The OHIO DEPARTMENT

of TRANSPORTATION
Preface
Purpose
Many manuals, policies, guides, standards, etc.,
have been published regarding pavement design
and rehabilitation. Many of these have been
written using wide ranges of design
recommendations (minimums and maximums)
since the contents were intended to apply
nationally. Furthermore, the Ohio Department of
Transportation’s pavement design and
rehabilitation procedures have been scattered
among many different publications, poorly
documented or in some cases existed only in the
minds of a select few engineers. The purpose of
this manual is to bring all the information together
in one document, reduce the selection of design
variables to those most appropriate for the State of
Ohio, to document Ohio’s interpretation of various
policies and to include design criteria which may be
unique to Ohio.
Application
The pavement engineering concepts described
herein are intended for use with all new or
reconstruction projects, major and minor
rehabilitation projects, and all preventive
maintenance projects, which are under the
jurisdiction of the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT). The information
contained in this manual has been taken from and
based on the results of the AASHO Road Test, the
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement
Structures, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines and technical advisories,
various training course manuals, as well as from
the experience of the authors. In addition, the
application of other studies, experiences, and
engineering judgments have been included to fit
Ohio's conditions.
The pavement design procedures relate the
performance of a pavement to its structural design
and the loading applied to the pavement. Failure
mechanisms derived from poor mix design, poor
material quality, or poor construction practices are
not addressed in this manual.
This manual is neither a textbook nor a substitute
for engineering knowledge, experience or
judgement. It is intended to provide uniform
procedures for implementing design decisions,
assure quality and continuity in design of
January 1999
pavements in Ohio, and assure compliance with
Federal criteria. The recommendations given are
intended to improve pavement performance.
Consideration must be given to design standards
adopted by city, county, or other local governments
when designing pavements under their jurisdiction.
Distribution
This manual is intended primarily for ODOT
personnel who have received training from the
Office of Materials Management. It is made
available to cities, counties, consultants, etc., to
use at their own risk.
Preparation
The Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual
has been developed by the Office of Materials
Management. Errors or omissions should be
reported to the Pavement Design Section of the
Office of Materials Management, Ohio Department
of Transportation, 1600 West Broad Street, Room
2033, Columbus, Ohio 43223.
Format and Revisions
Updating the manual is intended to be a
continuous process and revisions will be issued
periodically.
Although pages are individually numbered within
each section, new pages may be added and
identified with letter suffixes after the page number.
Figures do not have page numbers but are
numbered to coincide with the section number in
the text. Figures are located at the end of each
section and are printed on colored paper for easy
reference.
Each page has the latest revision date shown in
the lower left hand corner. Revisions will be issued
as needed by the Office of Materials Management.
The looseleaf format of the manual makes
updating a quick and simple task. Users are
encouraged to keep their manuals up to date.
Manuals may be ordered by contacting the Ohio
Department of Transportation, Office of Contracts,
P.O. Box 899, Columbus, Ohio 43216-0899, (614)
466-3778, 466-3200.
i
Pavement Design Approval and Responsibility
All pavement design buildups pertaining to roadways designated as Interstates, US Routes, National
Highway System (NHS) routes, and State Routes or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the Ohio
Department of Transportation must be approved by the Ohio Department of Transportation prior to
incorporation into a set of construction plans. Those Agencies, Municipalities, or Consultants seeking
pavement design buildup or approval from the Ohio Department of Transportation should make the
request through the appropriate ODOT District Office.

A formal request for pavement design buildup or approval should include the following:

• Plan and profile sheets indicating the existing and proposed profile.

• Typical section templates indicating the pavement and shoulder widths, lane lines and
pavement/shoulder cross slopes.

• All required soils information, including the soil profile and soils reports.

• Traffic data, certified by the Office of Technical Services, indicating the average daily traffic (ADT)
and percentage trucks in the 24-hour count for both the current year and design year.

January 1999 ii
Glossary of Terms
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) - A value obtained
by standardized soil testing procedures comparing
the load required to penetrate the soil to a standard
unit load.
Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Kc) - A
value used in rigid pavement design determined by
dividing the load on a subgrade by the deflection,
corrected for the effect of a base.
Concrete Elastic Modulus (Ec) - A measure of the
rigidity of a pavement slab and its ability to
distribute loads.
Contraction Joint - A joint at the ends of a rigid
pavement slab to control the location of transverse
cracks.
Design Serviceability Loss ()PSI) - The change in
the serviceability index of a pavement from the
time it is constructed to the end of its design life.
Design Structural Number (SN) - A regression
coefficient derived from an analysis of traffic, soil
conditions and environment and which may be
converted to thickness of flexible pavement layers
using coefficients related to the type of material
being used in each layer of the pavement structure.
Discount Rate - An economic factor to account for
the effects of interest and inflation.
Drainage Coefficient - A factor used to modify
structural layer coefficients in flexible pavements,
or stress in rigid pavements, as a function of how
well the pavement structure can handle the effect
of water infiltration.
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K) - The
Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
modified by Loss of Support.
Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) - Truck traffic
loading expressed as the number of equivalent
18,000 lb (80 kN) single axle loads.
Expansion Joint - A transverse joint located to
provide for the expansion of a rigid slab in the
longitudinal direction without damage to itself or
adjacent slabs. Generally placed near bridges.
January 1999
Functional Characteristics - Qualities of a
pavement such as surface smoothness, skid
resistance, and non-load related distresses such
as block cracking, and oxidation of asphalt
pavement surfaces.
Functional Classification - The grouping of
highways by the character of service they provide.
Group Index - A number derived from the
gradation, liquid limit and plasticity index of a soil.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis - A process for evaluating
the economic worth of a pavement segment by
analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs
over a defined period.
Liquid Limit - The moisture content at which a soil
flows like a viscous liquid.
Load Transfer Coefficient (J) - A factor used in
rigid pavement design to account for the ability of
a concrete pavement to distribute load across
joints and cracks.
Longitudinal Joint - A pavement joint, in the
direction of traffic flow, used to control longitudinal
cracking on a rigid pavement or the joint formed
between adjacent passes of a paver on a flexible
pavement.
Loss of Support (Ls) - A factor included in the
design of rigid pavement to account for the
potential loss of support arising from base erosion
and/or differential vertical soil movements.
Major Rehabilitation - Work performed on a
pavement intended to restore structural integrity
and functional characteristics.
Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture (S’c) - The
flexural strength of concrete derived from a beam
test with third point loading.
Minor Rehabilitation - Work performed on a
pavement intended to restore functional
characteristics and protect the structural integrity.
Multi-Lane Pavements - Pavements with four or
more lanes. Continuous two-way left turn lanes
are considered lanes in this definition.
iii
Overall Standard Deviation - A statistical measure
to account for the error in the prediction of traffic
and pavement performance.
Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) - A numerical
rating of pavement distresses on a 0 to 100 scale
based on visual inspection. A PCR of 100 signifies
a perfect pavement with no distress.
Pavement Edge (Edge of Pavement) - The
intersection of the mainline pavement and the
treated shoulder or turf shoulder.
Plastic Limit - The minimum moisture content at
which the soil acts as a plastic solid.
Present Serviceability Index (PSI) - A numerical
index which correlates roughness measurements
on a scale of 0 to 5. A PSI of 5 indicates an
exceptionally smooth pavement.
Pressure Relief Joint - Similar to Expansion Joint
but placed exclusively near bridges to prevent
damage to the bridge.
Preventive Maintenance - Work performed on a
structurally sound pavement, generally in the form
of a surface treatment, intended to preserve the
pavement, retard future deterioration, and maintain
or improve the functional condition without
substantially increasing the structural capacity.
Reliability (R) - A statistical measure of the
probability that a section of pavement will meet or
exceed the predicted performance.
January 1999
Structural Deduct - A part of the Pavement
Condition Rating indicating distresses which may
be related to the structural integrity of the
pavement.
Structural Integrity - The ability of a pavement to
carry anticipated loading.
Structural Layer Coefficient - A measure of the
relative ability of a material to function as a
structural component of a flexible pavement
structure and used to convert a design structural
number to actual thickness.
Subbase Elastic Modulus - A measure of the ability
of a subbase to carry a load.
Subgrade Resilient Modulus (Mr) - A measurement
of the stress dependency of a subgrade soil,
determined by the LTPP P46 test procedure.
Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt) - The
serviceability index assumed at the end of the
pavement design life.
Transverse Joint - A pavement joint perpendicular
to the centerline alignment of the pavement,
designed to control cracking, provide for load
transfer, and allow for the contraction and
expansion of the pavement.
iv
Reference Documents
Circular Number A-94 (Office of Management and
Budget - 1992), Appendix C (OMB - Current
Revision)

