduced segregation following extended vibration (1 

to 3 minutes). Not all efforts at gradation optimization in this study yielded measurable 

improvements in performance and the availability of local aggregates may still limit, to 

varying degrees, the ability to optimize. However, a reasonable effort to optimize gradation 

can lead to significant mix benefits. 

3. Cuttell, G. D., M. B. Snyder, J. M. Vandenbossche, and M. J. Wade. “Performance of 

Rigid Pavements Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregates.” Transportation Research 

Record 1574. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

State highway agencies in Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have 

successfully designed and constructed rigid pavements containing recycled concrete 

aggregate (RCA). Success has been attributed in part to the minimization of old mortar 

content in the RCA during recycling processes, thereby controlling the total mortar content 

of the new PCC mixture, or to the achievement of higher-than-expected compressive 

strengths through adjustments in mix proportions, or both. There was no clear correlation 

between mortar content and cracking distresses in field investigations, although one project 

did exhibit significantly more slab cracking in the recycled pavement than in the 

corresponding control pavement. The increased cracking may have been due to the large 

differences in total mortar content between the recycled and control sections. In general, 

the recycled PCC pavements considered in this study have performed comparably with their 

conventional PCC pavement counterparts, including the recycled pavements that 

incorporated RCA derived from concrete affected by D-cracking and alkali-silica reactivity 

(ASR). There is, however, evidence of small amounts of localized recurrent ASR in the 

recycled Wyoming pavement. Whether this reactivity will eventually develop into 

widespread distress remains to be seen. 
49 

4. Lane, D. S. 1998. Evaluation of Concrete Characteristics for Rigid Pavements. Report 

No. VTRC-98-R24. Virginia Transportation Research Council. Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT), Richmond, VA. 

The researcher developed correlations among flexural, split tensile, and compressive 

strengths and ultrasonic pulse velocity from laboratory testing using materials and mix 

designs proposed for use in a pavement project. These relationships were used to review 

the current VDOT specifications and quality control procedures for concrete used in the 

construction of rigid pavements. Correlations between compressive and flexural strength 

for project-specific materials and mix designs permit the use of compressive strength 

cylinders rather than beams for compliance testing. The relationships also provide a means 

for evaluating the quality of the concrete as placed in the pavement. 

5. Ozyildirim, G. Jan 1993. “High-Performance Concrete for Transportation Structures.” 

Concrete International: Design & Construction. Volume 15, Issue 1. 

When bridges and pavements are repaired or rebuilt, lane closure time should be minimized 

to increase safety and reduce costs and inconvenience for the traveling public. To provide a 

short lane closure time, special concretes are needed that attain an appropriate strength 

more rapidly than is possible with conventional concretes. The research reviewed in this 

paper demonstrates the usefulness of special concretes to provide performance and 

placement advantages not attainable with conventional concretes. The special concretes 

discussed are those containing slag, those with pozzolanic additions (silica fume or fly ash), 

latex-modified concrete, concretes made with Pyrament-blended cement, and portland 

cement with a low water-cement ratio for fast-track construction. Field applications and 

supporting laboratory investigations document the characteristics and superior performance 

levels of these special concretes. 

6. Snyder, M. B. 1995. Use of Crushed Concrete Products in Minnesota Pavement 

Foundations. Final Report. Report No. MN-RC-96-12. Minnesota Department of 

Transportation, St Paul, MN. 

This report reviews 11 field and laboratory studies performed to address concerns about the 

use of recycled concrete aggregate in pavement foundations. Performance concerns have 

centered on the possible impairment of drainage systems by deposits of calcium carbonate 

precipitate and other fines derived from the recycled concrete base materials. 

Environmental concerns have focused on the relatively high pH of the effluent produced by 

drainage systems that remove water from untreated recycled concrete aggregate foundation 

layers. The studies considered in this report demonstrate that all recycled concrete 

aggregates are capable of producing various amounts of precipitate, with the precipitate 

potential being directly related to the amount of freshly exposed cement mortar surface. It 

appears that selective grading and blending with virgin aggregates are techniques that 

should significantly reduce precipitate potential. One study suggests that washing recycled 

concrete products will reduce accumulations of crusher dust and other fines in and around 

the pavement drains. Others indicate that the use of filter fabrics with sufficiently high 

initial permittivity will allow the accumulation of precipitate and other fines without 

significantly impairing drainage function. This report discusses study results related to 
50 

environmental concerns and provides recommendations for revisions to current 

specifications. 

7. Sukley, R. 1995. Accelerated Rigid Paving. Final Report. Demonstration Project 201. 

Report No. FHWA-PA-95-006. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

The use of accelerated cement concrete mixes in reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing 

highways significantly reduces lane closure times, and costs for maintenance, protection of 

traffic, and user delay. This study evaluated the development of two accelerated PCC 

mixes, which attained a compressive strength of 20.7 MPa (3000 psi) in 24 hours. These 

design mixes were then placed in high truck traffic pavement areas for field evaluation. 

The fast track concrete construction was monitored and found to be more labor intensive, 

but otherwise similar to the placement of normal concrete. The use of the nondestructive 

testing concrete maturity meter, to predict compressive strength as a function of time and 

performance in these projects, was a valuable quality control tool. This evaluation lasted 5 

years, and the performance has been satisfactory except for initial and minor cracking. The 

initial cracking may have formed due to slab widths in excess of 4.27 m (14 ft) in the first 

project, and hairline cracking in the second site may have been caused by excessive heat of 

hydration. Accelerated rigid paving is recommended as a standard special provision as an 

alternative to class AA concrete for pavements in situations where time of closure is an 

important factor. 

8. Tikalsky, P. J. and A. Scanlon. 2000. High-Performance Concrete. Transportation 

Operations and Systems Research and Development Partnership. Report No. PTI 2K16. 

Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, University Park, PA. 

The primary goal of this research project was to evaluate the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation's (PennDOT) current concrete mixture designs for performance 

characteristics and provide specific recommendations on the effective use of concrete with 

high-performance characteristics. Highway concrete mixtures in Pennsylvania are largely 

designed for strengths between 23 and 31 MPa (3,300 and 4,500 psi), and for resistance to 

freezing and thawing. While strength and freeze-thaw resistance are important in 

Pennsylvania, other parameters impact the long-term performance of concrete in highway 

applications. Concrete can be developed to address economic considerations, as well as 

multiple combinations of strength, permeability, modulus, cracking tendency, abrasion 

resistance, freeze-thaw resistance, alkali-aggregate reaction, internal and external sulfate 

attack, workability, construction scheduling, traffic openings, or other criteria. The report 

defines high performance concrete (HPC) in the context of the PennDOT; describes the 

characteristics and benefits derived from the use of HPC; evaluates the current state of the 

practice in Pennsylvania; and identifies the performance criteria that benefit PennDOT 

bridges, structures, and concrete pavements. It also provides a series of recommendations 

for consideration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 
51 

9. Wade, M. J., G. D. Cuttell, J. M. Vandenbossche, H. T. Yu, K. D. Smith, and M. B. Snyder. 

1997. Performance of Concrete Pavements Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate. 

FHWA-RD-96-164. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report documents the field performance of nine concrete pavement projects that 

incorporate recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) in the construction of the pavement. 

Multiple sections were evaluated on many of the nine projects due to perceived differences 

in performance levels or variations in pavement design (such as the use of virgin aggregate 

or the inclusion of dowel bars). All told, a total of 17 sections (of which 12 contain RCA) 

were subjected to an extensive field testing program consisting of pavement condition 

surveys, drainage surveys, FWD testing, coring, and serviceability assessments. Each of 

the 17 sections included in the investigation is described in detail. Performance 

observations and results from the FWD and laboratory testing are presented, with emphasis 

on evaluating the effect of RCA on pavement performance. An overall summary is 

provided that synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the field-testing program. 

10. Wang, Z. and S. Yu. 1997. “A Study on Optional Design of Early-Strength Cement 

Concrete for Pavements.” XIIIth World Meeting of the International Road Federation,

Toronto, Canada. June 16-20, 1997. International Road Federation, Washington, DC. 

This paper focuses on optimal concrete mix design, including the determination of w/c ratio 

(water over cement in quantity), amount of admixtures, and grading of course aggregate for 

the cement concrete. Through this research, a special methodology was developed for a 

concrete mix design that is capable of adapting to changeable temperature, environment and 

climate, surface characters of the course aggregate, and concrete curing time for pavements. 

In addition, this paper presents new ideas in the design of concrete containing admixtures 

and in the study of surface characteristics of the coarse aggregate. The method is also 

applicable to the design of ordinary PCC. 

Construction 

1. American Concrete Institute (ACI). 1991. “Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements 

and Concrete Bases.” ACI Manual of Concrete Practice. ACI 325.9R-91. American 

Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI. 

This report covers the construction of concrete pavements and concrete bases without 

attempting to include inflexible specifications for procedures, materials, or equipment. 

References are made to specifications, but only as a guide to enable a selection of 

requirements suitable for a particular location or class of work. Sections are devoted to 

specifying, sampling, and testing materials, and to the possible influence of materials on 

skid resistance, economy, and durability. Subgrades and subbases are treated only as a final 

preparation for paving. Arrangement of joints is described, and references are given for 

guidance in using reinforcement. Sections on mixing, placing, finishing, and curing 

concrete refer to other ACI reports where pertinent, but make recommendations for the 

special handling requirements for pavement construction. 
52 

2. American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). 1994. Fast-Track Concrete 

Pavements. TB004.02P. American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL. 

This technical bulletin describes the design and construction of fast-track concrete 

pavements. It includes a summary of appropriate applications of fast-track paving 

technology and also describes the planning efforts required. Considerable discussion is 

spent on obtaining suitable concrete material for fast-track paving projects, including the 

cement type and content, supplementary cementing materials, use of admixtures, and 

aggregate gradation and properties. Details on critical construction aspects of fast-track 

paving are also provided, including a description of recommended curing and temperature 

management procedures. 

3. American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). 1996. Construction of Portland 

Cement Concrete Pavements—Participant’s Manual. FHWA-HI-96-027. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This manual accompanies a 2 1⁄2 day training course on concrete pavement construction. 

The course material is aimed at field personnel, both contractor and agency, and is intended 

to provide them with a general working knowledge of field operations. Field operations 

presented here include central mix plant operations, ready mix plant operations, slipform 

paving operations, fixed-form paving operations, joint sawing and sealing operations, and 

concrete pavement restoration activities. 

4. Ayton, G. P. and E. W. Haber. 1997. “Curing and Interlayer Debonding.” Proceedings, 

Sixth International Purdue Conference on Concrete Design and Materials for High 

Performance. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

Current Australian practices in the areas of concrete curing and interlayer debonding reflect 

a blending of experience from leading overseas authorities together with that obtained from 

substantial local experience since the 1970s. Australian practices were summarized (for the 

wider range of design and construction issues) in a paper presented at the Fifth Purdue 

Conference in 1993, but significant developments have occurred since. In terms of curing 

practices, the major developments have been in the types of curing compounds being used 

(for both pavements and bases), and in the method of specifying and monitoring their 

quality in contracts. In the area of interlayer debonding, changes have been made to the 

specified materials and methods. With few exceptions, concrete pavements constructed 

within the past 20 years have been over a lean-mix concrete base. Ongoing experience 

confirms that the level of interlayer friction is critical to the early thermal movement and to 

joint induction. It is also critical to the avoidance of unplanned reflection cracking in the 

pavement and thereafter to its long-term performance. Particular attention has been focused 

on refining debonding treatments under continuously reinforced pavement following 

experience on several projects, which exhibited undesirable cracking patterns that were 

thought to have been largely a consequence of too high a level of interlayer friction. This 

paper discusses the Australian specifications and practices in these areas. Comparison is 

also made to the international experience as reflected in the published literature, and a brief 

account is provided of current ongoing development work in this field. A brief discussion 

of factors (additional to interlayer friction) that appear to influence cracking patterns in 

continuously reinforced concrete pavements is provided. 
53 

5. Cole, L. W. and G. F. Voigt. 1995. “Roadway Rehabilitation with Fast-Track Concrete 

Paving.” Transportation Congress, Proceedings. Volume 1. American Society of Civil 

Engineers, New York, NY. 

To meet the need of transportation authorities, accelerated methods for constructing 

concrete pavements have been developed. These techniques, called fast-track concrete 

paving, have been developed through several years with experience gained on many 

projects. Fast-track concrete paving requires changes to traditional construction 

specifications and processes. In addition to material modifications, changes in worker 

responsibilities, construction staging, pavement joint construction, and opening-to-traffic 

criteria can be made to accelerate a concrete paving project. 

6. Cole, L. W. and G. F. Voigt. 1996. “Fast-Track Concrete Paving—Overview of Key 

Components.” Materials for the New Millennium Proceedings of the Materials 

Engineering Conference. Volume 1. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 

USA. 

To meet the need of transportation authorities, accelerated methods for constructing 

concrete pavements have been developed. These techniques, called fast-track concrete 

paving have been developed through several years with experience gained on many 

projects. Fast-track often uses conventional concrete paving materials and processes, but 

key changes can significantly accelerate construction. These key components include 

material modifications, and changes in worker responsibilities, construction staging, 

pavement joint construction, and opening-to-traffic criteria that can be made to accelerate a 

concrete paving project. 

7. Eisenmann, J. and G. Leykauf. 1990. “Effect of Paving Temperatures on Pavement 

Performance.” Proceedings, Second International Workshop on the Theoretical Design of 

Concrete Pavements. Sigüenza, Spain. 

Field tests at have proved that the temperature development in concrete immediately after 

paving is of great importance on slab curling. Placing the concrete on warm, sunny days 

causes an upward curling due to a zero-stress temperature differential through the slab. 

That is, the no-curl condition (flat slab) is not reached at a zero temperature differential, but 

rather at a high positive temperature gradient. This construction-induced curling can have a 

significant effect on pavement performance. Wet curling lowers the zero-stress temperature 

at the surface and counteracts this upward curling. 

8. Gress, D. 1997. Early Distress in Concrete Pavements. FHWA-SA-97-045. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

Concerns over concrete roadways exhibiting distress at ages earlier than expected led to the 

initiation of a study to examine several concrete pavements located throughout the 

Midwest. The goals were to reach a consensus as to the mechanisms of the distress and to 

recommend corrective actions to prevent future occurrences until additional research could 

be conducted. Primary materials-related distress mechanisms identified include freeze–

thaw deterioration, sulfate attack, ASR, and alkali–carbonate reactivity. Primary 

construction related distresses include poor consolidation and material segregation. 
54 

Specific recommendations include advice on returning to the basic methods of concrete 

construction and avoiding the use of materials known to contribute to early distress. 

9. Grove, J. D. and K. B. Jones. 1996. Fast Track Basics. Materials for the New Millennium 

Proceedings of the Materials Engineering Conference. Volume 1. American Society of 

Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 

Fast track PCC paving is a concept, not merely a concrete mixture. There are four major 

aspects that in combination, achieve rapid strength gain and early opening time: cement 

type, cement content, curing method, and opening strength criteria each must be considered. 

The actual time of opening can now be designed to match the requirements of a project or 

portion of a project. Because early strength comes with a cost, to use only those elements 

that are needed to meet the project requirements will allow the most economical solution 

and still achieve the desired goals. Fast track concrete can be designed to achieve opening 

strength in less than 6 hours, 2 or more days, or almost anything in between. This paper 

discusses the various aspects of fast track concrete paving and offers some examples of 

opening times based on various combinations of the elements. 

10. Hossain, M. and J. B. Wojakowski. 1994. “Construction and Performance of a Fast-Track 

Concrete Pavement in Kansas.” Transportation Research Record 1465. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The fast-track or high early-strength concrete offers the opportunity of taking advantage of 

higher early strength gain in a smaller time for construction or rehabilitation of highvolume roads and city streets serving businesses. A section of fast-track concrete pavement 

built in an urban setting in Manhattan, KS, had mixture design developed using a special 

Type-III cement and three different types of locally available aggregates. A recent visual 

survey indicates that the longitudinal surface texture of the pavement is showing wear. 

This might have been due to the grinding action of the sand particles on the pavement 

surface applied during the winter months under the traffic load. Overall, the performance 

of this pavement is excellent. 

11. Hossain, M. and J. B. Wojakowski. 1996. “Effect of Concrete Mix Consolidation on Joint 

Faulting and Load Transfer Efficiency.” Transportation Research Record 1544. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Six jointed reinforced concrete pavement and one jointed plain concrete pavement test 

sections on US 69 in Miami County, KS, and constructed in 1979 have been surveyed 

annually for faulting for the past 9 years. FWD tests were conducted in 1995 to assess the 

load transfer efficiency of the joints. The results show that, in general, as the original 

concrete density increases due to improved consolidation, the rate of increase of the joint 

fault depth decreases at doweled joints at a given pavement age. The occurrence of joint 

faulting is much more severe when load transfer devices are not present; this was observed 

even for the pavement section built on a nonerodible subbase. Improved consolidation 

sometimes appears to help improve load transfer, resulting in a lower rate of faulting. Thus, 

the mandatory density requirement of 98 percent rodded unit weight, which has been in 

effect since 1980, has undoubtedly led to better joint performance for concrete pavements 

in Kansas. 
55 

12. McCullough, B. F. and T. Dossey. 1999. Considerations for High Performance Concrete 

Paving: Recommendations from 20 years of Field Experience in Texas. Preprint No. 

991462. Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC. 

This paper presents recommendations for high performance concrete paving practice 

drawn from 20 years of designing and monitoring the performance of continuously 

reinforced concrete (CRC) pavements in Texas. Performance indicators used include crack 

spacing distribution, crack width, crack randomness, delamination spalling, and vertical 

distribution of tensile strength. Variables studied include aggregate type (limestone or 

siliceous gravel), aggregate blending, placement season, placement time of day, placement 

above 32 °C (90 °F), use of crack initiators, use of skewed transverse steel, evaporation 

rate, percent steel reinforcement, and steel bar diameter. The variables studied are ranked 

in the order they affected performance to identify which are significant and can be 

controlled in the design and construction phases. 

13. McCullough, B. F. and R. O. Rasmussen. 1999. Fast-Track Paving: Concrete Temperature 

Control and Traffic Opening Criteria for Bonded Concrete Overlays, Volume 1. Final 

Report. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-167. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

This research focuses on modeling early-age behavior of both concrete pavements and 

bonded concrete overlays (BCOs) subjected to stresses from moisture and thermal changes. 

It includes the development of a two-part, versatile, comprehensive set of guidelines that 

provide direction in the proper selection of design and construction variables to minimize 

early-age damage to the PCC pavement and BCO. The first part of these guidelines is 

qualitative in nature and is based upon the results of this effort, past experience, and 

engineering judgment. The guidelines are intended to identify design and construction 

inputs that are most likely to lead to good behavior during the early-age period. 

14. McCullough, B. F. and R. O. Rasmussen. 1999. Fast-Track Paving: Concrete Temperature 

Control and Traffic Opening Criteria for Bonded Concrete Overlays, Volume 2. 

HIPERPAV® User's Manual. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-168. Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean, VA. 

This research focuses on modeling early-age behavior of both concrete pavements and 

BCOs subjected to stresses from moisture and thermal changes. It includes the 

development of a two-part, versatile, comprehensive set of guidelines that provide direction 

in the proper selection of design and construction variables to minimize early-age damage 

to the PCC pavement and BCO. The first part of these guidelines is qualitative in nature 

and is based upon the results of this effort, past experience, and engineering judgment, and 

intended to identify design and construction inputs that are most likely to lead to good 

behavior during the early-age period. The end product from this research is a 

comprehensive software package termed HIgh PERformance PAVing (HIPERPAV). This 

package, which incorporates the complex models developed, can be used as a stand-alone 

product to verify the overall effect of specific combinations of design, construction, and 

environmental inputs on early-age behavior of a PCC pavement and BCO. 
56 

15. Nam, C. H. and C. B. Tatum. 1992. “Government-Industry Cooperation: Fast-Track 

Concrete Innovation.” Journal of Construction Engineering & Management-ASCE. 

Volume 118, Issue 3, September. 

Technology for fast-cure concrete, used in other construction areas in the past, recently 

found application in highway pavement. During July 1986, a 10-cm (4-inch) concrete 

overlay was applied to 11.2 km (7 mi) of U.S. Highway 71 north of Storm Lake, IA. The 

project team developed a new type of concrete mix that cures fast to allow traffic onto the 

road in only 24 hours. This innovation provides an example of cooperative governmentindustry effort and successful procurement policies implemented by a government agency. 

Initiated as a response to competition from other materials, the development of fast-track 

concrete illustrates the process and involvement of many organizations in product 

innovation. This paper describes the development of paving technologies in Iowa, the 

formation of an industry association, and the innovation process to bring about technical 

improvements and cost competitiveness. The implications section describes elements of 

government policy to foster an increased rate of innovation in U.S. public construction 

(including supporting increased technical capability) using demonstration projects and 

encouraging competing technologies. 

16. Okamoto, P. A., P. J. Nussbaum, K. D. Smith, M. I. Darter, T. P. Wilson, C. L. Wu, and S. 

D. Tayabji. 1994. Guidelines for Timing Contraction Joint Sawing and Earliest Loading 

for Concrete Pavements, Volume I—Final Report. FHWA-RD-91-079. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

A study with the objectives of providing guidelines for (1) timing of contraction joint 

sawcutting to avert uncontrolled pavement cracking and (2) early loading of pavements by 

construction traffic has been conducted. This volume presents the results of the research. 

A laboratory study of early age (4 to 24 hours) and early pavement loading (1 to 28 days) 

concrete strength properties for a range of highway concrete mixes was made. Sawcutting 

tests were made to determine earliest contraction joint sawcutting. Earliest sawcut timing 

was correlated on the basis of sawcut ratings to concrete strength properties and 

nondestructive test results that can be used for determining earliest sawcutting time. The 

latest sawcutting time was targeted on the basis of buildup of restraint stresses attributable 

to slab cooling. Concrete pavement placement and joint sawcutting were observed at three 

highway construction sites to verify test results. Guidelines for sawcut timing are presented 

to facilitate construction site decision-making based on nondestructive test methods. Early 

loading by construction traffic was analyzed using the ILLI-SLAB finite element program, 

and guidelines developed for assessing damage done by early loading. 

17. Okamoto, P. A., P. J. Nussbaum, K. D. Smith, M. I. Darter, T. P. Wilson, C. L. Wu, and S. 

D. Tayabji. 1994. Guidelines for Timing Contraction Joint Sawing and Earliest Loading 

for Concrete Pavements, Volume II—Appendix. FHWA-RD-91-080. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This volume presents supporting documentation for the research study described in item 16, 

including a summary of early age (4 to 24 hours) laboratory test data, a summary of early 

age (1 to 28 days) laboratory test data, a summary of the laboratory sawing strip data, a 
57 

compilation of the field joint sawcutting data, a summary of the field load testing data, and 

the state-of-the-art review of concrete sawcutting activities. 

18. Papaleontiou, C. G., M. D. Loeffler, A. H. Meyer, and D. W. Fowler. 1986. The 

Effectiveness of Texas Membrane Curing Compound Quality and Application 

Requirements. FHWA/TX-87/05+427-1F. Texas State Department of Highways and 

Public Transportation, Austin, TX. 

This report discusses the relative merits of Texas specifications (Tex-219-F) and ASTM 

specifications (ASTM C 156-80) for the testing of moisture retention by liquid membraneforming curing compounds. Preliminary work toward the development of a new moisture 

retention test to replace Tex-219-F and/or ASTM C 156-80 is also outlined, in addition to 

suggestions for continuing research in this direction. Recommendations are presented with 

regard to the 6-month curing compound shelf life in effect at the time of the study and the 

possibility of extending this shelf life. Research is also reported dealing with the effects of 

altering application rates and patterns on moisture retention. Finally, the use of optical 

reflectance as a measure of application rate is examined. 

19. Rasmussen, R. O., B. F. McCullough, J. M. Ruiz, and P. J. Kim. 1999. Fast Track Paving: 

Concrete Temperature Control and Traffic Opening Criteria for Bonded Concrete Overlays, 

Volume III: Addendum to the HiperPav User's Manual. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-200. 

Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

This is an addendum to the User's Manual of the comprehensive software package termed 

HIPERPAV. This package, which incorporated the complex models developed, can be 

used as a stand-alone product to verify the overall effect of specific combinations of design, 

construction, and environmental inputs on early-age behavior of a PCC pavement and BCO. 

This report provides color illustrations and an update of information in the User's Manual. 

20. Senadheera, S. P. and D. G. Zollinger. 1996. Influence of Coarse Aggregate in Portland 

Cement Concrete on Spalling of Concrete Pavements. FHWA/TX-97/1244-11. Texas 

Department of Transportation, Austin, TX. 

Spalling is a form of distress in concrete pavements. However, the current state of 

knowledge and the available prediction models on spalling indicate a lack of understanding 

of the spalling mechanism. This research attempts to fill the need to develop a framework 

to incorporate spalling in the design of concrete pavements based on a mechanistic 

approach. The report presents results from a comprehensive field survey on spalling in 

concrete pavements in Texas. Based on the results from this field survey, a mechanism for 

spalling is proposed. According to this mechanism, spalling is the culmination of damage 

initiated as delaminations early in the life of pavements. The development of delaminations 

is related to the concrete mix design and conditions at the time of paving, including ambient 

conditions and the method of curing. The delaminations are extended into spalls as a result 

of fatigue damage induced by traffic and temperature fluctuations in the pavement. Earlyage analysis of concrete pavements was performed using a finite element program 

developed to predict stresses in the pavement caused by shrinkage. Results from the 

analysis indicated that a high level of stress sufficient to create delaminations might be 

generated at a very early age. The coarse aggregate type in concrete was noted to have a 
58 

significant effect on the level of spalling. Based on results from laboratory studies, a 

mechanism on how the aggregate type influences spalling is proposed. This proposed 

spalling mechanism is included in a framework to incorporate spalling in the design of 

concrete pavements. 

21. Wojakowski, J. B. 1998. High Performance Concrete Pavement. Report No. FHWAKS98-2. Kansas Department of Transportation (Topeka), Bureau of Materials and 

Research. Kansas City, KS. 

PCC pavement of especially high quality became an area of interest in the early 1990s and 

precipitated a tour by representatives of industry and government to observe European 

construction practices. Following the tour, the FHWA developed a research program to 

encourage and aid States in constructing high-performance concrete pavement. 

Costs 

1. Cole, L. W. and M. J. Hall. 1996. “Relative Costs of Various Concrete Pavement 

Features.” Transportation Research Record 1574. Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC. 

The design and construction of PCC pavement involves the selection, specification, and 

construction of a number of concrete pavement features that can significantly affect 

pavement construction costs. In this study, the relative effect on pavement construction 

cost of several concrete pavement features was investigated, including concrete pavement 

thickness, foundation, shoulders, cross section thickness variation (trapezoidal section), 

joint spacing, transverse joint load transfer, and transverse joint sealant. Careful 

consideration and study should be given the cost effects of various features when designing 

and specifying concrete pavement. The ideal pavement design is one that selects the least 

costly pavement section that will perform to the expected level over the life of the facility. 

The least costly pavement section is that with the least life-cycle costs. 

2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis In Pavement 

Design Participant's Notebook. Demonstration Project No. 115. Report No. FHWA-SA98-040. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This participant's notebook was developed by FHWA staff to compliment a 2-day 

workshop on life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) in pavement design. This workshop will be 

of interest to State highway agency personnel responsible for conducting and/or reviewing 

pavement design LCCAs. The FHWA Office of Engineering, Pavement Division, in 

cooperation with the Office of Technology Applications, offers LCCA technical support 

through Demonstration Project No. 115, "Probabilistic LCCA in Pavement Design" (DP115). DP-115 is a free 2-day workshop that demonstrates best practices in performing 

LCCAs for pavement design. This workshop is available, upon request, to State highway 

agencies. The participant's notebook is presented in 13 modules and a set of class exercises 

(with solutions). 
59 

3. Goldbaum, J. 2000. Life Cycle Cost Analysis State-of-the-Practice. Final Report. Report 

No. CDOT-R1-R-00-3. Colorado Department of Transportation (CODOT), Aurora, CO. 

This report provides an outline for the engineer seeking to conduct a LCCA in pavement 

design and selection. The guidance, recommendations, and default values provided here 

were collected from 10 years of paving projects. Most of these projects were constructed or 

rehabilitated in the mid-1980s in order to evaluate the current design and construction 

practices in Colorado. At this time, the Colorado DOT uses a deterministic approach to the 

LCCA and is researching the move toward a probabilistic LCCA. 

4. Harrison, R. Influence of Road-Surface Roughness on Vehicle Operating Costs. Reviewing 

the Evidence From Developing Countries. American Society for Testing and Materials 

Special Technical Publication, STP 1031. Published by ASTM, Customer Service 

Department, Philadelphia, PA. 

The paper describes some features of the vehicle operating cost/road-roughness 

relationships reported in major international research studies from 1972 to 1986. This 

research is characterized by the use of road-surface roughness devices, fleets of 

experimental vehicles to measure fuel consumption, large-scale surveys of vehicle 

operators, improvements to modeling speed and fuel, and the development of user-friendly 

economic evaluation models. All studies report significant effects on operating costs 

following changes in surface roughness. The issues of calibration, new vehicle 

technologies, and extrapolation of study results are then discussed. The paper concludes by 

characterizing the main features of the research studies and shows the rise in operating costs 

attendant on allowing surface conditions from deteriorating to high levels of roughness. 

5. Packard, R. G. 1994. “Pavement Costs and Quality.” Concrete International. Volume 16, 

Issue 8, August. 

The true value of any pavement is determined by factors such as quality, initial cost and 

cost of upkeep, service life, and quality of service life. The choice between pavement types 

of equivalent design is based not solely on initial cost, but is almost always dependent on 

subsequent costs and length of service life. Thus, recent information and references on 

these topics were summarized and are presented here. 

6. PIARC Technical Committee on Concrete Roads. 2000. Whole Life Costing of Roads: 

Concrete Pavements. Permanent International Association of Road Congresses, La 

Defense, Cedex, France. 

Whole-life costs (WLC), or life-cycle costs, of a road pavement are understood to represent 

the costs incurred during the lifetime of a road and may include costs to the road 

administration from planning the road to its full replacement. In practice, however, WLC 

are limited to the costs incurred by construction and maintenance of the road over a 

specified period. The contents of this report are as follows: (1) Background; (2) 

Introduction; (3) Costs; (4) Functions; (5) Material Characteristics; (6) Road Deterioration 

Models; (7) Whole-Life Costing; (8) Value of Tied Up Capital/Interest Rate; (9) 

Probabilistic Approaches; (10) The Use of WLC Models, Examples; (11) Future 

Development; and (12) Conclusions. 
60 

7. Walls J. III and M. R. Smith. 1998. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis In Pavement Design—

Interim Technical Bulletin. Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This bulletin recommends procedures for conducting LCCA of pavements, provides 

detailed procedures to determine work zone user costs, and introduces a probabilistic 

approach to account for the uncertainty associated with LCCA inputs. The bulletin begins 

with a discussion of the broad fundamental principles involved in an LCCA. It discusses 

input parameters and presents simple examples of traditional LCCA in a pavement design 

setting. It discusses the variability and inherent uncertainty associated with input 

parameters, and provides recommendation on acceptable ranges for the value of time as 

well as discount rates. It explores the use of sensitivity analysis in traditional LCCA 

approaches. User costs are a combination of delay, vehicle operating costs, and crash costs. 

Each of these cost components is explored and procedures are presented to determine their 

value. Given the power and sophistication of today's computers and software, simulation 

techniques (such as Monte Carlo) are recommended for incorporating variability associated 

with LCCA inputs into final results. 

Cross Section 

1. Crovetti, J. A. 1999. Cost Effective Concrete Pavement Cross Sections. Report No. 

WI/SPR12-19. WisDOT, Madison, WI. 

The current pavement selection policy of WisDOT limits the design alternatives for PCC 

pavements and inhibits the designer's ability to select cross sections deviating from uniform 

slab thickness with doweled transverse joints. Currently, uniform slab thicknesses and 

conventional joint load transfer devices are incorporated into the design based on the heavy 

truck traffic in the outer lane. While this strategy provides for adequate pavement structure 

in this truck lane to limit faulting and slab cracking to tolerable levels, there is a potential 

for over-design in other traffic lanes, which receive significantly lower ESAL applications 

over the service life of the pavement. 

2. Rhodes, A. H. 1997. “Highway Pavements: Use of Tapered Sections to Extend Design 

Life.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport. Volume 123, Issue 1, 

February. 

This paper begins by examining the lateral and longitudinal distribution of traffic loading 

applied to highway pavements. The effects of crossfall, superelevation, lane distribution, 

direction, longitudinal profile, acceleration, and deceleration are considered. A tapered 

cross section is proposed as the most appropriate design to achieve the best value for 

money. Following a desk-top study, the author, in collaboration with Lancashire County 

Council, designed and constructed a full-scale trial on the A584 road bypassing Freckleton 

village. This was to be the first tapered section pavement in the UK. There were three 

conventional control sections and three corresponding tapered sections. Following 

deflectograph and impulse radar surveys, it was shown that it was possible to double the 

design life for a pavement by redistributing the base material to form a tapered section at no 

extra cost. 
61 

Design and Performance 

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. 

AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, DC. 

This document presents the current AASHTO procedures for the design of flexible and 

rigid pavement structures. It contains the major revisions to the AASHTO new pavement 

design procedure that were adopted in 1986 and which incorporate such new elements as 

design reliability, subgrade resilient modulus, environmental considerations, drainage 

provisions, life-cycle costing, low volume road design, pavement management concepts, 

and rehabilitation guidelines. New pavement overlay design procedures adopted in 1993 

are also contained in the guide. 

2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1998. 

Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Part II—Rigid 

Pavement Design and Rigid Pavement Joint Design. American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. 

This supplement to the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide includes alternative design procedures 

that can be used in place of or in conjunction with Part II, Section 3.2 “Rigid Joint Design” 

and Section 3.3 “Rigid Pavement Joint Design.” The development of these alternative 

design procedures was initiated under National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

(NCHRP) Project 1-30 and continued under an FHWA-sponsored study using LTPP 

performance data. Improved guidance on the selection of appropriate k-value for use in 

design, a rederived performance model representative of critical loading conditions and 

incorporating joint spacing and associated curling, and improved guidelines on joint design 

details are found in the new procedure. A detailed example is provided, along with 

recommended design faulting check for doweled and nondoweled pavements. 

3. Ardani, A., N. Suthahar, and D. A. Morian. 2000. Early Evaluation of LTPP Specific 

Pavement Studies-2, Colorado. Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2000-2. Colorado Department 

of Transportation, Denver, CO. 

This report presents the early results of the Specific Pavement Study (SPS)-2 experiment, 

“Strategic Study of Structural Factors for Rigid Pavements” documenting construction 

details of 13 different test sections with varying structural characteristics. The SPS-2 

experiment was developed as a coordinated national experiment to address the effects of 

various strategic environmental and structural factors on the performance of rigid 

pavements. The factors studied under this experiment included concrete thickness, concrete 

strength, base type, lane width, drainage and environmental factors such as temperature, 

moisture and soil type. This paper discusses the performance of these test sections after 

being in service for 4 years. The results are based on monitoring data collected by the 

LTPP. 
62 

4. Armaghani, J. M. 1993. “Factors Affecting Performance of Concrete Pavements.” 

Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and 

Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper discusses several aspects of concrete pavement design and construction and their 

relationship to performance, with emphasis on the effects of temperature displacements on 

performance of pavement slabs. Experience with concrete pavements in Florida indicates 

that doweled joints perform better than undoweled joints, skewed transverse joints did not 

demonstrate advantages over perpendicular joints, slab lengths between 4.6 and 5.5 m (15 

and 18 ft) experienced less cracking, joint sealing is beneficial but is not a substitute for 

good drainage, preformed compression sealants last considerably longer than silicone or 

other joint sealing materials, slab widening reduces cracking, the optimal base stiffness is 

one that provides a k value between about 5.4 and 10.9 MPa/m (200 and 400 pci) (lower k 

values resulting in higher load-related slab stresses, and higher k values resulting in higher 

curling-related slab stresses), water curing is preferable to curing compound and blanket 

curing in terms of moisture retention and temperature control, and joints should be sawed 

within 1.5 hours of slab finishing (sooner in hot weather and/or in accelerated paving). 

5. Ayton, G. P. 1993. “Concrete Highway Pavements in Australia.” Proceedings, Fifth 

International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, IN. 

Since 1975, the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales has promoted the 

increased use of concrete pavements throughout the State. Approximately 1300 lane-km of 

concrete pavement had been constructed as of mid-1993. The Australian industry expanded 

rapidly in an environment that is geographically remote from overseas areas of longstanding experience such as the United States and western Europe. The adoption of this 

relatively new technology in the Australian context attracted close attention from both the 

media and the traveling public. It has therefore been a major priority to implement and 

refine good design and construction practices as rapidly as possible. Current Australian 

practice reflects a blending of local experience with that from leading overseas authorities. 

This paper summarizes local developments in Australian concrete pavement technology 

since the mid-1970s. Recent indications point to a likely growth in concrete pavement 

construction throughout the southeast Asian region, and recent Australian experience would 

appear to be relevant. 

6. Bendaña, L. J., D. McAuliffe, and W. S. Yang. 1994. “Mechanistic-Empirical Rigid 

Pavement Design for New York State.” Transportation Research Record 1449.

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

In 1993, New York published a new Thickness Design Manual for New and Reconstructed 

Pavements based on the 1986 AASHTO Design Guide. The AASHTO equation for rigid 

pavement performance was calibrated with performance data for 225-mm rigid pavements 

in New York, and the calibrated equation was then used to design rigid pavements. 

Because New York does not have experience with thicknesses greater than 225 mm, the 

modified AASHTO equation could not be verified for thicker pavements. The development 

of a mechanistic-empirical (M-E) design procedure for verifying the designs presented in 

the new thickness manual is described in this paper. First, a nondimensional fatigue model 
63 

was established on the basis of New York’s past pavement performance, environmental 

conditions, and traffic loadings. The study was then extended to develop design curves for 

thicknesses of 225, 250, 275, 300, and 325 mm (9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 inches) (5-m (15-ft) 

slab lengths for 225- to 275-mm (9- to 11-inch) thicknesses and 5.5-m (18-ft) slab lengths 

for 300- to 325-mm (12- to 13-inch) thicknesses). Finally, the M-E design curve was 

compared with the modified AASHTO equation. The results indicate that for thicknesses 

greater than 275 mm (11 inches), AASHTO predicts up to 40 percent more equivalent 

single-axle loads than the M-E approach. 

7. Burnham, T. R. and W. M. Pirkl. 1997. Application of Empirical and MechanisticEmpirical Pavement Design Procedures to Mn/Road Concrete Pavement Test Sections. 

Final Report. Report No. MN-RC-97-14. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 

Maplewood, MN. 

Current pavement design procedures are based principally on empirical approaches. The 

current trend toward developing more mechanistic-empirical pavement design methods led 

Minnesota to develop the Minnesota Road Research Project (Mn/ROAD), a long-term 

pavement testing facility. The project consists of 40 heavily instrumented test sections, 14 

of which are jointed plain concrete (JPC) designs. Mn/ROAD researchers determine the 

predicted lives of the concrete test sections by applying design and as-built data to three 

currently accepted concrete pavement design methods: Minnesota Department of 

Transportation's rigid pavement design guidelines; AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement 

Structures 1993; and the Portland Cement Association (PCA) Thickness Design for 

Concrete Highway and Street Pavements (1984). The analysis began with determining the 

applicable as-built parameter values for each respective design method. Applying the asbuilt parameters to the three methods resulted in widely varied predictions of pavement life. 

For the 1993 AASHTO design method, reliability levels of 50 percent and 95 percent were 

applied for comparison. An experimental procedure for converting PCA method fatigue 

and erosion results to AASHTO type CESALs (concrete pavement equivalent single axle 

loads) demonstrated unsuitability. Validation of the predictions presented will occur as the 

test cells reach their terminal serviceability. 

8. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1995. Design Criteria for PCCP. 

Design Information Bulletin No. 80 (Draft). California Department of Transportation, 

Sacramento, CA. 

This document implements changes to the current design guidance contained in Chapter 

600 of the California Highway Design Manual for PCCP on the state highway system. 

