The effect of the elastic modulus of concrete on rigid pavement design

Author(s):  
M. Mrad ◽  
G. Saad ◽  
G.R. Chehab
2021 ◽  
Vol 284 ◽  
pp. 122702
Author(s):  
Yu Tian ◽  
Peng Xiang ◽  
Shifu Liu ◽  
Jianming Ling ◽  
Rui Tang

Author(s):  
L. Eberhardsteiner ◽  
K. Foltin ◽  
K. Bayraktarova ◽  
R. Blab

1991 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-131
Author(s):  
Jeth A. Fogg ◽  
Ronald L. Baus ◽  
Richard P. Ray

Author(s):  
Michael Darter ◽  
Lev Khazanovich ◽  
Tom Yu ◽  
Jag Mallela

Reliability analysis is an important part of the mechanistic–empirical pavement design guide (M-E PDG). Even though mechanistic concepts provide a more accurate and realistic methodology for pavement design, a practical method to consider the uncertainties and variations in design and construction is needed so that a new or rehabilitated pavement can be designed for a desired level of reliability (performance as designed). Several methods, ranging from closed-form approaches to simulation-based methods, can be adopted to perform reliability-based design. However, some methods may be more suitable than others, given the complexities of the design procedure. A formal definition of reliability within the context of the M-E PDG, as well as two reliability analysis approaches considered for incorporation into the design procedure for evaluating the reliability of the rigid pavement design for cracking and faulting, was evaluated. A Monte Carlo–based simulation was combined with the damage accumulation procedure for rigid pavement distress prediction. This approach is recommended for future improvements of the procedure. The development of the reliability analysis procedure implemented into the M-E PDG also was documented. It was demonstrated that although the adopted approach is not as sophisticated as a Monte Carlo–based one, it still represents a step forward compared with AASHTO-93 reliability analysis.


2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (17) ◽  
pp. 1617-1624 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.N.S Hadi ◽  
Y Arfiadi

Author(s):  
A. C. Bordelon ◽  
J. E. Hiller ◽  
J. R. Roesler ◽  
V. G. Cervantes

Author(s):  
David W. Pittman

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ design procedure for roller-compacted concrete (RCC) pavements assumes that no load transfer is achieved at RCC joints or cracks. This is in contrast to the Corps of Engineers’ rigid pavement design procedure for airfields, parking areas, and open storage areas, where a 25 percent load transfer is assumed for all joints and cracks. The no-load-transfer assumption for RCC pavements is conservative and is based upon limited data that indicated that RCC pavement joints did not achieve a 25 percent load transfer. The purpose of this study was to identify common types of RCC pavement joints and cracks, to determine the load transfer characteristics of these joint and crack types at 12 RCC pavement test sites using the falling weight deflectometer and to indicate the effect of incorporating these load transfer characteristics within the corps’ RCC pavement design procedure. Thirteen RCC pavement joint and crack types were identified. The mean load transfer achieved at these joints and cracks varied from 4 percent to 32 percent, and was no less than 10 percent for the most common joints and cracks found. In two design examples comparing the existing corps RCC pavement design procedure with a modified version incorporating 10–15 percent load transfer, the design RCC pavement thickness decreased 8–17 percent.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document