Construction and Material Specifications (ODOT -

Current Edition)

Guide for Design of Pavement Structures

(AASHTO - 1993)

Highway Engineering Handbook (McGraw-Hill -

1996)

Location and Design Manual, Volume Two -

Drainage Design (ODOT - Current Revision)

Location and Design Manual, Volume Three -

Highway Plans (ODOT - Current Revision)

Location and Design Manual, Volume Three -

Highway Plans, Sample Plan Sheets (ODOT -
Current Revisions)

Manual of Operation and Use of Dynaflect for

Pavement Evaluation (ODOT - 1983)

Manual of Procedures for Concrete (ODOT -

Current Revision)

Manual of Procedures for Earthwork Construction

(ODOT - Current Revision)

Manual of Procedures for Flexible Pavement

Construction (ODOT - Current Revision)

Manual of Procedures for Rigid Pavement

Practices (ODOT - Current Revision)

Pavement Rehabilitation Design Training Course,

Participants Manual (ODOT - 1997)

Principles of Pavement Design (Wiley-Interscience

- 1975)

Specifications for Subsurface Investigations

(ODOT - Current Revision)

Standard Construction Drawings (Location &

Design, ODOT - Current Revisions)

Verification of the ODOT Overlay Design

Procedure (ODOT - 1996)

Pavement Condition Rating System (ODOT -

1999)

June 1999 v
Acknowledgments
Principle Writers:

Aric A. Morse, P.E.

Pavement Engineering Coordinator
ODOT Office of Materials Management

David W. Miller, P.E.

Assistant Pavement Engineer
ODOT Office of Materials Management

The authors wish to thank the following people for their assistance in writing, reviewing, editing, printing,
and distributing this Manual. Without their efforts, this Manual would not have been possible.

William L. Christensen, P.E., ODOT Office of Highway Management

Thomas B. Culp, P.E., ODOT District Three
Karen S. Eitel, ODOT Office of Materials Management
Dean A. Focke, P.E., ODOT Office of Planning
Donald H. Glosser, P.E., American Concrete Pavement Association
Roger L. Green, P.E., ODOT Office of Materials Management
Keith D. Herbold, P.E., FHWA Midwest Resource Center
Robert T. McQuiston, P.E., FHWA Ohio Division
Kimberly M. Mondora, P.E., ODOT District Four
David B. Powers, P.E., ODOT Office of Materials Management
Russell L. Slonecker, P.E., ODOT District One
Clifford Ursich, P.E., Flexible Pavements, Inc.
Debbie L. Moreno and everyone at the ODOT Print Shop

June 1999 vi
Table of Contents

100 Pavement Management 1-1

100.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
100.2 Pavement Condition Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
100.3 Present Serviceability Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

101 Project Level Pavement Management and Analysis 1-1

101.1 PCR Historical Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
101.2 PCR Performance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
101.3 Pavement Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

200 Pavement Design Concepts 2-1

200.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

201 Serviceability 2-1

201.1 Initial Serviceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
201.2 Terminal Serviceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
201.3 Design Serviceability Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

202 Traffic Considerations 2-1

202.1 Traffic Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
202.2 Calculation of ESAL’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
202.3 ESAL99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

203 Subgrade Soil Characterization 2-2

203.1 Subgrade Resilient Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
203.2 California Bearing Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
203.3 Group Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
203.4 Soil Profile Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

204 Reliability 2-4

204.1 Overall Standard Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

205 Subsurface Pavement Drainage 2-5

205.1 Types of Drainage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
205.2 AASHTO Drainage Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

300 Rigid Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations 3-1

300.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

301 Design Parameters 3-1

301.1 Modulus of Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.2 Modulus of Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.3 Load Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.4 Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.5 Loss of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
301.6 Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
 302 Thickness Determination 3-2
302.1 Ramps and Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

303 Jointing and Shoulder Considerations 3-2

303.1 Transverse Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
303.2 Expansion Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
303.3 Longitudinal Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
303.4 Shoulder Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
303.5 Edge Course Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
303.6 Intersection Jointing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

304 Smoothness Specifications 3-3

305 Composite Pavement 3-3

305.1 Composite Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
305.2 Composite Pavement Typical Section Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
305.3 Composite Pavement Smoothness Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