Major changes contained in the bulletin include the use of lean concrete bases for heavy 

traffic volumes, the use of perpendicular joints while maintaining variable joint spacing of 

3.6, 4.6, 4.0, and 4.3 m (12, 15, 13, and 14 ft), the use of tied and sealed longitudinal joints, 

the use of epoxy-coated dowel bars at transverse joints, and tied concrete shoulders of the 

same structural thickness as the mainline pavement. 
64 

9. Canada, M., C. Jofre, and I. Picazo. 1997. “Influence of the Length of Slabs on 

Performance of All Concrete Pavements.” XIIIth World Meeting of the International Road 

Federation, Toronto, Canada. June 16-20, 1997. International Road Federation, 

Washington, DC. 

The paper compares the performance of concrete pavements of two stretches of autoroute, 

the Albacete and La Roda bypasses, located in central Spain. Both pavements can be 

considered carbon copies of each other because they are close to each other; they are almost 

the same age; they support almost the same amount of traffic; and they share the same 

project features. The most significant difference is the length of the concrete slabs: 

between 3.7 and 5 meters (12 and 16 feet) for the slabs on the Albacete and 3.4 and 4.5 

meters (11 and 14.7 feet) for La Roda. This major separation of joints may explain the very 

different performance of each stretch of road; whereas the Albacete segment has over 25-

percent cracked slabs, the figure for La Roda is 6 percent. 

10. Chen, H. J., L. J. Bendaña, D. E. McAuliffe, and R. L. Gemme. 1996. “Updating 

Pavement Design Procedures for New York State.” Transportation Research Record 1539. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

New York’s effort in adapting concepts from AASHTO’s pavement design guide as a basis 

for a revised state design procedure for thickness of new and reconstructed pavements is 

summarized. The rationale for this revised procedure was to design more durable 

pavements and reduce life-cycle costs. New York’s past pavement design practice and the 

background for the revisions are briefly described. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to 

identify how AASHTO design variables affect pavement thickness. Past performance of 

selected New York pavements was also studied. The rationale is discussed for 

determination of appropriate design variables, based on the sensitivity analysis, 

performance studies, and reviews of past and current practice. Also described is the 

justification of other design features, such as 50-year design life, granular subgrade, 

permeable base, edge drains, shorter slabs, maximum and minimum pavement thicknesses, 

and new dowel and tiebar designs. Development and implementation of New York’s new 

AASHTO-based thickness design procedure are major steps toward accomplishing the 

goals of building longer lasting pavements and reducing life-cycle costs. 

11. Cho, Y. H., T. Dossey, and B. F. McCullough. 1997. “Early Age Performance of 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement with Different Types of Aggregate.” 

Transportation Research Record 1568. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The effect of coarse aggregate on pavement performance has been attributed to the volume 

of aggregate used in pavement construction. The different patterns of crack development 

for limestone (LS) and siliceous river gravel (SRG) are a typical example of aggregateinduced variable performance in continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP). 

Laboratory and field testing was conducted to evaluate these aggregate types for suitability 

in CRCP construction. CRCP sections constructed with LS aggregates displayed better 

performance than those containing SRG. Surprisingly, CRCP sections containing an LS–

SRG blend showed worse performance than did those containing SRG only. 
65 

12. Croney, D. and P. Croney. 1998. Design and Performance of Road Pavements. Third 

Edition. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY. 

This book presents a comprehensive look at the design, construction, and performance of 

pavements. It examines the principles of pavement design and describes in detail the 

critical data needed for a reliable pavement design: materials characterization, traffic 

estimation, climatic factors, and geological and subgrade parameters. Drawing upon 

experimental roads constructed in both the United States and in Great Britain, it presents 

valuable information on the performance of different pavement designs under different 

traffic and environmental loading. Finally, current design procedures for both flexible and 

rigid pavements are presented, along with descriptions of the movement toward more 

mechanistic-based procedures. 

13. Crovetti, J. A. and S. Owusu-Ababio. 1999. Investigation of Feasible Pavement Design 

Alternatives for WisDOT. Final Report. Report No. WI/SPR-15-99, WisDOT Study # 94-

13. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI. 

The current pavement design and selection process of the Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT) for all new pavements or reconstructions of existing pavement 

structures provides for the design of one asphaltic concrete (AC) and one portland cement 

concrete (PCC) pavement alternative. Life-cycle cost analyses are then used to determine 

the preferred alternative for construction. Previous restrictions in the WisDOT pavement 

selection process have essentially excluded the construction of thick AC (AC thickness > 

150 mm (6 inch)) and thin PCC (PCC thickness < 225 mm (9 inch)) pavements and thus the 

validity of current life-cycle cost inputs for these pavement types is questionable. This 

report presents a performance analysis of existing thick AC and thin PCC pavements 

constructed in and around Wisconsin. The performance trends developed indicate that 

current design assumptions utilized by WisDOT and related to the expected service life to 

first rehabilitation of AC and PCC pavements may also be used for thick AC and thin PCC 

pavements. 

14. Darter, M. I. 1977. Design of a Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed Concrete Pavement, 

Volume I—Development of Design Procedures. Report No. FHWA-RD-77-111. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

Comprehensive procedures for the structural design of “zero-maintenance” JPCP for 

heavily trafficked roadways are presented. The term “zero-maintenance” refers to the 

structural adequacy of the pavement lanes and shoulder. The design procedures are based 

upon results from long-term field studies, comprehensive mechanistic analyses, and 

laboratory studies, the basis for which is provided in this report. Both a serviceabilityperformance analysis and a concrete fatigue analysis are used in the structural design, and 

additional procedures are included for the design of the subbase, shoulders, joints, and 

subsurface drainage. Example designs are included with sensitivity and incremental cost 

analyses. 
66 

15. Darter, M. I. and E. J. Barenberg. 1977. Design of a Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed 

Concrete Pavement, Volume II—Design Manual. Report No. FHWA-RD-77-112. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This is an engineering guide for the design of heavily trafficked JPCP to provide “zeromaintenance” performance over the selected design period. Procedures are included for 

designing the concrete slab, subbase, shoulders, joints, and subsurface drainage. A 

computer program (JCP-1) is used to provide serviceability-performance and fatigue data 

for the structural design of the pavement. The manual includes specific recommendations 

for obtaining all necessary inputs and for performing the structural design. A detailed 

design example for a heavily trafficked freeway pavement is provided, including a 

sensitivity analysis of major design factors. 

16. Darter, M. I. and E. J. Barenberg. 1977. “Zero-Maintenance Design for Plain Jointed 

Concrete Pavements.” Proceedings, International Conference on Concrete Pavement 

Design. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

The development of design procedures for heavily trafficked plain jointed concrete 

pavements to provide “zero-maintenance” performance is described. “Zero-maintenance” 

refers only to structural maintenance, such as patching, crack repair, slab replacement, 

grinding of faults, and overlay. Procedures are included for designing the concrete slab, 

subbase, shoulders, joints, and subsurface drainage. A computer program (JCP-1) was used 

to provide serviceability/performance and fatigue data for the structural design of the 

pavement. These procedures were developed based on nationwide field studies, long-term 

pavement performance data from in-service pavements, mechanistic analyses, and 

laboratory studies. A detailed design example for a heavily trafficked freeway pavement is 

presented, along with a sensitivity analysis of the major design factors. 

17. Darter, M. I., J. M. Becker, M. B. Snyder, and R. E. Smith. 1985. Portland Cement 

Concrete Pavement Evaluation System—COPES. NCHRP Report 277. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This report describes the development of COPES, which provides a framework and 

procedures for the systematic collection of historical and field data on the characteristics 

and performance of in-service PCCP. The first part of the report provides a summary of the 

development of COPES and demonstrates the potential uses of the data collected under 

COPES. Data collected from six States were analyzed to illustrate the impact of design 

features and construction practices on concrete pavement performance. The analyses took 

the form of regression equations, which, although intended for demonstration purposes, 

provide insight into the performance of concrete pavements. Detailed appendices present a 

comprehensive COPES user’s manual and the results of the case studies conducted in the 

six States. 
67 

18. Darter, M. I., E. Owusu-Antwi, and R. Ahmad. 1996. “Evaluation of AASHTO Rigid 

Pavement Design Model Using Long-Term Pavement Performance Data Base.” 

Transportation Research Record 1525. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The AASHTO design guide’s rigid pavement equation that is used for thickness design was 

originally developed in 1960 at the conclusion of the AASHO Road Test. This equation 

predicts the number of axle loads for a given slab thickness and loss in serviceability. 

During the past 30 years, the original equation has been extended to include several 

additional design factors and has been used by many highway agencies for rigid pavement 

design. Due to the limited inference space of the original road test equation and the 

subjective nature of the subsequent extensions, there is considerable interest in determining 

the adequacy of the equation. The availability of the nationwide LTPP data has finally 

made an overall evaluation possible. The evaluation included determining the adequacy of 

predicting the number of heavy axle loads required to cause a given loss in serviceability. 

The results indicate that the original 1960 equation generally overpredicts the number of 

18-kip equivalent single-axle load applications for a given loss of serviceability. However, 

extensions to the original model improve predictions considerably. These results were 

determined at the 50th percentile. At a higher level of reliability (such as 95 percent), the 

1986 AASHTO model provides a conservative design for a majority of the pavement 

sections. However, several deficiencies remain in the model. 

19. Darter, M. I., K. D. Smith, and D. G. Peshkin. 1991. “Field-Calibrated Mechanistic 

Empirical Models for Jointed Concrete Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 

1307. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Field-calibrated, mechanistic-empirical models have been developed for key performance 

indicators of jointed concrete pavements. Performance data from nearly 500 inservice 

pavements were used along with mechanistic and empirical variables to develop improved 

prediction models for joint faulting, slab cracking, joint spalling, and current serviceability 

rating. The models should prove valuable in checking the performance capabilities of 

various pavement designs determined by other means and in determining the relative 

impact of different design variables on concrete pavement performance. 

20. Darter, M. I., H. Von Quintus, Y. J. Jiang, E. B. Owusu-Antwi, and B. M. Killingsworth. 

1997. Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features. Final Report, NCHRP Project 

1-32. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Following the example of design catalog development by several European countries, this 

study’s major product is the catalog of “good practice” recommendations for design 

features of highway pavements. Design cells are defined by three main “site conditions”: 

traffic loadings, subgrade support, and climate. Within each cell, recommendations are 

given for the pavement type, layer thicknesses, materials, joint design, reinforcement 

design, drainage design, and other features related to performance. The document is not 

intended for use as a pavement design manual or for project-level pavement design. 
68 

21. Dossey, T., S. Easley, and B. F. McCullough. 1996. “Methodology for Estimating 

Remaining Life of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” Transportation 

Research Record 1525. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

A methodology was developed for estimating the remaining life of a nonoverlaid 

continuously reinforced concrete pavement. The models presented use several key 

predictors: the early-age crack distribution pattern in the concrete caused by volumetric 

changes, the coarse aggregate type used, and the presence or absence of a swelling subgrade 

that will accelerate the rate of failure development in later life due to dynamic loadings. 

Considering these factors, the models can accurately estimate the additional 18-kip ESALs 

that will take the pavement from its current condition in terms of failures per mile to a userdefined “failure threshold. Using traffic models developed in another study, the number of 

additional ESALs to failure can be translated into time to failure for planning purposes. 

22. Eisenmann, J. and G. Leykauf. 1990. “Simplified Calculation Method of Slab Curling 

Caused by Surface Shrinkage.” Second International Workshop on the Theoretical Design 

of Concrete Pavements. Sigüenza, Spain. 

In the simplified calculation method (slab structure replaced by beam on a rigid support) 

presented in this paper, the moment due to surface shrinkage is compared with the fictitious 

equivalent moment caused by a linear negative temperature gradient. This analogy allows 

the prediction of the critical slab length for which the point support at the slab center 

changes to continuous support with rising slab length, caused by increasing dead weight of 

the slab. Then the upward shrinkage curling can be calculated using the well-known 

equations for curling due to a linear temperature gradient, in which the fictitious gradient is 

replaced by terms derived from the mentioned analogy. Results calculated for different slab 

thicknesses agree reasonably well with in situ curling measurements on young concrete 

slabs. Upward curling due to shrinkage can be reduced gradually by increasing slab 

thickness. 

23. ERES Consultants, Inc. 1992. Concrete Pavement Design Manual. FHWA-HI-92-015. 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This manual presents design considerations for concrete pavements. It describes initial 

considerations in the pavement design process, including subgrade characterization, paving 

materials characterization, traffic loading considerations, drainage design elements, and 

design reliability. It presents the AASHTO rigid pavement design procedure and follows 

up with an introduction to mechanistic-based design concepts. It also presents 

recommendations on rigid pavement design features. The manual concludes with a 

summary of overlay rehabilitation methods for rigid pavements. 

24. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990. Continuously Reinforced Concrete 

Pavement. FHWA Technical Advisory T 5080.14. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

This Technical Advisory outlines recommended practices for the design, construction, and 

repair of continuously reinforced concrete pavements. It gives recommendations on 

longitudinal steel reinforcing requirements (including bar sizes, location, placement), base 
69 

and subbase requirements, joint design guidelines (construction joints, longitudinal joints, 

terminal joints), and on construction and placement activities. 

25. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1992. Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of 

European Concrete Highways. FHWA-SA-93-012. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, D.C. 

The U.S. TECH Study Tour traveled in France, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and 

Belgium, and heard presentations from Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, and Italy. Concrete 

pavements are built for heavier loads and longer lives (30 to 40 years) than in the United 

States. The slab thicknesses generally do not exceed those constructed in the United States. 

Other design features such as widened slabs, trapezoidal cross sections, thick granular 

subbases, and highly durable concrete mixes are used to achieve longer performance lives. 

High population densities make tire/road noise an important environmental issue in Europe; 

considerable research in development of noise-reducing finishes and textures has been done 

in several countries. Other European concrete pavement technology advancements 

recommended by the study tour group for consideration in the United States are warranties 

for pavement construction, greater cooperation between government and industry in 

research and development, innovative toll-road financing, and the use of pavement design 

catalogs. 

26. Federal Highway Administration. (FHWA). 1993. AASHTO Design Procedures for New 

Pavements, Participant’s Manual. FHWA-HI-94-023. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

This course notebook presents the design procedures found in AASHTO’s 1993 Guide for 

Design of Pavement Structures. It describes the basis for both the flexible and rigid 

pavement design procedures, including the assumptions and limitations inherent in each 

approach. Considerable guidance is provided on developing appropriate inputs for use in 

the development of pavement designs. Additional design elements are also described for 

each pavement type, such as layer thickness determination for flexible pavements, and steel 

and joint design for rigid pavements. 

27. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1995. Pavement Analysis and Design Checks, 

Participant’s Manual. FHWA-HI-95-021. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

This course notebook presents a broad overview on pavement design and analysis 

procedures. Commonly used design procedures are presented for both flexible and rigid 

pavements, including AASHTO, Asphalt Institute, and PCA. Basic pavement responses 

(stresses, strains, and deflections) are also described, and various pavement analysis models 

and performance prediction models are introduced for both flexible and rigid pavements. 

The emphasis of the information is on checking the reasonableness of resulting pavement 

design, with the goal of obtaining reliable, long-lasting pavement designs. 
70 

28. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1997. LTPP Data Analysis: Frequently Asked 

Questions About Joint Faulting with Answers from LTPP. LTPP TechBrief. FHWA 

Report No. FHWA-RD-97-101. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

This LTPP data analysis was intended to examine, in a practical way, the LTPP database 

and to identify the site conditions and design features that significantly affect transverse 

joint faulting. Key products developed as part of this research were (1) answers to 

frequently asked questions regarding design features and site conditions that lead to "good" 

(better than expected) and "poor" (worse than expected) performance of jointed concrete 

pavements relative to joint faulting and (2) guidelines to assist highway agencies on what 

works and what does not work in the design of transverse joints to control joint faulting. 

This TechBrief presents key findings of this research. 

29. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. Key Findings from LTPP Analysis 1990-

1999. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-085. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

The LTPP analysis program has addressed a broad array of topics—from field validation of 

pavement design procedures, to the study of variability in traffic and materials data, to 

investigating pothole repair techniques. The purpose of this document is to highlight some 

of the key findings from LTPP analysis studies between 1990 and 1999. These findings 

have been organized into the following areas: site conditions, structural features, materials, 

initial roughness, pavement maintenance, pavement rehabilitation, AASHTO design 

validation, and performance modeling. 

30. Forsyth, R. A. 1993. Pavement Structural Design Practices. NCHRP Synthesis of 

Highway Practice 189. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The structural design of flexible and rigid pavements has evolved from the application of 

engineering judgment to include a variety of processes. This report describes the various 

methods for structural pavement design in the United States and in several Canadian 

provinces. It focuses on the elements intended to provide strength and stiffness to the 

pavement. It includes a summary of current practice and trends in the design of new 

pavements and overlays for several elements, including thickness design procedures, layer 

compositions, drainage treatments, characteristics of materials, mitigation of swelling and 

frost heave, and assessment of pavement residual strength and condition for overlay design. 

31. Frabizzio, M. A. and N. J. Buch. 1999. “Performance of Transverse Cracking in Jointed 

Concrete Pavements.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 13, Issue 

4. 

Environmental effects and repetitive traffic applications can produce transverse cracks in 

jointed concrete pavements. Maintaining adequate aggregate interlock load transfer across 

these cracks is essential to preserving the functional and structural integrity of these 

pavements. The objectives of this study were to determine the design parameters that 

significantly affect transverse cracking and to demonstrate methods available for evaluating 

cracked pavements. Field data collected from in-service jointed concrete pavements 

located throughout southern Michigan were used to accomplish these objectives. Joint 

spacing, coarse aggregate type, shoulder type, and pavement temperature were found to 
71 

have significant effects on transverse crack development and/or performance. The surface 

texture of crack faces was assessed using a promising new test method called volumetric 

surface texture testing. Volumetric surface texture results provided an indication of the 

aggregate interlock potential of pavements containing various aggregate types. Three 

performance parameters capable of mechanistically characterizing crack performance were 

discussed. A relatively simple procedure was described for determining these parameters 

and evaluating crack conditions. Field data were also used to demonstrate and validate a 

voids' analysis procedure. This procedure estimates the potential for loss of support near 

cracks and joints, thus allowing for proper rehabilitation actions before the manifestation of 

additional distresses. 

32. George, K. P., A. Alsherri, and N. S. Shah. May 1988. “Reliability Analysis of Premium 

Pavement Design Features.” Journal of Transportation Engineering. Volume 114, Issue 3. 

This study evaluates the special features of premium design guidelines―features not 

considered in the AASHTO flexible and rigid pavement design procedures. The 

significance of these features (15 in all for 4 pavement types) was investigated by evaluating 

pavement performance and design reliability. The researchers used the VESYS III program 

to evaluate features of the flexible pavements and an algorithm developed in a companion 

paper for the other three types (composite, jointed plain concrete, and continuously 

reinforced concrete). This computer program, Reliability Analysis and Performance of 

Pavements I (RAPP-I), employs Monte Carlo simulation techniques to treat all the design 

variables probabilistically. The effectiveness of each feature is evaluated by comparing the 

performance or expected life and reliability of typical pavement sections with and without a 

premium feature. 

33. Gharaibeh, N. G., M. I. Darter, and L. B. Heckel. 1999. Field Performance of CRCP in 

Illinois. Preprint No. 990731. Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This paper reviews the design and performance of continuously reinforced concrete 

pavement (CRCP) in Illinois, which has built more than 4,267 two-lane km (2,650 miles) of 

CRCP on the Interstate system since the mid-1950s. CRCP has been constructed on nearly 

all urban freeways in the Chicago area and has shown excellent performance under severe 

weather and heavy traffic conditions. The effect of key design and construction parameters 

on long-term CRCP performance is investigated using a database that was compiled based 

on field surveys conducted from 1977 to 1994 by the Illinois Department of Transportation 

(IDOT). Analysis of the data shows the following variables have significant effects on 

performance: longitudinal reinforcement content (greatest effect of all variables), slab 

thickness (also very significant), traffic load applications, depth of reinforcement, base 

type, and D-cracking of concrete. CRCP built with tubes or chairs exhibited overall about 

the same performance. Experimental field studies in Illinois showed that depth of 

reinforcement has a large effect on crack width and, eventually, on punchouts. Specifically, 

the investigation indicated that CRCP sections with a slab 178 mm (7 inches) thick and 

steel content less than 0.6 percent developed the most structural failures. CRCP sections 

with a slab 254 mm (10 inches) thick and steel content from 0.7 to 0.8 percent developed 

the fewest failures. However, all the CRCP sections in this study, regardless of thickness 
72 

designs and steel content, have typically carried more traffic than they were designed for 

and have lasted longer than their design traffic life. 

34. Gharaibeh, N. G., M. I. Darter, and L. B. Heckel. 1999b. Field Performance of 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement in Illinois. Report No. UILU-ENG-99-2005, 

Transportation Engineering SER-101; FHWA-IL-UI268. Illinois State Department of 

Transportation, Springfield, IL. 

This report reviews the design and performance of CRCP in Illinois, which has built more 

than 4,267 two-lane km (2,650 miles) of CRCP on the Interstate system since the mid1950s. CRCP has been constructed on nearly all urban freeways in the Chicago area and 

has shown excellent performance under severe weather and heavy traffic conditions. The 

effect of key design and construction parameters on long-term CRCP performance is 

investigated using a database that was compiled based on field surveys conducted from 

1977 to 1994 by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Analysis of the data 

shows the following variables have significant effects on performance: longitudinal 

reinforcement content (greatest effect of all variables), slab thickness (also very 

significant), traffic load applications, depth of reinforcement, base type, and D-cracking of 

concrete. CRCP built with tubes or chairs exhibited overall about the same performance. 

Experimental field studies in Illinois showed that depth of reinforcement has a large effect 

on crack width and, eventually, on punchouts. 

35. Hadi, M. 1998. “Cost Optimum Design of Rigid Road Pavements.” Transport 

Proceedings—Conference of the Australian Road Research Board (AARB). ARRB 

Transport Research Ltd, Vermont, Australia. 

The design of rigid pavements according to AUSTROADS is a lengthy method. The 

designer assumes a pavement structure then uses a number of tables and figures to calculate 

the two governing design criteria, the flexural fatigue of the concrete base and the erosion 

of the subgrade/subbase. Each of these two criteria needs to be less than 100 percent. 

Ideally, they need to be at their maximum possible value that is less than 100 percent. 

Designers would repeat the design if either of the criteria is more than 100 percent, in other 

words, an unsafe design. However if the criteria are much less than 100 percent, i.e., overdesign, most designers would stop after one or two iterations due to the lengthy process 

involved in calculating the criteria, and due to time limitations. This leads to designs that 

are safe, but not necessarily economical. This paper presents a formulation for the problem 

of optimum design of rigid road pavements by defining the objective function, which is the 

total cost of pavement materials, and all the constraints that influence the design. All these 

are given in terms of design variables and design parameters. The formulation, including 

the optimizer, was implemented in a spreadsheet. The optimization problem is used in a 

parametric study where 1,680 pavement structures are optimally designed. 

36. Hall, K. T., M. I. Darter, and C. M. Kuo. 1995. “Improved Methods for Selection of k 

Value for Concrete Pavement Design.” Transportation Research Record 1505. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The results of research conducted to improve guidelines for k-value selection for concrete 

pavement design are summarized. The research included a review of the evolution of the k-
73 

value concepts and methods, a review of k-value results from several field studies, an 

examination of the AASHTO Guide’s k-value methods, and proposed new guidelines for 

selection of design k values by a variety of methods. The k-value was originally considered 

a useful and simple parameter for characterizing slab support provided by natural soils of 

fairly low shear strength. Recognizing that real soils are not true dense liquids, early 

researchers developed standardized test methods, which provided k values in good 

agreement with full-size slab deflections. Later, substantially higher k values were 

attributed to granular and stabilized base layers, based on plate tests on top of bases, 

although slab tests had shown that such bases did not increase k values. Based on the 

historical review, review of results from several field studies, and a thorough examination 

of the k-value methods introduced in the 1986 AASHTO guide, it is recommended that k 

values be selected for natural soil materials, and that base layers be considered in concrete 

pavement design in terms of their effect on slab response, rather than their supposed effect 

on k value. Improved guidelines were developed for determining k value from a variety of 

methods, including correlations with soil type, soil properties, and other tests; 

backcalculation methods; and plate-bearing methods. Guidelines also were developed for 

seasonal adjustment to k and adjustments for embankments and shallow rigid layers. 

37. Heinrichs, K. W., M. J. Liu, M. I. Darter, S. H. Carpenter, and A. M. Ioannides. 1989. 

Rigid Pavement Analysis and Design. Report No. FHWA-RD-88-068. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This study was conducted to characterize and compare currently available rigid pavement 

analysis models and design methods and to develop new rigid pavement designs to be 

evaluated in full-scale experimental projects. Analysis models investigated included ILLISLAB, JSLAB, WESLIQID, WESLAYER, JCS-1, H51, CRCP-2, and RISC. Design 

methods evaluated included AASHTO, Zero-Maintenance, JCP-1, California DOT, PCA, 

RPS-3 (Texas DOT), ARBP–CRSI, and Illinois DOT. Based upon the evaluation results, 

several models and methods are recommended for use in the development of new rigid 

pavement designs. A set of rigid pavement designs, featuring trapezoidal cross sections, 

widened PCC slabs, permeable drainage layers, longitudinal edge drains, shorter joint 

spacing, and tied PCC shoulders, was developed. Guidelines were also developed for joint 

load transfer design and joint spacing. 

38. Huang, Y.H. 1993. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 

This textbook presents the theory of pavement design, describing pavement behavior and 

responses under various loading conditions, and including software available for the 

computation of stresses, strains, and deflections in both flexible and rigid pavement 

structures. Basic design elements (traffic loading, material characterization, drainage, and 

reliability) are presented, followed by a review of current highway pavement design 

procedures for both flexible and rigid pavements. Pavement overlay design procedures also 

are described in detail. 
74 

39. Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). 1995. Pavement Design Procedures. 

Report 95-11. Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL. 

Three new design procedures have been developed for use on local agency projects. The 

design procedures are based on University of Illinois research documents and prepared 

under the guidance of a project advisory committee consisting of Federal, State, and local 

representatives. Information on the use of rigid pavements and on structural thickness 

determination, load transfer requirements, and reinforcement requirements are provided. A 

condensation of the IDOT subgrade stability manual is also included to provide guidance 

on subgrade stability requirements. 

40. Ioannides, A. M., C. M. Davis, and C. M. Weber. 1999. Westergaard Curling Solution 

Reconsidered. Preprint No. 990693. Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

An in-depth. systematic examination is presented of the effect of temperature gradients on 

slab-on-grade pavements, whose main objective has been the development of practical 

design tools for use in a typical engineering office. This has been achieved by a critical 

reconsideration of the literature, a synthesis of currently available analytical resources, and 

the implementation of recent technological achievements promulgated in related areas of 

engineering. Prominent among these are the application of the principles of dimensional 

analysis, the finite element method, advanced statistical regression analysis, and artificial 

neural networks (ANN). A number of ANNs have been trained for the curling problem, 

and in several instances they are found to be more efficient predictive tools than 

corresponding statistical regression equations. It is found that the most important 

shortcomings of the Westergaard curling solution are his assumption of continuous contact 

between slab and subgrade (infinite slab self-weight), and his explicit treatment only of 

daytime conditions. Although Westergaard's curling-only predictions are significantly 

inferior to those from ANN and statistics, his load-plus-curling predictions exhibit 

approximately the same scatter as those from these two more modern and nominally more 

sophisticated tools. The case of Westergaard’s curling solution can serve as an example 

pointing to the usefulness and desirability of theoretical solutions, even when these are only 

achievable on the basis of considerable abstraction and simplification. 

41. Jennings, H., D. L. Johnson, G. M. Moss, and A. W. Saak. 1997. Pooled Fund Study of 

Premature Concrete Pavement Deterioration. Final Report. Iowa DOT Project HR-1063. 

Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA. 

Recently, a number of roads have begun to exhibit the onset of deterioration at relatively 

early ages. Since this deterioration appears to be the result of materials issues, data 

concerning raw materials, design, and paving conditions have been collected and analyzed 

for correlation between independent variables and deterioration. This analysis shows that 

there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between deterioration and the 

following variables: alkali and sulfate content of the cementitious materials, impermeable 

base course, paving temperature, and the presence of fly ash. This study also finds a 

significant need for improvement in data collection and maintenance by many organizations 

responsible for the production of concrete. 
75 

42. Jiang, Y., M. I. Darter, and E. Owusu-Antwi. 1996. “Analysis of Current State Rigid 

Pavement Design Practices in the United States.” Transportation Research Record 1525. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Current PCC pavement design practices and the key concrete pavement design features 

used by State highway agencies in the United States are summarized. This information was 

obtained from a comprehensive survey conducted in 1994 and 1995 under an NCHRP 

research project. Pavement types, design methodologies, and reliability levels are included, 

along with many design inputs. Parameters that the States use to characterize pavement site 

conditions, including climate, subgrade, and traffic, are given. The designed concrete slab 

thicknesses for different site condition combinations are compared. An analysis of variance 

compared the mean slab thicknesses designed in different climatic regions. This 

examination and summary of the details of current pavement design practices and design 

features for concrete pavements in the United States will be of interest to both pavement 

researchers and practitioners. 

43. Jiang, J. Y. and S. D. Tayabji. 1998. “Mechanistic Evaluation of Test Data From LongTerm Pavement Performance Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement Test Sections.” 

Transportation Research Record 1629. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Over the years, pavement engineers have attempted to develop rational mechanisticempirical (M-E) methods for predicting pavement performance. In fact, the next version of 

AASHTO’s guide for pavement design will be mechanistically based. Many M-E 

procedures have been developed on the basis of a combination of laboratory test data, 

theory, and limited field verification. Therefore, it is important to validate and calibrate 

these procedures using additional data from in-service pavements. The LTPP program data 

provide the means to evaluate and improve these models. A study was conducted to assess 

the performance of some of the existing concrete pavement M-E-based distress-prediction 

procedures when used in conjunction with the data being collected as part of the LTPP 

program. Fatigue cracking damage was estimated using the NCHRP 1-26 approach and 

compared with observed fatigue damage at 52 GPS-3 test sections. Use of LTPP data was 

shown to successfully develop better insight into pavement behavior and improve pavement 

performance. 

44. Jiang, Y. J., S. D. Tayabji, and C. L. Wu. 1998. Mechanistic Evaluation of Test Data from 

LTPP Jointed Concrete Pavement Test Sections. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-094. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This study aimed to assess how well some of the existing concrete pavement M-E based 

distress-prediction procedures performed when used in conjunction with data being 

collected as part of the national LTPP program. As part of the study, appropriate data were 

obtained from the National Information Management System for the GPS-3 and GPS-4 

experiments. Structural analysis was performed for up to 140 axle-load configurations for 

the selected test sections. Then, the ILLI-CONC software (developed under NCHRP 1-26) 

and PCA’s procedures were used to predict fatigue cracking and joint faulting damage, 

respectively. The computed results were compared with observed values. This study 

showed that, even given the many current limitations in the LTPP database, LTPP data can 
76 

be used successfully to develop better insight into pavement behavior and to improve 

pavement performance. 

45. Kazmierowski, T. J. and G. A. Wrong. 1989. “Six Years Experience with Experimental 

Concrete Pavement Sections in Ontario.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on 

Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

In 1982, four experimental sections of rigid pavement were constructed on Highway 3 

southeast of Windsor to assess the comparative performance and overall serviceability of 

various pavement, drainage, and shoulder designs plus two types of surface textures. 

Recent innovative developments in concrete pavement design methodology, material 

specification, construction techniques, and pavement drainage systems prompted Ontario’s 

Ministry of Transportation to construct these test pavements. Summaries of the design and 

construction details, plus the results of an on-going performance-monitoring program, are 

documented in this paper. The performance of the pavement section is described in terms 

of load transfer and pavement edge deflections based on FWD testing, pavement condition 

ratings, roughness, skid resistance, joint movement, and a crack survey. Observations of 

noise levels, traffic volumes, and surface textures are discussed. Conclusions based on 6 

years of performance indicate the superior performance of the free-draining base materials. 

In addition, some anomalous behavior based on pavement cracking and roughness suggests 

additional areas of process control are warranted. (Note: An update on the performance of 

these experimental sections is presented by Kazmierowski and Bradbury, “Ten Years 

Experience with Experimental Concrete Pavement Sections in Ontario,” Fifth International 

Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue University, West 

Lafayette, IN, 1993.) 

46. Khazanovich, L., M. I. Darter, R. Bartlett, and T. McPeak. 1998. Common Characteristics 

of Good and Poorly Performing PCC Pavements. Report No. FHWA-RD-97-131. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report documents the analysis and findings of a study to identify the site conditions 

and design/construction features of concrete pavements (JPCP, JRCP, CRCP) that lead to 

good performance and those that lead to poor performance. Data from the LTPP test 

sections were used along with findings from previous and ongoing analyses of LTPP data. 

As there were no known criteria for identifying performance expectations over time as 

good, normal, or poor, a group of experts was convened to establish criteria. Separate 

criteria were developed for performance in roughness, joint faulting, transverse cracking, 

and localized failures (CRCP). 

Many significant site conditions and design/construction features were identified that lead 

to good and poor performance. The site conditions (traffic, climate, and subgrade) cannot 

be controlled by the designer, but steps can be taken to mitigate their effects. Several 

design and construction features can be controlled or specified by the highway agency; 

these should be given careful consideration. Knowledge of the design features identified as 

being critical to concrete pavement performance will contribute to improved guidelines for 

the design and construction of long-lasting PCC pavements. 
77 

47. Kim, S-M, M. Won, and B. F. McCullough. “Numerical Modeling of Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavement Subjected to Environmental Loads.” Transportation 

Research Record 1629. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) performance depends on, among other 

factors, the characteristics of early developing cracks caused by environmental loads. The 

primary objective is to evaluate effects of design, materials, and construction variables on 

the characteristics of cracks in CRCP when subjected to environmental loads. A 

mechanistic model is developed using finite element formulations. Concrete and 

longitudinal steel are discretized using the plane strain and the frame elements, respectively. 

Various bond stress and slip models between concrete and longitudinal steel and between 

concrete and the underlying layers are developed using the spring elements. The creep 

effect is also included using the effective modulus method. CRCP responses from the 

model vary depending on the concrete and steel bond-slip models. An accurate bond-slip 

model needs to be investigated further by experiments to increase the accuracy of the 

mechanistic model. Concrete creep has beneficial effects on CRCP responses. The thermal 

coefficient of concrete has significant effects on CRCP responses. Using concrete with a 

low thermal coefficient will improve CRCP performance. Longitudinal steel variables—

the amount of steel, bar diameter, and steel location—are important design variables that 

influence CRCP behavior. For given environmental conditions, an optimum steel design 

can be developed using the model developed. 

48. Ksaibati, K. and R. Staigle. 1995. “Faulting Performance Modeling for Undoweled Plain 

Concrete Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 1482. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

Data on factors causing faulting in undoweled plain concrete pavements were collected. A 

large number of concrete pavement test sections located in southern Wyoming were 

included in the experiment. Extensive field data were collected on all test sections. These 

data included faulting over a 4-year period, traffic applications, construction information, 

annual precipitation, and drainage conditions. A statistical model was developed to predict 

joint faulting. The most important factors contributing to joint faulting were identified as 

traffic loadings, slab thickness, and edge drains. 

49. Kunt, M. M. and B. F. McCullough. 1992. Improved Design and Construction Procedures 

for Concrete Pavements Based on Mechanistic Modeling Techniques. Report No. 

FHWA/TX-92+1169-5F. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX. 

This report describes an improved set of design and construction procedures for jointed 

reinforced concrete pavements. A systems approach was used to develop, analyze, 

evaluate, and implement recommended procedures for designing concrete pavement 

reinforcement and for determining sawing time and depth. An evaluation of the subgrade 

drag theory for reinforcement design indicated that it incorrectly predicts the required 

amount of reinforcement. Revised reinforcement equations are developed; these are 

believed to be more representative of actual conditions. Monte Carlo simulation was 

conducted to determine required sawing depths and times for a selected probability level. 
78 

50. LaCoursiere, S. A., M. I. Darter, and S. A. Smiley. 1978. Performance of Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavement in Illinois. Report No. FHWA-IL-UI-172. Illinois 

Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL. 

A study of the performance of CRCP constructed on the Illinois interstate system has been 

conducted. Approximately 1,980 km (1,230 mi) of interstate pavement were surveyed, 

consisting of 175- to 250-mm (7- to 10-inch) slabs over granular and stabilized subbases. 

CRCP slab thickness, foundation support, and the presence of susceptible D-cracking 

aggregate were found to have a substantial effect on the performance of the pavements. 

Recommendations on the design and construction practices are made. 

51. Larson, R. M. and S. D. Tayabji. 1994. “Performance of Continuously Reinforced 

Concrete Pavements.” Third International Workshop on the Design and Evaluation of 

Concrete Pavements, Krumbach, Austria. 

Currently, the United States has more than 30,000 lane miles of continuously reinforced 

concrete (CRC) pavements. Many are more than 20 years old and have provided excellent 

performance over the years. Much of the CRC pavement technology has developed 

through experience. This fact and the recent use of new design features (such as tied 

concrete shoulder, permeable cement-treated base, and epoxy-coated steel) pointed to a 

need to evaluate performance of existing CRC pavement sections. This paper summarizes 

the findings of a national pooled fund study (administered by FHWA) aimed at updating the 

state-of-the-art of the design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of CRC 

pavements. As part of the study, a comprehensive field investigation of 23 in-service CRC 

pavements was conducted to study the effects of various design and construction features 

on performance of CRC pavements. The investigation included crack mapping/distress 

survey, profile/roughness measurement, FWD testing, and materials sampling and testing. 

In addition, the data collected to date from the 85 CRC pavement sections in the LTPP 

GPS-5 experiment were also analyzed. Key findings of the field investigation program as 

they relate to CRC pavement design and construction are presented. 

52. Larson, R. M., S. Vanikar, and S. Foster. 1993. U.S. Tour of European Concrete/U.S. Tour 

of European Concrete Highways (U.S. TECH), Follow-Up Tour of Germany and Austria—

Summary Report. Report No. FHWA-SA-93-080. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, D.C. 

This report describes the findings and recommendations of the follow-up U. S. Tour of 

European Concrete Highways, conducted October 10 to 22, 1992. The goal was to obtain 

sufficient information to construct experimental highway sections in Michigan and other 

States using the German design and to review an active construction project in Austria to 

obtain information on the exposed aggregate surface treatment technique to reduce 

tire/pavement noise. A major feature of the German cross section is the use of a 15 cm (6 

cm) lean concrete or cement-bound pre-notched base, to which the concrete slab is bonded. 

Other major features are the provision of a thick granular blanket layer under the stabilized 

base and the provision of longitudinal edge drains, usually outletted to the storm drain 

system. Plate bearing quality assurance tests are run on the subgrade and the granular 

blanket surfaces to assure strong support for the stabilized pavement structure. 
79 

53. Lee, Y. H., J. H. Bair, C. T. Lee, S. T. Yen, and Y. L. Lee. 1993. “Development of New 

Stress Analysis and Thickness Design Procedures for Jointed Concrete Pavements.” 

Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on Concrete Design and Materials for 

High Performance. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This study focused on the development of an alternative stress-estimation procedure to 

instantly calculate the critical stresses in jointed concrete pavements. The primary 

components of stress analysis, including gear configurations, total wheel load, tire pressure, 

a widened outer lane, a tied concrete shoulder, and thermal curling due to a linear 

temperature differential, need to be considered. The ILLI-SLAB finite element program 

was used for this analysis. In validation of the program, very favorable results were 

obtained in comparison with data from Taiwan’s second northern highway, the AASHO 

road test, and the Arlington road test. Dimensional analysis and experimental design were 

employed to plan a factorial of finite element runs over wide ranges of pavement design 

parameters. Prediction equations for stress adjustments were then developed using a 

modern regression technique (projection pursuit regression). Subsequently, a simplified 

stress analysis procedure was implemented in a user-friendly computer program 

(TKUPAV) to facilitate instant stress estimation. Together with PCA’s cumulative fatigue 

damage equation, a modified PCA stress analysis and thickness design procedure was also 

incorporated in the TKUPAV program. This program may be used not only for stress 

calculation but also structural analysis and design of jointed concrete pavement. 