400 Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations 4-1

400.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

401 Design Parameters 4-1

402 Structural Number Determination 4-1

402.1 Ramps and Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

403 Typical Section and Buildup Considerations 4-1

403.1 Typical Section Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
403.2 Shoulder Buildups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
403.3 Edge Course Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
403.4 Paved Shoulder Edge Course Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

404 Lift Thickness and Specification Guidelines 4-2

404.1 All Item 446 & 448 Type 1 and Type 2 Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
404.2 Superpave Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
404.3 Item 446 & 448 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1, PG64-22 . . . . . 4-3
404.4 Items 446 and 448 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1H . . . . . . . . . 4-3
404.5 Item 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 1, PG64-22 . . . . . . 4-4
404.6 Item 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2, PG64-28 & PG64-22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
404.7 Item 448 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 1, PG64-28 & PG64-22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
404.8 Item 448 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2, PG64-28 & PG64-22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.9 Item 301 Bituminous Aggregate Base, PG64-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.10 Item 302 Bituminous Aggregate Base, PG64-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.11 Item 407 Tack Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
404.12 Item 408 Prime Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

405 Smoothness Specifications 4-6

500 Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation 5-1
500.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

501 Deflection Measuring Equipment 5-1

501.1 Dynaflect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
501.2 Falling Weight Deflectometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

502 Deflection Testing and Analysis 5-1

502.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
502.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.3 Factors Affecting Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

503 Overlay Design Procedure 5-3

503.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
503.2 Rigid Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
503.3 Flexible Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
503.4 Composite Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

504 Minor Rehabilitation Strategies 5-5

504.1 Asphalt Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.2 Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.3 Pavement Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.4 Reflective Crack Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.5 Concrete Pavement Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.6 Geometric Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.7 Pavement Widening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

600 Major Rehabilitation Design 6-1

600.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
600.2 Subgrade Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

601 Unbonded Concrete Overlay 6-1

602 Fractured Slab Techniques 6-2

602.1 Crack & Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
602.2 Rubblize & Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

603 Whitetopping 6-3

700 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 7-1

700.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

701 Initial Construction 7-1

702 Future Maintenance 7-2

702.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
702.2 Maintenance Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

703 Total Cost 7-4

703.1 Discounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
 704 Lane Closure Days 7-4

705 Results Presentation 7-4

Pavement Design and Selection Process Appendix A

Pavement Guidelines for Treatment of High Stress Locations Appendix B

Simplified Pavement Designs for Short Projects Appendix C

ODOT’s PCR Manual Appendix D

Table of Contents

100 Pavement Management 1-1

100.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
100.2 Pavement Condition Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
100.2.1 Structural Deduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
100.3 Present Serviceability Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

101 Project Level Pavement Management and Analysis 1-1

101.1 PCR Historical Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
101.2 PCR Performance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
101.3 Pavement Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
100 Pavement Management
100.1 Introduction
The movement of people and goods throughout
the state, as well as interstate, is primarily
dependent upon the transportation network of
pavements managed by the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT). The management of this
vast network is aided by ODOT’s Pavement
Management System (PMS). ODOT’s PMS is a
systematic approach that provides various reports
regarding the condition of each and every
pavement section, as well as the system as a
whole. For the purpose of standard pavement
analyses, the Pavement Condition Rating (PCR),
Present Serviceability Index (PSI), and the
Structural Deduct (SD) are all contained within the
standard PMS report outputs. Standard PMS
reports are available for download. For detailed
information regarding the PMS, contact the Office
of Technical Services.
100.2 Pavement Condition Rating
Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) is based on a
visual inspection of the condition of the pavement
by trained raters. The rater catalogs pavement
distresses in terms of severity and extent, assigns
a deduct to each distress, and subtracts the sum of
the deducts from 100. A pavement in perfect
condition receives a PCR of 100. PCR data is
collected annually for all divided and undivided
state highways with exception of those located
inside corporate limits of municipalities. This
Manual includes ODOT’s PCR Manual in Appendix
D.
100.2.1 Structural Deduct
Structural Deduct (SD) is contained within the
PCR, but indicates those distresses which may be
related to the structural integrity of the pavement.
A structural deduct of 25 or more indicates the
pavement section should be considered for major
rehabilitation.
100.3 Present Serviceability Index
Present Serviceability Index (PSI) is a measure of
pavement surface roughness or riding comfort. It
is measured on a scale between 0 and 5, with 5
being a perfectly smooth ride. PSI data is collected
annually for all divided and undivided state
highways with exception of those located inside
corporate limits of municipalities. More detail
concerning the concept of Serviceability is
presented in Section 201.
January 1999
101 Project Level Pavement
Management and Analysis
Determination of the most cost effective time and
treatment for the rehabilitation of a pavement is the
most difficult problem a pavement engineer
encounters. The solution to this problem is further
complicated by funding uncertainties and
shortages, as well as difficulties with plan
preparation or detail design work which can create
a delay of project delivery. The most cost effective
treatment is dependent on pavement condition and
the most cost effective time to treat a pavement
depends upon the type of treatment involved. For
example, a major rehabilitation should be delayed
as long as possible in order to get the remaining
life out of the existing pavement, as this type of
treatment relies little on the existing structure.
However, a preventive maintenance application
must be done when the pavement is in good
structural condition. In order to address any
pavement section with some type of maintenance
or rehabilitation treatment it is necessary to be able
to predict pavement deterioration over time.
Without knowing the condition of the pavement at
the time of construction, it is impossible to prepare
construction plans and fiscal budgets that will
reflect the needs of the pavement.
101.1 PCR Historical Trends
The most basic way of predicting pavement
condition is by using the past to predict the future.
The use of regression analysis is well suited for
this purpose, however, it must be understood that
past performance does not necessarily indicate the
future. This type of analysis is easily performed by
using PCR data as far back as the last action
performed on a particular pavement section, and
incorporating this data into a simple spreadsheet
and performing a regression analysis.
101.2 PCR Performance Equations
With the aid of research contracts, ODOT has
developed models concerning pavement
deterioration. The equations presented are a
function of pavement type and the last activity
performed on the pavement. For more information
on the activities described, refer to Sections 500
and 600. These models should not be used
without intuitive reasoning, as they were developed
with data from the entire state network and may not
be representative of every pavement section.
Figure 101-1 lists all available pavement
performance models.
1-1
Pavement Management
101.3 Pavement Modeling
The ability to predict the condition of a pavement is
not a perfected technique at this time. However,
using the equations in Figure 101-1 as well as
doing a regression analysis on the PCR data from
the actual pavement and plotting this information
does provide the pavement designer with some
insight into performance trends. Figure 101-2 is an
example of such a plot.
Figure 101-2 displays a fictitious project which was
rubblized and rolled in 1990. Provided in this figure
is the actual PCR data, a regression of the actual
January 1999
PCR data, along with the appropriate pavement
deterioration model for the fractured slab
technique. All of this information is then graphed
versus the year the data points apply. This
example illustrates the use of this graphical
representation as a tool which can be used to
predict the condition of the pavement in the future.
It can be seen that the predicted PCR of the
fictitious pavement will likely be in the upper-50's in
the year 2002 and may be a candidate for major
rehabilitation if something is not planned for the
year 2002 or earlier.
1-2
100 Pavement Management
List of Figures
Figure Date Subject

101-1 January 1999 Pavement Deterioration Models

101-2 January 1999 Regression Analysis Spreadsheet

 101-1
January 1999
Pavement Deterioration Models
Reference Section
101

RIGID PAVEMENT

Minor Rehabilitation:
All Overlays with and without Repairs PCR = 96.0 - 3.7(AGE)
CPR PCR = 96.2 - 7.0 (AGE)

New Rigid Pavement & Unbonded Concrete Overlay PCR = 99.1 - 0.9 (AGE)

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Minor Rehabilitation
Non-Structural Overlay with Minimal Repairs PCR = 98.1 - 3.3 (AGE)
Non-Structural Overlay with Repairs PCR = 98.6 - 3.8 (AGE)
Structural Overlay with Minimal Repairs PCR = 98.3 - 3.3 (AGE)
Generic Minor Rehabilitation (all of the above) PCR = 98.0 - 3.3 (AGE)

Major Rehabilitation
Fractured Slab Technique PCR = 98.0 - 3.4 (AGE)
New Flexible Pavement PCR = 99.5 - 2.0 (AGE)

COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Minor Rehabilitation
Non-Structural Overlay with Minimal Repairs PCR = 96.1 - 4.0 (AGE)
Non-Structural Overlay with Repairs PCR = 96.1 - 3.8 (AGE)
Structural Overlay with Minimal Repairs PCR = 96.1 - 4.3 (AGE)
Structural Overlay with Repairs PCR = 96.1 - 3.3 (AGE)
Generic Minor Rehabilitation (all of the above) PCR = 96.0 - 3.7 (AGE)

New Composite Pavement PCR = 99.6 - 3.3 (AGE)

 101-2
January 1999
Regression Analysis Spreadsheet
Reference Section
101

Year PCR Regression Model

Regression Output
1990 100 97 98
1991 93 94 95 Constant 6332.089
1992 88 90 91 Std Err of Est 2.463705
1993 86 87 88 R Squared 0.932723
1994 84 84 84 No. of Observations 9
1995 83 81 81 Degrees of Freedom 7
1996 77 78 78
1997 72 75 74 X Coefficient(s) -3.13333
1998 75 72 71 Std Err of Coef. 0.318063
1999 69 67
2000 65 64
2001 62 61
2002 59 57

Pavement Modeling Plot

100

90

80
PCR

70

60

50
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year

PCR Regression Model

Table of Contents

200 Pavement Design Concepts 2-1

200.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

201 Serviceability 2-1

201.1 Initial Serviceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
201.2 Terminal Serviceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
201.3 Design Serviceability Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

202 Traffic Considerations 2-1

202.1 Traffic Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
202.1.1 Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
202.1.2 Traffic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
202.1.3 B:C Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
202.1.4 Design Lane Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
202.2 Calculation of ESAL’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
202.3 ESAL99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

203 Subgrade Soil Characterization 2-2

203.1 Subgrade Resilient Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
203.2 California Bearing Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
203.3 Group Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
203.4 Soil Profile Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
203.4.1 Unsuitable Subgrade Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
203.4.2 Soil Stabilization Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