54. Lee, Y. H. and M. I. Darter. 1994. “Loading and Curling Stress Models for Concrete 

Pavement Design.” Transportation Research Record 1449. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

Determining the edge loading tensile bending stress in a concrete slab due to individual and 

combination effects of wheel loading and thermal curling is important to a mechanisticbased design procedure. The paper describes the identification of two additional 

dimensionless mechanistic variables, such that the problems encountered in previous 

investigations that have used dimensional analysis for thermal-related curling problems are 

resolved. A new regression technique (projection pursuit regression) together with 

traditional linear and nonlinear regressions is used to develop prediction models, which 

provide an accurate representation of the finite element model. They are simple, easy to 

comprehend, dimensionally correct, may be extrapolated to wider ranges of other input 

parameters, and are ready for implementation in a spreadsheet or computer program. 

Examples of practical applications using the new models are also provided. 

55. Lee, Y. H. and M. I. Darter. 1995. “Development of Performance Prediction Models for 

Illinois Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 

1505. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

A new predictive modeling approach is presented and the approach for localized failures in 

Illinois CRCP is demonstrated. Some data retrieval guidelines from the Illinois Pavement 

Feedback System database are first presented. A preliminary data analysis was conducted 

to assist in data cleaning and assessing the variability of the data before the analysis was 

performed. Several modern regression techniques (“robust” and “nonparametric” 

regressions) were introduced in a new predictive modeling approach. The proposed 
80 

modeling approach was used to develop an improved model for localized failures in CRCP. 

The resulting model includes several variables such as cumulative ESALs, slab thickness, 

steel reinforcing content, steel reinforcing placement method, and base type for the 

prediction of CRCP failures. A sensitivity analysis was also performed to illustrate the 

effect of these variables on failures. Slab thickness and steel content are by far the most 

significant variables affecting performance. Crack spacing was found to have no effect. 

56. Lu, J., B. F. McCullough, and C. L. Saraf. 1989. “Maximum Entropy Spectral Analysis of 

Transverse Crack Spacing in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” 

Transportation Research Record 1227. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The characteristics of cracks of CRCP are generally evaluated by analyzing the distribution 

of transverse crack spacing in the pavement. Statistical analysis of data produces the mean 

and the standard deviation of crack spacing. However, these parameters are not always 

sufficient for characterizing the crack spacing of CRCP. Therefore, this paper proposes an 

alternate method for analyzing the transverse crack spacing data. This method, maximum 

entropy spectral analysis (MESA), analyzes the data in this frequency domain rather than in 

the space domain. By using MESA, the uniformity and variability of crack spacing can be 

observed in the frequency domain. The results of analysis using MESA indicate that this 

method can intuitively distinguish the characteristics of transverse crack spacing 

distribution in CRCP containing different types of coarse aggregates. 

57. McCullough, B. F. 1993. Design of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements for 

Highways. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Schaumburg, IL. 

This document presents design information for CRCP in highway applications. The focus 

of the document is on steel reinforcement design, with references to other procedures for 

structural thickness design. Key steel reinforcement factors included in the design 

procedure are PCC material properties (tensile strength, shrinkage, thermal coefficient of 

expansion, and modulus of elasticity), steel reinforcement properties (yield strength, bar 

size, thermal coefficient of expansion, and modulus of elasticity), base, subbase, and 

subgrade properties (elastic modulus values, layer thicknesses), wheel loading, climatic 

data (daily temperature differential and annual temperature difference), and pavement 

structure geometry (slab width, paving width, and distance to longitudinal construction 

joint). These factors, in conjunction with user-selected design limits on minimum crack 

spacing, maximum crack spacing, maximum crack width, and allowable steel stress, are 

used in a series of design equations to determine the required steel content. An 

accompanying computer program, CRC–HIGHWAY PAVE, is available to expedite the 

calculations. 

58. McCullough, B. F. and T. Dossey. 1999. Controlling Early Age Cracking in Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavement: Observations from 12 Years of Monitoring Experimental 

Test Sections in Houston, Texas. Preprint No. 991460. Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting of 

the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This paper presents findings drawn from 12 years of monitoring and analyzing thermal 

cracking in experimental CRCP placed in and around Houston, TX. The purpose of the 

study was to evaluate new design elements and construction considerations intended to 
81 

control early-age thermal cracking and cracking-related distress caused by coarse aggregate 

with a high thermal coefficient of expansion. Experimental factors considered include 

coarse aggregate type, percentage of steel reinforcement, bar size, double or single mat 

steel, paving time, and paving season. Findings from the study show significant differences 

in performance between low and high thermal coefficient aggregates, effective methods to 

minimize them, as well as some attempts that were not as successful. Aggregate type and 

placement season were found to be the most significant factors affecting PCC performance, 

whereas day or night placement, steel percentage, bar size, and skewed placement proved 

less significant. 

59. Moody, E. D. 1998. “Transverse Cracking Distress in Long-Term Pavement Performance 

Jointed Concrete Pavement Sections.” Transportation Research Record 1629. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The primary design variables and distress mechanisms that can cause varying degrees of 

transverse cracking in jointed concrete pavements are discussed. Included in the discussion 

is the Strategic Highway Research Program’s LTPP program, which has collected a 

significant amount of condition survey data on more than 110 jointed plain concrete 

pavements and 65 jointed reinforced concrete pavements throughout North America over 

the past 7 years. A complete analysis of the transverse cracking that has occurred in the 

LTPP test sections, along with their respective relationships with the primary prediction 

variables found in the primary distress mechanisms, is provided. 

60. Mueller, A. L., D. G. Peshkin, K. D. Smith, and M. I. Darter. 1990. Performance of 

Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume VI—Appendix C: Synthesis of Concrete Pavement 

Design Methods and Analysis Models, and Appendix D: Summary of Analysis Data for the 

Evaluation of Predictive Models. Report No. FHWA-RD-89-141. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

A major national field and analytical study has been conducted into the effect of various 

design features on the performance of jointed concrete pavements. Extensive design, 

construction, traffic, and performance data were obtained from numerous experimental and 

other concrete pavement sections throughout the country. This volume provides a general 

evaluation of several concrete pavement design and analysis models. This includes RISC, 

ILLI-SLAB, JSLAB, H51, WESLIQID, WESLAYER, JSC-1, JCP-1, AASHTO, RPS-3, 

PCA, PMARP, PEARDARP, PREDICT, BERM, CMS, Liu-Lytton, JRCP-4, and 

California DOT procedures. Sensitivity analyses are included for each pavement sections. 

Also included in this volume is supporting documentation for the analyses presented in 

volume II. 

61. Mueller, P. E. and L. A. Scofield. 1989. “An Expanded Evaluation of Arizona’s Ten Mile 

Concrete Test Roadway.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Concrete 

Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper describes the performance of the Superstition Freeway (State Route 360) located 

near Phoenix, AZ. The construction of this freeway marked a new era in the concrete 

pavement design philosophies of the Arizona DOT. It was the start of what became a 16-

km (10-mi) corridor of experimental test sections. The experimental sections consist of 
82 

full-depth JPCP, JPCP over cement-treated base, JPCP over lean concrete base, and 

prestressed concrete pavement over lean concrete base. Performance evaluations based 

primarily on roughness and skid characteristics are presented, along with faulting, 

deflection, and maintenance data. A statistical analysis of Arizona DOT’s pavement 

management inventory data was performed to develop linear models for both roughness and 

skid properties. The roughness models represent the expected roughness over the 20-year 

design life. The models representing skid properties could only be developed for the years 

in which the field data were collected. 

62. Neal, B. F. 1987. Evaluation of Design Changes and Experimental PCC Construction 

Features. Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-85/07. California Department of Transportation, 

Sacramento, CA. 

This report covers the performance of experimental design and construction features 

implemented at four study sites. The first study site consisted of an experimental CRCP 

compared with JPCP with different design features. The second site includes a field trial of 

four different types of joint sealant materials. The third site included an evaluation of PCC 

pavements with experimental shoulder treatments, including PCC shoulders. The fourth 

site included an evaluation of other experimental bridge approach slabs and permeable 

asphalt-treated and cement-treated bases. Results from these studies are being reviewed 

and further experimentation, and in some cases implementation, of the design features is 

being conducted. 

63. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 1993. The New York State 

Thickness Design Manual for New and Reconstructed Pavements. New York State 

Department of Transportation, Albany, NY. 

The purpose of this manual is to provide information on the background, rationale, and 

detailed behind the NYSDOT policy for thickness design of new and reconstructed 

pavements. It has been determined by the NYSDOT pavement design task force that 

positive pavement drainage and increased pavement life are important aspects in designing 

quality pavements. This manual is based on the 1986 AASHTO design guide for 

determining pavement thickness, as well as using a treated open-graded permeable base 

layer with continuous edge drains in the pavement structure for positive drainage. Rigid 

pavements will be potentially thicker slabs (up to 325-mm (13-inch) thick) and designed 

with full-depth tied concrete shoulders with widened PCC slabs to reduce critical edge and 

corner stresses. Dowel bars are recommended for all Interstate pavements, and additional 

select granular subbase may be required for certain conditions. 

64. Nussbaum, P. J. and E. C. Lokken. 1977. “Design and Construction of Concrete 

Pavements.” Proceedings, International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design. 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

In 1975, the PCA conducted a survey of concrete pavement design and construction 

practices in the United States. This paper summarizes the design and construction practices 

by concrete pavement type, as well as typical construction costs. A field survey of 85 

concrete pavement projects in 7 States also was conducted. Major problem areas noted in 
83 

the survey for each pavement design type are summarized and recommended design and 

construction modifications are presented. 

65. Owusu-Antwi, E., L. Titus-Glover, and M. I. Darter. 1998. Design and Construction of 

PCC Pavements, Volume I: Summary of Design Features and Construction Practices that 

Influence Performance of Pavements. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-052. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This study was conducted to evaluate and analyze PCC pavements to develop 

recommendations for the design and construction of long-lasting concrete pavements. It 

involved a detailed evaluation and analysis of the PCC pavement data in the LTPP database 

to determine the beneficial effects of specific design features and construction practices on 

long-term performance. This volume provides a concise summary of the results obtained 

from the study. It includes an overview of the engineering and statistical analyses that were 

conducted, and presents results that can be used by SHAs to obtain high-performance PCC 

pavements. The focus of the design and construction recommendations is on the prevention 

of key PCC pavement distresses. 

66. Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC). 1994. Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavement. Report No. 07.06.B. Permanent International Association 

of Road Congresses, Paris, France. 

The increasing use of CRCP around the world has led PIARC to prepare this synthesis on 

the state of the art of CRCP. The engineering and economic advantages offered by CRCP 

are described, followed by detailed discussions on the design (including steel design and 

terminal end movements), construction, performance, and maintenance and repair of CRCP. 

New developments in CRCP technology are also presented, along with main 

recommendations regarding its design and use. 

67. Peshkin, D. G., K. D. Smith, G. S. James, L. D. Evans, and M. I. Darter. 1991. Evaluation 

of Concrete Pavements in the Phoenix Urban Corridor, Volume II—Appendices. Report 

No. FHWA-AZ91-264-II. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. 

A comprehensive evaluation of the various concrete pavement designs in the Phoenix, AZ 

urban corridor was conducted. This volume provides supporting project documentation to 

the main report. The appendices of this volume summarize the performance data for the 

sections; provide strip maps taken from the distress surveys; describe the creation and use 

of the project database; summarize the results from the weigh-in-motion studies; furnish 

rehabilitation selection guidelines; and provide an overview of recommended rehabilitation 

methods. 

68. Portland Cement Association (PCA). 1984. Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and 

Street Pavements. Report No. EB109.01P. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL. 

This bulletin provides methods for determining slab thicknesses adequate to carry traffic 

loads on concrete streets, roads, and highways. The thickness design procedure is based on 

mechanistic concepts calibrated to documented concrete pavement performance. Both a 

fatigue analysis (for the evaluation of the suitability of the slab thickness to withstand 
84 

fatigue cracking from the projected traffic) and an erosion analysis (for the evaluation of 

loss of support at slab corners due to pumping under the projected traffic) are conducted. A 

simplified design procedure is also presented for use when detailed axle-load data are not 

available. The thickness design criteria are based on general pavement performance 

experience, and can be modified as particular climate, soil, or drainage conditions dictate. 

69. Saraf, C., C. Chou, and B. F. McCullough. 1987. “Effect of Rainfall on the Performance 

of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements in Texas.” Transportation Research 

Record 1227. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The effect of rainfall on the performance of CRCP in Texas was studied by analyzing the 

condition survey data on CRC pavements throughout the State. Rigid pavement condition 

survey data were collected for 10 years, beginning in 1974. For the purpose of this study, 

the data were grouped into districts, and the average performance of pavements in each 

district was estimated. The average performance of CRC pavements was determined by 

adding the number of patches and punchouts in the pavement and estimating the number of 

failures per mile. The results of the study indicate that the average annual rainfall on the 

performance of CRC is significant. Although the initial performance of the pavements 

located in different rainfall areas is practically the same, when the pavement starts 

developing failures, the rate of failure development is affected by the average rainfall in the 

area. Pavements located in 250-mm (10-inch) rainfall areas generally showed an almost 

zero rate of failure development, whereas pavements located in 1,300-mm (52-inch) rainfall 

areas developed failures at a rate of about 0.6 failures per km (one failure per mi) per year. 

70. Smiley, D. L. 1995. First Year Performance of the European Concrete Pavement on 

Northbound I-75 - Detroit, Michigan. Report No. FHWA-SA-95-046. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report describes the performance of the I-75 European concrete pavement 

reconstruction project approximately one year after construction. The experimental 

features of the pavement design were assimilated from designs used in Germany and 

Austria. The objective is to determine whether innovative features of typical rigid 

pavement designs used in European countries can be applied cost effectively to 

conventional design and construction methods used for rigid pavements in the United 

States. The European pavement is part of a major Michigan project to reconstruct 3.7 km 

(2.3 miles) of the I-75 (Chrysler) freeway in downtown Detroit. I-75 is 6 to 8 lanes wide 

and carries about 111,000 vehicles a day (11 percent are trucks). The approximately 1.6-

km (1-mile) long European pavement is located on northbound I-75 just north of I-94. It 

will be monitored for 5 years. The experimental pavement appears to be performing as 

expected, except for the disappointing results pertaining to the exposed aggregate surface as 

a means to reduce traffic noise levels. Specific points of interest are as follows: No surface 

distress features, except for minor popouts, have developed on the European pavement, in 

contrast to the Michigan pavement, where 50 percent of the pavement panels have one or 

two transverse cracks; the ethylene propylene diene terpolymer joint seals are performing 

satisfactorily; the exposed aggregate surface appears to have lost macrotexture in the two 

inner lanes of northbound I-75, where traffic was during most of 1994 while southbound I75 was being reconstructed; surface friction increased as expected; and the exposed 
85 

aggregate surface provides only a slight reduction (0.4 dBA) in exterior and interior car 

noise levels, as compared to a reported 4 to 5 and 3.5 to 4.5 dBA, respectively, in Europe. 

71. Smith, K. D. and K. T. Hall. 1999. Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction 

Practices: State of the Art Technical Digest. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

This technical digest has been prepared to concisely present current recommendations and 

guidelines on design and construction details for concrete pavements. Emphasis is given to 

JPCP, although a separate chapter on special design considerations for JRCP and CRCP is 

provided. This document is intended for use by design and construction engineers to assist 

in the development and construction of concrete pavements that perform better and last 

longer. Key topics covered include: concrete pavement type selection; subgrade 

preparation and characterization; drainage design; base and subbase considerations; 

thickness design; joint design; shoulder considerations; construction considerations; and 

special design considerations for reinforced concrete pavements. The recommendations 

and guidelines presented herein are based on recent research reports and concrete pavement 

performance studies. A detailed annotated bibliography of applicable documents from the 

past 10 years is included as an appendix. 

72. Smith, K. D., A. L. Mueller, M. I. Darter, and D. G. Peshkin. 1990. Performance of 

Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume II—Evaluation and Modification of Concrete 

Pavement Design and Analysis Models. Report No. FHWA-RD-89-137. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

A major national field and analytical study was conducted into the effect of various design 

features on the performance of jointed concrete pavements. Extensive design, construction, 

traffic, and performance data were obtained from numerous experimental and other 

concrete pavement sections throughout the country. This volume investigates the accuracy 

of several pavement performance models and illustrates the usefulness of several concrete 

design and analysis procedures. Performance models evaluated include AASHTO, 

PREDICT, PEARDARP, and PFAULT; design and analysis models evaluated include 

PMARP, JSLAB, ILLI-SLAB, CMS, Liu-Lytton, JCP, JCS, and BERM. Based upon the 

data collected from this and other studies, new prediction models were developed for 

selected performance indicators. 

73. Smith, K. D., D. G. Peshkin, M. I. Darter, and A. L. Mueller. 1990. Performance of 

Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume III—Summary of Research Findings. Report No. 

FHWA-RD-89-138. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

A major national field and analytical study was conducted into the effect of various design 

features on the performance of jointed concrete pavements. Extensive design, construction, 

traffic, and performance data were obtained from numerous experimental and other 

concrete pavement sections throughout the United States. This volume gives a broad 

overview of the work performed in this study. Summaries of the effect of various design 

features on concrete pavement performance are reviewed and performance trends identified. 

The accuracy of various prediction models and analysis methods are examined using the 
86 

field performance data. From that evaluation, new prediction models were developed and a 

cost-effectiveness evaluation was performed. 

74. Smith, K. D., D. G. Peshkin, M. I. Darter, A. L. Mueller, and S. H. Carpenter. 1990a. 

Performance of Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume I—Evaluation of Concrete Pavement 

Performance and Design Features. Report No. FHWA-RD-89-136. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

A major national field and analytical study examined the effect of various design features 

on the performance of jointed concrete pavements. Extensive design, construction, traffic, 

and performance data were obtained from numerous experimental and other concrete 

pavement sections throughout the country. This volume presents a brief introduction to the 

data collection activities and presents a description and performance evaluation of the 

pavement sections in the study. Documentation is presented on the effects of slab 

thickness, base type, joint spacing, reinforcement, joint orientation, load transfer, dowel bar 

coatings, longitudinal joint design, joint sealant, tied shoulders, and subdrainage on jointed 

concrete pavement performance. 

75. Smith, K. D., D. G. Peshkin, M. I. Darter, A. L. Mueller, and S. H. Carpenter. 1990. 

Performance of Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume IV—Appendix A: Project Summary 

Reports and Summary Tables. Report No. FHWA-RD-89-139. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

A major national field and analytical study examined the effect of various design features 

on the performance of jointed concrete pavements. Extensive design, construction, traffic, 

and performance data were obtained from numerous experimental and other concrete 

pavement sections throughout the United States. This volume provides detailed summary 

reports documenting the design, construction, and performance of the 95 concrete pavement 

sections in the study. Comprehensive summary tables compile the design and performance 

data from each section into a convenient format. 

76. Smith, K. D., D. G. Peshkin, M. I. Darter, A. L. Mueller, and S. H. Carpenter. 1990c. 

Performance of Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume V—Appendix B: Data Collection and 

Analysis Procedures. Report No. FHWA-RD-89-140. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

A major national field and analytical study examined the effect of various design features 

on the performance of jointed concrete pavements. Extensive design, construction, traffic, 

and performance data were obtained from numerous experimental and other concrete 

pavement sections throughout the country. This volume provides documentation of the 

data collection and analysis procedures used. The field data collection activities, including 

deflection testing and coring/boring, are discussed, as are the weigh-in-motion data 

collection procedures. Traffic computations and backcalculation methodologies are 

presented, along with the basis for the assessment of drainage conditions. 
87 

77. Smith, K. D., D. G. Peshkin, A. L. Mueller, E. Owusu-Antwi, and M. I. Darter. 1991. 

Evaluation of Concrete Pavements in the Phoenix Urban Corridor, Volume I—Final 

Report. Report No. FHWA-AZ91-264-I. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, 

AZ. 

A comprehensive evaluation of various concrete pavement designs in the Phoenix, AZ, 

urban corridor was conducted. This volume summarizes the performance of the designs. 

Performance data are then used to evaluate the suitability of available pavement design 

models to Arizona conditions. The performance data were also used in developing design 

recommendations and in determining suggested rehabilitation activities for each section. 

78. Smith, K. D., M. J. Wade, D. G. Peshkin, and M. I. Darter. 1997. Performance of 

Concrete Pavements. Volume I: Field Investigation. Interim Report. Report No. FHWARD-94-177. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

With the goal of improving future concrete pavement design and construction practices, this 

project evaluated the performance of 303 inservice concrete pavement sections located 

throughout North America. An extensive field-testing program, consisting of pavement 

condition surveys, drainage surveys, FWD testing, coring/boring operations, and roughness 

testing, was conducted to collect the information needed for analysis. Because many of 

these pavement sections are part of State-level studies on concrete pavements, a range of 

design variables (e.g., load transfer, slab thickness, joint spacing, drainage) thought to affect 

concrete pavement performance are present. Over one-third of the sections was evaluated 

under a preceding FHWA study; 5-year performance trends thus are available for some 

sections. Additional pavement performance data are also available for 96 European 

concrete pavement sections and for 21 Chilean concrete pavement sections. The average 

age and average cumulative ESALs for the North American sections are 16 years and 7.1 

million, respectively, compared to 21 years and 21.8 million for the European sections, and 

9 years and 5.9 million for the Chilean sections. This volume describes the field data 

collection activities conducted under the study and also summarizes the individual 

performance of the 303 concrete pavement sections evaluated. Pertinent design and 

construction data are given for each project, and key performance data are presented. 

Where available, 5-year performance trends are also summarized. 

79. Smith, K. D., M. J. Wade, D. G. Peshkin, L. Khazanovich, H. T. Yu, and M. I. Darter. 

1998. Performance of Concrete Pavements, Volume II—Evaluation of Inservice Concrete 

Pavements. Report No. FHWA-RD-95-110. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

With the goal of improving future concrete pavement design and construction practices, this 

project evaluated the performance of 303 inservice concrete pavement sections throughout 

North America. This volume examines the performance of the various concrete pavement 

sections in the study. This examination primarily consists of an evaluation of the effect of 

concrete pavement design features on concrete pavement performance. Design features 

investigated include slab thickness, joint spacing, joint orientation, load transfer, joint 

sealant, base type, drainage, shoulder type, reinforcement, and pavement type. The results 

of an examination of the backcalculation results are also presented, as are the significant 
88 

findings of an evaluation conducted on the performance of European and Chilean concrete 

pavements. 

80. Smith, K. D., M. J. Wade, H. T. Yu, and M. I. Darter. 1997. “Design Considerations for 

Improved JPCP Performance.” Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on 

Concrete Design and Materials for High Performance. Purdue University, West Lafayette, 

IN. 

This paper presents recommendations for various aspects of concrete pavement design, 

based on the results of an evaluation of the performance of more than 300 concrete 

pavement sections in North America. Recommendations are presented for subgrade 

preparation, drainage, base type selection, shoulder/edge support type selection, concrete 

strength requirements, concrete thickness design, and joint design and construction. 

81. Strauss, P. J. and M. F. Mitchell. 1989. “The Performance of Jointed Concrete Pavement 

as Affected by Factors Other Than Traffic-Induced Stresses.” Proceedings, Fourth 

International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, IN. 

Design and construction techniques as developed overseas have been used in South Africa 

on PCC pavements with little variation based on local experience. This paper describes the 

methodology by which jointed unreinforced concrete pavements are being evaluated with 

the aim of improving local design and construction techniques. Indications are that failures 

found on the pavements can primarily be attributed to inadequate construction techniques 

and control. Although the pavements are performing very well (only 11 percent show 

cracking outside the joints), it is felt that an improvement in performance is possible if 

subgrades are compacted properly to reduce settlement, nonerodible subbases are 

constructed, load transfer at joints is enhanced by low-shrinkage concrete, joints are kept 

properly sealed, and concrete shoulders are used. 

82. Tayabji, S. D. and G. T. Korovesis. 1993. Principles and Practices of Concrete Pavement 

Design. Final Report, Contract DTFH61-90-00050. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

This manual provides pavement design engineers with background information and 

recommended guidelines and considerations for the design and construction of concrete 

pavements. Items discussed include subgrade, bases and subbases, concrete materials, 

drainage, temperature and moisture effects, thickness design, joint design, and critical 

construction features. The approach presented incorporates consideration of all critical 

features during the design process, in contrast to focusing on thickness design only. 

Successful local experience and good construction practices are emphasized. 

83. Tayabji, S. D., O. Selezneva, and Y. J. Jiang. 1999. Preliminary Evaluation of LTPP 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete (CRC) Pavement Test Sections. Final Report. Report 

No. FHWA-RD-99-086. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

As part of the study reported here, analysis of data from the LTPP GPS-5 test sections was 

conducted to identify factors that influence long-term crack spacing in CRC pavements and 
89 

to determine the effect of crack spacing on pavement performance. Data from the 85 test 

sections from the GPS-5 experiment were analyzed. Due to limitations of the available data 

and the lack of certain key data, the study did not produce definitive findings on factors that 

affect long-term crack spacing and CRC pavement performance. Lack of early-age 

cracking due to ambient weather conditions at the time of construction will continue to limit 

the value of GPS-5 to produce meaningful data on factors affecting early-age cracking. 

Continued monitoring of GPS-5 sites and subsequent data analysis should yield information 

on how CRC pavement cracking and performance changes with time, loading, and other 

factors. It is expected that as additional data from the GPS-5 experiment become available, 

more in-depth analysis of the test data to derive definitive results will be possible. Results 

to date, as presented in this report, do indicate that CRC pavements have the potential to 

provide long-term, low-maintenance service life as evidenced by the many well-performing 

sections in the LTPP GPS-5 experiment. 

84. Tayabji, S. D., P. J. Stephanos, J. S. Gagnon, and D. G. Zollinger. 1998. Performance of 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Volume II: Field Investigations of CRC 

Pavements. Report No. FHWA-RD-94-179. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

This is one of a series of reports prepared as part of a recent study (sponsored by FHWA) to 

update the state-of-the-art of the design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 

CRC pavements. In this report, the details of a comprehensive field investigation of 23 

inservice CRCP sections are presented. The investigation included crack mapping and 

distress survey, profile and roughness measurements, FWD testing, and materials sampling 

and testing for 305-m (332-yard) long in-service test sections. Detailed, site-by-site design, 

construction, and performance summaries are presented for each project. 

85. Tayabji, S. D., D. G. Zollinger, G. T. Korovesis, P. J. Stephanos, and J. S. Gagnon. 1998. 

Performance of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Volume I: Summary of 

Practice and Annotated Bibliography. Report No. FHWA-RD-94-178. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This is one of a series of reports prepared as part of a recent study (sponsored by FHWA) to 

update the state-of-the-art of the design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 

CRC pavements. This volume presents a comprehensive bibliography on CRC pavements, 

along with a summary of the current practice. The summary of practice provides brief 

details on the extent and practice of CRC pavement use in the United States and other 

countries. 

86. Tayabji, S. D., D. G. Zollinger, J. R. Vederey, and J. S. Gagnon. 1998. Performance of 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Volume III: Analysis and Evaluation of 

Field Test Data. Report No. FHWA-RD-94-180. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

This is one of a series of reports prepared as part of a recent study (sponsored by FHWA) to 

update the state-of-the-art of the design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 

CRC pavements. In this report, the results of a comprehensive field investigation of 23 inservice CRCP sections are presented; they show that there is a strong interaction among the 
90 

steel content, concrete strength, and crack spacing. Steel contents in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 

percent appear to provide desirable long-term average crack spacing in the range of 0.9 to 

1.5 m (3 to 5 ft). Tied concrete shoulders did not appear to contribute to CRCP mainline 

performance, and the effect of base type on CRCP performance was not pronounced. The 

use of epoxy-coated reinforcement resulted in no undesirable cracking patterns. 

87. Tayabji, S. D., D. G. Zollinger, J. R. Vederey, and J. S. Gagnon. 1998. Performance of 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Volume V: Maintenance and Repair of CRC 

Pavements. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-101. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

This is one of a series of reports prepared as part of a recent study (sponsored by FHWA) to 

update the state-of-the-art of the design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 

CRC pavements. In this report, the critical distress types associated with CRC pavements 

are reviewed, and then maintenance and repair techniques are presented that address those 

critical distresses. Preventive maintenance methods presented include joint and crack 

sealing, undersealing, cathodic protection, and edge drains; repair methods presented 

include conventional full-depth patching and alternative patch types. 

88. Titus-Glover, L., E. B. Owusu-Antwi, and M. I. Darter. 1999. Design and Construction of 

PCC Pavements. Volume 3. Improved PCC Performance Models. Report No. FHWA-RD98-113. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

This study was conducted to evaluate and analyze PCC pavements to develop 

recommendations for the design and construction of long-lived concrete pavements. It 

involved a detailed evaluation and analysis of the PCC pavement data in the LTPP database 

using a variety of methods to determine design features and practices that have beneficial 

effects on long-term performance. Emphasis was placed on identifying specific design 

features that can be included during design to improve the performance of PCC pavements 

under various combinations of environmental and traffic loading conditions, and for 

different subgrade support conditions. The study focused on the development of practical 

recommendations that can be implemented by highway agencies to increase pavement life. 

This volume describes and provides information on improved distress and roughness 

prediction models developed as part of the study. A key focus was to develop distress and 

roughness prediction models that incorporate mechanistic principles but are still practical 

for use by SHAs. 

89. Titus-Glover, L., E. B. Owusu-Antwi, T. Hoerner, and M. I. Darter. 1998. Design and 

Construction of PCC Pavements, Volume 2. Design Features and Practices That Influence 

Performance of Pavements. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-127. Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean, VA. 

This study was conducted to evaluate and analyze PCC pavements to develop 

recommendations for the design and construction of long-lived concrete pavements. It 

involved a detailed evaluation and analysis of the PCC pavement data in the LTPP database 

using statistical techniques to determine design features and construction practices that have 

a beneficial effect on long-term performance. 
91 

90. Verhoeven, K. 1993. “Cracking and Corrosion in Continuously Reinforced Concrete 

Pavements.” Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design 

and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

CRC pavements have been used in Belgium since the 1950s. Over that time, the 

longitudinal reinforcement content has been reduced. Transverse reinforcement is placed 

obliquely to prevent ill-timed initial cracking above the transverse rods. A 6-cm sandwich 

layer of a bituminous mixture is placed between the concrete slab and the lean concrete 

base. The depth of the reinforcement in early projects was 6 cm; this was later increased to 

9 cm. Overall, CRC pavements have performed very well, with no punchouts, minimal 

crack breakdown, and minimal reinforcement corrosion. 

91. Vyce, J. M. 1988. A Summary of Experimental Concrete Pavements in New York. 

Research Report 141. New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, NY. 

This report summarizes a 22-year study of concrete pavement design features that included 

constructing a test road with numerous design variables, two roads with several major 

design changes, and several roads among the first to incorporate a major change in load 

transfer devices across transverse joints. Performance of each item is discussed, along with 

a number of minor changes. Many findings have been implemented and have improved the 

performance and cost-effectiveness of rigid pavements in New York State. 

92. Wade, M. J., G. D. Cuttell, J. M. Vandenbossche, H. T. Yu, K. D. Smith, and M. B. Snyder. 

1997. Performance of Concrete Pavements Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate. 

Report No. FHWA-RD-96-164. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report documents the field performance of nine concrete pavement projects that 

incorporate recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) in the construction of the pavement. 

Multiple sections were evaluated on many of the nine projects due to perceived differences 

in performance levels or variations in pavement design (such as the use of virgin aggregate 

or the inclusion of dowel bars). All told, a total of 17 sections (of which 12 contain RCA) 

were subjected to an extensive field testing program consisting of pavement condition 

surveys, drainage surveys, FWD testing, coring, and serviceability assessments. Each 

section is described in detail. Performance observations and results from the FWD and 

laboratory testing are presented, with emphasis on evaluating the effect of RCA on 

pavement performance. An overall summary synthesizes the findings and conclusions of 

the field tests. 

93. Wade, M. J., K. D. Smith, H. T. Yu, and M. I. Darter. 1995. “Monitoring of European 

Concrete Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 1478. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

As part of the European Concrete Pavement Evaluation System (COPES) program, 77 

concrete pavement sections from France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Belgium were 

monitored and the data evaluated with the objective of providing continual improvements to 

the design, construction, and maintenance of concrete pavements. An overview of the data 

collected under the European COPES program is presented, along with a general look at 

overall performance trends. The European sections are all characteristic of the wet-freeze 
92 

environmental region. Because of higher legal axle weights and longer design periods, 

European pavements are often exposed to many more ESAL applications than pavements in 

the United States. Of the sections evaluated, the most common pavement type is jointed 

plain concrete pavement. Extensive uses of stabilized bases, positive drainage features, and 

dowel bars are also evident. A qualitative analysis was conducted using present 

serviceability rating (PSR), age, and traffic as the principal parameters. The use of lean 

concrete bases and incorporation of a greater number of modern elements (e.g., dowel bars 

and positive drainage) improved the performance of the pavement sections. Models 

predicting the PSR of the pavement sections were also developed. 

94. Wade, M. J., K. D. Smith, H. T. Yu, M. I. Darter, and C. J. Wienrank. 1998. Performance 

of Concrete Pavements, Volume IV—Appendices. Report No. FHWA-RD-95-112. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

With the goal of improving future concrete pavement design and construction practices, this 

project evaluated the performance of 303 in-service concrete pavement sections throughout 

North America. This volume includes supporting documentation used in the research 

study. Summary tables containing design, construction, and performance data for the 

concrete pavement sections evaluated under this study are presented in appendix A. 

Appendix B presents a summary report prepared on the performance of 77 European 

concrete pavement sections. Appendix C presents a summary report prepared on the 

performance of 21 concrete pavement sections in Chile. 

95. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 1995. WSDOT Pavement 

Guide, Volume 2—Pavement Notes. Washington State Department of Transportation, 

Olympia, WA. 

This comprehensive guide was prepared for WSDOT personnel in design, constructing, and 

maintaining highway pavement structures. A broad overview of pavement engineering is 

presented, followed by detailed chapters on key pavement areas: fundamental design 

parameters (including materials characterization, traffic loading, and climatic factors), 

pavement evaluation procedures (including condition surveys, roughness testing, structural 

evaluation, and skid resistance), pavement response determination, AASHTO new and 

overlay design procedures, pavement rehabilitation methodologies, life-cycle cost analysis 

procedures, subsurface pavement drainage considerations, and specific pavement 

construction considerations. 

96. Wells, G. K. 1993. Summary Report To Improve Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) 

Performance. Caltrans Report. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. 

This report summarizes the efforts to date within Caltrans to improve JPCP performance. It 

recommends changes to transverse joint spacing, load transfer design, joint sealing, 

longitudinal joint design, and base type and selection. One important finding is the effect 

of climate on JPCP faulting and cracking performance. Recommendations to reduce 

climatic effects on JPCP performance are given. 
93 

97. Wells, G. K. and W. A. Nokes. 1991. Synthesize PCCP Design Parameters Researched by 

Caltrans and Others. Minor Research Report 65328-637391-31111. California 

Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. 

This report provides background on previous research efforts by Caltrans and others in the 

area of PCCP design and performance that can be used to improve current rigid pavement 

performance. Much work has been done in this area, and a review of these findings is 

useful in updating current rigid pavement design standards. Based on the review here, it is 

recommended that skewed joints spaced at 3.7, 4.6, 4.0, 4.3 m (12, 15, 13, and 14 ft) 

intervals be maintained; that 760-mm (30-inch), No. 5 tiebars be installed along all 

longitudinal joints at 760-mm (30-inch) centers; that all transverse joints be sealed with 

silicone sealant material; that treated permeable bases be used when feasible (pending the 

results of further studies); and that tied PCC shoulders be employed on all new designs. 

98. Wimsatt, A. J. 1993. “Concrete Pavement Design and Construction Practices by the Texas 

DOT.” Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and 

Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

The Texas DOT is a decentralized organization consisting of 24 geographical districts. 

Each district makes its own decision on what pavement type will be designed and 

constructed. However, the Department’s use of concrete pavements in highway projects 

has increased significantly over the past decade, especially in urban areas and in high-trucktraffic corridors. A paper presented at the Fourth Purdue conference in 1989 described and 

analyzed the use of the 1986 AASHTO Design Guide in designing concrete pavements in 

Texas. This paper discusses other aspects of Texas DOT concrete pavement design and 

construction practices, as well as research underway to improve design and construction 

methods. 

99. Won, M., B. F. McCullough, and W. R. Hudson. 1988. Evaluation of Proposed Texas 

SDHPT Design Standards for CRCP. Report No. FHWA/TX-88+472-1. Texas State 

Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin, TX. 

The primary factors to be considered in the design of CRCP are the structural responses: 

crack spacing, crack width, and steel stress. These responses are the outcome of the 

interactions among materials characteristics, environmental conditions, and traffic loading. 

Since at least three-quarters of the concrete volume is occupied by aggregate, critical 

concrete properties (such as thermal coefficient, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and 

drying shrinkage) are different for concrete made with different types of coarse aggregate. 

In this study, proposed CRCP design standards were evaluated for concretes made with 

various coarse aggregate types, namely siliceous river gravel (SRG) and limestone (LS). 

Generally, the standard provided a good design, although it was determined that two-layer 

reinforcement is desirable for SRG concrete at slab thicknesses greater than 325 mm (13 

inches), and for LS concrete at slab thicknesses greater than 225 mm (11 inches). An 

analysis of the CRCP deformed wire standard indicated that wire spacings of 450 mm (18 

inches) or greater are required. 
94 

100. Yoder, E. J. and M. W. Witczak. 1975. Principles of Pavement Design. Second Edition. 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 

This widely used textbook presents the basic principles of pavement design for both 

flexible and rigid pavement structures. It includes a discussion of theories of stress 

distribution for both pavement types, and presents a summary of key design factors and 

considerations: subgrade, drainage, paving materials, traffic, and climate. Design 

methodologies for both pavement types are also presented; and pavement distress types and 

rehabilitation strategies are discussed. 

101. Yrjanson, W. A. 1988. “Concrete Pavements U.S.A.: State of the Art.” Transportation 

Research Record 1182. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This paper describes the current state of the art of concrete pavement construction in the 

United States, along with changes made to accommodate the increases in traffic volumes 

and loadings. Typical concrete pavement designs used for primary highway paving, airfield 

paving, and parking lots and truck terminals are presented. Developments in paving 

equipment over the past 30 years are described. Design changes that improve the 

performance of PCC pavements are reviewed, along with examples of innovative 

technology. 

102. Yu, H. T., K. D. Smith, M. I. Darter, J. Jiang, and L. Khazanovich. 1998. Performance of 

Concrete Pavements, Volume III—Improving Concrete Pavement Performance. Report No. 

FHWA-RD-95-111. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

With the goal of improving future concrete pavement design and construction practices, this 

project evaluated the performance of 303 inservice concrete pavement sections throughout 

North America. This volume presents pavement performance prediction models that were 

developed from the data collected under this study. Prediction models are presented for 

transverse joint faulting (doweled and nondoweled), transverse cracking (JPCP and JRCP), 

transverse joint spalling (JPCP and JRCP), pavement serviceability (JPCP and JRCP), and 

pavement roughness (JPCP only). Based on the results of the models and on the results of 

the field evaluation findings, guidelines are presented for the improved design of concrete 

pavements. 

103. Yu, H. T., L. Khazanovich, M. I. Darter, and A. Ardani. 1998. “Analysis of Concrete 

Pavement Responses to Temperature and Wheel Loads Measured from Instrumented 

Slabs.” Transportation Research Record 1639. Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC. 

The structural response of jointed plain concrete pavement slabs was evaluated using data 

obtained from instrumented slabs that were a part of newly constructed JPCP on I-70 in 

Colorado. The instrumentation consisted of dial gauges for measuring curling deflections 

at the slab corner and longitudinal edge and surface-mounted strain gauges for measuring 

load strains at the longitudinal midslab edge. The through-thickness temperature profiles in 

the pavement slabs were also measured at 30-minute intervals during the field test. 

Analysis of the field data showed that the instrumented slabs had a considerable built-in 

upward curling and that concrete slabs on a stiff base can act completely independent of the 
95 

base or monolithically with the base, depending on the loading condition. The built-in 

upward curling of the slabs has the same effect as negative temperature gradients. These 

findings suggest that the effects of temperature gradients on the critical edge stresses may 

not be as great as previously thought and that the corner loading, in some cases, may 

produce more critical conditions for slab cracking. Another important finding of the study 

is that a physical bond between pavement layers is not required to obtain a bonded response 

from concrete pavements. 

104. Zollinger, D. G. 1996. “Design, Construction, and Performance of CRC Pavement.” 

Proceedings, Workshops on High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities, Pavement Management 

Systems, and Rigid Pavement Design and Construction. Taipei, Taiwan. 

This paper discussed current CRC design concepts as well as proposed modifications and 

improvements to the current design procedure. Current CRC design methodology consists 

of the prediction of crack spacing by contraction restraints, the selection of limiting criteria 

to avoid punchout failures, and the estimation of the required pavement thickness based on 

these limits. This approach, however, does not take into account shear and load transfer 

across the transverse cracks. Therefore, this procedure alone is insufficient for 

characterization of failure modes including punchouts. 

The load transfer efficiency is an important parameter in selecting a pavement thickness. 

This efficiency depends on loading conditions, as well as required performance conditions. 

Crack spacing, crack width variability, and the load transfer efficiency all must be included 

to sufficiently describe the failure mode of the slab. Each of these topics, as well as their 

usage in the modified CRC design, is discussed. 

105. Zollinger, D. G. and E. J. Barenberg. 1990. Continuously Reinforced Pavements: 

Punchouts and Other Distresses and Implications for Design. Report No. FHWA/IL/UI 

227. Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL. 

Causes for distress in CRCPs are presented. Primary types of distress leading to a reduction 

in service life are punchouts and crack spalling. Causes for both the punchout and spalling 

distresses were determined to be loss of load transfer across transverse cracks. Loss of load 

transfer over time was correlated with the crack opening and the loss of support due to 

erosion and pumping of the subbase. Crack opening was correlated with crack spacing. A 

design procedure is proposed based on the capability of the system to transfer load across 

the cracks, which in turn is dependent upon crack spacing. Consequently, it is necessary to 

be able to predict crack spacing before the design procedure can be applied. While crack 

spacing can be controlled to some extent by the amount of reinforcing steel used and steel 

placement, the dominant factor in crack spacing appears to be climatic conditions at the 

time of construction. 
96 

106. Zollinger, D. G., N. Buch, D. Xin, and J. Soares. 1999. Performance of Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Volume VI - CRC Pavement Design, Construction, and 

Performance. Final Report. Report No. FHWA-RD-97-151. Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean VA. 

This report is one of a series of reports prepared as part of a recent study sponsored by 

FHWA aimed at updating the state-of-the-art of the design, construction, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of CRCP. The scope of work of the FHWA study included: (1) conduct a 

literature review and prepare an annotated bibliography on CRCP and CRCP overlays; (2) 

conduct a field investigation and laboratory testing related to 23 existing in-service 

pavement sections to evaluate the effect of various design features on CRCP performance, 

to identify any design- or construction-related problems, and to recommend procedures to 

improve CRCP technology; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of various maintenance and 

rehabilitation strategies for CRCP; and (4) prepare a summary report on the current stateof-the-practice for CRCP. Each of the above four items is addressed in a separate report. 

This report, Volume VI in the series, addresses several factors associated with CRCP 

performance, as well as several recently suggested improvements to the design, 

construction, and evaluation of CRCP. 

107. Zollinger, D. G. and J. Soares. 1999. Performance of Continuously Reinforced Concrete 

Pavements, Volume VII – Summary. Final Report. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-102. 

Federal Highway Administration, McLean VA. 

This report is one of a series of reports prepared as part of a recent study sponsored by 

FHWA aimed at updating the state-of-the-art of the design, construction, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of CRCP. The scope of work of the FHWA study included the following: (1) 

conduct of a literature review and preparation of an annotated bibliography on CRCP and 

CRCP overlays; (2) conduct of a field investigation and laboratory testing related to 23 

existing in-service pavement sections to evaluate the effect of various design features on 

CRCP performance, to identify any design or construction related problems, and to 

recommend procedures to improve CRCP technology; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of 

various maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for CRCP; and (4) prepare a summary 

report on the current state-of-the-practice for CRCP. Each of the above four items is 

addressed in a separate report. This report, Volume VII in the series, serves as a synthesis 

of CRCP performance, design, construction, and rehabilitation. 

Drainage 

1. Anderson, D. A., R. S. Huebner, J. R. Reed, J. C. Warner, and J. J. Henry. 1998. Improved 

Surface Drainage of Pavements. Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-29. NCHRP Web 

Document 16. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The primary objective of this project was to identify improved methods for draining 

rainwater from the surface of multi-lane pavements. Improved methods for draining water 

from the surface of multi-lane pavements are needed because of the important role that 

drainage plays in the mitigation of hydroplaning and tire splash and spray. Because the 

tendency for hydroplaning and tire splash and spray depend on the thickness of the film of 

water on the pavement, an interactive computer program (PAVDRN) was developed for 
97 

predicting the flow and flow path length of rainwater flowing across the pavement surface. 

Based on the computer program, surface drainage recommendations were developed (see 

PTI 1998 reference, number 12, in this section). 

2. Baumgardner, R. H. 1993. “Overview of Pavement Drainage Systems.” Western States 

Drainable PCC Pavement Workshop—Summary Report. FHWA-SA-94-045. Federal 

Highway Administration, San Francisco, CA. 

This paper presents an overview of drainable pavement systems for use on PCC pavements. 

Critical elements of the drainable pavement system include the permeable base (drainage 

layer), the separator layer, and the edgedrain system. The permeable base must provide 

adequate permeability to allow the flow of water through the material, sufficient stability to 

support paving operations, and adequate strength to contribute to the structural design of the 

pavement. The separator layer is placed between the permeable base and the 

subbase/subgrade to prevent subgrade soil particles from contaminating the base. The 

edgedrain system is designed to remove the water from the permeable base and outlet it to 

the ditches. 

3. Cedergren, H. R., J. A. Arman, and K. H. O’Brien. 1973. Development of Guidelines for 

the Design of Subsurface Drainage Systems for Highway Pavement Structural Sections. 

FHWA/RD-73/14. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report presents results of interviews with State highway department personnel, field 

reconnaissance of pavements in nine States, and nine case studies of selected pavements. 

Problems with existing drainage design concepts and construction methods are noted, 

showing why many pavements remain saturated for extended periods of time. This 

saturation contributes to considerable shortening of pavement life. A new method of design 

is presented to take care of the infiltration of surface water. Inflow-outflow analyses and 

highway geometrics are included in a procedure using a two-layer graded filter to rapidly 

remove water entering the structural layers. 

4. Christopher, B. R. and V. C. McGuffey. 1997. Pavement Subsurface Drainage Systems. 

NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 239. Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

DC. 

This synthesis reviews the current practices in pavement subsurface drainage and presents 

critical design factors and appropriate design methods for pavement subsurface drainage. It 

focuses on the development of consistent practices in the drainage components of pavement 

design and discusses the effects of good and poor subsurface drainage. Also reviewed is 

the impact of decisions in planning, budgeting, procurement, construction, and maintenance 

on drainage performance. Results of a survey of state transportation agencies on current 

pavement drainage strategies are interjected throughout the discussion to emphasize the 

important issues that influence design decisions. Critical subdrainage design details, proper 

construction techniques, and planned subdrainage maintenance activities are also described 

to ensure the functionality of the subdrainage system. 
98 

5. Daleiden, J. 1998. Video Inspection of Highway Edgedrain Systems. Report No. FHWASA-98-044. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report documents the results of 287 video inspections of highway edgedrain systems in 

29 States. Findings indicated not only that the equipment was quite effective in identifying 

edgedrain performance concerns, but also the widespread nature of concerns about 

edgedrain performance. Almost one-third of the systems inspected had nonfunctional 

outlets, and another one-third either had nonfunctional mainlines or the mainlines could not 

be inspected due to physical obstructions. Only one-third of the systems inspected were 

found to be performing as intended. Based on the results of the study, recommendations 

are provided for edgedrain design improvements to facilitate performance of the systems 

and their inspections and also to improve quality control during construction. A draft guide 

specification for video edgedrain inspection is provided in an appendix. 

6. Elfino, M. K., D. G. Riley, and T. R. Baas. 2000. Key Installation Issues Impacting the 

Performance of Geocomposite Pavement Edgedrain Systems. ASTM Special Technical 

Publication 1390. 

This paper addresses key installation issues affecting the performance of geocomposite 

pavement edgedrain systems. This includes maintaining the verticality of the drain panel in 

the trench; proper positioning of the drain panel within the trench; backfilling with opengraded coarse aggregate; timely installation of outlet fittings and pipe; and the use of outlet 

pipes with adequate pipe stiffness. Three highway rehabilitation projects involving the 

installation of approximately 120 km (400,000 linear feet) of geocomposite edgedrains in 

Virginia and Ohio are investigated, and lessons learned documented in this paper. Actual 

cost savings, up to 50 percent, were realized from the use of geocomposite edgedrain 

compared to conventional edgedrains. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in 

support of successful installations. 

7. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1992. Drainable Pavement Systems, 

Participant Notebook. FHWA-SA-92-008. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

This course notebook presents state-of-the-art guidelines and recommendations on the 

selection, design, construction, and maintenance of drainable pavement systems. With the 

focus on rigid pavements, it presents background information on the detrimental effects of 

moisture on pavement performance and describes a methodology for computing effective 

drainage times of a pavement structure. Guidelines on the design and construction of both 

treated and nontreated permeable bases are provided, along with detailed information on 

separator layer requirements and on longitudinal edge drain design. Recommended 

drainage maintenance practices are also described. 

8. Holtz, R. D., B. R. Christopher, and R. R. Berg. 1995. Geosynthetic Design and 

Construction Guidelines. FHWA-HI-95-038. Federal Highway Administration/National 

Highway Institute, Washington, DC. 

This manual is an updated version of the Geotextile Design and Construction Guidelines

manual used in the FHWA/NHI training course Geosynthetics Engineering Workshop. The 
99 

update was performed to reflect current practices and codes for geotextile design, and has 

been expanded to address geogrid and geomembrane materials. The manual was prepared 

to enable the highway engineer to correctly identify and evaluate potential applications of 

geosynthetics as an alternative to other construction methods and as a means to solve 

construction problems. With the aid of the text, the highway engineer should be able to 

properly design, select, test, specify, and construct with geotextiles, composite drains, 

geogrids, and related materials in drainage, sediment control, erosion control, roadway, and 

embankment on-soft-soil applications. Steepened slope and retaining wall applications also 

are addressed. Applications of geomembranes and other barrier materials to highway 

works are also summarized. 

9. Koerner, R. M., G. R. Koerner, A. K. Fahim, and R. F. Wilson–Fahmy. 1994. Long-Term 

Performance of Geosynthetics in Drainage Applications. NCHRP 367. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This report contains the results of a thorough study of geosynthetics in highway drainage 

applications. Ninety-one geosynthetics drainage systems in 17 States were exhumed and 

inspected, with the results incorporated into a database. The performance of the 

applications was compared against design predictions and construction techniques. These 

evaluations showed that the existing design methodology is acceptable for granular soils but 

that the criteria for fine-grained soils may need to be evaluated on a site-specific basis. 

Also, specific recommendations have been made in regard to the construction practices 

associated with prefabricated, geocomposite edge drains. 

10. Larrivee, S., J. Lafleur, and Y. Savard. 1998. Hydraulic Behaviour of Geosynthetics in 

Freezing Conditions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cold Regions 

Engineering 1998. ASCE, Reston, VA. 

In northern climates, subsurface road drainage involves the presence of materials with large 

pores within the frost-penetrated zone. One road design uses horizontal open-graded 

drainage layers (OGDL) directly under the pavement and connected to edge drains. In 

some instances, thin geotextiles with pores smaller than those of OGDL have been used as 

drainage layers. These drains are subject to extreme weather conditions: the proper 

evacuation of water from pavement cracks, joints or unpaved shoulders can be hindered if it 

freezes inside and blocks the system. This paper presents the results of a testing program 

designed to simulate these conditions using a needle-punched geocomposite. The premise 

is that the input of heat from the water flowing through the fibers is sufficient to 

compensate the influx of cold from the confining medium. A polypropylene geocomposite, 

consisting of coarse filaments sandwiched between two filter layers, was tested. The 

samples were confined by materials of different thermal conductivities: concrete slab or 

sand layer with degrees of saturation of 0, 70 and 100 percent. Water was circulated 

vertically and horizontally through the sample for 30 days inside a freezing cabinet. The 

applied flow rates of 100 and 600 ml/min per linear meter corresponded to the minimum 

(winter) and maximum (thaw) observed in a field-test section. Intermittent flows were also 

applied to simulate alternating daily freeze-thaw conditions. The tests showed that total 

blockage by ice is unlikely inside vertical edge drain but possible in horizontal blanket 

layers. 
100 

11. Moulton, L. K. 1980. Highway Subdrainage Design. FHWA-TS-80-224. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report, in five chapters, provides detailed guidelines on the design of subsurface 

drainage systems. Chapter I is devoted to a general discussion of the adverse effects of 

subsurface moisture, the sources of subsurface moisture, and the types of subsurface 

drainage installations to control this moisture. Chapter II lists the data requirements for 

analysis and design and presents recommended procedures for assembling these data. 

Chapter III presents methods and recommended criteria for the control of groundwater and 

infiltration in pavement structural sections. Chapter IV deals with the more general control 

of groundwater away from the pavement. Chapter V discusses the construction and 

maintenance aspects of subdrainage systems. 

12. Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI). 1998. Proposed Design Guidelines for 

Improving Pavement Surface Drainage. NCHRP Project 1-29. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

This document provides guidance on how to modify highway pavement designs to 

minimize the potential for hydroplaning. Recommendations are provided in each of four 

principal design areas: environmental conditions, surface geometry, pavement properties, 

and appurtenances. The recommendations must first be field tested and eventually may be 

considered for inclusion as AASHTO design standards. 

13. Ray, M. and J. P. Christory. 1989. “Combatting Concrete Pavement Slab Pumping – State 

of the Art and Recommendations.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on 

Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper summarizes the recommendations on drainage and erodibility of concrete 

pavement foundations presented in the 1987 PIARC publication “Combatting Concrete 

Pavement Slab Pumping – State of the Art.” Classifications were established for criteria 

that have a major impact on the long-term behavior of concrete pavements, namely: (1) 

drainage of infiltration water at slab-subbase-shoulder interface, (2) use of low-erodibility 

materials at interfaces, and (3) optimization of interface drainage and waterproofing of 

pavements. The gains in service life achieved with improved drainage and low-erodibility 

materials can be objectively assessed. 

14. Wyatt, T., W. Barker, and J. Hall. 1998. Drainage Requirements in Pavements, User’s 

Manual for Microcomputer Program. FHWA-SA-96-070. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This user’s manual provides instructions on the operation of the new Microsoft®

Windows®-based microcomputer program entitled DRIP (Drainage Requirements in 

Pavements). It provides detailed instructions on the operation, use, and application of the 

software, and also contains general information on drainage design methodology. Example 

problems are provided to fully illustrate and demonstrate the capabilities of the program; 

these include performing drainage designs for flexible and rigid pavements, calculating 

time-to-drain and depth of flow in the drainage layer, performing separator layer and 

geotextile designs, and performing edgedrain and geocomposite fin drain design. 
101 

Joint Design 

1. Ambroz, J. K., W. J. Seiler, and M. I. Darter. 1997. Load Transfer Design and Benefits for 

Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. Report No. 96-128-E1. American Highway 

Technology, Kankakee, IL. 

The highest level of stress and deflection in PCC pavement is found at the joints. In 

highway pavements, the stress is highest along the longitudinal joints, and deflection is 

highest at the corners. In airport pavements, the highest stresses may occur at either the 

transverse or longitudinal joints, depending on the aircraft wheel configuration and the 

pass-to-coverage ratios. Because the joints experience the highest amount of stress or 

deflection, cracking, pumping, and faulting usually start at the joints. Several methods have 

been developed to enhance performance at transverse and longitudinal joints. Some of the 

more common methods are increasing slab and base course thickness to improve aggregate 

interlock, protecting the base and subgrade against water intrusion, installing permeable 

bases, reducing joint spacing, and installing load-transfer devices. Industry practice and 

research have determined that smooth, round, corrosion-resistant dowel bars are typically 

most effective in maintaining load transfer throughout the life of a pavement. This guide 

provides a summary of the benefits and design procedures applicable when dowel bars are 

used as a load-transfer device. 

2. American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). 1991. Design and Construction of 

Joints for Concrete Highways. TB–010.0 D. American Concrete Pavement Association, 

Arlington Heights, IL. 

This publication addresses the design and construction of joint systems for concrete 

highway pavements (which typically range in thickness from 200 to 350 mm (8 to 14 

inch)). The need for joints in concrete pavements is first discussed, including a description 

of the mechanisms of natural crack development due to thermal and shrinkage stresses. 

The various types of joints are described, and special emphasis is placed on the design of 

transverse joints, including recommendations for spacing, skewing, load transfer, and 

construction (dowel placement, sawing, sealing). The design and construction of other joint 

types (construction joints, expansion joints, longitudinal joints) are also described. 

3. Bischoff, D. L. 1996. Random Skewed Joints With and Without Dowels. Final Report, WI 

85-01. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI. 

The objective of this study was to compare the performance of a nonreinforced concrete 

pavement with randomly spaced, skewed contraction joints using dowel bars versus one 

without dowel bars. A control section and a test section, each 1.6 km (1 mi) in length, were 

incorporated into a highway improvement project located just west of Menomonie, WI, in 

Dunn County. Construction took place in 1984. The doweled test section has performed 

well, while the nondoweled control section has experienced progressive deterioration, 

primarily in the form of faulting. Due to the poor performance, in 1994, after 10 years of 

service, the entire project length of nondoweled pavement, including the control section, 

was diamond ground. A recent field survey showed the 12-year-old doweled pavement to 

be in good condition, while the ground nondoweled pavement is beginning to show signs of 

reoccurring faulting. It has been estimated that the nondoweled pavement will require 
102 

grinding twice to attain a service life equivalent to that of the doweled pavement. The 

conclusions from this project are as follows: (1) the doweled pavement continues to 

perform better than the nondoweled pavement; (2) the life of the doweled pavement is 

estimated to be approximately 2.5 times longer than the nondoweled pavement prior to any 

maintenance or rehabilitation; (3) the epoxy-coated dowel bars in the test section remained 

intact (i.e., no corrosion); (4) the use of dowel bars increases initial concrete pavement cost 

by approximately 7.8 percent; (5) over a 25-year service life, a nondoweled pavement 

would cost approximately 13.1 percent more than a doweled pavement; (6) the use of dowel 

bars in concrete pavements currently saves WisDOT approximately $6,000,000 per year; 

and (7) the employment of dowel bars is a cost effective method of extending the service 

lives of concrete pavements while enhancing the pavement performance and reducing user 

inconvenience. 

4. Bock, B. T. and P. A. Okamoto. 1989. “Evaluation of Dowel Placement Using a Dowel 

Bar Inserter.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Concrete Pavement 

Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper presents the results of several field investigations to evaluate the effectiveness of 

automatic dowel bar inserter equipment to properly place dowel bars in rigid pavements. A 

commercially available radar system capable of locating steel embedded in concrete was 

used in the evaluation of dowel bar alignment on projects using the dowel bar inserter. 

Overall, the inserter performed well compared to the basket assembly construction, with 

dowel depth, misalignment (vertical and horizontal), and longitudinal displacement being 

comparable between the two methods. 

5. Brink, R. H. 1979. Joint-Related Distress in PCC Pavement—Cause, Prevention, and 

Rehabilitation. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 56. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

Joints are constructed in concrete pavement to control stresses and cracking and thus to 

prevent pavement damage and loss of riding quality. Unfortunately, much of the 

maintenance required for jointed pavements is necessitated by the joint itself. Common 

joint-related distresses include pumping, spalling, blowups, and faulting, although joint 

designs or construction practices often may lead to other pavement distresses (e.g., late 

sawing can lead to slab cracking). This synthesis presents background information on the 

causes of these common joint-related distress types, and describes recommended design and 

construction practices to prevent their occurrence. Detailed rehabilitation methods for 

addressing joint-related distresses are also described, ranging from temporary maintenance 

measures intended to maintain pavement serviceability to permanent rehabilitation 

techniques in which the joint is restored to a condition where it can perform its intended 

function for the remaining life of the pavement. 

6. Cable, J. K. and L. I. Wosoba. 2000. “Matching Load Transfer to Traffic Needs.” MidContinent Transportation Symposium 2000, May 15-16, 2000. Iowa State University, 

Ames, IA. 

Current pavement design in Iowa calls for the inclusion of load-transfer dowels in 

transverse joints in both State and local pavements. The dowels have been included to 
103 

protect the pavement against faulting of the joints and other forms of distress resulting from 

erosion of the soils from beneath the joints. Faulting has been found to be present mostly at 

the outer edges of the driving lane. Iowa Highway Research Board Project TR-420 is 

directed at the evaluation of placing alternative numbers of dowels in the transverse joints 

of the pavement. One rural and one urban pavement were selected for the test sites on 

county highways near Creston, IA. The sites include subsections containing zero dowels in 

the transfer joint, three or four dowels in the outer wheel path only, and a full basket of 

dowels across the joint. This paper discusses the results of deflection testing in both wheel 

paths in both pavement directions on the rural and urban sections. Fault measurements, 

joint opening widths, and visual distress surveys have been conducted twice per year on 

each of the projects. The construction projects are now 12 months old, and the response to 

load in each case can now be evaluated. 

7. Darter, M. I. and K. D. Smith. 1990. “Design of Joints to Control Faulting.” Proceedings, 

Second International Workshop on the Theoretical Design of Concrete Pavements. 

Sigüenza, Spain. 

A procedure to design transverse joints to control faulting has been developed. The 

procedure is based on two design models (one for doweled and one for nondoweled 

pavements) incorporating mechanistic concepts and calibrated with field performance data. 

The models consider many important design factors known to influence joint faulting, 

including traffic loading, dowel diameter and spacing, joint spacing, temperature factors, 

subdrainage, base type, subgrade soil, shoulder type, and the concrete thermal coefficient of 

expansion. 

8. Evans, L. D. 1999. SHRP Joint Study: A Seven Year Look. Preprint No. 990843. SeventyEighth Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

In 1991 and 1992, test sites were constructed to evaluate the performance of joint seal 

materials and installation methods in new and old concrete. Five joint resealing sites were 

installed under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) project H-106 using 12 

materials and 4 installation methods. Additionally, 6 new joint sealing sites were installed 

under the SHRP SPS-4 supplemental testing program using 20 materials and 5 installation 

methods. Yearly rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of these seals has been conducted, 

providing 7 years of performance data regarding adhesion and cohesion failure, spall 

distress, and compression seal failures. 

This paper summarizes the final analysis results from these studies, providing material 

effectiveness rankings, life-cycle cost evaluations, installation method rankings, and other 

performance results. 

9. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990. Concrete Pavement Joints. FHWA 

Technical Advisory T 5040.30. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This advisory provides guidance and recommendations relating to the design and 

construction of joints in conventional PCC pavements. The various joint types found in 

PCC pavement are defined; guidelines and recommendations on their use, design, and 

construction are then presented. Information on transverse contraction joints (spacing, load 
104 

transfer, joint reservoir design), construction joints (transverse and longitudinal), 

longitudinal contraction joints, and expansion joints is provided. 

10. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1996. Joint Sealing Roundtable. Minutes of 

the December 11–12, 1996 Meeting. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This document summarizes a roundtable discussion of the effects of joint sealing on 

pavement performance. Various highway agencies and representatives from the FHWA, 

academia, industry, and the consulting field discussed the relative benefits of joint sealing 

and exchanged viewpoints. Many questions were brought to the table, and it was suggested 

that a synthesis-type document be prepared to fully summarize the issues surrounding joint 

sealing and its cost-effectiveness. 

11. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. LTPP Findings Pay Off for 

Pennsylvania. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-064. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, 

VA. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) decided to change its practice 

of using skewed joints after reviewing the results of a LTPP program analysis project. The 

project analyzed LTPP pavement performance data to identify what worked and what didn't 

work to control the development of joint faulting. As of calendar year 1999, Pennsylvania 

policy specified perpendicular joints for any limited-access, four-lane concrete pavement 

highway projects. By changing its pavement joint design standard, PennDOT can reduce 

the occurrence of joint faulting and realize the following benefits: a smoother ride for 

motorists; reduced construction problems and related costs; reduced maintenance 

requirements; and fewer maintenance-related disruptions to traffic. 

12. Fuchs, F. and A. Jasienski. 1997. “The Namur Test Road: Behavior of Various Types of 

Contraction Joints After 17 Years of Traffic.” Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue 

Conference on Concrete Design and Materials for High Performance. Purdue University, 

West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper describes an experiment, conducted by the PIARC Technical Committee on 

Concrete Roads, on the Namur Test Road in Belgium, to observe the behavior of six 

different types of contraction joints: sealed and unsealed joints with evenly spaced dowels; 

sealed and unsealed joints with variably spaced dowels; and sealed and unsealed undoweled 

joints. These joints were in a concrete pavement constructed on top of an existing asphalt 

pavement. On average for all joint types, only about one-third of the joints were found to 

be active, which discounts the validity of predictions of joint widths for individual joints. 

Nonetheless, the average joint opening over lengths of 20 slabs was consistent with values 

predicted as a function of thermal expansion and shrinkage. No influence of sealing on 

joint behavior was observed. 
105 

13. Gurjar, A. H., T. Tang, and D. G. Zollinger. 1997. Evaluation of Joint Sealants of 

Concrete Pavements. Report No. FHWA/TX-98/187-27. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This project continued investigative efforts of the earlier project 1371. The project 

completed laboratory tests including relaxation tests, bond-strength tests, and fatigue tests 

for various sealant materials, and also established a field test site of a variety of joint 

sealants to monitor performance. The researchers constructed a material behavior model 

based on finite-deformation viscoelasticity as a function of temperature, deformation, and 

age effects. They studied the correlation between natural and artificial weathering and 

proposed a sealant-performance model. Based on this model, this report provides a 

procedure for estimation of the service life of a sealant in concrete pavement joints. 

Material and pavement engineers can use this procedure for design and maintenance 

purposes. This report also proposes a specification and a test protocol for joint sealant 

materials, which incorporate performance-prediction procedures. The proposed guidelines 

can be verified and refined through continuous observation of the field test sections. 

Project researchers expect that application of the research products will lead to an improved 

sealant selection process and reduced maintenance cost for concrete pavements. 

14. Hammons, M. I. and A. M. Ioannides. 1997. “Mechanistic Design and Analysis Procedure 

for Doweled Joints in Concrete Pavements.” Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue 

Conference on Concrete Design and Materials for High Performance. Purdue University, 

West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper provides a rational, mechanistic method for analysis, design, and evaluation of 

doweled joints in concrete pavements. The required inputs to the analytical model are the 

slab thickness, modulus of subgrade reaction, and the radius of the loaded area. All other 

model inputs can be set at default values or modified at the designer’s discretion. Dowel 

bar diameters and spacings can then be interactively modified by the designer to yield a 

given level of load transfer capability at the joint. The same relationships can be used to 

evaluate the load transfer efficiency of in-service joints by entering FWD-measured joint 

deflections. The method can be used to backcalculate joint material and structural 

properties, as well as stress load transfer at the joint. The design and analysis procedures 

presented in this paper ignore the effects of curling and warping. Obviously, daily and 

seasonal temperature and moisture cycles have a significant influence on pavement 

response. Further investigation of the effects of environmentally induced responses is 

needed. 

15. Ioannides, A. M. and G. T. Korovesis. 1990. “Aggregate Interlock: A Pure-Shear Load 

Transfer Mechanism.” Transportation Research Record 1286. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

A finite-element investigation was made of the behavior of jointed or cracked pavement 

systems equipped with a pure-shear load transfer mechanism, such as aggregate interlock. 

Dimensional analysis was used in the interpretation of the data, leading to a general 

definition of the relative joint stiffness of the pavement system in terms of its structural 

characteristics. Results of this study were verified by comparisons with earlier published 

field, laboratory, and analytical information. The investigation demonstrated that deflection 
106 

load transfer efficiency is related to stress-load transfer efficiency, and that this relationship 

is sensitive to the size of the applied load (or to the gear configuration). A simple 

backcalculation procedure is outlined to evaluate the in situ joint stiffness of such 

pavements. Pure-shear load transfer devices are shown to be particularly desirable under a 

combined externally applied and thermal loading condition because they offer no additional 

restraint to longitudinal curling. 

16. Ioannides, A. M., Y. H. Lee, and M. I. Darter. 1990. “Control of Faulting Through Joint 

Load Transfer Design.” Transportation Research Record 1286. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

This paper describes and evaluates the development of mechanistic-empirical algorithms 

for more realistic estimates of anticipated faulting in concrete pavements. Earlier 

theoretical investigations are considered, interpreted through more recent finite-element 

analysis results, and calibrated using an extensive database of field observations. A factor 

influencing faulting is the dowel-concrete bearing stress, for which an improved method of 

determination is presented. A procedure is outlined for assessing the need for dowels in 

both plain and jointed reinforced concrete pavements, and determining the bar diameter 

needed to prevent significant faulting. Application of the procedure is facilitated through 

use of the program PFAULT, which can be implemented on a personal computer. 

17. Jiang, Y. J. and M. I. Darter. 1997. “Prevention of Joint Faulting Based on Field 

Performance Modeling.” Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on Concrete 

Design and Materials for High Performance. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper describes the development of faulting prediction models for doweled and 

undoweled joints, based on mechanistic concepts as well as analysis of field data. Site 

conditions (traffic, climate, and subgrade) and several design features (dowel diameter, 

subdrainage, joint spacing, base type, and slab widening) were found to enter significantly 

into the faulting prediction models. 

18. Kelleher, K. and R. M. Larson. 1989. “The Design of Plain Doweled Jointed Concrete 

Pavement.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design 

and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper summarizes findings of past research and experience in the United States and 

foreign countries in the design of doweled JPCP. The need for dowels on medium and 

heavy truck traffic routes is emphasized. Recommendations are given on the design of 

doweled joints, dowel diameter, dowel length, dowel spacing, bondbreaking, corrosion 

protection, contraction joint spacing, dowel alignment tolerances, and dowel placement. 

19. Larralde, J. “Feasibility of Class C FRP Load Transfer Devices for Highway Jointed 

Concrete Pavements.” Serv Durability Construction Materials, Proceedings of the First 

Materials Engineering Congress. Published by ASCE, Boston Society of Civil Engineers 

Section, Boston, MA. 

The objective of this paper is to analyze the feasibility of using corrosion-free fiberglass 

reinforced plastic (FRP) devices in lieu of steel tie bars in the longitudinal joints of highway 
107 

concrete pavements. The FRP devices are designed to provide the same shear transfer 

capability as the currently used steel tie bars. FRP devices consisting of bars, channel, and 

I-beam shapes are considered. In terms of cross-sectional area, the amount required for 

FRP devices is greater than that for steel bars because the modulus of elasticity of the FRP 

is lower than that of steel. In terms of cost of materials, FRP devices are more expensive 

than steel tie bars. However, prevention of deterioration due to corrosion may extend the 

service life of the joints and therefore that of the pavement. More research is needed to 

accurately define the increase of service life when corrosion is prevented. 

20. Larson, R. M. 1990. “The Need for Dowel Bars in Jointed Concrete Pavements.” 

Proceedings, Second International Workshop on the Theoretical Design of Concrete 

Pavements. Sigüenza, Spain. 

FHWA has been involved in a number of research activities to determine the need for 

dowel bars in jointed PCC pavements. Recent activities are summarized, and the most 

recent models developed to predict transverse joint faulting of doweled and nondoweled 

pavements are presented. The faulting models are recommended for use in checking the 

adequacy of proposed project designs. Future research activities pertaining to load transfer 

design are also discussed. 

21. McGhee, K. H. 1995. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of PCC Pavement Joints. 

NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 211. Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

DC. 

PCC pavements require joints to control the natural cracking associated with shrinkage 

caused by drying and with movements caused by changes in temperature and moisture 

conditions. This report records the state of the practice with respect to the design, 

construction, and maintenance of PCC pavement joints. An overview of concrete pavement 

jointing is presented, including a description of current practices used by highway agencies. 

This is followed by general joint design considerations, such as load transfer needs, joint 

spacing requirements, and joint reservoir and sealant design. A discussion on current joint 

construction practices and quality control considerations is also provided to illustrate 

critical construction requirements, and a summary of recommended joint repair and 

maintenance practices is presented. 

22. Moore, R. K. 1994. Analysis, Design, and Construction of Transverse Joint Load Transfer 

Systems for Rigid Pavements. KU-93-6. Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, 

KS. 

This report discusses the evolutionary developments in mechanistic dowel behavior theory 

over the past 70 years. New findings relating to dowel bar behavior obtained from finiteelement modeling are described. A sampling of pavement performance models that use 

empirical or mechanistic-empirical statistical regressions to estimate load transfer 

performance (expressed as joint faulting) is presented. The findings from a limited number 

of field performance and laboratory studies are summarized. Recommended construction 

procedures associated with transverse joint construction are also presented. 
108 

23. Morian, D. A. and S. M. Stoffels. 1998. Joint Seal Practices in the United States: 

Observations and Considerations. Preprint No. 981346. Seventy-Seventh Annual Meeting 

of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

In the past few years, the subject of sealing joints in rigid pavements has become a rather 

controversial issue. Many highway agencies have made or are considering significant 

modifications to the rigid pavement joint sealing practices, namely leaving joints unsealed 

or sealing narrow joint sawcuts. This paper reviews the current rigid pavement joint sealing 

practices and summarizes the most recent information on the effectiveness of joint sealing. 

It is observed that, in terms of subgrade erosion, joint sealing may not be cost effective in 

pavement locations with free-draining, coarse-grained subgrade material, or in a location 

where pavement joints are thermally locked. However, neither of these cases adequately 

addresses the issue of reducing the infiltration of pavement compressibles and the resultant 

buildup in expansive pressures that can lead to joint spalling and blowups. 

24. Morian, D. A., N. Suthahar, and S. Stoffels. 1999. Evaluation of Rigid Pavement Joint 

Seal Movement. Preprint No. 991497. Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting of the 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The subject of sealing concrete pavement joints has been studied for many years, and a 

wealth of technology exists for successfully installing pavement joint seals. However, in 

practice, a great deal of inadequate performance has been observed by highway agencies in 

the United States in recent years. One primary reason for the observed problems is 

inadequate control of construction processes. Another very significant factor affecting the 

performance of joint seals is climatic conditions. This paper examines the effects of 

climate on the movement of rigid pavement joints. 

25. Shober, S. F. 1997. “The Great Unsealing: A Perspective of Portland Cement Concrete 

Joint Sealing.” Transportation Research Record 1597. Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC. 

Joint and sealant studies of PCC pavements must address whether joint sealing enhances 

total pavement performance and is cost effective, and, if so, what sealant system should be 

used. WisDOT has been studying the effect of PCC joint/crack sealing on total pavement 

performance for 50 years. By 1967, there was substantial documentation that filling and 

refilling of contraction joints had no beneficial effect on pavement performance. By 1984, 

it was concluded that pavements with unsealed joints had better overall performance 

(distress, rid, materials integrity) than pavements with sealed joints. In 1990, WisDOT 

passed a policy eliminating all PCC joint sealing in new construction and maintenance. 

This “no seal” policy has saved the State $6,000,000 annually with no loss in pavement 

performance and with increased customer safety and convenience. The entire PCC sealing 

issue is beginning to be addressed at the national level, ensuring no false assumptions and 

with the customers’ needs in view. 
109 

26. Steffes, R. 1999. Preformed Phoenix Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) 

Compression Joint Seals. Final Report. Report No. MLR-93-2. Iowa Department of 

Transportation, Ames, IA. 

There is an ongoing drive toward improvements and achieving success in effective and 

long-term sealing of PCC pavement contraction joints. A variety of joint sealing products 

and procedures have been applied in Iowa in search of improvements in seal performance. 

Hot-poured rubberized asphalt products were mainly used for sealing all joints in earlier 

years for highways. In the 1980s, silicone sealant products were becoming popular, 

especially for major highways. As a high level of sealant performance was not achieved 

from silicones in Iowa conditions, other sealing products were tried. Preformed neoprene 

compression seals are being tried as a substitution for silicone sealants. Due to high costs 

of materials and installation with neoprene seals, the search for improvements through other 

joint sealing products and procedures continued. An agreement was made to provide and 

install preformed ethylene propylene diene monomer compression joint seals. The research 

site was a 183 m (600 ft) test section of northbound I-29 in Pottawattamie County, IA. Seal 

installation was done on August 20, 1992. Seal performance has been good over the past 7 

years and the seals still show no significant signs of decreasing performance. 

27. Tayabji, S. D. 1986. Dowel Placement Tolerances. FHWA/RD-86/042. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report presents results of an investigation conducted to develop placement tolerances 

for dowels in concrete joints. A theoretical analysis of dowel misalignment was attempted, 

but because of the complexity of incorporating the three-dimensional nature of dowel 

misalignment, the theoretical analysis was not completed. The effect of dowel 

misalignment was then investigated in the laboratory by conducting pull-out tests on 

sections of concrete slabs incorporating dowels with different levels of misalignment. 

Results of this laboratory testing showed that pullout loads are relatively low for dowel 

misalignment levels of less than 25 mm per 450-mm (1 in per 18-inch) length of dowel bar. 

28. Tayabji, S. D. and B. E. Colley. 1986. Improved Rigid Pavement Joints. FHWA-RD-86-

040. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

This report contains the results of a study conducted to improve rigid pavement joint 

systems. The study included a literature review, development of a finite-element analysis 

computer program, laboratory testing, and evaluation of various methods to improve rigid 

pavement joints. The conclusion: solid steel dowel bars are the most cost effective loadtransfer device, and nonuniformly spaced dowel bars are recommended to be used on a trial 

basis. The use of tied PCC shoulders and widened PCC slabs is also recommended to 

improve joint performance. 

29. Wu, C. L., J. W. Mack, P. A. Okamoto, and R. G. Packard. 1993. “Prediction of Faulting 

of Joints in Concrete Pavements.” Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Concrete 

Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

In 1984, the Portland Cement Association revised its concrete pavement thickness design 

procedure for highways and streets to incorporate consideration of erosion as well as 
110 

fatigue. The erosion criteria were added because heavy axle loads cause deflections at slab 

edges and corners and edges, which cause pumping, erosion, voids, and faulting. The 

erosion criteria correlated well to all of the in-service performance data available at that 

time, including data from the AASHO road test and several States. These criteria were 

viewed as first-generation general guidelines that could be refined as field performance data 

became available on specific climatic and drainage conditions. The objective of this study 

described in this paper was to collect performance data that have become available since 

1984 and refine the existing erosion criteria to represent different climatic areas and 

drainage conditions. 

30. Voigt, G. 1995. “Joint Sealant Considerations for Transverse Contraction Joints in 

Concrete Highway Pavements.” Paper Presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the 

American Concrete Pavement Association. American Concrete Pavement Association, 

Skokie, IL. 

This report discusses the use of joint sealants and provides background information for 

considering joint sealing in concrete pavements. It contains the current practices of each 

State and some new performance information on hot-pour, silicone, and preformed 

compression seals. The report also defines the primary considerations that would 

accompany elimination of joint sealing. Further investigation and deliberation beyond this 

report are necessary to reach a final conclusion. 

31. Voigt, J. April 1998. “Overview of Joint Sealants for Concrete Pavements.” Public 

Works. Volume 129, Issue 4. 

Joint sealant is a material that minimizes both infiltration of surface water and 

incompressible material into the joint system. Sealants also reduce the potential for dowel 

bar corrosion by reducing the entrance of de-icing chemicals. The other function of joint 

sealants is to prevent incompressible material from entering the joint reservoir. Many 

advances have been made in joint sealant materials; the current research determined 

whether they improve pavement performance. Common joint sealants in pavement 

applications include hot-pour liquid sealants, silicone sealants, and compression seals. 

Maintenance 

1. Ceran, T. and R. B. Newman. 1992. Maintenance Considerations in Highway Design. 

NCHRP Report 349. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This report contains a summary of the current practice for considering maintenance 

concerns in the highway design process, including those involved in pavement design. 