204 Reliability 2-4

204.1 Overall Standard Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

205 Subsurface Pavement Drainage 2-5

205.1 Types of Drainage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
205.1.1 Pipe Underdrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
205.1.2 Prefabricated Edge Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
205.1.3 Aggregate Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
205.1.4 Free Draining Base Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
205.2 AASHTO Drainage Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
200 Pavement Design Concepts
200.1 Introduction
Perhaps the most widely used pavement design
method used in the United States and throughout
the world is that presented in the AASHTO Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures. A long history
of pavement studies has lead to the current (1993)
edition. The ODOT method for the design of
pavement structures is almost identical to the
AASHTO method, but ODOT has simplified some
parts of the AASHTO Guide since it needs to apply
only to the conditions encountered in Ohio.
The AASHTO / ODOT pavement design equations
have some variables that are common to both rigid
and flexible pavement, including: serviceability,
traffic loading, reliability, overall standard deviation,
and roadbed soil resilient modulus. The remaining
variables needed for the design of a pavement
structure are presented in the respective rigid and
flexible pavement sections on design procedures.
201 Serviceability
ODOT’s Pavement Design Method (AASHTO) is
developed around the concept of serviceability,
which serves as the pavement performance
parameter by which a pavement’s condition is
valued. Serviceability is defined as the ability of a
pavement to serve traffic. The Present
Serviceability Rating (PSR) was developed to
measure serviceability. PSR is a rating of
pavement ride based on a scale of 0, for
impassible, to 5, for perfect. For the development
of the original AASHTO Pavement Design
Equation, individuals (the raters) would ride the
pavements and assign a PSR value. To avoid
riding and rating every pavement by all raters to
determine serviceability, a relationship between
PSR and measurable pavement attributes has
been developed. This relationship is defined as
the Present Serviceability Index (PSI).
201.1 Initial Serviceability
Data obtained by the Office of Technical Services
(see Section 100.3) indicates that pavements
constructed in Ohio in the past have averaged an
initial PSI of 4.2 for rigid pavements and 4.5 for
flexible pavements.
201.2 Terminal Serviceability
ODOT pavements are designed for a minimum PSI
(terminal serviceability) of 2.5.
January 1999
201.3 Design Serviceability Loss
The design serviceability loss is the amount of
serviceability the agency will tolerate losing before
rehabilitation. The design serviceability loss is
defined as the difference between the terminal
serviceability and the initial serviceability. Figure
201-1 lists the design serviceability loss.
202 Traffic Considerations
Perhaps the most important step in designing a
pavement is the estimation of the design traffic.
Overestimation of the design traffic results in a
thicker pavement than necessary with higher
associated costs. Underestimation of traffic results
in a thin pavement that will fail prematurely causing
increased maintenance and impact on the user.
202.1 Traffic Loading
For design purposes, all traffic is converted to a
traffic load which is normalized by the concept of
an Equivalent 18,000 lb (80 kN) Single Axle Load
(ESAL). The conversion of traffic to the ESAL is
accomplished with the use of axle load equivalency
factors. Equivalency factors are a function of
pavement type and thickness, among other factors.
Equivalency factors are provided in the AASHTO
Guide.
202.1.1 Conversion Factors
In order to simplify the process of converting each
truck expected on the roadway to an ESAL, ODOT
uses ESAL conversion factors for the average of
groups of trucks. The vehicles are grouped into two
categories: single or C units, and tractor-trailer or
B combinations. As truck numbers and axle
weights are being monitored continuously,
conversion factors are calculated yearly by the
Office of Technical services for both truck types for
the different functional classifications being
monitored. The conversion factors printed in this
manual are based on a rolling ten-year average of
the data provided by the Office of Technical
Services and are updated as necessary when
significant changes in the ten-year rolling average
are found. Refer to Figure 202-1 for ODOT’s most
current ESAL Conversion Factors.
2-1
Pavement Design Concepts
202.1.2 Traffic Data
Basic traffic data should be forecasted and certified
by the Office of Technical Services or the District.
This data must include the Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) and the 24-hour truck percentage for the
current year as well as the design year, twelve or
twenty years hence. This data is typically found in
the Design Designation for the project. It is
important to insure the truck percentage is a 24-
hour percentage and not a peak hour percentage.
202.1.3 B:C Ratios
Truck counts can be broken down into two truck
type categories. The larger trucks such as 4 or
more axle single units and semi-tractor trailers are
classified as B type trucks. Smaller trucks such as
three axle single units and buses are classified as
C type trucks. The Office of Technical Services
collects this data on a sampling basis and reports
the data using statewide averages by functional
classification. B:C Ratios are presented in Figure
202-1. These ratios should be used only where
current project counts are not available. Actual B
& C counts are always more accurate than the B:C
ratio provided in Figure 202-1.
202.1.4 Design Lane Factors
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts always include
all lanes and both directions of travel. In order to
design the required pavement thickness, the ADT
needs to be adjusted to represent the loading on
the design lane. This is done by applying the
Directional Distribution, which defines the loading
in each direction of travel, and the Lane Factor,
which distributes the trucks into the different lanes.
The Design Designation generally indicates a
directional distribution other than 50%, however
this distribution represents the peak-hour volume
and is used for geometric design purposes.
Unless the designer has specific, credible
information indicating unequal loading on the two
directions, and this imbalance is expected to
continue throughout the design life of the
pavement, it should be assumed that each
direction will have equal loading over the design life
and a directional distribution of 50% used. If the
designer is certain loading is unequal, a directional
distribution other than 50% may be used but
caution is advised as this can have significant
impact on the on the pavement thickness required.
Refer to Figure 202-1 for ODOT’s most current
Lane Factors.
January 1999
202.2 Calculation of ESAL’s
The calculation of ESAL’s is very simple once all
the data is available. The following equations are
used. All percentages are to be expressed as a
decimal.
ADT * %T24 * D * LF * %B * CF = B ESAL’s
ADT * %T24 * D * LF * %C * CF = C ESAL’s
B ESAL’s + C ESAL’s = Total ESAL’s
Where:
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
%T24 = 24-hour truck percentage of ADT
D = Directional Distribution
LF = Lane factor
%B, C = % B or C trucks of the total trucks
CF = Appropriate truck conversion
factor
Examples of the calculation of design ESAL’s are
provided in Figures 302-1 and 402-1.
202.3 ESAL99
Another method for the calculation of ESAL’s is
available for locations where historical traffic data
is available. This method takes into account
growth rates in numbers of trucks as well growth
rates in the conversion factors associated with the
trucks. The method relies on the practice of
forecasting the future based on trends of the past.
However, trends of the past may not be an
indication of future performance.
For more information regarding this method
contact the Office of Materials Management,
Pavements Section.
203 Subgrade Soil
Characterization
The subgrade is the foundation for all pavements.
Trying to characterize the strength of this
foundation for a particular pavement is a very
difficult task because of the variability found in
nature and during construction. The AASHTO
pavement design equations used by ODOT require
the characterization of the strength of the subgrade
by using the roadbed soil resilient modulus. For
design of pavement, subgrade soil type is
determined directly from soil tests made in
conjunction with the soil profile or bridge foundation
investigations. In Ohio, soils are classified based
2-2
 Pavement Design Concepts

on gradation and Atterburg Limits. Figure 203-1 standard which has been developed for crushed
represents the classification system for Ohio soils. stone.

On all new location projects it is imperative that a

CBR CRUSHED STONE STANDARD
complete soils investigation and soil profile
(subsurface investigation) be performed prior to PENETRATION LOAD
pavement design. Pavement design for pavement
replacement projects and pavement widening 0.1 INCH 1000 PSI
projects can be performed using a historical
subsurface investigation, where it exists, however, 0.2 INCH 1500 PSI
it is recommended to perform an additional
subsurface investigation to design for weak 0.3 INCH 1900 PSI
subgrade conditions and to validate the pavement
0.4 INCH 2300 PSI
design calculations. The need for soils information
regarding major rehabilitation projects is covered in 0.5 INCH 2600 PSI
Section 600.2. In order to insure sufficient
information will be obtained from a soils
investigation, refer to ODOT’s “Specifications for 203.3 Group Index
Subsurface Investigations”.
The Group Index (GI) is a value which represents
General information about soil types can be found a soil type and attempts to characterize the soils
in the Soil Survey books which are published for strength. GI is a function of a soil’s Atterberg
every county in Ohio. Additional information on Limits and gradation. Group Index is defined by
soils and proper construction practices can be the following equation:
found in the Manual of Procedures for Earthwork
Construction put out by the Office of Highway Equation 203.3:
Management.
GI = %P - 35* [0.2 + 0.005* (L.L. - 40)] + 0.01*
203.1 Subgrade Resilient Modulus [%P - 15]*[P.I. - 10]

Where:
The subgrade resilient modulus is a measure of
the ability of a soil to resist permanent deformation
%P = The percentage passing the #200
under repeated loading. Many soils are stress
sieve.
dependent. As the stress level increases, these
L.L. = The Liquid Limit which is the
soils will behave in a nonlinear fashion. Fine-
water content at which a soil flows
grained soils tend to be stress-softening, whereas
like a viscous liquid.
granular soils tend to be stress-hardening. The
P.I. = The Plasticity Index which is the
laboratory test (LTPP P 46) is designed to
numerical difference of the liquid
determine the strain due to a repeated load
and plastic limits, and indicates
(deviator stress) which duplicates the effects of
the range of water content
loads passing over a section of pavement.
through which the soil flows.
Based on limited research and several current
The nomographs shown in Figure 203-2 solve
publications, ODOT has adopted a standard
Equation 203.3.
relationship between Modulus of Resilience and
the California Bearing Ratio (CBR).
In order to reduce the amount of laboratory testing
required to characterize the soil strength, ODOT
Equation 203.1: Mr = 1200 * CBR
developed a relationship between CBR and Group
Index. This relationship was developed in the early
203.2 California Bearing Ratio 1960's by testing thousands of soil samples.
Figure 203-3 provides a correlation chart to convert
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is most the Group Index to the CBR.
commonly obtained by doing a laboratory
penetration test of a soaked sample of soil. The
load required to produce a penetration at each 0.1
inch depth in the soaked sample is divided by a

January 1999 2-3

Pavement Design Concepts
203.4 Soil Profile Analysis
The soil profile is one of the most useful tools for
any geotechnical analysis. This manual only
considers the usefulness of the soil profile as it
applies to pavement design. Using the soil profile,
the Atterberg Limits and GI can be obtained
directly for most samples. Where complete soil
classifications are not provided, refer to Figure
203-1 for estimates of GI. The most appropriate
GI to use for pavement design is determined by
using engineering judgment. Consideration should
be given only to the soil located within the top 3
feet (1m) of proposed subgrade. An average soil
type is to be used for pavement design. ODOT’s
Pavement Design Procedure uses a statistical
reliability factor (see Section 204) to account for
the variability found in the subgrade strength. The
most common error found when reviewing
pavement designs is the use of a CBR value which
is too conservative, in other words using the worst
soil rather than the average. Determination of the
soil type and strength parameters for borrow used
in fill situations should be considered. An
assumption must be made as to where the borrow
will come from. Usually it is assumed that the
borrow will come from somewhere nearby and will
likely be the same soil type. Evaluation should also
include consideration of the cut material to be used
for fill.
203.4.1 Unsuitable Subgrade Soil
Frost susceptible silts are never to be used within
one meter of proposed subgrade elevation. These
soils are classified as A-4b and should be set up
for undercut and replacement with suitable
subgrade materials. It is important to remember
that these soils will not be part of the subgrade and
should not be included in the average soil strength
value used for design.
Weak-wet soils with blow counts of only one or two
are not suitable for subgrade under pavement, and
should be removed and replaced with suitable
material, or stabilized with lime or cement.
January 1999
203.4.2 Soil Stabilization Methods
ODOT CMS Item 206 Lime Soil Stabilized
Subgrade is available for use on subgrade which
has high clay content. Although it is commonly
assumed that the stabilization of the soil results in
higher subgrade strength, ODOT’s current design
methods do not provide for reduced pavement
section as a result of modified subgrade.
ODOT CMS 712.09 provides requirements for
Type D Geotextile Fabric. This fabric can be used
at the bottom of undercuts as a separator between
unsuitable clay or silt and the proposed granular
embankment or aggregate base. The separator
keeps the migration of clay and silt from closing the
voids in the layers above and causing settlement
and/or pumping.
Geotextile fabrics are often recommended to be
used as a construction aid to speed construction,
but should not be used to thin the required
pavement thickness.
Geotechnical recommendations regarding proper
embankment construction, including subgrade
treatment, may be requested from the Office of
Materials Management, Geotechnical Design
Section.
204 Reliability
AASHTO defines Reliability as “the probability that
the load applications a pavement can withstand in
reaching a specified minimum serviceability level is
not exceeded by the number of load applications
that are actually applied to the pavement”.
Technically, reliability is a statistical tool used in
pavement design which assumes a standard
normal distribution exists for all pavement design
parameters and allows the designer to account for
deviation from the average, equally for all
parameters. Reliability parameters can be thought
of as safety factors. Figure 201-1 lists the
Reliability Factors to be used in pavement design
for various classifications of highways.
2-4