Strengths and weaknesses of the various methods are described and areas needing particular 

improvement are identified. A process designed to explicitly recognize the maintenance 

implications of designs and design elements is presented, along with the demonstration 

results gained from the trial implementation of the process in an SHA. Finally, common 

highway design details that create significant maintenance problems are listed with 

recommended solutions to accommodate maintenance concerns. 
111 

2. Geoffroy, D. N. 1996. Cost-Effective Preventive Pavement Maintenance. NCHRP 

Synthesis of Highway Practice 223. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This synthesis describes the state of the practice with respect to setting a coherent strategy 

of cost-effective preventive maintenance for extending pavement life. It discusses the 

practices of State, local, and Provincial transportation agencies that are attempting to 

minimize life-cycle costs of pavements and are identifying, during the design of pavement 

rehabilitation, reconstruction, or construction projects, the future preventive maintenance 

treatments and the timing and funding for those treatments. It includes a review of 

domestic literature and a survey of current practices in North America. The appendices 

include a primer on pavement design and construction, the benefits of preventive 

maintenance of pavements, a summary of the questionnaire data collected, a simulation of 

pavement management strategies, and an example process to demonstrate the costeffectiveness of preventive maintenance. 

3. O’Brien, L. G. 1989. Evolution and Benefits of Preventive Maintenance Strategies. 

NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 153. Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

DC. 

This report describes the preventive maintenance practices of several highway agencies, 

along with the rationale for these practices. It covers the history of preventive maintenance 

and describes critical issues such as funding considerations, strategy development, and cost 

analysis. Recommendations regarding current practices and future funding schemes are 

also included. 

4. Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC). 1992. Evaluation and 

Maintenance of Concrete Pavements. Report 07.04.B. Permanent International 

Association of Road Congresses, Paris, France. 

Well-designed and well-constructed concrete roads generally require little maintenance, 

which is one of their main assets. However, maintenance is still required for the road’s 

design life to be fully realized. Furthermore, inadequate designs or poor construction 

practices can hamper the performance capabilities of the concrete pavement, thereby further 

necessitating the need for timely and effective concrete pavement maintenance. Because it 

has been proven that the durability of concrete structures depends on the quality of the 

maintenance, it is now advisable to locate as early as possible those areas exhibiting 

evidence of wear and fatigue. Procedures to assist in this identification process are 

included in this document. In addition, a range of diagnostic and rehabilitation equipment 

is now available for concrete pavements, and can be used to assess and predict the 

performance of a network or a part of a network. Various solutions are available to 

improve or repair deteriorated concrete pavements and are presented in this document. 

5. Peshkin, D. G., K. D. Smith, K. A. Zimmerman, and D. N. Geoffroy. 1999. Pavement 

Preventive Maintenance, Reference Manual. FHWA-HI-00-004. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

This document serves as the participant's reference manual for a FHWA/NHI training 

course on pavement preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance, often summed up as 
112 

“applying the right treatment to the right pavement at the right time,” is becoming 

increasingly popular in highway agencies interested in overall pavement preservation. The 

objectives of this manual and course are to introduce the components of a pavement 

preventive maintenance program, to define potential treatment techniques and materials, to 

describe the relationship between pavement management and pavement preventive 

maintenance, and to explain cost/benefit concepts of preventive maintenance to decision 

makers. 

The material is organized into seven modules that are intended to meet the above-stated 

objectives. The first module is an overview of pavement preventive maintenance. This is 

followed by background information on the current status of preventive maintenance, 

appropriate definitions, objectives of preventive maintenance programs, and barriers to 

success. The next module introduces the most commonly used maintenance treatments for 

both asphalt concrete surfaced and PCC pavements. Because economic analyses are so 

important to evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treatments, a module on cost analyses is 

included. 

Reinforcement 

1. American Society of Civil Engineers. 1995. “Coating Protection for Reinforcement: State 

of the Art Report.” American Society of Civil Engineers. Thomas Telford Limited, 

London, England. 

This expert report provides a comprehensive survey of hot-dip galvanizing and epoxy-orPVC-coating protection systems for steel reinforcement. It examines influences on 

materials and application in manufacturing, performance in concrete environments, and 

practical experience. It also offers guidance on the choice of protection systems. 

2. Iwama, S. 1964. Experimental Studies on the Structural Design of Concrete Pavement. 

Public Works Research Institute, Volume 117. Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, Japan. 

This report documents the performance of experimental concrete pavements in Japan. A 

conventionally designed jointed reinforced pavement has been constructed that contains a 

deformed bar running longitudinally near the outside edge of the slab. These pavements 

have shown very good performance, with the additional bar controlling crack widths and 

crack deterioration. 

3. Kunt, M. M. and B. F. McCullough. 1990. “Evaluation of the Subbase Drag Formula by 

Considering Realistic Subbase Friction Values.” Transportation Research Record 1286. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

A modification of the reinforcement formula that considers the realistic frictional 

characteristics of subbase types is presented. The objective of this study is not to abandon 

the current formula but to arrive at a better formula, one that considers the field 

observations. Rational reinforcement design is important because the amount of 

reinforcement affects the restraint on the movement of a pavement section, or slab, and the 

long-term performance. The reinforcement formula was modified in accordance with the 

experimental results obtained concerning subbase frictional resistance. The new formula 
113 

represents the actual components of frictional resistance at the interface: adhesion, bearing, 

and shear. The formula calculates the steel requirement for the middle of the slab; in other 

words, the calculated value is the maximum requirement, and the locations between the free 

end and the middle of the slab will require less reinforcement. Further experimental study 

is necessary to calibrate the new formula. 

4. McCullough, B. F. 1977. “Design Procedure for CRCP Based on Laboratory and Field 

Observations.” Proceedings, First International Conference on Concrete Pavement 

Design. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

In this paper, a CRCP design procedure is presented along with the necessary limiting 

criteria. This procedure is derived from theoretical and empirical models developed in 

connection with numerous field and laboratory studies. The first basic concept is to provide 

adequate longitudinal steel considering the specific conditions of a project to achieve a 

desirable crack width, crack spacing, and steel stress. These limiting criteria are shown in 

this paper. A check is also made to limit spalling and other distress manifestations from 

occurring. The AASHO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures is recommended for 

pavement thickness design. 

5. McCullough, B. F. and C. L. Saraf. 1989. “Effect of Coarse Aggregates on the Design and 

Performance of CRCP in Texas.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on 

Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

This paper describes a study that was conducted to investigate the effect of coarse aggregate 

types on the performance of CRCP built in Texas. Long-term performance studies of 

CRCP in Texas show that performance is a function of coarse aggregate type. A 

laboratory-testing program was conducted to determine the effects of coarse aggregate type 

on concrete properties. Hypothetical pavement sections varying in thickness and steel 

contents were then analyzed with a mechanistic model to obtain estimates of performance. 

From the laboratory and performance analyses, reinforcing steel design charts were 

developed for pavements built with either limestone or siliceous river gravel aggregates. 

6. Nakamura, T. and T. Iijama. 1994. “Evaluation of Performance and Structural Design 

Methods of Cement Concrete Pavements in Japan.” Proceedings, Seventh International 

Symposium on Concrete Roads. Vienna, Austria. 

This report reviews the performance of concrete pavements constructed in Japan and also 

reports on available structural design methods. The performance of reinforced and 

nonreinforced pavements is evaluated and the suitability of current structural design 

methods to the design conditions in Japan is explored. 

7. Ozyildirim, C., C. Moen, and S. Hladky. 1997. “Investigation of Fiber-Reinforced 

Concrete for Use in Transportation Structures.” Transportation Research Record 1574. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Results are presented of a laboratory investigation to determine the properties of fiberreinforced concretes (FRCs) with steel (hooked-end), polypropylene (monofilament and 

fibrillated), and the recently introduced polyolefin fibers (monofilament) for application in 
114 

pavements and bridge deck overlays. Concrete properties in the unhardened and hardened 

states were evaluated and compared. Although the ultimate splitting tensile strength, 

compressive strength, and first-crack strength were higher in most of the FRCs, when 

strength values were adjusted for changes in air content, only a few batches had higher 

strengths. The addition of fibers resulted in great improvements in flexural toughness and 

impact resistance. Three FRC pavement overlays were applied in Virginia in 1995. The 

FRCs used in the projects were similar to those used in the laboratory investigation, with 

similar fiber volumes, types, and sizes. To implement the findings of the study 

successfully, the performance of the FRC pavement overlays is being monitored. 

8. Raja, Z. I. and M. B. Snyder. 1991. “Factors Affecting Deterioration of Transverse Cracks 

in Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 1307. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

JRCP develops transverse cracks as the drying and thermal shrinkage of the concrete is 

resisted by the friction with the supporting layers. These cracks deteriorate with time and 

traffic because of the loss of load transfer capacity. However, rapid deterioration of these 

cracks has been observed on some recently constructed projects. This rapid crack 

deterioration leads to accelerated maintenance requirements and shortened service lives. A 

synthesis of factors that may reduce aggregate interlock load transfer is presented and 

current research efforts aimed at evaluating the relative effects of these factors are 

described. Test variables selected for study include coarse aggregate type, coarse aggregate 

gradation, coarse aggregate treatment (virgin, recycled, blended), coarse aggregate source, 

foundation support, reinforcement content, and type and amount of slab tension. 

9. Ramakrishnan, V. and N. S. Tolmare. 1998. Evaluation of Non-Metallic Fiber-Reinforced 

Concrete in New Full Depth PCC Pavements. Final Report. Report No. SD96-15-F. 

South Dakota Department of Transportation, Pierre, SD. 

This final report presents the construction and performance evaluation of a new full-depth 

pavement, constructed with a new type nonmetallic fiber-reinforced concrete (NMFRC). 

The mixture proportions used, the quality control tests conducted for the evaluation of the 

fresh and hardened concrete properties, and the procedure used for mixing, transporting, 

placing, consolidating, finishing, tining, and curing of the concrete are described. Periodic 

inspection of the full-depth pavement was done and this report includes the results of these 

inspections. The feasibility of using this NMFRC in the construction of highway structures 

has been discussed. The new NMFRC with enhanced fatigue, impact resistance, modulus 

of rupture, ductility and toughness properties is suitable for the construction of full-depth 

pavements. However, a life-cycle cost analysis shows that NMFRC is not a favorable 

choice because of its high initial cost. 

10. Snyder, M. B. 1994. “Effects of Reinforcement Design and Foundation Stiffness on the 

Deterioration of Transverse Cracks in Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” Third 

International Workshop on the Design and Evaluation of Concrete Pavements, Krumbach, 

Austria. 

Research was conducted to evaluate the relative effects of several factors on the 

deterioration of transverse cracks in jointed reinforced concrete pavement. Thirty-five 
115 

large-scale pavement sections were cracked at an early age and subjected to repeated 

applications of simulated heavy vehicle loads. Test variables included coarse aggregate 

type, source, and grading (including use of recycled concrete, slag, and blends of 

manufactured and natural aggregates); slab tension (simulated varying panel lengths and 

foundation friction); reinforcing steel type (smooth and deformed wire mesh and deformed 

bars); reinforcement quantity; and foundation support. Deflection, load transfer, and crack 

width data were collected at predetermined test intervals. This paper discusses the research 

findings related to the effects of reinforcement design and foundation stiffness on transverse 

crack performance. Test results indicate that the deterioration of transverse cracks can be 

mitigated by providing strong foundation support, thereby reducing the magnitude of the 

relative vertical displacements of the two slab fragments at the crack. The use of slab 

reinforcing designs that hold the cracks more tightly closed also provided improved crack 

performance. 

11. Suh, Y. C. and B. F. McCullough. 1994. “Factors Affecting Crack Width of Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavement.” Transportation Research Record 1449. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Crack width is an important factor affecting the behavior and performance of CRCP. Wide 

cracks can lead to various pavement distresses, including spalling, punchouts, and steel 

rupture. Various factors affecting CRCP crack width were evaluated on the basis of width 

measurements of 208 transverse cracks randomly selected from a series of experimental test 

sections constructed in Houston. The crack widths were measured at various times and slab 

temperatures by using a microscope with a graduated eyepiece. It was found from a 

statistical analysis of the collected data that the factors that significantly affect crack width 

are construction season, coarse aggregate type, amount of steel, and time of crack 

occurrence. Thus, hot weather placement produced much wider cracks than cool weather 

placement. The use of siliceous river gravel resulted in cracks wider than those associated 

with the use of limestone, and the difference was larger at lower temperatures. The greater 

the amount of longitudinal steel, the narrower the crack width. Cracks occurring during the 

first 3 days of construction were significantly wider than those that occurred later. Finally, 

the effect of crack spacing on crack width was found to be insignificant. 

12. Vandenbossche, J. M. 1995. An Analysis of the Longitudinal Reinforcement in a Jointed 

Reinforced Concrete Pavement. M.S. Dissertation. Michigan State University, East 

Lansing, MI. 

This study identified sources of stress in the longitudinal steel of JRCP, evaluated the 

effectiveness of current longitudinal design procedures, and included an analysis of the 

stress state of the longitudinal steel that can be used to check the adequacy of any 

reinforcing design. The analysis revealed that even pavements containing a sufficiently 

high amount of longitudinal reinforcing, such that all stresses are within their allowable 

limits, are failing prematurely. One reason for this may be because neither current design 

procedures nor the proposed mechanistic analysis considers fatigue of the steel. A 

mechanistic design procedure that accounts for fatigue can be developed after the effects of 

multi-axle loading and varying load magnitudes are determined. 
116 

13. Xu, P., C. Yi, C. M. Fan, and R. C. Joshi. 1998. Performance of Fiber-Reinforced 

Concrete with Respect to Frost Resistance: A Case Study. Proceedings of the International 

Conference on Cold Regions Engineering 1998. ASCE, Reston, VA. 

Results of laboratory and field tests conducted to study the freeze-thaw durability of FRC 

are presented. Test data suggest that FRC is more resistant to freeze-thaw environment 

than plain concrete, irrespective of the number of cycles. The short metallic fibers 

apparently contribute to frost resistance of FRC due to their positive effect on the bond 

strength between fibers and matrix. A prototype FRC slab pavement constructed in the 

field exhibited good performance. Visual inspection of the prototype pavement indicated 

that FRC is sufficiently durable and resistant to spalling and scaling by frost action 

commonly observed in plain concrete pavement in cold regions of China. 

14. Zollinger, D. G. and E. J. Barenberg. 1990. “Field Investigation of Punchout Distress in 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement.” Transportation Research Record 1286. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 

Most maintenance activities on CRC pavements are related in one way or another to 

punchout distress. Over several years of observation of CRC pavement, several symptoms 

related to the structural aspects of punchout distress have been noted, including, but not 

limited to: close crack spacing, surface widening and spalling of transverse cracks, 

development of longitudinal cracking, loss of load transfer, and subbase and subgrade 

pumping. Literature reviews have elaborated on punchout-related factors with respect to 

pavement performance. However, the punchout mechanism relating the various factors is 

not completely defined. Some questions exist concerning the sequence of events leading to 

the loss of load transfer across transverse cracks as a prerequisite to the development of a 

punchout. This sequence of events relates to the role reinforcement plays in the punchout 

process and whether the loss of aggregate interlock requires rupturing of the steel. If 

rupturing of the steel occurs, the question is whether it occurs before or after the loss of 

aggregate interlock. Factors related to punchout distress (as noted by this investigation and 

others) are reviewed and a possible mechanism of punchout distress is addressed. 

15. Zollinger, D. G. and E. J. Barenberg. 1990. “Mechanistic Design Considerations for 

Punchout Distress in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement.” Transportation 

Research Record 1286. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 

A study was undertaken at the University of Illinois to develop a mechanistic design 

approach for CRCP to account for punchout distress. A mechanism relating to the loss of 

load transfer and the progressive development of punchout-related distress is presented. 

Analysis procedures, demonstrated to implement the mechanism as a rationally based 

thickness design procedure for CRCP, suggest that the optimal crack interval is between 0.9 

and 1.2 m (3 and 4 ft). Current CRCP design methodologies focus on limiting cracking 

intervals, crack width, and stress in the reinforcement. Load-transfer mechanisms have not 

been considered in the limiting design criteria and consequently are not included in these 

design procedures. These methods attempt to determine the design pavement thickness 

based on the combined effects of environmental and load-related stress on the final crack 

spacing, which must be limited to the design cracking criteria. However, past experience 

has indicated that a certain percentage of crack spacing usually falls below the specified 
117 

minimum crack interval. These data suggest a greater tendency for punchouts to develop 

within this lower range of crack spacing. How pavement thickness, percent reinforcement, 

and crack spacing may be considered with respect to pavement spalling and loss of load 

transfer in the process of punchout development are outlined. 

16. Zwerneman, F. J., R. C. Donahey, H. S. Syed, and S. R. Gunna. 1995. “Cracking of 

Concrete Pavement Continuously Reinforced with Epoxy-Coated Steel.” ACI Materials 

Journal. Volume 92, Issue 6, Nov-Dec. 

Two sections of interstate highway in central Oklahoma were recently reconstructed. On 

both projects, northbound lanes were reinforced with epoxy-coated steel and southbound 

lanes were reinforced with uncoated steel. Two crack surveys were conducted over the 

entire length of both sections of new pavement. The results of these surveys show that 

epoxy coating has no significant effect on crack spacing. Additional variables evaluated 

include concrete strength, air temperature, and air content. The data indicate that air 

temperature and air content have the greatest impact on crack spacing. A second phase of 

the study involved the construction of laboratory specimens with either uncoated or epoxycoated reinforcement. Cracks were artificially induced in specimens by placing the 

specimens in tension. No significant differences were measured in either crack spacing or 

crack width. 

Ride Specifications 

1. Hancock, J. and M. Hossain. 2000. “An Update on Kansas' Experience with PCCP 

Smoothness Specifications and Incentives.” Mid-Continent Transportation Symposium 

2000, May 15-16, 2000. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 

The smoothness or riding comfort of PCC pavements is the highest indicator of quality 

from the user's perspective. Therefore, the smoothness of newly constructed PCC 

pavements is of high interest. Since its development in 1990, the Kansas PCC pavement 

smoothness specification has undergone several revisions. The 1996 revision changed the 

incentive/disincentive payment from a percent of bid unit cost for the PCC pavement 

paving basis to a dollar-based value. This revision of the PCC pavement smoothness 

specification is primarily an attempt to make this smoothness specification more compatible 

with the asphalt concrete smoothness specification, which has been based on dollar value. 

This paper primarily outlines the current PCC pavement smoothness specifications in use in 

Kansas and also updates this development. 

2. Karamihas, S. M., T. D. Gillespie, R. W. Perera, and S. D. Kohn. 1999. Guidelines for 

Longitudinal Pavement Profile Measurement. NCHRP Report 434. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Most pavement management activities include the use of devices that measure longitudinal 

profile for assessment of surface roughness. Although technology has been available for 

measuring longitudinal profile for decades, its still has not fully matured. In fact, a 

prevailing sense exists in the highway community that if each agency measured the same 

road with its device, there would be a variety of results. This project sought to improve the 

accuracy and consistency of roughness measurement through the development of guidelines 
118 

for network-level and project-level measurement of longitudinal pavement profile. The 

resulting guidelines are based on the determination of factors that affect roughness 

measurements, the quantification of the effect of these factors on repeatability and 

accuracy, and the determination of how and when these factors can be controlled. The 

research also sought to explain the underlying causes of common profile measurement 

problems to assist agencies charged with measuring longitudinal profiles in maximizing the 

quality of their pavement management system’s roughness estimates. 

3. Ksaibati, K., R. Staigle, and T. M. Adkins. 1995. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Pavement 

Smoothness Specifications. MPC Report No. 95-37B. Mountain-Plains Consortium. North 

Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 

SHAs throughout the United States use smoothness specifications to ensure they are 

providing the public with quality roads. Some SHAs even provide monetary incentives to 

contractors for building smoother roads. The effectiveness of such incentive policies, 

though, has not been studied. This report describes a study to determine whether the initial 

roughness of a pavement section has any influence on its long-term performance. 

Statistical and graphical analyses were performed on asphalt and concrete test sections in 

Wyoming. The findings indicate that the initial roughness of concrete pavements based on 

the Profilograph Index do not correlate with the long-term performance of these pavements. 

However, initial roughness measurements based on the International Roughness Index do 

correlate with future roughness measurements. 

4. Smith, K. L., K. D. Smith, L. D. Evans, T. E. Hoerner, M. I. Darter, and J. H. Woodstrom. 

1997. Smoothness Specifications for Pavements. NCHRP Web Document 1. Final Report, 

NCHRP Project 1-31. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This report describes the findings and results of research conducted to determine (1) the 

effect of initial pavement smoothness on the future smoothness and future life of various 

pavement types; (2) the effect of smoothness specifications on initial pavement smoothness; 

(3) the cost-effectiveness of smoothness specifications (including incentives/disincentives); 

and (4) the most suitable types of smoothness measuring equipment and smoothness 

reporting indices for use in future smoothness specifications. Detailed analyses of 

comprehensive time-series smoothness data showed that initial pavement smoothness has a 

significant effect on the future smoothness of the pavement in 80 percent of new 

construction (both AC and PCC pavements) and in 70 percent of AC overlay construction. 

Furthermore, using two different analysis techniques, it was illustrated that added pavement 

life can be obtained by achieving higher levels of initial smoothness. Combined results of 

both roughness model and pavement failure analyses indicated at least a 9 percent increase 

in life corresponding to a 25 percent increase in smoothness from target profile index (PI) 

values of 0.11 and 0.08 m/km (7 and 5 inches/mi) for concrete and asphalt pavements, 

respectively. Cost-effectiveness analyses conducted on several pavement families showed 

that the most cost effective smoothness levels are considerably higher than what is typically 

used as the current target (PIs between 0 and 0.08 m/km (0 and 5 inches/mile) versus PIs 

between 0.08 and 0.16 m/km (5 and 10 inches/mi)). Moreover, theoretical pay adjustment 

functions for the pavement families examined showed greater maximum incentive amounts 

and more punitive disincentive amounts than current pay adjustment functions. A detailed 
119 

evaluation of smoothness-measuring equipment resulted in recommended requirements for 

measured profile wavelengths, sampling interval, distance accuracy, vertical elevation 

accuracy, and other considerations. Reviews of various smoothness indices, in terms of 

their ability to correlate with user response and other smoothness indices, resulted in the 

international roughness index (IRI) and the PI being ranked highest, followed closely by the 

Michigan DOT ride quality index, the Janoff ride number, and the Sayers ride number. 

5. Zaghloul, S. M. 1996. “Effect of Poor Workmanship and Lack of Smoothness Testing on 

Pavement Life-Cycle Costs.” Transportation Research Record 1539. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Pavement performance is commonly evaluated using the concept of pavement 

serviceability, in which pavement failure is defined by terminal serviceability instead of 

strict structural failure. The present serviceability index (PSI), the measure of pavement 

serviceability, is a function of pavement roughness, cracking, patching, and rutting. 

Pavement roughness is the major component of PSI and represents more than 95 percent of 

its value. Because roughness is such as important consideration, changes in roughness 

control pavement life cycles, and, therefore, construction quality, which influences 

roughness, performance, and life cycle, as well. A case study of a $120,000,000 project is 

presented. In this project, poor workmanship and lack of smoothness testing led to a 

notably high initial roughness. A study was conducted to quantify the long-term effects of 

the high initial roughness. Results indicate that the pavement service life of the project will 

be reduced significantly. In addition, a huge increase in the project life-cycle costs is 

expected. In another study, consideration was given to some of the available smoothness 

evaluation criteria in which roughness indices, such as the international roughness index 

and PSI, are used. Results of the study showed that most of these criteria are not capable of 

adequately addressing the high roughness associated with repeated transverse pumps. 

Recommendations for overcoming this inadequacy are presented. 

Shoulder Design and Performance 

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1998. AASHTO 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan: A Comprehensive Plan to Substantially Reduce VehicleRelated Fatalities and Injuries on the Nation’s Highways. AASHTO, Washington, DC. 

This strategic safety plan for the Nation’s highways is based on a coordinated effort 

between a host of public and private transportation agencies and other groups interested in 

highway safety. The objective of the plan is to outline strategies in 17 key emphasis areas 

that have the potential for saving lives in the magnitude of 5,000 to 7,000 each year, as well 

as substantially reducing health care costs. Key emphasis areas are young drivers, 

suspended/revoked drivers, older drivers, aggressive/speeding drivers, impaired drivers, 

keeping drivers alert, safety belts, pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicle train deaths, 

motorcyclists, heavy trucks, safety enhancements in vehicles, keeping vehicles on the 

roadway/minimizing the consequences of leaving the roadway, intersections, work zones, 

and survivability of severe crashes. One important strategy recommended to help keep 

drivers alert and to help keep vehicles on the roadway is the retrofitting of rumble strips on 

the shoulders of rural interstates and other facilities prone to cause driver fatigue. 
120 

2. Barksdale, R. D. and R. G. Hicks. 1979. Improved Pavement-Shoulder Joint Design. 

NCHRP Report 202. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

A particularly troublesome part of the pavement-shoulder system is the joint at the interface 

of concrete mainline pavements and bituminous shoulders. This discontinuity has often 

permitted undesirable amounts of surface water to reach vulnerable bases, subbases, and 

foundation soils, causing them to soften, swell, or become adversely affected by freezethaw action. Subsequent deterioration of the shoulder surface at the joint, and often 

extending 0.6 m (2 ft) or more away from the joint, has been a particularly vexing problem. 

A wide variety of pavement-shoulder joint systems were reviewed in 15 states and detailed 

longitudinal joint movements recorded at several sites. These field observations, coupled 

with the results of other field and laboratory studies, provided the bases for a number of 

recommendations for longitudinal joint and shoulder design and construction. 

3. Benekohal, R. F., K. T. Hall, and H. W. Miller. 1990. “Effect of Lane Widening on 

Lateral Distribution of Truck Wheels.” Transportation Research Record 1286. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Past field studies of lateral distribution of trucks on highway pavements are limited in their 

relevance to current design practices and truck size limits. In particular, little information is 

available on the effect of widened concrete slabs on lateral distribution of trucks. The 

Illinois DOT has constructed test sections of “widened-lane” (or more properly called 

widened-slab) pavements with 46-cm (18-in and 51-cm (20-in extensions on I-57. Truck 

wheel placements on these test sections were compared with those observed on nearby 

conventional 3.65-m (12-ft) pavement slabs, in a study conducted at the University of 

Illinois. Continuous filming of truck wheel positions was performed with an 8-mm camera 

mounted on bridges over the highway. Wheel positions were determined to within 

approximately 12 mm (0.5 in precision by scaling distances measured on the films to 

known dimensions on the pavements. The mean placement of the wheels of over 900 

trucks observed on the control sections was about 56 cm (22 inches) from the slab edge. 

About 2.5 percent of the wheels passed within 15 cm (6 inches) of the slab edge. On the 

widened-slab sections, the mean placement of truck wheels was about 5 cm (2 inches) 

closer to the lane edge (marked by the paint stripe) but still 96 to 102 cm (38 to 40 inches) 

away from the slab edge. No slab edge loadings were observed among more than 1,300 

observations of truck wheel placements on the widened-slab pavement sections. The 

results suggest that slab widening is likely to be a cost-effective design improvement for 

concrete pavements that otherwise would be vulnerable to transverse fatigue cracking as a 

predominant mode of failure. 

4. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990. Paved Shoulders. Technical Advisory 

T5040.29. FHWA, Washington, DC. 

This advisory outlines recommended practices for the design and construction of paved 

shoulders. Guidance is provided on the selection of shoulder types with specific design 

recommendations presented for both asphalt and concrete shoulders. 
121 

5. Griffith, M. S. 1999. Safety Evaluation of Continuous Shoulder Rumble Strips Installed on 

Freeways. Preprint No. 991062. Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes result in approximately one-third of all highway 

fatalities and one-half million people injured annually, with a societal cost of $80 billion 

each year. Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS) are one countermeasure used to 

address this significant safety problem. This study extracted data for two States (California 

and Illinois) from the Highway Safety Information System to estimate the safety effects of 

CSRS on freeways. Before-after evaluations of CSRS projects with the use of different 

comparison groups were conducted. The results from the evaluations estimate that CSRS 

reduce single-vehicle run-off-the-road crashes on average by 18.3 percent on all freeways 

(no regard to urban/rural classification) and 21.1 percent on rural freeways. Two potential 

adverse effects related to safety with CSRS were analyzed: (1) the crash risk that CSRS 

may present due to driver startle/panic response, and (2) the effect of CSRS on crash 

migration. Findings show that these potential adverse effects are insignificant. 

6. Harwood, D. W. 1993. Use of Rumble Strips to Enhance Safety. NCHRP Synthesis of 

Highway Practice 191. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Rumble strips provide motorists with an audible and tactile warning that their vehicle is 

approaching a decision point of critical importance to safety or that their vehicle has 

partially or completely left the road. Rumble strips can be installed either in the traveled 

way of a roadway or on the roadway shoulder. This synthesis describes the current state of 

the practice on the use and effectiveness of rumble strips in both applications. 

Recommended designs and guidelines on the uses of rumble strips are also provided. 

7. Korfhage, G. R. 1988. Effect of Concrete Shoulders, Lane Widening, and Frozen 

Subgrade on Concrete Pavement Performance. Report No. FHWA/MN/RD-88/02. 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN. 

This is the fourth and final report of a study to determine the effect of concrete shoulders, 

lane widening, and frozen subgrade on concrete pavement performance. In this portion of 

the study, nondestructive deflection testing was conducted over a 2-year period to 

determine seasonal effects on pavement deflections. Deflections taken during the frozen 

portion of the year are about one-tenth as great as those taken during the nonfrozen portion 

of the year. Tied concrete shoulders appeared to reduce edge deflections by about 15 

percent. The use of widened PCC slabs reduced deflections at the pavement lane edge by 

27 to 46 percent depending on the width of the widening. 

8. Majidzadeh, K. and G. J. Ilves. 1986. Structural Design of Roadway Shoulders—Final 

Report. Report No. FHWA/RD-86/089. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

This report describes the thickness design of roadway shoulders and is based on 

mechanistic principles of stress-strain analysis. Both flexible and rigid pavements can be 

designed with this method. The shoulders may be adjacent to either rigid or flexible 

pavements. All shoulder–pavement type combinations are possible, including the use of a 
122 

widened rigid mainline lane with a flexible shoulder. The inner and outer edges of the 

shoulder are designed by computing stress-strain responses due to encroaching or parked 

vehicles and then applying fatigue distress functions to determine thickness requirements. 

Drainage design is also considered as part of the shoulder design process. 

9. Perrillo, K. 1998. The Effectiveness and Use of Continuous Shoulder Rumble Strips. 

Technical Report. Federal Highway Administration Regional Office, Albany, NY. 

Continuous shoulder rumble strips create noise and vibration that alert wayward drivers that 

they have wandered from the main traffic lanes. Many highway agencies have adopted 

CSRS on many paving projects. This report examines the use of CSRS and evaluates their 

effectiveness. 

10. Sehr, M. 1989. Lateral Load Distribution and the Use of PCC Extended Slabs for Reduced 

Fatigue. Final Report. Federal Highway Administration, Portland, OR. 

This paper summarizes data concerning lateral wheel distributions and examines the 

advantages of extended (or widened) PCC slabs in terms of their effect on stress, strain, 

deflection, and PCC pavement deterioration. Widened slabs are increasingly used by many 

highway agencies due to their beneficial effect on pavement performance. Present wheel 

load distribution was determined to be an average of 50 to 55 cm (20 to 22 inches) away 

from the edge stripe on 4.6-m (12-ft) shoulders. Detrimental edge loads were found to be 

reduced significantly at 40 to 50 cm (16 to 20 inches) away from the PCC slab edge. A 

PCC slab widened 45 to 60 cm (18 to 24 inches) and striped with a 12-ft lane can expect a 

20- to 30-percent increase in pavement fatigue life. 

11. Transportation Research Board. 1979. Design and Use of Highway Shoulders. NCHRP 

Synthesis of Highway Practice 63. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Shoulder design practices have been surveyed and synthesized in this report. General 

design information is summarized for the shoulder types used by the SHAs, including cross 

section design data. Similar performance problems have been noted from various highway 

agencies, particularly in the sealing and maintenance of the longitudinal joint between a 

concrete pavement and a bituminous shoulder. 

12. Yu, H. T., K. D. Smith, and M. I. Darter. 1995. Field and Analytical Evaluation of the 

Effects of Tied PCC Shoulder and Widened Slabs on Performance of JPCP. Final Report. 

Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO. 

This study evaluated the effects of widened slabs and tied concrete shoulders on the 

performance of PCC pavements. Three test sections were constructed on I-70 in 1994 

consisting of a widened PCC slab with tied PCC shoulder, a widened PCC slab with 

nontied PCC shoulder, and a standard-width PCC slab with tied PCC shoulder. After 

construction, these sections were instrumented with dial gauges and surface-mounted strain 

gauges to measure the temperature and load-induced deflections and strains. Follow-up 

testing was conducted with the FWD after 1 year to evaluate the structural response of the 

pavement sections. Results from the investigation indicated the development of a built-in 

negative temperature gradient such that the pavement is actually curled up at a zero 
123 

temperature gradient. Furthermore, some separation of the PCC slab from the AC base 

apparently is occurring due to significant differences in the theoretical and measured 

responses. An analysis of the amount of slab widening to obtain structural benefits 

revealed that a 6-m (2-ft) widening is appropriate. 

Subgrade 

1. American Concrete Institute (ACI). 1985. “Guide for Design of Foundations and 

Shoulders for Concrete Pavements.” ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, ACI 325.3R-85. 

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI. 

This guide suggests methods for material selection, moisture control, and compaction or 

treatment of soils and materials to ensure volume stability and uniform support for concrete 

pavement. Various environments are considered and appropriate methods of subgrade 

preparation are outlined. Subbase functions are defined and adaptability of types of 

subbase are discussed. Placement of materials to aid in subbase moisture control is 

emphasized in shoulder design. A section on recognition of causes of deficiencies in 

existing pavements is included to alert the engineer to the consequences of improper 

construction or adverse environment. 

2. Asphalt Institute (AI). 1993. Soils Manual for the Design of Asphalt Pavement Structures. 

MS-10. Asphalt Institute, Lexington, KY. 

This manual provides practical guidance on soils inspection, characterization, and strength 

testing for pavement design purposes. Among the topics covered are the AASHTO and 

Unified soil classification systems, pedologic soil classification, and the California Bearing 

Ratio, plate bearing (k value), resistance (R value), and resilient modulus tests. 

3. Carpenter, S. H., M. R. Crovetti, K. L. Smith, E. H. Rmeili, and T. P. Wilson. 1991. Soil 

and Base Stabilization and Associated Drainage Considerations, Volume I—Pavement 

Design and Construction Considerations. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

The primary purpose of this manual is to provide background information for engineers 

responsible for utilizing soil stabilization as an integral part of a pavement structure. The 

importance of materials properties is discussed, and guidelines provided on the selection of 

an appropriate stabilizer to use with specific soil types. Construction procedures and 

equipment for each stabilization method also are described. Information is also included to 

assist the engineer in evaluating the drainage problems of a pavement. Specific details of 

drainage design, including permeable base design, are given, along with guidelines on the 

construction of drainage systems. 

4. Darter, M. I., K. T. Hall, and C. M. Kuo. 1995. Support Under Portland Cement Concrete 

Pavements. NCHRP Report 372. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This report documents a comprehensive study on the effect of structural support conditions 

on the performance of PCC pavements. An exhaustive review of the characterization of 

subgrade support in PCC pavement design is presented, along with an examination of the 
124 

causes of loss of support beneath PCC slabs. The report also documents several major 

deficiencies related to concrete pavement support that were found to exist in the current 

AASHTO design procedure. It was determined that the commonly used “top-of-the-base” 

k value is unrealistically high. The static, elastic k value of the foundation (subgrade and, if 

present, fill) is considered the appropriate k value for use in concrete pavement design. 

Guidelines are provided for three methods for determining k value for design: (1) 

correlation methods; (2) deflection testing and backcalculation methods; and (3) plate load 

testing methods. 

A three-dimensional finite-element model was developed to analyze the effects of 

foundation support, base properties, joint spacing, slab thickness, climate, and other factors 

on concrete pavement performance. The stress analysis results were combined with the 

AASHO road test stress-performance correlation to develop a proposed revision to the 

AASHTO rigid pavement design model. 

5. Hall, K. T., M. I. Darter, T. E. Hoerner, and L. Khazanovich. 1997. LTPP Data Analysis, 

Phase I: Validation of Guidelines for k-Value Selection and Concrete Pavement 

Performance Prediction. FHWA-RD-96-198. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

Several important issues concerning the effect of slab support on concrete pavement 

performance were studied under NCHRP Project 1-30. However, the data available for 

testing and validating the results generated by that study were limited. This study was 

conducted to further field-verify and develop the improved support guidelines proposed in 

NCHRP 1-30 using the LTPP database to establish their practicality and appropriateness for 

use in concrete pavement design nationwide. This study was also conducted to further 

field-verify the proposed revisions to the AASHTO rigid pavement performance model 

using the design, materials, traffic, and performance data available in the LTPP database for 

rigid pavements. Guidelines, revised on the basis of this field verification study, are 

presented in the appendix in the form of a proposed addendum to the AASHTO design 

guide. Complete documentation on the field verification efforts is included. 

6. Holtz, R. D. 1989. Treatment of Problem Foundations for Highway Embankments. 

NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 147. Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

DC. 

Construction over problem soil areas requires extensive site investigations, environmental 

impact studies, and detailed comparative design analyses to evaluate possible construction 

alternatives. These investigations are expensive, but the costs are more than offset by the 

potential savings in construction costs, avoidance of environmental problems, improved 

pavement performance, reduced maintenance costs, and so on. A number of construction 

alternatives are available for treating problem soils, and the characteristics, benefits, 

limitations, and costs of these alternatives are described in detail. Factors to be considered 

in selecting an appropriate construction alternative are also provided. 
125 

7. Johnson, T. C., R. L. Berg, K. L. Carey, and C. W. Kaplar. 1974. Roadway Design in 

Seasonal Frost Areas. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 26. Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Highway engineers in seasonal frost areas have been aware for decades of the damaging 

effects that frost in the underlying support layers can have on pavement performance. 

Pavement heaving and cracking resulting from frost action and thaw-induced breakups are 

familiar problems. In the highway environment, the factors of climate, soil, water, 

pavement structure, and traffic are known to interact in freezing and thawing situations to 

the detriment of the pavement. The exact nature of the physical processes that take place, 

the sensitivities of the several contributing factors, and the magnitude of the responses to 

freezing action are not well understood. Nevertheless, usable criteria exist and are reported 

in this synthesis for identifying frost susceptibility, and for selecting measures that will 

avoid harmful pavement reaction. 

This report describes and assesses the merit of current roadway design practice in seasonal 

frost areas. Information is presented on the mechanisms of frost heaving and thaw 

weakening, the factors that contribute to frost problems, criteria for estimating frost 

susceptibility, surveying practices for locating areas of detrimental frost action, subgrade 

treatment and drainage to minimize the effects of frost action, and the structural design of 

pavements to accommodate the influences of frost action. In addition, it identifies research 

needs in the area. 

8. Laguros, J. G. and G. A. Miller. 1997. Stabilization of Existing Subgrades to Improve 

Constructibility During Interstate Pavement Reconstruction. NCHRP Synthesis of 

Highway Practice 247. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This synthesis is intended to provide information to engineers and other transportation 

officials on methods to evaluate and improve subgrade conditions to meet the 

constructibility requirements of a reconstruction project. Information was gathered through 

the use of a questionnaire sent to 65 transportation agencies in the United States and 

Canada and by a review of pertinent literature. A number of laboratory and in situ testing 

methods for evaluating subgrade soil properties are presented. In addition to traditional 

methods of laboratory testing of subgrade soils (e.g., Proctor compaction and California 

Bearing Ratio (CBR)), there appears to be an increased reliance on nondestructive methods 

such as the FWD for subgrade evaluation of existing pavements. Furthermore, the dynamic 

cone penetrometer appears to have great potential for evaluating subgrade stability before, 

during, and after pavement construction. Detailed information is also presented on the 

current use of drainage systems (including edge and lateral drains, drainage layers, and 

geotextile filters) as well as common remediation measures for solving subgrade problems. 

9. Portland Cement Association (PCA). 1992. PCA Soil Primer. Engineering Bulletin 

EB007.05S. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL. 

This introduction to soil properties and characteristics emphasizes how those soil properties 

influence the design, construction, and performance of concrete pavements. Traditional soil 

tests, such as Proctor moisture-density tests, triaxial compression test, CBR test, 

stabiliometer test, and plate load test, are completely described with discussion on the 
126 

practical meaning and application of each test. Recommended procedures for conducting 

detailed soil surveys and performing representative soil sampling are also described, 

highlighted by examples illustrating soil survey and analysis procedures in various highway 

applications. 

10. Thompson, M. R. and B. J. Dempsey. 1977. “Subgrade Soils: An Important Factor in 

Concrete Pavement Design.” Proceedings, International Conference on Concrete 

Pavement Design. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 

The importance of subgrade support evaluation in the design, analysis, and construction of 

concrete pavement has been demonstrated. Subgrade soil strength and stiffness properties 

significantly influence the structural response (concrete pavement stresses, surface 

deflection) and the performance of concrete pavement systems. Moisture and temperature 

are the major climatic parameters that influence soil strength and stiffness. The effects of 

moisture and temperature factors on fine-grained soil behavior are documented. The 

necessity of considering spatial and seasonal variability in subgrade support is emphasized. 

Techniques for predicting temperature and moisture conditions in pavement systems are 

described. 

11. Transportation Research Board. 1987. Lime Stabilization—Reactions, Properties, Design, 

and Construction. State of the Art Report 5. Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

DC. 

Many significant engineering properties of soils are beneficially modified by lime 

treatment. Although lime is primarily used to treat fine-grained soils, it can also be used to 

modify the characteristics of the fine fraction of more granular soils, to expedite 

construction, modify subgrade soils, and improve strength and durability of subgrade soils. 

This document presents the state-of-the-art in lime treatment of paving materials, including 

a description of the soil-lime reactions, a summary of the properties and characteristics of 

lime-treated soils, and recommended guidelines for the design and construction of soil-lime 

mixtures. 

12. Transportation Research Board. 1990. Guide to Earthwork Construction. State of the Art 

Report 8. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

This document provides construction engineers and technicians with information on all 

aspects of earthwork construction. Although not intended as a design manual, it does 

contain considerable background information on the design concepts necessary for good 

earthwork construction. Most sections contain information on specific field problems, and 

a number of references are included to provide engineers with additional detailed 

information. Earthwork topics included in this guide are compaction, earthwork 

construction, drainage, embankment foundations, earthwork for retaining structures, 

environmental considerations, special soil deposits and embankment materials, and 

instrumentation for embankments. 
127 

Surface Texture and Noise 

1. Ardani, A. 1996. “Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Texturing Methods.” 

Transportation Research Record 1544. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

The testing and construction details of nine test sections with varying textural 

characteristics are described. The effects of the textures on the frictional and noise 

characteristics of the pavement surface were examined. Skid numbers were acquired 

according to ASTM E274 with ribbed and smooth tires at 65, 80, and 105 km/hr (40, 50, 

and 65 mi/hr) for all sections. Six types of texture-measuring devices were used to measure 

and compare the amount of texture in each section. To examine the noise properties of the 

test sections, noise data were required in three locations: inside the vehicle, 7.6 m (25 ft) 

from the centerline, and near the right rear tire of the vehicle. The smooth tire showed 

more sensitivity to micro- and macrotexture than the ribbed tire, and is recommended as the 

means of acquiring skid numbers. The sand patch test to measure texture depth showed 

excellent correlations to smooth-tire skid numbers and is also recommended. Finally, 

longitudinal textures were found to be much quieter than transverse textures. 

2. Ardani, A. and W. Outcalt. 2000. PCCP Texturing Methods (January 2000). Report No. 

CDOT-DTD-R-00-1. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO. 

This report documents the noise properties and the frictional characteristics of various 

concrete pavement textures. It describes the testing and construction details of nine test 

sections with varying textural characteristics. Included is an overview of the methodologies 

used to texture concrete pavement surface and a discussion of frictional attributes of various 

surface textures at different speeds and their impact on noise properties. There is also a 

description of the state-of-the-art equipment used to acquire sound pressure levels, texturemeasuring devices and texture installing equipment, plus a discussion of data acquisition. 

3. Drakopoulos, A., T. H. Wenzel, S. F. Shober, and R. B. Schmiedlin. “Crash Experience on 

Tined and Continuously Ground Portland Cement Concrete Pavements.” Transportation 

Research Record 1639. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Crash rates were compared between 290 km (180 mi) of continuously ground and 115 km 

(71 mi) of transversely tined PCC pavements in Wisconsin. All 11,219 reported crashes at 

the study sites during the 6-year period (1988 to 1993) were analyzed. Continuously 

ground surfaces were found to have lower crash rates than tined surfaces under dry and wet 

conditions during daytime and nighttime as well as under all four combinations of 

pavement and light conditions. Ground pavements had 58 percent the crash rates of tined 

pavements under dry and wet conditions; the ratio was 84 percent when snow or ice was 

present on the pavement; however, relatively limited vehicular travel occurred under such 

conditions and these results are viewed as preliminary. Ground pavements had 57 percent 

the crash rates of tined pavements during daytime, and 73 percent at night. On the basis of 

the available data, a hypothesis of increasing crash rates with time (based on frictional 

property deterioration with pavement age, cumulative vehicle passes since construction, or 

both) could not be confirmed for either type of pavement texture. 
128 

4. Hibbs, B. O. and R. M. Larson. 1996. Tire Pavement Noise and Safety Performance, PCC 

Surface Texture Working Group. Report No. FHWA-SA-96-068. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

The annoying noise frequencies produced from tire/pavement interaction on some (usually 

transverse tined) PCC pavements have concerned both nearby residents and traveling 

motorists. A Technical Working Group (TWG) was formed to investigate the problem by 

conducting a review of previous research and by evaluating the results of ongoing research. 

The goal of the TWG was to recommend PCC pavement surface textures that will reduce 

the annoying noise frequencies without compromising safety. 

Noise-reducing construction methods that work most effectively for new pavements are to 

randomly space (10 to 40 mm (0.4 to 1.6 inch)) the transverse tines/grooves, construct 

longitudinal tines/grooves (either according to AASHTO guidelines or to the Spanish 

plastic brushing method), or construct an exposed aggregate surface. Existing PCC 

pavements that produce an annoying noise should be retextured (diamond grooving, 

diamond or carbide grinding, or shotblasting) or resurfaced (PCC overlay or surface 

laminate, microsurfacing, or a dense- or open-graded asphalt concrete overlay). 

5. Kuemmel, D. A., J. R. Jaeckel, A. Satanovsky, S. F. Shober, and M. M. Dobersek. 1996. 

“Noise Characteristics of Pavement Surface Texture in Wisconsin.” Transportation 

Research Record 1544. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 

Twelve PCC pavement test sections were constructed to compare with standard PCC 

pavement and AC pavement to quantify the effects of the pavement surface texture on 

noise, safety, and winter maintenance. Asphalt pavements studied include an SHRP 

asphalt, stone matrix asphalt, and Wisconsin standard asphalt. A dependency between the 

pavement textures and their noise characteristics was observed. Noise measurements 

indicated that uniformly transversely tined PCC pavement created dominant noise 

frequencies that were audible adjacent to the road and inside the test vehicles. However, 

careful design and construction of transversely tined PCC pavement can reduce tire-road 

noise. No significant acoustical advantages of open-graded asphalts over the standard 

dense-graded asphalt were found. 

6. Kuemmel, D. A., R. C. Sonntag, J. A. Crovetti, Y. Becker, J. R. Jaeckel, and A. 

Satanovsky. 2000. Noise and Texture on PCC Pavement-Results of a Multi-State Study. 

Report Number WI/SPR-08-99. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI. 

This paper represents the second phase of a project researching the texture and noise 

characteristics of PCC pavements. Ten new PCC pavements were built on Highway 29 east 

of the 1994 Phase I test sites and evaluated; re-evaluations were also conducted on 

previously evaluated sections in North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, and Michigan. 

Interior and exterior noise was measured using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method 

with a Larson-Davis tow channel real time acoustical analyzer. Texture on all sites was 

measured with the Road Surface Analyzer (ROSAN). Sand patch tests were also 

performed. 
129 

Generally, the longitudinal tined PCC and asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements exhibited the 

lowest exterior noise levels. No significant advantage was found regarding exterior noise 

levels for special textures such as the European, Skidabrader, or diamond ground PCC 

pavements. The lowest interior noise levels were those of the longitudinal, skewed, 

European PCC, and AC pavements. The ROSAN mean profile depth and estimated texture 

depth correlated very closely with the sand patch and friction measurements, especially 

when analyzed with a certain texture type. 

7. Larson, R. M. and B. O. Hibbs. 1997. “Tire Pavement Noise and Safety Performance - 

PCC Surface Texture Technical Working Group.” Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue 

Conference on Concrete Design and Materials for High Performance. Purdue University, 

West Lafayette, IN. 

A TWG representing SHAs, industry, academia, and FHWA met over a 3-year period to 

update guidance on methods to obtain high pavement surface friction values while 

minimizing tire/pavement noise. The TWG reviewed the current guidance on surface 

texture as it relates to safety (friction and vehicle control including effects of splash and 

spray), noise (inside and outside of the vehicle), drainage (cross slope, effect of longitudinal 

and transverse tining, and other surface textures), durability, ride (profile), texture quality 

(measurement), and economy of construction. This paper summarizes the findings as well 

as the recommendations of the TWG. 

8. Wayson, R. L. 1998. Relationship Between Pavement Surface Texture and Highway 

Traffic Noise. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 268. Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC. 

Pavement/tire noise has been studied for well over 30 years; several large databases have 

been compiled in the past decade. This synthesis is a summary of the research findings on 

this extensively studied topic. Summaries of selected sample sets are included to allow 

comparisons of the results and reports. Because the reporting is voluminous, care was 

taken to include up-to-date reports and those that summarize ideas from groups of 

individuals. In addition, a survey of current practices was conducted to help guide the 

synthesis. 

9. Wu, C. L. and M. A. Nagi. 1995. Optimizing Surface Texture of Concrete Pavement. 

Research and Development Bulletin RD111T. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL. 

This report summarizes current and past research and development work related to surface 

texturing technology. It begins with experiments on skid resistance in the early 1930s in 

Iowa and Ohio and carries up through the recent developments in exposed aggregate and 

porous concrete in Europe. Reports and publications are summarized on the work done in 

this field in the past 60 years with emphasis on concrete pavement friction and tire/road 

noise issues. Various surface texturing techniques discussed in this report include burlap 

dragging, transverse tining, longitudinal tining, exposed aggregate, chip sprinkling, surface 

dressing, and porous. 

131 

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY FORMS 

As described previously, two surveys were produced, one targeted at highway agencies (to solicit 

relative performance data) and one targeted at PCC paving contractors (to solicit relative cost 

data). This appendix presents the actual questionnaire survey forms used in the conduct of both 

the relative performance and relative cost surveys. 
132 

RELATIVE PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTION FORM 

Purpose 

The purpose of this form is to document the effects of various portland cement concrete (PCC) 

pavement design features on pavement performance. This information will be combined with 

relative cost information obtained from concrete paving contractors to illustrate the costeffectiveness of various PCC pavement design features. 

This research is being performed for the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) with 

the support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

Overview 

The underlying concept in this form is that various pavement design features or options are 

selected by designers to provide a performance benefit. Such a benefit (for example, reduced 

edge stress, better joint load transfer, or a smoother ride) might be measured in terms of an 

extension in pavement service life or additional traffic capacity. A standard pavement cross 

section has been identified, and volunteers are being asked to evaluate the change in life, in terms 

of the expected increase (or decrease) in 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs), that the 

feature provides to the pavement. Your response should be based on experience at your agency. 

If your agency has no experience with a particular design feature, please indicate this by entering 

"n/a" in the space provided. 

Since each agency uses different design and performance periods, we are asking for your 

estimate of the performance life of the standard pavement section in ESALs for your State’s 

climate zone. The expected increase (or decrease) in ESALs that the design feature provides 

should be expressed as a percent increase or decrease from the ESALs that you would expect the 

standard pavement section to carry. 

Information gathered during this process will only be reported in summary form, so individual 

respondents cannot be identified. Individual responses will be kept confidential. 

Instructions 

It is estimated that this process will take 4 to 6 hours. At the end of the form, please let us know 

how long the process took. This information will be used to improve any possible research in 

this area. 
133 

At the beginning of the form, a standard concrete pavement section is described. Changes to 

each section are also described. After reviewing the standard section and the changes, please 

estimate the expected ESALs for the standard section and the relative change in performance (in 

terms of relative increase or decrease in allowable ESALs) attributable to each design feature. If 

you feel that the feature under evaluation allows the pavement to carry 8 percent more ESALs, it 

would receive a performance rating of 1.08. 

Several States have multiple climate zones as defined in the LTPP research program. The four 

climate zones identified by LTPP are listed in table 1. For example, a region that has a high 

potential for moisture throughout the year and low temperatures that are not considered a 

problem would be classified as a wet-freeze climate zone. If your agency has different design 

procedures or performance expectations for different climate zones, please complete a form for 

each zone. Please indicate the climate zone on the form. 

Table 1. LTPP Climatic Regions. 

LTPP Climatic Regions 

Wet Freeze 

Dry Freeze 

Wet Non-Freeze 

Dry Non-Freeze 

Construction Section 

For the purposes of this project, assume the following conditions: 

• Rural mainline divided highway construction or reconstruction. 

• Average daily traffic (ADT) is 20,000 vehicles per day in each direction with 15% trucks. 

This is approximately 1,000,000 ESALs per year in the design lane. Assume no growth in 

ESALs during the life of the pavement. 

• Project located within 50 miles of mobilization center. 

• 5 miles in length. 

• 4 lanes of traffic (2 lanes in each direction). 

• The project will be constructed at grade with no earthwork and all paving is on longitudinal 

slopes less than 5%. 

• Construction is performed during normal daytime business hours. 

• Standard slipform paving equipment used for construction. 

• Portable concrete batch plant will be utilized. 

• The concrete for this project is a typical local mix. 

• Local environmental regulations will govern the project. 

• Local specifications for construction apply for highway work. 

• Local load restrictions will be used. 
134 

DESIGN FEATURE PERFORMANCE FORMS 

Reference/Standard Pavement Section Performance 

• Two lanes, 10-in thick PCC, 12 ft wide lanes tied with #5 deformed tie bars spaced 30 in o.c. 

• Transverse joints at 15-ft spacing with no skew and 1.25 in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel bars at 

12 in o.c. 

• Joints have a 1/8 in control sawcut at 1/3 the depth of the concrete slab, a 3/8 in widening sawcut at 1.75 in 

depth, and backer rod is used before placing a hot-poured asphalt sealant with a 1:1 aspect ratio. 

• 6-in dense-graded crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Prepared subgrade scarified to a depth of 6 in and recompacted at optimum moisture content. 

• Concrete mix design calls for type I cement with a target strength of 650 psi flexural and 4,500 psi compressive 

(28-day, ASTM C78, third-point loading). 

• No drainage layer, no underdrains. 

• 6-in asphalt shoulders over 10-in dense-graded aggregate base, 10 ft wide on the truck lane and 4 ft wide on the 

passing lane. 

• Initial smoothness requirements are 7 to 9 inches per mile with no incentive or penalty with a 0.20-in blanking 

band. Grinding is required on all areas outside of tolerance at no additional cost. 

Climate zone: 

SUBGRADE 

Lime Treated Subgrade Relative Performance 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Add 12-in lime stabilized subgrade. 

BASE/SUBBASE 

Directly on Subgrade Relative Performance 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Pavement constructed directly on prepared subgrade. 

Cement Stabilized Relative Performance 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Add 6-in cement stabilized base. 

Asphalt Stabilized Relative Performance 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Add 6-in asphalt stabilized base. 

4’ 12’ 12’ 10’

Prepared Subgrade
135 

DRAINAGE 

Open-Graded Aggregate (nonstabilized) 

Base plus underdrain system Relative Performance 

• 6-in open-graded, nonstabilized granular drainage layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Open-graded trench edge drains wrapped with geotextile with 6-in flexible pipe and rigid pipe outflows at 500 

ft spacing. 

Cement-Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) 

plus underdrain system Relative Performance 

• 6-in CTPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Open-graded trench edge drains wrapped with geotextile with 6-in flexible pipe and rigid pipe outflows at 500 

ft spacing. 

Asphalt-Treated Permeable Base (ATPB) 

plus underdrain system Relative Performance 

• 6-in ATPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Open-graded trench edge drains wrapped with geotextile with 6-in flexible pipe and rigid pipe outflows at 500 

ft spacing. 

CTPB with daylight drainage into ditch 

(no underdrain system) Relative Performance 

• 6-in CTPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

ATPB with daylight drainage into ditch 

(no underdrain system) Relative Performance 

• 6-in ATPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

THICKNESS/SLAB SIZE 

12-inch PCC Relative Performance 

• 12-in PCC pavement with 18-ft transverse joint spacing. 

• Transverse jointing details remain the same. 

• Longitudinal jointing remains the same. 

8-inch PCC Relative Performance 

• 8-in PCC pavement with 12-ft transverse joint spacing. 

• Transverse jointing details remain the same. 

• Longitudinal jointing remains the same. 
136 

SHOULDERS 

16-inch Gravel Relative Performance 

• Gravel shoulder on truck lane and passing lane. 

Tied PCC Partial-Depth Relative Performance 

• 6-in tied PCC, partial-depth, with 10-in dense-graded aggregate base. 

• Tied shoulder on truck lane, standard shoulder on passing lane. 

• 10 ft wide on the truck lane, 4 ft wide on the passing lane. 

Tied PCC Full-Depth Relative Performance 

• 10-in tied PCC, full-depth, with 6-in dense-graded aggregate base. 

• Tied shoulder on truck lane, standard shoulder on passing lane. 

• 10 ft wide on the truck lane, 4 ft wide on the passing lane. 

Widened truck lane (24 inches) plus standard 

asphalt shoulder Relative Performance 

• The truck lane is paved 24 in wider, but striped at the conventional width. 

PAVEMENT CROSS SECTION 

Trapezoidal Cross Section Relative Performance 

• Trapezoidal cross section 8 in thick at the outside edge of the passing lane and 11 in thick on the outside of the 

truck lane. 

Thickened Edge Relative Performance 

• Thickened edge from 8 in at the centerline of the 2 lanes to 11 in at the outside edge of the passing lane and 

truck lane. 

JOINTS/LOAD TRANSFER 

10-inch PCC, Epoxy-Coated Dowel Bars, 

Skewed Joints Relative Performance 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft skewed transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel bars at 12 

in on-center. Joints are skewed counter-clockwise at 2 ft per 12-ft lane. 

10-inch PCC, No Dowel Bars Relative Performance 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing, with aggregate interlock and no dowel bars. 

10-inch PCC, Dowel Bars, No Epoxy Relative Performance 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long dowel bars at 12 in oncenter. No epoxy coating on the dowel bars. 

10-inch PCC, Epoxy-Coated Dowel Bars 

(reduced number of dowel bars) Relative Performance 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel 

bars with 3 bars centered in each wheel path at 12 in on-center. 
137 

12-inch PCC, Epoxy-Coated 

Dowel Bars Relative Performance 

• 12-in PCC, 20-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.50-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel 

bars at 12 in on-center. 

9.5-inch Continuously Reinforced Concrete (CRC), 

Epoxy-Coated Relative Performance 

• 9.5-in CRC with #6 deformed bars 8 in on-center longitudinally and 36 in on-center transversely. All steel is 

epoxy coated. 

9.5-inch CRC, No Epoxy Relative Performance 

• 9.5-in CRC with #6 deformed bars 8 in on-center longitudinally and 36 in on-center transversely. The 

deformed bars have no epoxy coating. 

10-inch Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP), 

Epoxy-Coated Dowel Bars Relative Performance 

• 10-in JRCP with W12x W5.5—6x12 welded wire fabric mesh placed on chairs at mid-height. 30-ft 

perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel bars at 12 in oncenter. 

JOINT SEALING 

Silicone Sealant Relative Performance 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with silicone sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3. 

• 3/8-in widening cut, 1.75 in deep to form joint sealant reservoir. 

• Backer rod is used before placing silicone sealant with a 2:1 aspect ratio (w:d). 

Preformed Compression Sealant Relative Performance 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with preformed compression sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3. 

• 3/8-in widening cut to form joint sealant reservoir. 

No Sealant Relative Performance 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with no sealant material. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3 with no widening. 

Hot-Pour (no joint widening cut) Relative Performance 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with hot-pour asphaltic sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3 with no widening. 

• No backer rod is used before filling joint with hot-pour joint sealant. 

Silicone Sealant (no joint widening cut) Relative Performance 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with silicone sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3 with no widening. 

• No backer rod is used before filling joint with silicone sealant. 
138 

CONCRETE STRENGTH/MATERIALS 

750 psi Flexural Strength Relative Performance 

• Additional strength is obtained by using additional Type 1 cement. 

High-Early Strength Relative Performance 

• Opening to traffic within 48 hours (a.k.a. Fast-Track). 

• 550 psi flexural strength at 48 hours, 650 psi flexural acceptance strength. (High-early strength is obtained by 

using Type III cement). 

Well-Graded Mix Relative Performance 

• Changing the mix from a gap-graded mix to a well-graded mix. (If the local concrete mix design uses wellgraded aggregate, please note that on the survey.) 

INITIAL SMOOTHNESS/RIDE 

The following table lists several initial smoothness/ride quality ranges and base layer types. For 

each initial smoothness/ride quality range, please calculate the expected performance increase (or 

decrease) for the change in base layers. The standard section has been given a performance of 

“1.0.” 

Smoothness 

Criteria, 

inches/mi. 

(0.20 in. 

blanking 

band) 

Aggregate 

Base 

Econocrete/

Cement 

Stabilized 

Base 

AC 

Stabilized 

Base 

Open 

Graded 

Stabilized 

Drainage 

Layer 

7 to 9 1.0 

5 to 7 

3 to 5 

1 to 3 

< 1 

Standard Type of Profilograph: 
139 

IMPACT RANKING 

General 

To complete the analysis portion of this project, please “force rank” the concrete pavement 

design features in the table below based on their overall importance to pavement performance. 

Since pavement performance is based on several factors, a ranking is required for each one. 

Please rank the pavement design features below from 1 to 10 for each pavement performance 

measure, with 1 indicating the feature that has the greatest impact and 10 the least. For example, 

for Cracking, if you believe Subgrade has the greatest impact, you would enter 1 for that feature 

under Cracking. You would enter 2 for the feature that you believe has the next greatest impact, 

and so on. There can be no ties, so please do not use the same number twice. 

Pavement Performance Measures 

Pavement Design Feature Cracking Spalling Faulting Smoothness∗

Subgrade 

Base/Subbase 

Drainage 

Thickness/Slab Size 

Shoulders 

Pavement Cross Section 

Joints/Load Transfer 

Joint Sealing 

Concrete Strength/Materials 

Initial Smoothness/Ride 

 

∗

 Although smoothness is not a specific performance measurement used in most performance 

models, smoothness is considered a general indicator of the overall pavement performance. In 

addition, smoothness is representative of the traveling public's perception of the quality of 

highways. As such, please rank smoothness along with the more specific performance measures. 
140 

What basis did you use for filling out this form: 

Engineering experience/judgment only 

Performance modeling 

Some performance modeling along with judgment 

Please provide a short description of your State’s standard concrete pavement maintenance 

activities: 
141 

RELATIVE COST FORMS 

Purpose 

The purpose of this project is to document the construction costs of different design features for 

portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements. This information will be combined with 

performance information obtained from State Highway Agencies to illustrate the relationship 

between the costs of various concrete pavement design features. 

This research is being performed for the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF) with 

the support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

Overview 

The underlying concept in this project is that various pavement design features or options are 

selected by designers to provide a performance benefit. Such a benefit (for example, reduced 

edge stress, better joint load transfer, or a smoother ride) might be measured in terms of an 

extension in pavement service life or additional traffic capacity. A standard pavement cross 

section has been identified, and you are being asked to provide information on the cost of various 

design features. 

Since construction costs vary from State to State, we are asking for your estimate of the relative 

change in cost. This should be expressed as a percent increase (or decrease) from the expected 

construction cost of the standard pavement section. 

Information gathered during this process will only be reported in summary form, so individual 

respondents cannot be identified. Individual responses will be kept confidential. 

Instructions 

Please review the entire form. It is estimated that this process will take 4 to 6 hours to complete. 

Please let us know how long the process took. This information will be used to improve any 

possible future projects. 

At the beginning of the form, a standard concrete pavement section is described. Changes to 

each section are also described. After reviewing the standard section and the changes, please 

calculate the relative change in construction cost that is appropriate for your company and these 

concrete pavement design features. The standard section is given a cost of “1.0.” So, if you feel 

that the feature under evaluation increases the construction cost of the pavement by 8 percent, it 

would receive a relative cost rating of 1.08. 
142 

Construction Section 

For the purposes of this project, assume the following conditions: 

• Rural mainline divided highway construction or reconstruction. 

• Project located within 50 miles of mobilization center. 

• 5 miles in length. 

• 4 lanes of traffic (2 lanes in each direction). 

• The project will be constructed at grade with no earthwork and all paving is on longitudinal 

slopes less than 5%. 

• Construction is performed during normal daytime business hours. 

• Standard slipform paving equipment used for construction. 

• Portable concrete batch plant will be utilized. 

• The concrete for this project is a typical local mix. 

• Local environmental regulations will govern the project. 

• Local specifications for construction apply for highway work. 

• Local load restrictions will be used. 
143 

RELATIVE COST FORM 

Reference/Standard Pavement Section Relative Cost 1.00 

• Two lanes, 10-in thick PCC, 12 ft wide lanes tied with #5 deformed tie bars spaced 30 in o.c. 

• Transverse joints at 15-ft spacing with no skew and 1.25 in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel bars at 

12 in o.c. 

• Joints have a 1/8 in control sawcut at 1/3 the depth of the concrete slab, a 3/8 in widening sawcut by 1.75 in 

depth, and backer rod is used before placing a hot-poured asphalt sealant with a 1:1 aspect ratio. 

• 6-in dense-graded crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Prepared subgrade scarified to a depth of 6 in and recompacted at optimum moisture content. 

• Concrete mix design calls for type I cement with a target strength of 650 psi flexural and 4,500 psi compressive 

(28-day, ASTM C78, third-point loading). 

• No drainage layer, no underdrains. 

• 6-in asphalt shoulders over 10-in dense-graded aggregate base, 10 ft wide on the truck lane and 4 ft wide on the 

passing lane. 

• Initial smoothness requirements are 7 to 9 inches per mile with no incentive or penalty with a 0.20-in blanking 

band. Grinding is required on all areas outside of tolerance at no additional cost. 

SUBGRADE 

Lime Treated Subgrade Relative Cost 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Add 12-in lime stabilized subgrade. 

BASE/SUBBASE 

Directly on Subgrade Relative Cost 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Pavement constructed directly on prepared subgrade. 

Cement Stabilized Relative Cost 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Add 6-in cement stabilized base. 

Asphalt Stabilized Relative Cost 

• Eliminate 6-in dense-graded aggregate base course. 

• Add 6-in asphalt stabilized base. 

4’ 12’ 12’ 10’

Prepared Subgrade
144 

DRAINAGE 

Open-Graded Aggregate (nonstabilized) 

Base plus underdrain system Relative Cost 

• 6-in open-graded, nonstabilized granular drainage layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Open-graded trench edge drains wrapped with geotextile with 6-in flexible pipe and rigid pipe outflows at 500 

ft spacing. 

Cement-Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) 

plus underdrain system Relative Cost 

• 4-in CTPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Open-graded trench edge drains wrapped with geotextile with 6-in flexible pipe and rigid pipe outflows at 500 

ft spacing. 

Asphalt-Treated Permeable Base (ATPB) 

plus underdrain system Relative Cost 

• 6-in ATPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

• Open-graded trench edge drains wrapped with geotextile with 6-in flexible pipe and rigid pipe outflows at 500 

ft spacing. 

CTPB with daylight drainage into ditch 

(no underdrain system) Relative Cost 

• 6-in CTPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

ATPB with daylight drainage into ditch 

(no underdrain system) Relative Cost 

• 6-in ATPB layer. 

• 6-in dense-graded, crushed aggregate base layer. 

THICKNESS/SLAB SIZE 

12-inch PCC Relative Cost 

• 12-in PCC pavement with 18-ft transverse joint spacing. 

• Transverse jointing details remain the same. 

• Longitudinal jointing remains the same. 

8-inch PCC Relative Cost 

• 8-in PCC pavement with 12-ft transverse joint spacing. 

• Transverse jointing details remain the same. 

• Longitudinal jointing remains the same. 
145 

SHOULDERS 

16-inch Gravel Relative Cost 

• Gravel shoulder on truck lane and passing lane. 

Tied PCC Partial-Depth Relative Cost 

• 6-in tied PCC, partial-depth, with 10-in dense-graded aggregate base. 

• Tied shoulder on truck lane, standard shoulder on passing lane. 

• 10 ft wide on the truck lane, 4 ft wide on the passing lane. 

Tied PCC Full-Depth Relative Cost 

• 10-in tied PCC, full-depth, with 6-in dense-graded aggregate base. 

• Tied shoulder on truck lane, standard shoulder on passing lane. 

• 10 ft wide on the truck lane, 4 ft wide on the passing lane. 

Widened truck lane (24 inches) plus standard 

asphalt shoulder Relative Cost 

• The truck lane is paved 24 in wider, but striped at the conventional width. 

PAVEMENT CROSS SECTION 

Trapezoidal Cross Section Relative Cost 

• Trapezoidal cross section 8 in thick at the outside edge of the passing lane and 11 in thick on the outside of the 

truck lane. 

Thickened Edge Relative Cost 

• Thickened edge from 8 in at the centerline of the 2 lanes to 11 in at the outside edge of the passing lane and 

truck lane. 

JOINTS/LOAD TRANSFER 

10-inch PCC, Epoxy-Coated Dowel Bars, 

Skewed Joints Relative Cost 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft skewed transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel bars at 12 

in on-center. Joints are skewed counter-clockwise at 2 ft per 12-ft lane. 

10-inch PCC, No Dowel Bars Relative Cost 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing with aggregate interlock and no dowel bars. 

10-inch PCC, Dowel Bars, No Epoxy Relative Cost 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long dowel bars at 12 in oncenter. No epoxy coating on dowel bars. 

10-inch PCC, Epoxy-Coated Dowel Bars 

(reduced number of dowel bars) Relative Cost 

• 10-in PCC, 15-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel 

bars with 3 bars centered in each wheel path at 12 in on-center. 
146 

12-inch PCC, Epoxy-Coated Dowel Bars Relative Cost 

• 12-in PCC, 20-ft perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.5-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel bars 

at 12 in on-center. 

9.5-inch Continuously Reinforced Concrete (CRC), 

Epoxy-Coated Relative Cost 

• 9.5-in CRC with #6 deformed bars 8 in on-center longitudinally and 36 in on-center transversely. All steel is 

epoxy coated. 

9.5-inch CRC, No Epoxy Relative Cost 

• 9.5-in CRC with #6 deformed bars 8 in on-center longitudinally and 36 in on-center transversely. The 

deformed bars have no epoxy coating. 

10-inch Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP), 

Epoxy-Coated Dowel Bars Relative Cost 

• 10-in JRCP with W12x W5.5—6x12 welded wire fabric mesh placed on chairs at mid-height. 30-ft 

perpendicular transverse joint spacing, 1.25-in diameter by 18 in long epoxy-coated dowel bars at 12 in oncenter. 

JOINT SEALING 

Silicone Sealant Relative Cost 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with silicone sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3. 

• 3/8-in widening cut to form joint sealant reservoir. 

• Backer rod is used before placing silicone sealant with a 2:1 aspect ratio (w:d). 

Preformed Compression Sealant Relative Cost 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with preformed compression sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3. 

• 3/8-in widening cut to form joint sealant reservoir. 

No Sealant Relative Cost 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with no sealant material. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3 with no widening. 

Hot-Pour (no joint widening cut) Relative Cost 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with hot-pour asphaltic sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3 with no widening. 

• No backer rod is used before filling joint with hot-pour joint sealant. 

Silicone Sealant (no joint widening cut) Relative Cost 

• 15-ft transverse joint spacing with silicone sealant. 

• 1/8-in initial control sawcut at h/3 with no widening. 

• No backer rod is used before filling joint with silicone sealant. 
147 

CONCRETE STRENGTH/MATERIALS 

750 psi Flexural Strength Relative Cost 

• Additional strength is obtained by using additional Type 1 cement. 

High-Early Strength Relative Cost 

• Opening to traffic within 48 hours (a.k.a. Fast-Track). 

• 550 psi flexural strength at 48 hours, 650 psi flexural acceptance strength. (High-early strength is achieved by 

using Type III cement.) 

Well-Graded Mix Relative Cost 

• Changing the mix from a gap-graded mix to a well-graded mix. (If the local concrete mix design uses wellgraded aggregate, please note that on the survey.) 

INITIAL SMOOTHNESS/RIDE 

The following table lists several initial smoothness/ride quality ranges and base layer types. For 

each initial smoothness/ride quality range, please calculate the expected cost increase (or 

decrease) for the change in base layers. The standard section has been given a performance of 

“1.0.” 

Smoothness 

Criteria, 

inches/mi. 

(0.20 in. 

blanking 

band) 

Aggregate 

Base 

Econocrete/

Cement 

Stabilized 

Base 

AC 

Stabilized 

Base 

Open 

Graded 

Stabilized 

Drainage 

Layer 

7 to 9 1.0 

5 to 7 

3 to 5 

1 to 3 

< 1 

149

APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION RESPONSES 

As described in chapter 2, two surveys were produced and distributed under this project, one 

targeted to SHAs (to solicit relative performance data) and one for PCC paving contractors (to 

solicit relative cost data). Although these were separate surveys, the pavement design variables 

presented in each questionnaire are identical; results from each data collection effort thus can be 

paired directly for analysis. 

Both surveys were structured so that only one design feature (from the standard design) was 

changed at a time, and the survey participants were then asked to assess what effect that change 

might have in terms of the costs (contractor questionnaire) or relative performance (agency 

questionnaire). In this way, the relative effects of the change in that one design feature could be 

determined. As described in chapter 2, all cost and performance changes were collected in terms 

of ratios that were relative to the expected cost and performance of the standard design section 

(i.e., cost and performance ratios associated with the design features defining the standard 

pavement section were 1.00). For example, if a contractor participant estimated that a particular 

design feature change was expected to cost 5 percent more than the original expected cost of the 

standard pavement section, then the participant defined the associated cost ratio as 1.05. 

Likewise, if an agency participant estimated that a particular design feature change would result 

in 3 percent decrease in performance (in comparison to the expected performance of the standard 

pavement section) then the participant defined the associated performance ratio as 0.97 (i.e., 1.00 

– 0.03 = 0.97). Survey respondents were asked to not enter a rating if they had no experience 

with a particular design feature. 

Table 18 presents the raw data collected from the agency (performance) surveys, and also 

provides a statistical summary (mean, standard deviation, median, and range) of the overall 

results. Table 19 presents similar information for the contractor (cost) surveys. A blank cell in 

either of these tables indicates a “no response” from the participant. 
150 

Table 18. Raw data and summary of agency (performance) surveys. 

Feature

Category Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 Subgrade Lime treated subgrade 0.95 1.00 0.50 0.90 1.05 

No base 0.90 0.85 0.70 0.80 0.90 Asphalt-treated base (ATB) 1.02 0.80 1.05 Cement-treated base (CTB) 1.03 0.75 0.80 1.00 Open-graded, non-stabilized base (with underdrains) 1.08 1.30 1.20 1.50 1.15 1.25 Asphalt-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 1.09 1.40 1.75 1.15 1.40 Asphalt-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.05 1.30 1.20 1.10 Cement-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 1.10 1.35 1.60 1.15 1.35 Cement-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.06 1.30 1.20 1.10 200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) joint spacing 0.85 0.28 0.25 0.95 0.75 300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) joint spacing 1.15 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.50 250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing 0.98 0.80 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with epoxy-coated deformed bars 1.05 1.00 

240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with non-coated deformed bars 1.03 0.80 

Trapezoidal cross section, 275 to 200 mm (11 to 8 in) 0.95 1.05Thickened edge cross section, 275 mm (11 in) at edges 0.95 1.05Non-coated dowels 0.96 1.05 0.96 0.95 Skewed joints 1.00 0.80 0.95 No dowels 0.87 0.60 0.75 0.80 Reduced number of dowels 0.90 0.98 0.90 Hot-poured sealant without widening cut 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.95 Silicone sealant with widening cut 0.97 1.30 1.10 1.05 Silicone sealant without widening cut 0.99 0.90 1.05 0.95 Preformed compression sealant 1.03 1.00 1.15 1.25 No sealant 0.90 0.70 0.95 0.90 400-mm (16-in) gravel shoulder 0.90 0.95 150-mm (6-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.08 1.20 1.05 250-mm (10-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.10 1.15 1.30 1.10 1.10 0.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab 1.10 1.35 1.10 1.10 5.2-Mpa (750 lb/yd2) flexural strength 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.05 

High-early strength 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1.05 Well-graded mix 1.00 1.20 n/a 1.05 1.05 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 1.10 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.02 1.20 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.03 1.30 < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.03 

Thickness/

Slab Size

Shoulders

Strength/Materials

Initial 

Smoothness

Cross

Section

Joints/Load

Transfer

Joint

Sealing

Performance Survey Responses

Base

Drainage
151 

Table 18. Raw data and summary of agency (performance) surveys (continued). 

Feature Standard

Category Description 9 10 11 12 Mean Deviation MediaSubgrade Lime treated subgrade 0.50 0.86 0.25 0

No base 0.30 0.76 0.21 0Asphalt-treated base (ATB) 1.20 1.30 1.11 0.17 1Cement-treated base (CTB) 0.75 0.40 0.88 0.26 0Open-graded, non-stabilized base (with underdrains) 1.35 1.20 1.32 0.24 1Asphalt-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 1.80 1.20 1.52 0.43 1Asphalt-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.20 1.27 0.26 1Cement-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 0.50 1.28 0.56 1Cement-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.28 0.28 1200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) joint spacing 0.25 0.80 0.57 0.30 0300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) joint spacing 3.30 1.00 2.05 1.06 1250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing 1.00 0.91 0.12 0240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with epoxy-coated deformed bars 1.05 0.05 1

240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with non-coated deformed bars 2.03 0.70 1.12 0.53 1

Trapezoidal cross section, 275 to 200 mm (11 to 8 in) 1.00 0.07 1Thickened edge cross section, 275 mm (11 in) at edges 1.00 0.07 1Non-coated dowels 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.97 0.07 0Skewed joints 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.07 1No dowels 0.43 0.40 0.55 0.50 0.59 0.18 0Reduced number of dowels 0.80 0.85 0.10 0Hot-poured sealant without widening cut 1.20 1.00 0.99 0.12 1Silicone sealant with widening cut 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.06 0.11 1Silicone sealant without widening cut 1.00 0.98 0.05 1Preformed compression sealant 1.00 1.05 0.12 1No sealant 1.00 0.86 0.15 0400-mm (16-in) gravel shoulder 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.04 1150-mm (6-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.20 1.14 0.09 1250-mm (10-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.57 1.40 1.75 1.20 1.30 0.24 10.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab 1.57 1.30 1.75 1.40 1.34 0.24 15.2-Mpa (750 lb/yd2) flexural strength 1.63 1.00 1.17 0.32 1

High-early strength 1.00 0.90 0.97 0.06 1Well-graded mix 1.26 0.42 179 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.03 0.04 147 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.05 1.20 1.00 1.08 0.09 116 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.10 1.25 1.00 1.12 0.13 1< 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.15 1.25 1.00 1.10 0.10 1

Thickness/

Slab Size

Shoulders

Strength/Materials

Initial 

Smoothness

Cross

Section

Joints/Load

Transfer

Joint

Sealing

Performance Survey Responses

Base

Drainage
152 

Table 19. Raw data and summary of contractor (cost) surveys. 