204.1 Overall Standard Deviation
The overall standard deviation (variance) is a
measure of the spread of the probability distribution
for ESAL’s vs. Serviceability, considering all the
parameters used to design a pavement. Figure
201-1 lists the Overall Standard Deviation to be
used in pavement design.
205 Subsurface Pavement
Drainage
Subsurface pavement drainage is required on all
projects. Lack of adequate pavement drainage is
the primary cause of distress in many pavements.
Excess moisture in the base and subgrade
reduces the amount of stress the subgrade can
tolerate without strain. Strain in the subgrade
transfers the stress into the upper pavement layers
which induces deformation, and ultimately distress.
Trapped moisture in flexible pavement systems
leads to stripping, raveling, debonding, and rutting.
Excess moisture in rigid pavement systems leads
to pumping, faulting, cracking, and joint failure.
Several approaches are available to keep
pavement systems drained. Joint and crack
sealing can be done to reduce the infiltration of
water. Strategic placement of underdrains and
edgedrains is used to capture the water quickly
and outlet it. The use of free draining base is
promoted to capture all pavement drainage.
205.1 Types of Drainage Systems
There are four means of draining the pavement
subsurface - pipe underdrains, prefabricated edge
drains, aggregate drains and free draining base
systems.
205.1.1 Pipe Underdrains
Pipe underdrains must be used for all Interstate,
freeways, expressways, and multi-lane facilities.
Pipe underdrains are generally used with paved
shoulders and curbed pavements. Refer to
Figures 1009-1 to 1009-5 of the Location & Design
Manual, Volume 2 - Drainage Design; and Location
& Design Manual, Volume 3 - Highway Plans,
Sample Plan Sheets for locations of pipe
underdrains with the various pavement - shoulder
treatments. Special consideration must be given to
the design of pipe underdrains for free draining
base options. Refer to Section 205.1.4.
January 1999
Pavement Design Concepts
205.1.2 Prefabricated Edge Drains
Prefabricated edge drains are located at the edge
of existing concrete pavement on resurfacing
projects where the existing pavement and paved
shoulders are being retained. If existing paved
shoulders are being replaced, a 4 inch (~100 mm)
shallow pipe underdrain at the edge of pavement
should be used in lieu of the prefabricated edge
drain. On resurfacing projects, where edge drains
already exist, existing outlets should be inspected
and replaced where they no longer function.
205.1.3 Aggregate Drains
Aggregate drains are used with bituminous surface
treated shoulders, aggregate shoulders, and for
spot improvements. Aggregate drains are used on
lower volume roadways with bituminous stabilized
or turf shoulders, or any pavement system which
does not have pipe underdrains or prefabricated
edgedrains. Drains should be located at 50-foot
(~15 m) intervals on each side of the pavement
and staggered so each drain is 25 feet (~7.5 m)
from the adjacent drain on the opposite side. If
used on rigid pavements, the drains should be
located to match up to the end of a transverse
joint. For superelevated pavements, spacing
should be at 25 feet (~7.5 m) and drains should be
located on the low side only. Aggregate drains
should be physically cut into the edge of the
pavement - shoulder system, preferably the
aggregate base. Refer to Figures 1009-8 and
1009-9 of the Location & Design Manual, Volume
2 - Drainage Design; and Location & Design
Manual, Volume 3 - Highway Plans, Sample Plan
Sheets for details depicting aggregate drains with
the various pavement - shoulder treatments.
205.1.4 Free Draining Base Options
It is generally accepted that water is one of the
most significant causes of pavement deterioration.
A free draining base (FDB) placed within a
pavement system is highly effective at removing
water which enters the pavement system from the
surface after a rain shower or other precipitation.
Free draining base systems should be considered
for all multi-lane facilities. Free draining bases may
not be feasible in urban settings where utilities are
numerous because the ability to properly construct
and maintain a free draining base is greatly
reduced where manholes, catch basins, water
lines, and other utilities are present.
Where a free draining base is specified it should
not extend into the ramps or crossroads.
2-5
Pavement Design Concepts
There are two basic types of free draining bases
for use under pavements: stabilized and non-
stabilized. Stabilized free draining base consists of
a blend of #57 and #8 aggregate with a Portland
cement or asphalt cement binding agent. Cement
Treated Free Draining Base is Item 306 and
Asphalt Treated Free Draining Base is Item855.
The stabilized bases provide a very stable
construction platform and allow the contractor to
use the base as a haul road for short periods of
time. The contractor must accept all risk for the
potential damage to the base. Non-stabilized free
draining bases, Item 307, have three different
gradations, none of which are stable enough to be
used for a haul road but which have ample stability
for paving. All but one of the free draining bases
are 4 inches (~100 mm) thick, the exception being
the non-stabilized Type ‘CE’, which is 6 inches
(~150 mm) thick.
The choice of free draining base type is dependent
upon pavement type, constructability and
preference. There are concerns regarding the use
of a stabilized free draining bases because of the
relatively short time they have been used and the
lack of performance data which is available. In
fact, there are not yet any available studies which
have been done nationwide which indicate the cost
effectiveness of using any FDB. Ohio has
documented the non-stabilized free draining base-
Type ‘NJ’ may be inducing premature midpanel
cracking under rigid pavements and its use under
rigid pavements is not recommended. There are
separate concerns regarding the use of a stabilized
free draining base, due to the potential for long
term erosion of the binding agent.
All free draining base courses must include a 6
inch (~150 mm) layer of Item 304 Aggregate Base
placed below the free draining base. This layer
contributes to the structural capacity of the
pavement, provides a stable platform for paving
and acts as a filter to prevent the migration of the
subgrade into the free draining base, potentially
January 1999
closing the voids and clogging the drains. Item 408
Prime Coat is required on the surface of the
aggregate base to prevent the fines contained in
the aggregate base from washing into the drainage
system. The prime coat should be applied at 0.4
gallons per square yard (~1.8 liters per square
meter) on top of the aggregate base, everywhere
except above the underdrain trenches.
Two separate drainage systems are used with
pavements which have a free draining base. One
set of underdrains is provided exclusively for the
free draining base, and a second set is provided
exclusively for the subgrade. Since the FDB layer
collects and drains water between the load carrying
layers, sound and committed maintenance is
essential in order to provide the performance
benefits of this base course. Free draining bases
should not be constructed if they are not going to
be maintained throughout the life of the pavement.
Maintenance consists mainly of making sure the
outlets are functioning properly and are not
clogged with debris or blocked in some way.
Consideration should be given to marking outlets
with sign and post for projects with free draining
base. For examples of typical sections depicting
FDB refer to Figures 1009-6 and 1009-7 of the
Location & Design Manual, Volume 2 - Drainage
Design.
205.2 AASHTO Drainage Coefficient
The AASHTO pavement design equations attempt
to consider the effects of drainage on pavement
performance. The nomographs used in this
manual are reprinted from AASHTO and allow for
the use of the drainage coefficient for rigid
pavement design. The flexible design method in
this manual does not include the drainage factor.
For ODOT pavement design the Drainage
Coefficient shall always be 1.0 for design of both
rigid and flexible pavements.
2-6
200 Pavement Design Concepts
List of Figures
Figure Date Subject

201-1 January 1999 Serviceability & Reliability

202-1 January 1999 Traffic Factors

203-1 January 1999 Legend and Classification of Soils

203-2 January 1999 Group Index Charts

203-3 January 1999 Subgrade Resilient Modulus

 201-1
January 1999
Serviceability & Reliability
Reference Section
201 & 204

SERVICEABILITY FACTORS
RIGID / COMPOSITE FLEXIBLE

Initial Serviceability 4.2 4.5

Terminal Serviceability 2.5 2.5

Design Serviceability Loss 1.7 2.0

RELIABILITY LEVELS (%)

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION URBAN RURAL

Interstate and Freeway 95 90

Principle Arterial, Minor Arterial 90 85

Collectors 90 85

Local 80 80

OVERALL STANDARD DEVIATION

Flexible Pavement 0.49

Rigid Pavement 0.39

 202-1
January 1999
Traffic Factors
Reference Section
202

RATIO OF B:C COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION B:C RATIO