Feature

Category Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Subgrade Lime treated subgrade 0.95 0.92 0.95 1.05 0.92 1.08 0.95 0.95 0.95 

No base 0.70 0.78 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.96 0.83 0.70 0.94 Asphalt-treated base (ATB) 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.10 1.10 1.17 1.28 1.10 1.07 Cement-treated base (CTB) 0.87 1.11 0.94 1.00 1.06 1.08 1.25 1.00 1.05 Open-graded, non-stabilized base (with underdrains) 1.31 1.19 1.18 1.10 1.14 1.19 1.34 1.22 1.16 Asphalt-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 1.38 1.20 1.27 1.20 1.23 1.47 1.44 1.28 1.22 Asphalt-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.32 1.21 1.20 1.15 1.24 1.38 1.34 1.20 1.15 Cement-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 1.29 1.23 1.21 1.20 1.15 1.28 1.39 1.30 1.19 Cement-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.33 1.27 1.13 1.15 1.22 1.27 1.44 1.07 1.18 200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) joint spacing 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.80 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.97 300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) joint spacing 1.06 1.08 1.06 1.20 1.10 1.11 1.09 1.08 1.04 250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing 1.10 1.11 1.03 1.25 1.01 1.03 1.02 1.17 1.02 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with epoxy-coated deformed bars 1.15 1.13 1.32 1.30 1.11 1.13 1.17 1.20 1.28 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with non-coated deformed bars 1.11 1.09 1.13 1.25 1.05 1.10 1.13 1.17 1.24 Trapezoidal cross section, 275 to 200 mm (11 to 8 in) 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.10 0.99 Thickened edge cross section, 275 mm (11 in) at edges 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.15 0.99 Non-coated dowels 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.99 Skewed joints 1.01 1.03 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.05 1.01 No dowels 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.91 Reduced number of dowels 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.96 Hot-poured sealant without widening cut 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.10 1.00 Silicone sealant with widening cut 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.05 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 Silicone sealant without widening cut 1.03 1.00 n/a 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.00 Preformed compression sealant 1.02 1.05 1.01 1.15 1.01 1.07 1.02 1.05 1.01 No sealant 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.90 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.90 1.00 400-mm (16-in) gravel shoulder 0.84 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.87 150-mm (6-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.04 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.03 1.07 1.04 1.30 1.14 250-mm (10-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.13 1.14 1.10 1.20 1.06 1.15 1.06 1.35 1.22 0.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab 1.04 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.10 1.10 5.2-Mpa (750 lb/yd2) flexural strength 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.10 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.10 1.02 

High-early strength 1.05 1.09 1.07 1.40 1.05 1.10 1.23 1.03 Well-graded mix 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.05 1.03 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 Aggregate Base 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 n/a 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.01 n/a 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.02 n/a 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.04 < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.04 n/a 1.10 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.07Asphalt-treated base (ATB) 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 n/a 1.07 1.00 1.00 n/a 1.00 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.01 n/a 1.07 1.01 1.00 n/a 1.00 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.02 n/a 1.07 1.02 1.00 n/a 1.04 < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.03 n/a 1.07 1.03 1.01 n/a 1.07Cement-treated base (CTB) 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 n/a 1.07 1.00 1.00 n/a 1.00 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.01 n/a 1.07 1.01 1.00 n/a 1.00 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.02 n/a 1.07 1.02 1.00 n/a 1.04 < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.03 n/a 1.07 1.03 1.01 n/a 1.07Open-graded stabilized drainage layers 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 n/a 1.12 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.01 n/a 1.12 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.02 n/a 1.12 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.04 < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.03 n/a 1.12 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.07

Initial 

Smoothness

Cost Survey Responses

Strength/Materials

Cross

Section

Joints/Load

Transfer

Joint

Sealing

Base

Drainage

Shoulders

Thickness/

Slab Size
153 

Table 19. Raw data and summary of contractor (cost) surveys (continued). 

Feature Standard

Category Description 12 13 14 15 16 Mean Deviation Median HSubgrade Lime treated subgrade 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.06 0.95 

No base 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.90 0.84 0.85 0.08 0.88 Asphalt-treated base (ATB) 1.17 1.25 1.18 1.14 1.09 1.16 0.08 1.16 Cement-treated base (CTB) 1.00 1.04 0.97 1.11 1.11 1.06 0.10 1.06 Open-graded, non-stabilized base (with underdrains) 1.30 1.15 1.10 1.24 1.28 1.22 0.08 1.21 Asphalt-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 1.40 1.24 1.26 1.43 1.34 1.33 0.11 1.31 Asphalt-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.40 1.21 1.19 1.48 1.26 1.28 0.11 1.25 Cement-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 1.40 1.13 1.17 1.34 1.30 1.28 0.10 1.29 Cement-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 1.42 1.14 1.15 1.22 1.28 1.27 0.14 1.24 200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) joint spacing 0.95 0.93 0.09 0.96 0.94 0.87 0.21 0.93 300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) joint spacing 1.10 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.07 1.09 0.04 1.08 250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing 1.10 1.06 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.08 0.07 1.06 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with epoxy-coated deformed bars 1.25 1.16 1.24 1.02 1.11 1.20 0.09 1.19 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP with non-coated deformed bars 1.20 1.11 1.20 1.00 1.07 1.15 0.08 1.13 Trapezoidal cross section, 275 to 200 mm (11 to 8 in) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.99 0.03 0.99 Thickened edge cross section, 275 mm (11 in) at edges 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 0.04 1.00 Non-coated dowels 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.01 0.99 Skewed joints 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.01 0.03 1.01 No dowels 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.94 0.02 0.94 Reduced number of dowels 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.01 0.97 Hot-poured sealant without widening cut 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.79 0.99 0.99 0.06 1.00 Silicone sealant with widening cut 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.32 1.01 1.03 0.08 1.01 Silicone sealant without widening cut 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.02 0.05 1.00 Preformed compression sealant 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.58 1.02 1.07 0.14 1.02 No sealant 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.57 0.98 0.95 0.11 0.99 400-mm (16-in) gravel shoulder 0.90 0.85 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.04 0.90 150-mm (6-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.30 1.06 1.07 1.19 1.11 1.13 0.11 1.08 250-mm (10-in) tied PCC shoulder 1.24 1.08 1.12 1.24 1.16 1.17 0.08 1.15 0.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab 1.20 1.03 1.05 1.03 1.06 1.07 0.06 1.05 5.2-Mpa (750 lb/yd2) flexural strength 1.10 1.04 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.05 0.03 1.03 

High-early strength 1.25 1.07 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.12 0.11 1.07 Well-graded mix n/a 1.01 n/a 1.00 1.01 1.01 0.01 1.01 Aggregate Base 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00  47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00  16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.01 1.05 1.00 1.02 1.02 0.02 1.02  < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.01 1.10 1.00 1.05 1.04 0.04 1.04 Asphalt-treated base (ATB) 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.04 0.08 1.00  47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.26 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.04 0.09 1.01  16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.26 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 0.08 1.03  < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.27 1.10 1.00 1.06 1.07 0.08 1.06 Cement-treated base (CTB) 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.03 1.00  47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.02 1.00  16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.04 1.05 1.00 1.02 1.03 0.02 1.02  < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.04 1.10 1.00 1.05 1.04 0.03 1.04 Open-graded stabilized drainage layers 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 0.06 1.01  47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 0.06 1.01  16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 1.16 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 0.05 1.03  < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 1.17 1.10 1.00 1.06 1.06 0.05 1.05 

Initial 

Smoothness

Cost Survey Responses

Strength/Materials

Cross

Section

Joints/Load

Transfer

Joint

Sealing

Base

Drainage

Shoulders

Thickness/

Slab Size

155 

APPENDIX D. SOFTWARE USER’S GUIDE 

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 

Pavement engineers have many design feature options when designing a PCC pavement. Feature 

choices such as the selection of base type, drainage type, load-transfer mechanism, slab 

thickness, and joint sealant type all influence both the cost and expected performance of the 

resulting pavement section. As pavement designers always strive to maximize performance 

while minimizing cost, an understanding of the cost and performance influence of each chosen 

feature is imperative during the design process. 

The estimation of the overall cost associated with the selection of different design features is 

straightforward, as all design feature costs are cumulative. The estimation of overall 

performance is, however, more complex, as there are many performance interdependencies 

among design feature choices. For example, a design engineer may estimate that by itself, using 

a cement-treated base instead of a dense aggregate base may improve overall performance by an 

estimated 5 percent. In another separate case, the design engineer may estimate that using a tied 

PCC shoulder instead of an asphalt shoulder would result in a 15 percent increase in 

performance. However, in actuality, if both design features were made at the same time, an 

interdependency between these two design features may result in an overall increase in 

performance of 18 percent (i.e., they are not necessarily cumulative). This software tool utilizes 

a simplified methodology that allows pavement engineers and contractors to estimate the 

performance associated with different design feature interdependencies. The results from this 

software therefore, can be used to estimate the relative cost effectiveness of different 

combinations of design features. 

The contents of this appendix are intended to: 

• Introduce the software and define its general capabilities, intended usage, and 

limitations. 

• Provide detailed descriptions of the required inputs. 

• Provide guidance on the selection of specific values for the various inputs. 

• Guide the user through the process of setting-up and conducting an analysis session. 

• Provide guidance on interpreting the output results. 

The remainder of this section includes an introduction to the general capabilities and intended 

uses of the software, followed by an introduction to the software’s user interface structure. 

Software Capabilities 

This software provides a tool for pavement designers and contractors who are interested in 

investigating the cost and performance trade-offs associated with the selection of different design 

features during the PCC pavement design process. With this tool, you may define different 

pavement sections (i.e., different unique combinations of design features) that can then be 

compared to determine the relative differences in cost and performance of each section. 

However, before using the software, it is important to understand that it is absolutely not 
156 

intended as a “design” tool. Instead, it provides a “reasonableness” check regarding the 

“justification” or “questioning” of the addition of different design features. 

Specifically, the following two types of analysis sessions may be conducted using the software: 

1) Direct Comparison—A Direct Comparison analysis session is used to compare two defined 

pavement sections in order to assess expected differences in cost and performance. A 

byproduct of this analysis type is the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio associated with each section. In 

a comparison of two pavement sections, the section with the largest B/C ratio is the most cost 

effective section to construct. Another way to interpret these B/C ratios is that the larger the 

B/C ratio, the more performance is achieved per dollar spent. 

2) Sensitivity Analysis—A Sensitivity Analysis session is provided as a method of defining more 

complex analysis sessions. Specifically, the following two general types of sensitivity 

analyses may be defined in the software: 

• Comparison of multiple pavement sections—The first general type of sensitivity 

analysis that may be defined is the comparison of one pavement section to a number 

of other defined pavement sections (i.e., a series of sections). This series of direct 

section comparisons is conducted while holding all other analysis inputs constant. 

• Sensitivity of a chosen pavement section to other process inputs—The second general 

type of sensitivity analysis allows you to investigate the sensitivity of one defined 

pavement section to changes in the other inputs of the process. Specifically, these 

sensitivity analyses are used to compute cost and performance changes associated 

with subjecting a chosen pavement section to a series of different cost data sets, 

performance data sets, category ranking sets, or a combination of both cost and 

performance sets (i.e., a two-dimensional analysis). 

Both of these general sensitivity analysis types are discussed in more detail later in this appendix. 

It is important to note that the outputs (i.e., estimated cost and performance) of this tool are only 

as good as the reliability of the numerous inputs collected in the user interface. For example, the 

importance of choosing a representative cost data set, performance data set, and category ranking 

set are critical to the validity of the results. Because the default data sets provided in the 

software were based on collected survey data from all over the United States, it is strongly 

suggested that the user define cost sets, performance sets, and category ranking factor sets that 

reflect local experiences and conditions. 

The user is also reminded that because this tool is built on simple mathematical concepts, the 

relative trends resulting from the analysis should be deemed more important than the actual 

values (i.e., the computed percent changes in cost and performance). Therefore, it is again 

emphasized that the output results from this tool are solely “estimates” of cost and performance 

associated with changing design features and, therefore, should be used with caution. 

Software Structure 

Before getting started using the software, it is important to understand the structure of the 

software’s user interface and the data organization within the software. 
157 

The user interface is organized as a series of tabs. Brief descriptions of each of the tabs are 

provided below: 

• Introduction—The contents of this tab are intended to provide the novice user with the 

information needed to effectively use the software. The interactive flow chart on the left 

of this tab is included as a method of introducing the analysis process and its associated 

user interface components. To learn more about a particular step of the approach, place 

the cursor over one of the boxes in the flow chart and read the associated text. 

• Section Definition— The Section Definition tab houses controls that allow for the 

definition of one or more pavement sections. A pavement section is defined as a unique 

combination of design features in the following 10 design categories: 

– Subgrade. 

– Base/Subbase. 

– Drainage. 

– Thickness/Slab Size. 

– Cross Section. 

– Joints/Load Transfer. 

– Joint Sealing. 

– Shoulders. 

– Strength/Materials. 

– Initial Smoothness. 

Defined pavement sections may be named and saved in the Pavement Section Master 

List. Those saved pavement sections will then be available to the user when defining an 

analysis session. 

Also included within the Section Definition tab are controls that are used to define the 

inputs required to conduct a simplistic life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) as part of a 

defined analysis session. When an analysis is conducted, these cost inputs combined 

with the expected changes in performance are used to compute simple expected life-cycle 

cost (LCC) streams associated with the different pavement sections being analyzed. The 

LCC approach is described as simplistic in that the cost stream values (annual 

maintenance, rehabilitation, and salvage value costs) can all be determined using 

simplified methods. However, because of its simplistic nature, the user of the software 

tool is warned that the results of the LCC analysis should be viewed with caution. While 

the cost trends may be realistic, the actual computed dollar values may or may not be 

accurate. If more accurate LCC analysis results are desired, it is recommended that a 

more rigorous LCC analysis be conducted using accepted methods. 

• Cost/Performance Data Sets—All analysis computations in the software require the user 

to define the cost and performance impacts associated with changing individual design 

features. This tab provides controls that a user can use to define expected percent cost 

and performance changes associated with specific design feature changes. Each entered 

percent change is in reference to a defined default Standard pavement section that is 

defined later. Entered cost and performance data values are stored within the software as 

part of cost or performance data sets, respectively. Defined data sets of both types may 

be named and saved in the respective data set master lists. Those data sets stored in the 

master lists will then be available to the user when defining an analysis session. 
158 

• Category Rankings—The controls included in this tab are used to define customized 

tables that rank each of the 10 design feature categories in terms of relative importance. 

For a given category ranking set, all 10 categories are ranked from 1 to 10 (i.e., integer 

values), with 10 representing the most significant variable of the set. Because the 

individual percent changes in performance are not cumulative, these design category 

rankings are used to determine the total expected change in performance associated with 

changing more than one design feature for a given pavement section. All category 

ranking sets saved in the Category Rankings Master List will be available for later use 

when building analysis sessions under the Analysis Setup tab. 

• Analysis Setup—The controls of the Analysis Setup tab are used to define and conduct 

direct comparison or sensitivity analysis sessions. After the user defines an analysis 

session, the analysis results can be summarized in a customizable output report that may 

be previewed in an on-screen preview window or printed. The detailed output report 

contains all details of the analysis session including a list of input values, tables of 

intermediate cost and performance computations, and a series of tables that summarize 

cost, performance, and LCC analysis results. 

More detailed descriptions of each of these tabs and their purpose, usage, and inputs are 

contained in the remaining sections of this appendix. 
159 

SECTION 2. GETTING STARTED 

System Requirements and Recommendations 

To effectively use this analysis software, you will need an IBM®-compatible industry-standard 

personal computer with the following minimum characteristics: 

• Intel Pentium Pro,® Pentium,® or 486 PC. 

• Microsoft® Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, or newer operating system. 

• Minimum of 16 Mb of RAM. 

• Pointing device. 

• CD-ROM drive. 

• Graphics adapter with at least 800 x 600 resolution. 

• An Internet browser. 

Software Installation 

This is an auto-run CD-ROM (i.e., it should automatically launch when placed in your CD-ROM 

drive). If your current system is not set with "auto insert notification" enabled, you will have to 

run the SETUP.EXE in the root drive of the CD-ROM. Starting this .exe will launch the install 

program and/or the contents CD-ROM. Follow the on-screen instructions to complete the 

installation process. Upon completion, to start the software, select the “PCC Design Feature 

Comparison Tool” shortcut in your “Programs” list (under “All Programs” in Windows XP) 

under the “Start” menu. 

What You See When You Start the Analysis Software 

As mentioned previously, this software uses a tabbed structure as the basis of its user interface 

(see figure 2). When you first open the program, a blank database is opened (i.e., no userdefined pavement sections, cost sets, performance sets, etc.) with the Introduction tab showing. 

The interactive flow chart on the left of this tab is included as a method of introducing the 

analysis process and its associated user interface components. To learn more about a particular 

step of the approach, place your cursor over one of the boxes in the flow chart. The remainder of 

this section introduces you to the menu and toolbar items that are visible as part of the software’s 

interface. Each of the other tabs making up the interface is described in other sections of this 

appendix. 

Menu Bar

The menu bar includes three items: File, Edit, and Help. To display the available commands 

under a specific menu heading, click on the heading of your choice. You may then click on any 

of the commands shown in the associated drop-down list. 

File Menu 

The File menu, shown in figure 3, contains eight standard windows commands, each of which is 

described briefly below. 

• New—Creates a new blank database. 
160 

Figure 2. Software main window with the Introduction tab displayed. 

• Open—Opens a previously saved database. Note: databases are saved with a .dfc (design 

feature comparison) file extension. When you select Open, by default, the software looks 

for all .dfc files in the “Data” directory under the created during installation. 

• Save—Saves the active database. If the active database has been named and saved 

previously, the database will be saved under the previously defined file name. If the 

database has not been named and saved previously, the program will prompt the user to 

enter a file name and storage location. 

• Save As—Allows the user to save the active database under a new name or in a new 

location. 

• Print—Activates the pop-up Print dialog box in preparation for printing information 

associated with the selected data module (i.e., cost data set, performance data set, or 

category ranking set) on the current tab. For example, selecting the Print menu option 

while the Section Definition tab is activated will prepare a printable report that 

summarizes information describing the pavement section currently selected in the 

Pavement Section Master List. 

• Print Preview—Shows an on-screen preview of the prepared printable report associated 

with the selected data module on the current tab. 
161 

Figure 3. Contents of the File menu. 

• Print Setup—Activates the standard Windows Print Setup pop-up dialog box that allows 

the user to alter printer settings. 

• Exit—Exits the analysis software program. 

In addition to the standard windows commands, a list of the last four viewed databases (if 

available) will also appear in this file menu. To open a recently viewed database, simply select 

the name from the list. 

Edit Menu 

The edit menu contains the following three commands: 

• Undo—Undoes the last software action completed by the user. Note: the software has an 

infinite undo, which means that all previous software actions can be undone in the 

reverse order that they were originally completed. 

• Redo—Restores any previously undone software actions in the reverse order that they 

were originally undone. 

• Global LCC Parameters—Opens a pop-up dialog box that allows the user to change any 

of the four global cost-related parameters (i.e., analysis period, discount rate, initial cost 
162 

of Standard pavement section, and whether or not to include a salvage value in the cost 

computations). These four cost-related inputs are defined as global as they remain 

constant for all section comparisons that are investigated (i.e., they are not sectionspecific). Each of these global LCC inputs is described in more detail in this User’s 

Guide in Section 3. Defining Pavement Sections. 

Help Menu 

The help menu contains the following three commands: 

• About PCC Design Feature Comparison Tool—Activates a pop-up dialog box that 

provides general information about the software. This information includes information 

such as the current software version, copyright information, pertinent contact 

information, and a general disclaimer. 

• Help on...—Activates the software’s Help File and displays help text that is associated 

with the user’s current location in the software’s interface. 

• Display Help Contents—Opens the software’s Help File and displays the Help’s 

Introduction page. 

Toolbar Buttons

The toolbar buttons provide quick access to many of the commands housed in the software 

menus. Brief descriptions of each of the visible toolbar buttons are provided below. To activate 

a toolbar button, simply click on it. 

New—Creates a new database. 

Open—Opens an existing database. 

Save—Saves the current database. 

Undo—Undoes the last software action completed by the user. 

Redo—Restores any previously undone software actions in the reverse order that they 

were originally undone. 

Print—Activates the pop-up Print dialog box in preparation for printing information 

associated with the selected data module on the current tab. 

Help—Opens the Help File and displays help text that is associated with the user’s 

current location in the software’s interface. 
163 

SECTION 3. DEFINING PAVEMENT SECTIONS 

As mentioned previously, the software provides the user with a tool for investigating the cost and 

performance implications of changing different design features in a PCC pavement. Specifically, 

the software allows the user to change design features organized into the following 10 categories: 

• Subgrade. 

• Base/Subbase. 

• Drainage. 

• Thickness/Slab Size. 

• Cross Section. 

• Joints/Load Transfer. 

• Joint Sealing. 

• Shoulders. 

• Strength/Materials. 

• Initial Smoothness. 

A summary of all available feature values associated with each of these design categories is 

summarized in table 20. 

A pavement section is defined as a unique combination of specific feature values chosen from 

these 10 different design feature categories. That is, defining a section requires that the user 

select one of the provided feature choices (see table 20) for each of the different design 

categories. The remainder of this section starts by introducing the concept of the Standard

pavement section. This is followed by a more detailed discussion of the individual controls on 

the Section Definition tab, and how they are used to define and save different pavement sections. 

The Default Standard Pavement Section 

The cost and performance impacts of changing design features are all measured relative to a 

Standard pavement section. Specifically, the Standard section is defined as that pavement 

section with the specific design features summarized in table 21. 

The Standard pavement section was used as the basis for the survey process as contractors and 

agencies were asked to estimate percent changes in cost and performance resulting from 

changing design features from the Standard pavement section. Specifically, survey respondents 

were asked to make subjective estimates of cost and performance changes resulting from 

changing one design feature at a time in the Standard pavement section. It is important to 

understand the detailed meaning of the Standard pavement section as it is referenced many times 

in the remaining chapters of this appendix. 

Defining Pavement Sections with the Section Definition Tab 

The Section Definition tab provides controls that are used to define different pavement sections. 

As illustrated in figure 4, the left side of the tab contains the Pavement Section Master List while 

the right portion of the tab contains two secondary tabs titled Variables and Life-Cycle Costs. 

Each of these areas of the Section Definition tab is discussed separately below. 
164 

Table 20. Available design features organized by design feature category. 

Design Category Design Feature Choices 

Subgrade • Untreated prepared subgrade (STD) 

• 300-mm (12-in) lime-treated subgrade 

Base/Subbase • 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base on prepared subgrade (STD) 

• No base (placed directly on prepared subgrade) 

• 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded asphalt-treated base (ATB) 

• 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded cement-treated base (CTB) 

Drainage • No drainage layers, no underdrains (STD) 

• 150-mm (6-in) open-graded, non-stabilized aggregate base (with underdrains) 

• 150-mm (6-in) asphalt-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 

• 150-mm (6-in) asphalt-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 

• 150-mm (6-in) cement-treated permeable base (with underdrains) 

• 150-mm (6-in) cement-treated permeable base (without underdrains) 

Thickness/Slab 

Size 

• 250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing (STD) 

• 200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) joint spacing 

• 300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) joint spacing (38-mm (1.5-in) epoxy-coated dowels) 

• 250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing (32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 

150- by 300-mm (6- by 12-in) mesh) 

• 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) epoxy-coated deformed bars, 200 mm (8 in) on center 

(longitudinal), 914 mm (36 in) on center (transverse)) 

• 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) non-coated deformed bars, 200 mm (8 in) on center 

(longitudinal), 914 mm (36 in) on center (transverse)) 

Cross Section • 250-mm (10-in) uniform thickness (STD) 

• Trapezoidal: 200-mm (8-in) to 275-mm (11-in) thickness (left lane edge to right lane edge) 

• Thickened edge: 200 mm (8 in) at centerline of 2 lanes, 275 mm (11 in) at outside edges 

Joints/Load 

Transfer 

• 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 

(STD) 

• 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) uncoated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 

• 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) skewed joints 

• 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, no dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 

• 250-mm (10-in) JPCP, reduced number of 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) 

perpendicular joints 

Joint Sealing • Hot-poured rubberized asphalt with widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing) (STD) 

• Hot-poured asphalt without widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing) 

• Silicone sealant with widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing) 

• Silicone sealant without widening cut (4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing) 

• Preformed compression sealant (4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing) 

• No sealant 

Shoulders • 150-mm (6-in) HMA over 250-mm (10-in) dense graded aggregate base (STD) 

• 400-mm (16-in) gravel 

• 150-mm (6-in) partial-depth tied PCC over 250-mm (10-in) dense-graded aggregate base 

• 250-mm (10-in) full-depth tied PCC over 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base 

• 0.6-m (2-ft) widened PCC slab and a 2.4-m (8-ft) HMA shoulder 

Strength/Materials • 4.5-MPa (650 lb/in2

) flexural strength (STD) 

• 5.2-MPa (750 lb/in2

) flexural strength 

• High early strength 

• Well-graded mix 

Smoothness/Ride • 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (STD) 

• 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 in/mi) 

• 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 in/mi) 

• 16 to 47 mm/km (1 to 3 in/mi) 

• < 16 mm/km (1 in/mi) 

Key: STD = Standard. 
165 

Table 21. Unique set of pavement design features defining the Standard pavement section. 

Design Category Design Features 

Subgrade Untreated prepared subgrade 

Base/Subbase 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base 

Drainage No drainage layers, no underdrains 

Thickness/Slab Size 250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing 

Cross Section 250-mm (10-in) uniform thickness 

Joints/Load Transfer 32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated dowels, 4.6-m (15-ft) perpendicular joints 

Joint Sealing Hot-poured rubberized asphalt with widening cut (4.6-m joint spacing) 

Shoulders 150-mm (6-in) HMA over 250-mm (10-in) dense graded aggregate base 

Strength/Materials 4.5-MPa (650 psi) flexural 

Initial Smoothness 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 in/mi) (measured with a 5-mm (0.2-in) blanking band) 

Note: Average daily traffic (ADT) is 20,000 vehicles per day in each direction with 15% trucks. This is approximately 

700,000 to 800,000 ESALs per year in the design lane. Assume no growth in annual ESALs during the life of the 

pavement. 

Figure 4. Section Definition tab with the Variables secondary tab displayed. 
166 

Pavement Section Master List Area

The Pavement Section Master List stores a complete list of the unique pavement sections defined 

within the current database. That is, the master list will always include the Standard Pavement 

Section and any user-defined pavement sections. You may sort this list alphabetically, by section 

creation date, or by section revision date by selecting the appropriate choice from the Sort List

list box. This area also contains three buttons (New, Delete, and Import) that allow you to 

manage the contents of the master list. Specifically, the buttons perform the following functions: 

 Creates and adds a new pavement section to the master list. Upon clicking this 

button, you will be prompted to enter a name for the new pavement section being 

created. Upon entering a unique section name, the new section name will be added 

to the master list. (Note that the new section will have the same design feature 

properties as the pavement section that was selected in the master list when the 

New button was clicked.) 

 Deletes the pavement section that is currently selected in the master list. Note that 

the Standard Pavement Section pavement section cannot be deleted from the list. 

 Imports a previously defined pavement section from another .dfc file. Upon 

clicking the Import button, use the controls of the pop-up Windows Explorer 

dialog box to locate the .dfc file from which you wish to import a pavement 

section. After selecting a .dfc file, click the Open button to bring up the Import

dialog box (see figure 5). Select from the list the sections you wish to import and 

click OK. Those selected sections will be added to the master list. 

Figure 5. Example of the Import pop-up dialog box. 
167 

Variables Secondary Tab

The controls of the Variables secondary tab (see figure 4) are used to select the specific design 

features associated with a given pavement section. To edit the feature details of a given section, 

you must first select the pavement section of interest from the Pavement Section Master List. To 

define the specifics of the selected section, choose a desired design feature from each of the list 

boxes associated with the 10 different design feature categories. You will notice that the last 

three items in each design category list box are user-definable custom names. Changes to these 

custom names may only be made when defining cost or performance data sets under the 

Cost/Performance Data Sets tab. 

It must be noted that some design feature categories are inherently dependent on the settings of 

other categories (i.e., they are linked). Specifically, dependencies exist between the design 

categories of 1) subgrade, base/subbase, and drainage, and 2) thickness/slab size, cross section, 

joints/load transfer, and joint sealant. Each of these dependency groups is indicated in the user 

interface by the brackets and the associated (link) symbol (note: clicking on the symbol in 

the user interface will open a pop-up dialog with a brief explanation of its meaning). The 

purpose of the link symbol is to alert the user that changing one of the design categories within a 

dependent set may automatically modify the settings of one or more of the other linked 

categories. 

An example of a dependency within the first group of design feature categories is observed if 

you choose 300-mm (12-in) lime treated subgrade as your subgrade. When this subgrade 

selection is made, the base/subbase value will automatically be set to (No base; placed directly 

on 300-mm (12-inch) stabilized subgrade) and the drainage value will automatically be set to (No 

drainage layers; 300-mm (12-inch) Lime Treated Subgrade). These dependencies reflect the 

limited design feature choices that were allowed in the survey. All of the specific design feature 

dependencies between subgrade, base/subbase, and drainage are summarized in table 22. 

An example of a dependency in the second set of linked fields is observed when the 

thickness/slab size is set to 250-mm (10-inch) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) joint spacing (32-mm 

(1.25-inch) epoxy-coated dowels, 150-mm (6-inch) by 300-mm (12-inch) mesh). When the JRCP 

pavement type is chosen, the joint/load transfer field is automatically set to (Defined under 

Thickness/Slab Size). In addition, the Joint Sealing field is set to the first custom joint-sealing 

value (e.g., Custom 1) as all of the default values in the joint sealing list are specific to a 4.6-m 

(15-ft) joint spacing. Table 23 summarizes all of the specific design feature dependencies 

between thickness/slab size, cross section, joints/load transfer, and joint sealant. 

The bottom of the Variables secondary tab provides more general section-related feedback to the 

user. Use the Comments box to enter any general information you wish to save as part of the 

section definition. Also, note that for your convenience, the section definition creation and 

revision dates are included to indicate when the section definition was first and last saved in the 

Pavement Section Master List. 
168 

Table 22. Summary of Subgrade, Base/Subbase, Drainage dependency. 

Design Feature 

Category Controlling Design Feature Selection Explanation of Resulting Dependencies 

IF 300-mm (12-in) lime treated 

subgrade THEN

• Base/Subbase = (No base; placed directly 

on 300-mm (12-in) stabilized subgrade) 

• Drainage = (No drainage layers; 300-mm 

Subgrade (12-in) lime treated subgrade) 

IF subgrade equals anything but 300-

mm (12-in) lime treated subgrade 

THEN

No restrictions on base/subbase or drainage 

IF 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded 

aggregate base (STD) THEN 

• Subgrade cannot be 300-mm (12-in) lime 

stabilized subgrade. 

• There are no limitations on the drainage 

selection. 

Base/Subbase 

IF base type equals anything but 150-

mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base 

(STD) THEN

• Subgrade cannot be 300-mm (12-in) lime 

stabilized subgrade. 

• Drainage is automatically set to the standard 

No drainage layers, no underdrains. 

IF No drainage layers, no underdrains 

(STD) THEN

No restrictions on subgrade or base/subbase. 

Drainage 

IF any drainage option (including 

custom drainage) is selected other than 

No drainage layers, no underdrains 

(STD) THEN 

• Subgrade can be Untreated prepared 

subgrade (STD) or any of the Custom

subgrade values. 

• Base/Subbase must be set to the standard 

section of 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded 

aggregate base (STD).

Key: STD = Standard. 
169 

Table 23. Summary of Thickness/Slab Size, Cross Section, Joints/Load Transfer, Joint Sealing 

dependency. 

Design Feature 

Category Controlling Design Feature Selection Explanation of Resulting Dependencies 

IF 250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) 

joint spacing (STD) THEN 

• Joints/load transfer is limited to those 250-mm 

(10-in) JPCP-related choices and the custom 

values. 

• No limitations on cross section or joint sealing. 

IF 200-mm (8-in) JPCP with 3.7-m (12-ft) 

joint spacing THEN

Cross section, joints/load transfer, and joint sealing 

are limited to the Custom values due to a lack of 

200-mm- (8-in-) related inputs. 

IF 300-mm (12-in) JPCP with 5.5-m (18-ft) 

joint spacing (38-mm (1.5-in) epoxy-coated 

dowels) THEN 

• Joints/load transfer becomes inactive and 

(Defined under ‘Thickness/Slab Size’) is 

displayed. 

• Cross section and joint sealing are limited to the 

Custom values due to a lack of 300-mm- (12-in-) 

related inputs. 

IF 250-mm (10-in) JRCP with 9.1-m (30-ft) 

joint spacing (32-mm (1.25-in) epoxy-coated 

dowels, 150-mm (6-in) by 300-mm (12-in) 

mesh) THEN 

• Joints/load transfer becomes inactive and 

(Defined under ‘Thickness/Slab Size’) is 

displayed. 

• Cross section and joint sealing are limited to the 

Custom values due to a lack of JRCP-related 

inputs. 

Thickness/Slab Size 

IF 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) 

epoxy-coated deformed bars, 200-mm (8-in) 

o.c. (longitudinal), 900-mm (36-in) o.c. 

(transverse)) 

OR 240-mm (9.5-in) CRCP (19-mm (0.75-in) 

noncoated deformed bars, 200-mm (8-in) o.c. 

(longitudinal), 900-mm (36-in) o.c. 

(transverse)) THEN 

• Joints/load transfer and joint sealing become 

inactive and display (Not applicable with 

CRCP). 

• Cross section is limited to the Custom values due 

to a lack of CRCP-related inputs. 

IF any of the non-custom pavement cross 

section choices are selected THEN 

• Thickness/slab size is set to the standard 250-mm 

(10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing 

(STD). 

• No limitations on joints/load transfer or joint 

sealing. 

Cross Section 

IF a Custom pavement cross section choice is 

selected THEN 

No limitations on thickness/slab size, joints/load 

transfer, or joint sealing. 

IF any of the non-custom joints/load transfer 

choices are selected THEN

• Thickness/slab size is limited to the standard 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint 

spacing (STD). 

• No limitations on cross section or joint sealing Joints/Load Transfer 

IF a Custom joints/load transfer choice is 

selected THEN 

No limitations on thickness/slab size, cross section, 

or joint sealing. 

IF any of the non-custom joint sealing options 

are selected THEN

• Thickness/slab size is limited to the standard 

250-mm (10-in) JPCP with 4.6-m (15-ft) joint 

spacing (STD). 

• No limitations on cross section. 

• Joints/load transfer is limited to one of the 250-

mm (10-in) JPCP choices or a Custom value. 

Joint Sealing 

IF any of the Custom joint sealing options are 

selected THEN 

No limitations on thickness/slab size, cross section, 

or joints/load transfer. 

Key: STD = Standard; o.c. = on center. 
170 

Life-Cycle Costs Secondary Tab

Because design feature changes alter the expected performance (estimated service life) of a given 

pavement section, the associated LCC stream is also affected. To compute a LCC stream for a 

given pavement section, you need to know expected pavement service life as well as detailed 

expected cost information (i.e., cost types and amounts). Whereas the selected category ranking 

set is used to determine expected overall performance for a pavement section, the cost details 

needed for the simplistic LCCA are defined under the Life-Cycle Costs secondary tab (shown in 

figure 6). 

Figure 6. Section Definition tab with the Life-Cycle Costs secondary tab displayed. 

The LCCA conducted within this software is described as simplistic in that the cost stream 

values (annual maintenance, rehabilitation, and salvage value costs) can all be determined using 

simplified methods. Because of its simplistic nature, the user of the software tool is warned that 

the results of the LCCA should be viewed with caution. While the cost trends may be realistic, 

the actual computed dollar values may or may not be accurate. If more accurate LCCA results 

are desired, it is recommended that a more rigorous LCCA be conducted using established 

methods. 
171 

Within the software’s user interface, cost-related parameters are referred to as either global or 

pavement section-specific. The details of each of these LCCA parameter types are described 

separately in the following sections. 

Global LCC Parameters 

Those cost-related inputs that do not change between defined analysis sessions are referred to as 

global LCC parameters. Within the user interface, access to these global inputs is obtained by 

either clicking on the button or by selecting Global LCC Parameters

from the Edit menu. Either action will cause the Global Life-Cycle Cost Parameters pop-up 

dialog box to appear (see figure 7). 

Figure 7. Global Life-Cycle Cost Parameters pop-up dialog box. 

The remainder of this section contains detailed descriptions of each of the global cost-related 

inputs included on the Global Life-Cycle Cost Parameters pop-up dialog box. 

• Analysis Period—The period of time over which future maintenance and rehabilitation 

costs are to be considered in the LCCA. Based on FHWA recommendations, the analysis 

period must be a minimum of 35 years. 

• Discount Rate—The discount rate, entered as a percentage, is the estimated difference 

between the interest and inflation rates over a long time period. It is used to translate 

actual LCCs into equivalent present-worth costs. Historically, the discount rate has been 

in the range of 3 to 5 percent. A default value of 4 percent is used in the software. 

• Initial Construction Cost for the Standard Pavement Section—This is a fence-line-tofence-line pavement-related cost expressed in dollars per lane-mile. Based on the 

specific design features defined for the Standard pavement section, a default value of 

$311,000 per lane-km ($500,000 per lane-mile) is used as the default value for this input. 

• Inclusion of Salvage Value—The user has the choice whether or not to include a salvage 

value in the LCCA. If it is included, a linear depreciation of the rehabilitation cost is 

used to determine the salvage value at the end of the analysis period. For example, if a 

rehabilitation with an expected life of 10 years and a cost of $50,000 is applied 3 years 

before the end of the analysis period, the salvage value would be computed as 

$50,000 * (10 – 3)/10 = $35,000. The salvage value is essentially a negative cost applied 

at the end of the analysis period.
172 

Although it is not a user-definable global input, it is important to mention that the design life for 

the Standard pavement section is hard coded in the software as 20 years. This value is important 

because other pavement section expected lives are computed by multiplying this 20-year design 

life by the expected performance ratio computed by using the analysis methodology. For 

example, if a custom section were found to have an overall modified expected performance of 

+7.0 percent, the expected design life of the custom section is computed as 1.07 * 20 years = 

21.4 years. 

Pavement Section-Specific LCC Parameters 

All annual maintenance and rehabilitation-related LCCA inputs are section-specific within the 

analysis approach. That is, all of these LCC inputs may be customized for each unique pavement 

section that is defined. The primary purpose of linking these cost inputs to a section is to 

accommodate the many cases where the inclusion of a design feature directly influences the 

future maintenance and rehabilitation costs associated with that section (e.g., including edge 

drains will result in the additional cost of cleaning the edge drains). 

The remainder of this section contains detailed descriptions of each of section-specific LCC 

parameter inputs included on the Life-Cycle Costs secondary tab. 

• Time Until First Rehabilitation—The time until first rehabilitation may either be defined 

in terms of percent of the expected design life or years after initial construction. Use the 

associated list box to select your input method of choice. The entered value is used to 

determine the time at which the first rehabilitation cost is to be applied within the LCCA. 

For example, if the design life is 20 years, and the time until first rehabilitation is entered 

as 80 percent, then the rehabilitation cost included in the LCC stream would be applied at 

a time of 20 years * 0.8 = 16 years. 

• Assumed Rehabilitation Life—The assumed life of the chosen rehabilitation activity is 

defined in terms of years. As subsequent rehabilitation activities are assumed to be 

applied until the end of the analysis period, this LCC input determines the regular interval 

at which subsequent rehabilitation activities will be applied. For example, assume the 

user defines a first year of rehabilitation as year 17, a rehabilitation life of 7 years, and an 

analysis period of 35 years. These inputs would result in rehabilitation costs being 

applied at years 17, 24, and 31. 

• Method of Entering Annual Maintenance and Rehabilitation Costs—To build LCC 

streams associated with pavement sections, the software needs to determine costs of 

annual maintenance and rehabilitation. These costs may be defined either in terms of 

percent of the initial construction cost or as specific cost values. The selected method 

defined in this list box is then used to set the units of the associated input fields for both 

the annual maintenance and rehabilitation costs. 

• Annual Maintenance Cost—This input field is used to determine the maintenance cost 

applied annually within the LCCA. For example, if the initial construction cost is 

$186,000 per lane-km ($300,000 per lane-mile), and the user chooses to compute the 

annual maintenance cost as 5 percent of the initial construction cost, then the annual 

maintenance costs included in the LCC stream are computed as 0.05 * $186,000 = 

$9,300/lane-km per year ($15,000/lane-mile per year). Note that this annual maintenance 

cost is set equal to zero in years where rehabilitation is applied. 
173 

• Rehabilitation Cost—This input field is used to determine the rehabilitation cost that is 

applied at every scheduled rehabilitation application within the LCCA. As with the 

annual maintenance cost, this input is either entered as a percentage of the initial 

construction cost or as a specific cost value. 

The primary outputs of this simplified LCCA are the individual computed costs defining the 

associated LCC stream, their computed total present worth value, and the associated equivalent 

uniform annual cost (EUAC). 

175

SECTION 4. COST AND PERFORMANCE DATA SETS 

The analysis approach allows the user to estimate the cost effectiveness of a given pavement 

section by computing total expected changes in cost and performance associated with the 

selection of different design features. These overall expected changes are computed as functions 

of user-defined cost and performance data sets that summarize the expected cost and 

performance impacts, respectively, associated with changing individual design features. A data 

set is defined as a summary of the relative percent changes in cost or performance associated 

with all possible design features available in each of the 10 design categories. The 

Cost/Performance Data Sets tab (shown in figure 8) is provided as a means of defining both 

types of data sets. Although each is similar in structure, the details of working with each data set 

type are discussed separately below. 

Figure 8. Cost/Performance Data Sets tab with the Grouped Format controls for the Cost Data 

Sets secondary tab visible. 

Grouped Versus Tabular Format 

The definition of cost or performance data sets requires a large number of input values to be 

defined for each. To facilitate the definition of these many data, the software allows the user to 

enter relative cost or performance data within one of two data-entry interface types termed 

Grouped or Tabular formats. Each of these interface types is introduced below. 
176

Grouped Format

The Grouped format (the default data-entry format) is divided into a Master List area and a 

Details area. The Cost Data Sets and Performance Data Sets master lists respectively store 

complete lists of the unique cost and performance data sets defined within the current database. 

You may sort these lists alphabetically, by section creation date, or by section revision date by 

selecting the appropriate choice from the associated Sort List list box. As with the Section 

Definition Master List, this area also contains New, Delete, and Import buttons that allow you to 

manage the contents of the master lists. 

The Details area is used to specify the specific expected relative cost or performance values 

associated with choosing different design features. To edit the details of a given data set, start by 

selecting the data set from the corresponding master list. Next, select a design feature category 

from that provided list (note that the smoothness inputs are specific to different base types). 

When this selection is made, the specific design feature choices and associated input values for 

the given design feature category are displayed. Finally, use the provided input values to define 

the current data set. (Note: guidance on defining specific relative cost or performance values is 

provided below in the Defining Cost Data Sets and Defining Performance Data Sets sections, 

respectively). 

Tabular Format

In the Tabular format interface (displayed in figure 9), each data set in the master list is 

presented in a separate column in the table. Use the provided scroll bars to access the specific 

data set you wish to alter and make appropriate changes within the provided table. This area 

contains three buttons (Add Set, Delete Set, and Export Table) that perform the following 

functions: 

 In this Tabular view, new data sets can be added to the master list using this 

button. 

Existing data sets may be removed from the master list by clicking on a cell in the 

column associated with the data set of interest, and then clicking this button. Note 

that the default cost and performance data sets can not be deleted. 

 The current summary table of cost or performance data sets may be exported to an 

external electronic file by clicking this button. Upon clicking the 

button, use the controls provided in the Save Table As dialog box to select a file 

name, type, and storage location. 

Defining Cost Data Sets 

Cost data sets are collections of expected changes in total cost resulting from the change of one 

design feature at a time. The changes in cost are expressed as expected percent changes in 

relation to the default Standard pavement section (see table 21). This is an extremely important 

point as the impact of all feature changes must be referenced back to the Standard pavement 

section. Therefore, you must complete the following procedure to define a complete cost data 

set: 
177

Figure 9. Cost/Performance Data Sets tab with the Tabular Format controls for the Cost Data 

Sets secondary tab visible. 

1. For one design feature category, select one of the other design feature choices (i.e., one 

that is different from the value defined for the Standard pavement section) in that design 

feature category (see table 20). Note: this should be the only design feature that is 

different from the defined Standard pavement section. 

2. Estimate the expected change in overall pavement cost and express this value in terms of 

a percent difference (increase or decrease) from the expected cost of the Standard 

pavement section. Note: this percent change in cost is then entered into the appropriate 

cell of the cost data set. 

3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for all available design feature choices (see table 20) for the selected 

design feature category. 

4. Repeat steps 1, 2, and 3 for each of the 10 design categories. 

This four-step process systematically defines a complete cost data set that covers all possible 

individual design feature changes from the standard pavement section. The following two 

examples illustrate the completion of steps 1, 2, and 3 for base/subbase and initial/smoothness, 

respectively. 
178

Example 1: Expected Relative Costs Associated with Different Base/Subbase Types

Assume you are currently defining relative costs associated with the available base types in the 

base/subbase category. Recall that the Standard pavement section is defined with a base type of 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base. The following paragraphs discuss the thinking a 

user should follow when trying to estimate cost changes associated with making base type 

changes. 

The first base type that needs a relative cost value defined (i.e., the first base type after that used 

for the Standard section) is the choice of No base (placed directly on prepared subgrade). For 

this example, you would ask yourself, “If I remove the 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate 

base and build the Standard pavement section directly on the prepared subgrade, what percent 

change in original total construction cost (of the Standard section) would I expect to observe?” 

If you estimate that this base type substitution might save 14.7 percent in the total expected 

construction cost, then you would enter “–14.7” in the associated relative cost field. Note: This 

is the case for the example presented in figure 8. 

Continuing the methodical investigation of base/subbase type, you would then define the case for 

the next base type in the list (i.e., 150-mm (6-inch) dense-graded asphalt-treated base (ATB)). 

For this case, you would ask yourself, “What percent change in original total construction cost 

would I expect to observe if I substitute a 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded asphalt-treated base in 

place of the Standard section’s 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base?” If, for example, 

you estimate that the Standard section would cost 16.3 percent more as a result of using an ATB, 

then you would enter “16.3” in the associated relative cost field (as shown in figure 8). 

To complete this procedure, you must define an appropriate relative cost value for every 

base/subbase type (design feature value) included in the base/subbase list. Note: leaving a 

relative cost field blank is the same as setting it equal to “0.” A relative cost value of “0” is 

appropriate for those cases where you can safely say that making that specific design feature 

change will not impact the overall cost of the Standard pavement section. 

You will notice that three Custom fields (initially titled Custom 1, Custom 2, and Custom 3) are 

included in each design category. These are user-definable fields that are included to provide 

flexibility in the software by allowing the user to customize the software to match typically used 

design features. Figure 10 illustrates a case in which a user has defined a 200-mm (8-in) densegraded aggregate base in the first custom field. For this case, the user has assumed that 

constructing the 200-mm (8-in) dense-graded aggregate base will cost 2.5 percent more than 

constructing the 150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base defined as part of the Standard

pavement section. Note that the custom field names may only be changed within the 

Cost/Performance Data Sets tab (i.e., you cannot define custom field names under the Section 

Definition tab). 
179

Figure 10. Example of using the provided custom design feature fields to reflect an agency’s 

custom design features. 

Example 2: Expected Relative Costs Associated with Different Initial/Smoothness Levels

The definition of relative costs associated with different initial smoothness ranges is different 

from other design feature categories in that the relative costs are also dependent on different base 

types. Therefore, the first step in defining smoothness-related relative cost values is to select one 

of the base types listed under Initial Smoothness for: in the design feature category list. Figure 

11 illustrates an example in which relative cost values were defined for the scenario in which a 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded asphalt-treated base was used in place of the Standard section’s 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base. 

To accurately interpret the meaning of these smoothness-related relative cost values, you must 

keep their specific meaning in mind. The +3.3 percent value associated with the 110 to 142 

mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) smoothness range (associated with a 5-mm (0.2-inch) blanking band) 

may seem confusing at first as you might expect this value to be 0 percent since this 110 to 142 

mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) smoothness range is the smoothness range used to define the Standard 

pavement section. However, you must remember that for the different base types, the relative 

cost values associated with this Standard smoothness range (110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 

inches/mi)) 
180

Figure 11. Example showing chosen relative cost values associated with a 150-mm (6-inch) 

dense-graded asphalt-treated base. 

indicates of how much more or less smoothness-related preparation time is associated with the 

given base type. Specifically, for our example, the user indicated that achieving a target 110 to 

142 mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) smoothness range is expected to cost 3.3 percent more if 

constructing on a 150-mm (6-inch) dense-graded asphalt-treated base than it would if 

constructing on a 150-mm (6-inch) dense-graded aggregate base. 

For the remainder of the initial smoothness range inputs, the user must remain cognizant of the 

fact that the entered costs must only reflect the additional or reduced costs associated with 

achieving the target smoothness value. That is, although smoothness-related costs are entered 

for a series of different base types, the changes in the cost of the base layer are not to be included 

in these smoothness-related cost numbers. Costs associated with changing base types are those 

values entered under the base type category. 

In the example displayed in figure 11, the user has decided that achieving 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 

7 inches/mi) on a 150-mm (6-inch) dense-graded asphalt-treated base would cost 3.7 percent 

more than achieving 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) on a 150-mm (6-inch) dense-graded 

aggregate base (i.e., the Standard base type and initial smoothness values). Another way to look 

at this +3.7 percent number is to only look at the numbers within a given base type. Because we 

already have an indication of the smoothness-related cost strictly associated with the base type 
181

difference (i.e., +3.3 percent), it is the difference between the ATB-related relative cost values 

that give an indication of the costs associated with additional work required to achieve a 

smoother pavement for a given base type. In our example, the user has indicated that (assuming 

an ATB) it will cost +0.4 percent more to increase smoothness from 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 

inches/mi) to 79 to 110 mm/km (5 to 7 inches/mi) (i.e., +3.7 percent – 3.3 percent = +0.4 

percent); +0.7 percent more to increase smoothness from 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) 

to 47 to 79 mm/km (3 to 5 inches/mi) (i.e., +4.0 percent – 3.7 percent = +0.7 percent); +2.1 

percent more to increase smoothness from 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) to 16 to 47 

mm/km (1 to 3 inches/mi) (i.e., +5.4 percent – 3.3 percent = +2.1 percent); and +3.8 percent 

more to increase smoothness from 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) to < 16 mm/km (< 1 

inches/mi) (i.e., +7.1 percent – 3.3 percent = +3.8 percent). To complete the cost data set, values 

must be defined for all combinations of base type and initial smoothness range. 

Defining Performance Data Sets 

Performance data sets are presented in exactly the same structure as cost data sets. However, 

instead of storing a collection of relative cost data, performance data sets are collections of 

expected changes in total performance resulting from the change of one design feature at a time. 

As with the cost data sets, the changes in performance are expressed as expected percent changes 

in relation to the expected performance of the Standard pavement section. This is an extremely 

important point as the impact of all feature changes must be referenced back to the Standard 

pavement section. This concept is best explained by the following two examples. (Note: 

although only two examples are presented, the complete definition of a performance data set 

involves defining relative performance values for each design feature value within each of the 10 

design feature categories.) 

Example 1: Expected Relative Performance Associated with Different Base/Subbase Types

Using the same examples provided in the cost data sets discussion, let’s assume you are currently 

defining relative performance values associated with the available base types in the base/subbase 

category. Recall that the standard section is defined with a base type of 150-mm (6-in) densegraded aggregate base. The following paragraphs discuss the thinking a user should follow 

when trying to estimate performance changes associated with making base/subbase type changes. 

The first base/subbase type that needs a relative performance value defined (i.e., the first base 

type after that used for the Standard section) is the choice of No base (placed directly on 

prepared subgrade) (see table 20). For this example, you would ask yourself, “If I remove the 

150-mm (6-in) dense-graded aggregate base and build the Standard pavement section directly 

on the prepared subgrade, what percent change in pavement performance (pavement life) would I 

expect to observe?” Again, you are reminded that the baseline performance that should be used 

for comparison is the expected performance of the default Standard section. If you estimate that 

this base type substitution might result in a decrease in performance of 20.0 percent (i.e., the new 

section will carry 20.0 percent fewer ESALs than the Standard section), then you would enter 

“–20.0” in the associated relative performance field. Note: This specific example is the case for 

the example presented in figure 12. 
182

Figure 12. Example showing defined relative performance values associated with different base 

type choices. 

The next base/subbase type in the list to be considered in the investigation is the 150-mm (6-

inch) dense-graded asphalt-treated base. For this case, you would ask yourself, “What percent 

change in expected performance would I expect if I substituted the Standard section’s 150-mm 

(6-inch) dense-graded aggregate base with a 150-mm (6-inch) dense-graded asphalt-treated 

base?” The user-defined numbers presented in figure 12 indicate that the user expected to 

increase the Standard section’s allowable ESALs by 5.0 percent as a result of substituting base 

types. 

As with the cost data sets, you must define an appropriate relative performance value for every 

base/subbase type (design feature value) included in the base/subbase list (including the custom 

fields). For completeness, this definition procedure must be completed for all 10 of the design 

feature categories. Note: Leaving a relative performance field blank is the same as setting it 

equal to “0.” A relative performance value of “0” is appropriate for those cases where you can 

safely say that making that specific design feature change will not change (increase or decrease) 

the overall expected performance of the Standard pavement section. 

Note: The user has the same access to the custom field names in both the Cost Data Sets and 

Performance Data Sets tabs. Therefore, a custom name defined when entering a cost data set 
183

will be reflected when defining performance data sets. Also note that custom field definitions 

are global in the sense that they are the same for all cost and performance data sets in the 

database (i.e., you cannot enter custom names that apply to specific cost or performance data 

sets). 

Example 2: Expected Relative Performance Values Associated with Different Initial/Smoothness 

Levels

The relative performance changes (increase or decrease in pavement life) associated with 

different pavement initial smoothness ranges can be viewed as an estimate of the effect of 

dynamic loading effects on the pavement. That is, many believe that rougher pavements cause 

dynamic movements in vehicles, resulting in dynamic loadings that cause an increased 

deterioration of the pavement, therefore decreasing service life. These changes in expected 

pavement life should be quantified in this portion of the user interface. 

The definition of relative performance associated with different initial smoothness ranges is 

different from other design feature categories in that the relative performance is associated with 

combinations of base/subbase type and initial smoothness range. Although the expected 

performance changes associated with different initial smoothness ranges are not expected to be 

greatly influenced by the underlying base type, performance is still entered for different 

combinations of smoothness range and base/subbase type to maintain consistency with the cost 

data sets. You will note that in the default performance data set, the expected performance 

differences associated with different initial smoothness ranges are the same for all of the 

included base types. 

The first step in defining smoothness-related relative cost values is to select one of the base types 

listed under Initial Smoothness for: in the Design Feature Category list. Figure 13 illustrates an 

example (in tabular format) in which relative performance values were defined for different 

initial smoothness ranges. To accurately interpret the meaning of these smoothness-related 

relative performance values, you must keep their specific meaning in mind. An investigation of 

the Default Performance Set finds a value of +2.0 percent associated with the 79 to 110 mm/km 

(5 to 7 inches/mi) smoothness range (measured with a 5-mm (0.2-inch) blanking band). This 

value indicates that a pavement constructed with an initial smoothness value in the 79 to 110 

mm/km (5 to 7 inches/mi) range (based on an 5-mm (0.2-inch) blanking band) is expected to 

carry 2.0 percent more ESALs than the same pavement constructed with an initial smoothness 

value in the 110 to 142 mm/km (7 to 9 inches/mi) range. That is, these expected changes in 

performance are solely due to the reduced initial smoothness value (i.e., most likely interpreted 

as the influence of initial smoothness on dynamic traffic loading-related damage). Therefore, 

when defining values associated with different combinations of initial smoothness and 

base/subbase type, be careful that you do not include the performance impact of changing the 

base/subbase type. The influence of base/subbase type on performance is represented under the 

base/subbase type design feature category inputs. 
184

Figure 13. Example showing defined relative performance values associated with different 

initial smoothness choices. 
185

SECTION 5. DEFINING CATEGORY RANKING FACTOR SETS 

As noted previously, determining the overall expected change in performance is not as simple as 

summing the expected performance changes associated with changing different design features 

individually. For example, if we assume that the removal of dowels will decrease the expected 

performance by 20.0 percent, but the addition of the CTB will increase performance by 5.0 

percent, this does not necessarily mean that overall performance will be reduced by 15.0 percent. 

Therefore, as explained in chapter 3 of the report, the combined performance is estimated by 

making use of user-defined design feature category ranking factors. 

As with the cost and performance data sets, the software allows you to define and save different 

category ranking sets. A category ranking set is defined as a unique combination of ranking 

factors (integers from 1 to 10) chosen for each of the 10 different design feature categories. No 

two design features were allowed to share the same ranking, so the result is essentially a “forced 

ranking” of the importance of each design feature category. The remainder of this section 

includes an introduction to the Category Rankings tab and guidance on defining your own 

ranking factor sets. 

Introduction to the Category Rankings Tab 

The Category Rankings tab (shown in figure 14) provides controls that are used to define and 

edit user defined category ranking sets. The tab is divided into two areas titled Category 

Rankings Master List and Category Ranking Set Details, each of which is discussed separately 

below. 

Category Ranking Set Master List Area

The Category Ranking Set Master List stores a complete list of the all category ranking sets 

defined within the current database. In addition to the user-defined category ranking sets, this 

master list also contains the Default Rankings set (shown in table 24) that is based on a 

combination of average survey results and expert opinion. Note that the default ranking factor 

list in table 24 is presented in descending order or importance (i.e., the most important category 

is assigned a value of 10 while the least important category is assigned a 1). 

As with the other master lists in the software, you may use the supplied Sort List list box to sort 

the Category Rankings Set Master List alphabetically, by ranking set creation date, or by ranking 

set revision date. This area also contains New, Delete, and Import buttons that allow you to 

manage the contents of the master lists by creating new, deleting existing, or importing existing 

defined ranking factor sets, respectively. Note, however, the Default Rankings set cannot be 

deleted or altered by the user. 
186

Figure 14. Category Rankings tab. 

Table 24. Details of the default ranking factor set. 

Design Category Ranking Factor

Joints/Load Transfer 10 Most Important 

Thickness/Slab Size 9 

Base/Subbase 8 

Drainage 7 

Strength/Materials 6 

Subgrade 5 

Initial Smoothness 4 

Joint Sealing 3 

Cross Section 2 

Shoulders 1 Least Important
187

Category Ranking Set Details Area

The Category Ranking Set Details area is used to define and edit user-defined category ranking 

sets. To edit the relative weights assigned to each design feature category, click on the ranking 

factor set of interest in the Category Ranking Set Master List and then enter appropriate values in 

the provided Ranking Factors input boxes. Note that whenever a ranking factor value changed, 

the displayed ranking factor list is immediately resorted in descending order to reflect the 

change. When defining a ranking factor set, you must abide by the following three valueassociated rules: 

1. Entered ranking factor values must be integers from 1 to 10. 

2. The highest weighted design category must be assigned a value of 10. This provides 

some consistency to all defined ranking sets. 

3. No two design categories are allowed to be assigned the same ranking factor. 

To assign meaningful design feature category ranking factors, it is first important to understand 

specifically how these values are used. The following section contains a discussion that provides 

the reader with a better understanding of how ranking factors are used in the performance 

computations, thereby helping you to select ranking factors that correspond with your 

assumptions of each design category’s impact on performance. 

Defining Category Ranking Sets 

One of the most difficult steps in the analysis approach is the assignment of category ranking 

factors that accurately reflect an agency’s assessment of which design feature categories have the 

largest impact on overall performance. The use of defined ranking factors by the software is best 

explained with an illustrative example. Let’s assume that we have an example (summarized in 

table 25) in which the subgrade, base/subbase, and drainage design features are changed 

simultaneously. 

Table 25. Example computations using entered category ranking factors. 

Design 

Feature 

Category 

Standard 

Section Feature 

Custom 

Section 

Feature 

Expected 

Relative 

Performance 

(%) 

Ranking 

Factor 

Normalized 

Impact 

Multiplier 

Modified 

Performance 

(%) 

Subgrade Untreated 

prepared 

subgrade 

300-mm 

(12-in) lime 

treated 

subgrade 

 +5.0 5 (5/8) = 0.625 +3.1 

Base/ 

Subbase 

150-mm (6-in) 

dense-graded 

aggregate base 

150-mm 

(6-in) ATB 

 +5.0 8 (8/8) = 1.00 +5.0 

Drainage No drainage 

layers, no 

underdrains 

150-mm 

(6-in) ATPB 

with 

underdrains 

+10.0 7 (7/8) = 0.875 +8.8 

TOTAL +16.9 
188

In this example, the relative performance values of +5.0 percent, +5.0 percent, and +10.0 

percent, respectively, were retrieved from the default performance data set. Next, we assume 

that the selected category ranking set contained factors of 5, 8, and 7 for the design categories of 

Subgrade, Base/Subbase, and Drainage, respectively. The associated ranking factors are then 

converted into normalized impact multipliers based on the largest observed ranking factor for 

only those design features changing from the Standard pavement section. For our example, the 

largest impact factor associated with the three changing feature categories is the “8” associated 

with Base/Subbase. Therefore, all three of the included impact factors are divided by “8” to 

compute normalized impact multipliers. These normalized impact multipliers are then multiplied 

by the associated expected relative performance values to give a modified performance value for 

each design category. The overall section performance is then determined as the sum of all 

modified performance values. For this example, the expected increase in performance is 

estimated to be 16.9 percent. 

It is important to note that within this methodology, it is the relative differences between ranking 

factors rather than the actual ranking factor values that are important when determining overall 

modified performance. For example, one might think that the design feature assigned an impact 

factor of 10 is always going to be important when determining the overall pavement section 

performance. The previous example shows that this is not the case, as none of the three 

changing design feature categories had an impact factor of 10. Normalizing all individual 

ranking factors to the largest of the included factors ensures that the performance of the most 

important included design feature becomes the starting point of the modified performance 

computation. In the example, it is noted that if Base/Subbase were the only design feature 

category that was changing, then the total modified performance would be +5.0 percent. 

Therefore, the other design features deemed less important are, in a sense, used to adjust the +5.0 

percent value associated with Base/Subbase. The normalized ranking multipliers give an 

indication of the relative impact of the adjustments. 

When selecting category ranking factors, it is very important to assign factors that do not 

contradict the performance values observed within different design categories. That is, those 

design categories where the largest percent increases or decreases in performance are observed 

should most likely be the design categories with the largest category ranking factors. For 

example, assume that investigated Thickness/Slab Size choices result in individual performance 

changes from –40 to +50 percent, while different Joint Sealing choices result in a range of 

individual performance between –5 and + 5 percent. For this case, the category ranking factor 

assigned to Thickness/Slab Size should be significantly larger than that assigned to the Joint 

Sealing. 

It is equally important to remember that the modified performance values resulting from the 

application of ranking factors are additive with the individual performance associated with the 

largest ranking factor is used as the starting point (e.g., the +5.0 percent was used as the starting 

point of the overall performance computation in the example illustrated table 25). This is 

because the category with the largest associated ranking factor is assumed to have the largest 

influence on overall performance. That is, in many cases, one should expect the overall 

performance to be close to the one individual performance value associated with the largest 

ranking factor as, by definition, it is the governing performance value. As mentioned previously, 

the ranking factors associated with other included design features are used to diminish those 

associated individual performance changes before adding them to the overall performance 
189

calculation. That is, all design feature categories that are not deemed to be the most important 

category (i.e., their ranking factors are less than the largest included ranking factor) are simply 

used to adjust the individual performance change associated with the largest ranking factor. It is 

the defined ranking factors that are used to determine the ranking factor ratios (normalized 

ranking multipliers) that determine the how much of each individual performance change is 

added to the overall performance value. 

191 

SECTION 6. ANALYSIS SESSION SETUP 

The final tab of the user interface is the Analysis Setup tab. Using the controls of this tab, the 

user may setup, define, and conduct two different types of analysis sessions (i.e., Direct 

Comparison and Sensitivity Analysis sessions). Also provided are controls that allow the user to 

customize the contents of an output report using an on-screen preview window. The remainder 

of this chapter includes an introduction to the Analysis Setup tab, brief explanations of the 

purpose of the Direct Comparison and Sensitivity Analysis session types, and detailed 

information on the methods and controls used to define both analysis session types. 

Introduction to the Analysis Setup Tab 

The Analysis Setup tab (shown in figure 15) provides controls that are used to define and conduct 

two different types of analysis sessions: Direct Comparison sessions and Sensitivity Analysis

sessions. Upon activating the tab, the user is first presented with two master lists representing 

these respective analysis types. (Note: When you are working with a new database, these master 

lists initially will be empty.) 

Figure 15. Example of the Analysis Setup tab. 
192 

Each master list stores a complete list of the all defined analysis sessions (by analysis type) 

defined within the current database. As with the other master lists in the software, you may use 

the respective Sort List boxes to sort each master list alphabetically, by creation date, or by 

revision date. This area also contains New and Delete buttons that allow you to manage the 

contents of the master lists by creating new or deleting existing analysis sessions, respectively. 

Choosing an Analysis Type 

The first step in defining an analysis session is to determine which analysis type best addresses 

your specific goals. If you are primarily interested in comparing the costs and performance 

associated with two pavement sections with different design features, then the Direct 

Comparison analysis type is the choice for you. However, if you are interested in conducting a 

more complex sensitivity-type analysis such as comparing one pavement section to a series of 

other sections, or investigating the different effects resulting from comparing a series (more than 

one) cost data sets, performance data sets, or category ranking factor sets, then you will want to 

choose the Sensitivity Analysis option. More specific discussions of both of these two analysis 

types are defined below. 

Direct Comparison Analyses

The Direct Comparison analysis type is used to compare two defined pavement sections (labeled 

Section A and Section B in the analytical tool) to assess the expected differences in cost and 

performance between the sections. By carefully defining different pavement sections, this 

analysis type is used to directly assess the cost and performance impact of changing one or more 

design features. Note that in a Direct Comparison analysis, the other data collection modules 

(the cost data set, performance data set, and category ranking set) are all held constant in the 

analysis. 

Sensitivity Analysis Sessions

The Sensitivity Analysis type is included for users who want to conduct more complex one- or 

two-dimensional sensitivity analysis investigations. These analysis sessions are defined by: 1) 

selecting one primary pavement section to be used as the basis for the investigation; 2) selecting 

one of five different analysis session types from a provided list (these are described below); and 

3) selecting the specific parameters that define the scope of the analysis. 

The following are the five specific types of sensitivity analyses from which the user may choose: 

• Comparing multiple sections—A series of direct comparisons in which one selected 

pavement section is systematically compared to each in a series of other selected 

pavement sections. Expected cost and performance changes associated with each 

comparison are summarized in the output report. 

• Comparing cost data sets—An investigation of cost sensitivity resulting from analyzing 

the use of different cost data sets (i.e., the only data collection variable changing in a 

series of analysis scenarios is the cost data set). Note: The primary pavement section 

definition, performance data set, and category ranking factor set are held constant during 

the analysis session. 
193 

• Comparing performance data sets—An investigation of performance sensitivity resulting 

from analyzing the use of different performance data sets (i.e., the only data collection 

variable changing in a series of analysis scenarios is the performance data set). Note: The 

primary pavement section definition, cost data set, and category ranking factor set are 

held constant during the analysis session. 

• Comparing category ranking sets—A sensitivity analysis that investigates the use of 

different category ranking sets (i.e., the only data collection variable changing in a series 

of analysis scenarios is the category ranking set). Note: The primary pavement section 

definition, cost data set, and performance data set are held constant during the analysis 

session. 

• Comparing both cost and performance data sets—A two-dimensional sensitivity analysis 

that simultaneously investigates different combinations of cost and performance data sets. 

This is a factorial-type analysis that defines a series of individual analysis scenarios by 

investigating all possible combinations of the different included cost and performance 

data sets. Note: The primary pavement section definition and category ranking set are 

held constant during the analysis. 

Defining Direct Comparison Analysis Sessions 

When you create a new (or edit an existing) Direct Comparison analysis session, the dialog box 

presented in figure 16 is displayed. The controls on this dialog box lead the user through a series 

of steps that will complete the setup of a Direct Comparison analysis session. After the analysis 

session setup steps have been completed to your satisfaction, click the button to view 

the analysis results. Alternatively, click the button to return to the analysis session 

master lists. Each specific control on this page is described in detail in this section. 

Changing the Name of the Direct Comparison Analysis Session

To change the name of the current Direct Comparison analysis session, enter the new name in 

the Name input box. Note: The name displayed in the input box is the name that will be 

displayed in the Direct Comparison Sessions master list. 

Defining the First Pavement Section (Section A)

The first step in defining the Direct Comparison analysis session is the selection of the first 

pavement section to be compared (Section A). To define Section A, select a named pavement 

section from the list box within the Step 1: Select Section A area (note: The named pavement 

sections contained in this list box are those pavement sections stored in the Pavement Section 

Master List.) When you select a section from the list, the design category values associated with 
194 

Figure 16. Example of the Direct Comparison analysis session setup dialog box. 

Section A will be reflected below the list box. Those design feature values that match those that 

define the Standard pavement section (see table 21) are indicated by the “(STD)” that follows 

the feature description. 

Defining the Second Pavement Section (Section B)

The second step in defining the Direct Comparison analysis session is the selection of the second 

pavement section (Section B) that will be compared to Section A. Section B may be defined by 

one of two methods: 

1. Select an existing pavement section. As with the selection of Section A, you may select a 

previously defined pavement section from the list box within the Step 2: Select or Specify 

Pavement Section B area. As with the Section A list, the named pavement sections 

contained in this list box are those named and stored in the Pavement Section Master List. 

When you select a section from the Section B list box, the associated design category 

values will be reflected below the list box (note that you do not have the option to change 

these design feature values as they are associated with a previously defined and named 

pavement section). 
195 

2. Manually define Section B. The software also gives you the option of manually selecting 

the design features that define Section B. When this option is used, Section B is not 

linked to an existing saved pavement section. This option is provided for those who wish 

to investigate many what if-type scenarios without having to define and keep track of 

many different saved pavement sections. Therefore, the user may quickly view output 

results associated with tweaking the design features that define the Section B design. 

Selection of Other Settings

The last required step of the Direct Comparison analysis involves defining the nonvarying data 

collection modules contained in the Step 3: Select Other Settings area. This involves selecting a 

cost data set, performance data set, and category ranking set from their respective list boxes. The 

items in each of these list boxes are those that are available in their respective master lists. 

Therefore, to see the detailed make up of a particular named data collection module, visit the 

appropriate tab and select that item from the corresponding master list. 

Additional Information Area

The final section of this direct analysis dialog is an area labeled Additional Information. The 

Description input box is provided for users who would like to enter text that describes the focus 

of a given analysis session (note: entering text in this input box is completely optional). The 

second part of this additional information area is the displayed analysis session Creation Date. 

Defining Sensitivity Analysis Sessions 

In a Sensitivity Analysis session, various analysis scenarios are considered, and the resulting cost, 

performance, and LCC results are compared for all scenarios. When you create a new (or edit an 

existing) Sensitivity Analysis session, the dialog box presented in figure 17 is displayed. The 

controls on this dialog box lead the user through a series of steps that will complete the setup of a 

Sensitivity Analysis session. Each of the specific controls on this page is described in detail in 

this section. 

Changing the Name of the Sensitivity Analysis Session

To change the name of the current Sensitivity Analysis session, enter the new name in the Name

input box. Note: The name displayed in the input box is the name that will be displayed in the 

Sensitivity Analysis session’s master list. 

Selecting a Principal Pavement Section To Be Used as the Basis of the Sensitivity Analysis

Session

The first step in defining a Sensitivity Analysis session is the selection of a principal pavement 

section that is used as the basis of the analysis. If multiple pavement sections are being 

compared, it is to this principal section that all pavement sections in the series are compared. For 

the other sensitivity analysis types that investigate the use of different cost data sets, performance 

data sets or category ranking sets, the principal pavement section is held constant throughout all 

defined analysis scenarios. 
196 

Figure 17. Example of the Sensitivity Analysis session setup dialog box. 

To define the principal section, select a named pavement section from the list box within the area 

labeled Step 1: Select a Pavement Section. The named pavement sections contained in this list 

box are those stored in the Pavement Section Master List. When you select a section from the 

list, the design category values associated with chosen section are reflected below the list box. 

Define the Type and Parameters of the Sensitivity Analysis Session

After selecting a principal pavement section, you must next select the specific type of Sensitivity 

Analysis you wish to conduct, as well as set the parameters that define the analysis. To 

accomplish these tasks, use the controls provided in the frame titled Step 2: Define Sensitivity 

Analysis Session. Specifically, the five different dimensional analysis choices contained in the 

Type drop-down list box are the following (note: each of these was defined earlier in this 

chapter): 

• Compare multiple pavement sections. 

• Compare cost data sets. 

• Compare performance data sets. 

• Compare category ranking sets. 

• Compare both cost and performance data sets (2-dimensional). 
197 

Upon selecting one of these analysis types, you will be provided with a list of related available 

items (i.e., pavement sections or cost, performance, or category ranking data sets) that can be 

included in the analysis. By default, all available items are initially included in the analysis. 

Included items are indicated by an “X” placed in the box to the left of the item’s name. To 

exclude an item from the analysis, simply click on the associated box that contains an “X.” To 

include a previously excluded item in the analysis, click on the empty box to again display the 

“X.” 

To illustrate this analysis setup process, figure 18 shows an example in which the user has 

selected a 2-dimensional analysis in which both cost and performance data sets will be compared 

simultaneously. Specifically, the defined analysis will investigate all of the analysis scenarios 

representing the different combinations of one cost set (My Cost Set) and all three available 

performance data sets. 

Figure 18. Example of a Sensitivity Analysis session comparing both cost and performance data 

sets. 
198 

Selection of Fixed Settings

The last required step of the Sensitivity Analysis setup involves the definition of the nonvarying 

data collection modules contained in the Step 3: Select Fixed Setting area. This involves the 

selection of those data collection modules that remain constant throughout the Sensitivity 

Analysis. To define these items, select the appropriate named item from each provided list box. 

The items in each of these list boxes are those that are available in their respective master lists. 

Therefore, to see the detailed makeup of a particular named data collection module, visit the 

appropriate tab and select that item from the corresponding master list. 

Additional Information Area

The final section of this direct analysis dialog is an area labeled Additional Information. The 

Description input box is provided for users who would like to enter text that describes the focus 

of a given analysis session (note: entering text in this input box is completely optional). The 

second part of this Additional Information area is the displayed analysis session Creation Date. 
199 

SECTION 7. ANALYSIS SESSION RESULTS 

The results of the current defined analysis session are summarized into a customizable output 

report that may be reviewed within the software. To view the results from an analysis session, 

click the button after you have defined the inputs for the three required steps of the 

analysis session setup process. The remainder of this chapter introduces the specific output 

reports associated with the Direct Comparison and Sensitivity Analysis session types. 

Viewing Direct Comparison Analysis Results 

By default, all of the available Direct Comparison analysis results are presented in the summary 

report (i.e., the Full Report format). However, if you are only interested in viewing specific 

summary tables, you may choose the Basic Tables Only option. Selecting this option allows you 

to customize the simplified output report by choosing to view one or more of the following 

summary tables: 

• Cost details. 

• Performance details. 

• Benefit/cost summary. 

• LCC analysis summary. 

More details on both the Full Report and Basic Tables Only reporting options are discussed 

separately below. 

Direct Comparison Analysis—Full Report

To view all of the details associated with the conducted Direct Comparison analysis, click the 

Full Report check box when analysis results are displayed (see figure 19). Specifically, the 

many different sections that are included in the full report include the following: 

• Introduction—A quick summary of the Direct Comparison analysis, including definitions 

of which sections were chosen for Section A and Section B, and a summary table of the 

other data collection module choices (i.e., the chosen cost data set, performance data set, 

and category ranking set) used in the analysis. 

• Definition of the Default “Standard” Pavement Section—Because the analysis results 

often make reference to the defined default Standard pavement section, this section of the 

output report summarizes the unique combination of design features the define the 

Standard pavement section. 

• Percent Changes in Cost and Performance by Design Feature—The first step in 

estimating the relative changes in cost and performance between the two sections being 

compared is to summarize the respective percent changes taken from the chosen cost and 

performance data sets. By definition, these percent changes are relative to the expected 

costs and performance of the Standard pavement section. This section or the full report 

summarizes all of these individual changes for both Section A and Section B. 
200 

Figure 19. Example of a Full Report summary resulting from a Direct Comparison analysis. 

• Ranking Factor Summary—The section of the output report summarizes the ranking 

factor set chosen for use in the analysis. 

• Cost Summary—A summary of the detailed cost calculations. Specifically, this table 

presents a summary of relative cost changes and their associated cost multipliers, as well 

as an overall ratio of costs between Section A and Section B (presented as a B/A Cost 

Multiplier). 

• Performance Summary—A summary of the detailed performance-related calculations. 

Specifically, this section of the output report contains two tables showing the detailed 

performance computations for Section A and Section B, respectively, as well as an overall 

summary table showing performance changes for both sections. 

• Benefit/Cost Summary—The summary table presented in this section of the report 

summarizes the relative performance multiplier, relative cost multiplier, and benefit/cost 

ratio associated with Section A and Section B, respectively. Each of these results is 

explained below: 

– Relative Performance Multiplier—The ratio of the expected Section A or Section B

performance as it relates to the expected performance of the Standard pavement 

section. For example, if the relative performance multiplier associated with Section B
201 

was 0.950, this would indicate that Section B is expected to carry 95.0 percent of the 

ESALs expected to be carried by the Standard pavement section. 

– Relative Cost Multiplier—The ratio of the expected Section A or Section B cost as it 

relates to the expected cost of the Standard pavement section. For example, if the 

relative cost multiplier associated with Section B was 0.980, this would indicate that 

Section B is expected to cost 98.0 percent as much as the Standard pavement section. 

– Benefit/Cost Ratio—For a given section, the benefit/cost ratio is the ratio of the 

relative performance multiplier to the relative cost multiplier. For this example, the 

benefit/cost ratio associated with Section B is computed as 0.950/0.980 = 0.969. 

• Simple Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis—The results of this simple LCC analysis are 

presented in this section of the output report. 

To print the defined output report, use the Print option included under the File menu or the Print

toolbar button. 

Direct Comparison Analysis—Basic Tables Only

The Basic Tables Only report option allows you to build a simplified version of the output report 

(see figure 20). Only tables selected by the user (indicated by the check boxes) are displayed in 

the output report with limited explanatory text. 

Viewing Sensitivity Analysis Session Results 

As with a Direct Comparison analysis, Sensitivity Analysis results are by default presented in a 

full report format (i.e., Detailed Results). However, if you are only interested in viewing a 

summary table of the cost and performance results associated with each analysis scenario 

included in the analysis session, you may deselect the Detailed Results check box. Both the 

detailed results and simplified summary reports are discussed separately below. 

Sensitivity Analysis—Detailed Results Report

To view all of the details associated with the conducted Sensitivity Analysis session, the Detailed 

Results check box needs to be selected (see figure 21). The detailed report provides many of the 

lower level calculations associated with each analysis scenario. Specifically, the detailed 

Sensitivity Analysis report contains the following three main sections: 

• Introduction—A quick summary of the Sensitivity Analysis session including definitions 

of the different analysis scenarios, as well as a summary table of the other data collection 

module choices that remain constant during the analysis. 

• Cost and Performance Summary—A combined summary of cost, performance, and 

benefit/cost results summarized for all of the analysis scenarios of the analysis session. 

• Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Summary—A summary of the results from the LCCA conducted 

for each of the analysis scenarios included in the analysis session. 
202 

Figure 20. Example of the Basic Tables Only output report resulting from a Direct Comparison

analysis. 

To print the defined output report, use the Print option included under the File menu or the Print

button on the toolbar. 

Sensitivity Analysis—Simplified Output Report

If you choose to deselect the Detailed Results check box, you will only view an overall summary 

table of results associated with the conducted Sensitivity Analysis session. Each row of the table 

summarizes the relative performance multiplier, relative cost multiplier, and benefit/cost ratio 

associated with each included analysis scenario. Note: A detailed explanation of these 

multipliers and the benefit/cost ratio was provided in the Direct Comparison Analysis—Full 

Report section. 
203 

Figure 21. Example of a Detailed Results summary table output resulting from a Sensitivity 

Analysis session. 
204 
HRDI-11/04-04(1M500)E Recycled

Recyclable