Rural Interstate 5:1

Rural Principal Arterial 4:1

All Other Rural 2:1

Urban Interstate, Urban Freeway & Expressway, & Urban Principal Arterial 2:1

All Other Urban 1:2

ESAL CONVERSION FACTORS

RIGID FLEXIBLE
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
B C B C

Rural Interstate 1.84 0.53 1.18 0.40

Rural Principal Arterial 2.36 1.02 1.51 0.66

Rural Minor Arterial (All Others) 1.45 1.59 0.91 0.98

Urban Interstate 2.22 0.78 1.41 0.56

Urban Expressway & Freeway 1.35 0.65 0.78 0.48

Urban Principal Arterial (All Others) 1.60 0.71 0.94 0.43

LANE FACTORS
Number of Lanes % Trucks in Design Lane Directional Distribution (%)

2 - Lane 100 50

4 - Lane 90 50

6 (or more) - Lane 80 50

 203-1
January 1999
Ohio Soils Classification System
Reference Section
203
 203-2
January 1999
Group Index Charts
Reference Section
203
 203-3
January 1999
Subgrade Resilient Modulus
Reference Section
203
Table of Contents

300 Rigid Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations 3-1

300.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

301 Design Parameters 3-1

301.1 Modulus of Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.2 Modulus of Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.3 Load Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.4 Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
301.5 Loss of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
301.6 Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

302 Thickness Determination 3-2

302.1 Ramps and Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

303 Jointing and Shoulder Considerations 3-2

303.1 Transverse Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
303.2 Expansion Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
303.3 Longitudinal Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
303.4 Shoulder Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
303.5 Edge Course Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
303.6 Intersection Jointing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

304 Smoothness Specifications 3-3

305 Composite Pavement 3-3

305.1 Composite Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
305.2 Composite Pavement Typical Section Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
305.3 Composite Pavement Smoothness Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
300 Rigid Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
300.1 Introduction
Rigid pavements can be constructed with
contraction joints, expansion joints, doweled joints,
no joints, temperature steel , continuous reinforcing
steel, or no steel. Regardless of the type of rigid
pavement to be constructed, the ODOT/AASHTO
method of pavement design calculates the same
required thickness. The required thickness is a
function of loading, material properties including
subgrade, and the type of joints, if any. Alterations
to rigid pavement material specifications, jointing
considerations, and mesh provisions other than
those provided in ODOT’s Construction and
Material Specifications or ODOT’s Standard
Construction Drawings may require adjustments to
the procedures described herein.
Additional information on rigid pavement and
proper construction practices can be found in the
Manual of Procedures for Rigid Pavement
Practices and the Manual of Procedures for
Concrete put out by the Office of Highway
Management
301 Design Parameters
ODOT’s method for the design of rigid pavement
limits the designer to prescribed input parameters.
The input values prescribed are based on Ohio
materials, and ODOT Specifications.
301.1 Modulus of Rupture
Modulus of Rupture, as determined under a
breaking load, measures the flexural strength or
extreme fiber stress, of the concrete slab. There
are many ways to determine the modulus of
rupture and each way will give slightly different
results; however, each method can be correlated
to the measure defined for use in the
AASHTO/ODOT method. The modulus of rupture
as defined for ODOT’s pavement design method is
the 28 day - third point loading test as defined by
ASTM C 78. All rigid pavement design should use
a Modulus of Rupture of 700 psi, as shown in
Figure 301-1. Average values obtained through
beam breaks performed as part of ODOT
Construction and Material Specification
requirements should not be used directly for design
purposes, as this test is defined by ASTM C 293 as
a center point loading, and are generally done as
early as 5 days.
January 1999
301.2 Modulus of Elasticity
The modulus of elasticity of concrete is a function
of the strength, age, aggregate properties, cement
properties, and type and size of the specimen
tested as well as rate of loading during the test.
Furthermore there are various methods used to
determine the modulus of elasticity. ODOT’s
method for rigid pavement thickness design is not
highly sensitive to the value used for modulus of
elasticity. Based on values obtained by recent
ODOT research, a Modulus of Elasticity of
5,000,000 psi should be used for all rigid pavement
design. The Modulus of Elasticity is also listed in
Figure 301-1.
301.3 Load Transfer Coefficient
The load transfer coefficient (J) is a factor used in
rigid pavement design to account for the ability of
a concrete pavement to transfer (distribute) load
across discontinuities, such as joints or cracks.
Load transfer devices, aggregate interlock,
widened lanes, and the presence of tied concrete
shoulders all have an influence on this value. J
factors are listed in Figure 301-1.
301.4 Composite Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction
The Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
represents the combined effect of the subgrade
strength or subgrade modulus of resilience, as
discussed in Section 203.1, and the strength, or
elastic modulus, and thickness of the subbase
material. The pavement design process requires
the designer to choose the subbase prior to the
determination of the required slab thickness. The
values to be used for the elastic modulus of the
subbase for ODOT materials is listed in Figure
301-1. Figure 301-2 is a nomograph which
determines the Composite Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction.
For uncurbed pavements carrying more than 50
ESAL’s per day and for curbed pavements carrying
more than 100 ESAL’s per day, a 6 inch granular
base (Item 304) is recommended to prevent
pumping for concrete pavements on fine grained
soils.
3-1
Rigid Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
301.5 Loss of Support
Loss of Support, (LS), is included in the design of
rigid pavements to account for the potential loss of
support arising from subbase erosion and/or
differential vertical soil movements. The potential
of a material to pump is a good indicator of LS. It
is treated in the actual design procedure by
diminishing the composite modulus of subgrade
reaction. Figure 301-1 list the LS factors to be
used for ODOT materials.
301.6 Effective Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction
The Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction is the
Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction as
modified by the Loss of Support. Figure 301-3 is a
nomograph which determines the Effective
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction.
302 Thickness Determination
Assembly of all the design input information is
required prior to determination of design thickness.
Design thickness is determined using the
nomographs found in Figures 302-2 and 302-3. An
example rigid pavement design is provided in
Figure 302-1. Concrete pavements should be
rounded to the nearest 0.5 inch (~10 mm)
increment.
302.1 Ramps and Interchanges
Ramps and Interchanges also require traffic and
soils information for thickness design. However,
some discretion must be used regarding the
calculation of ESAL’s. In general, use the lower
functional classification factors of the two
intersecting routes for Reliability, B:C Ratio, and
ESAL Conversion Factors.
303 Jointing and Shoulder
Considerations
303.1 Transverse Joints
Transverse joints are provided to control cracking.
The closer the joint spacing, the less likely a mid-
panel crack will develop. Ohio uses 17-foot (~5 m)
joint spacing for plain concrete. For reinforced
concrete 60 feet was used before about 1967 when
it was reduced to 40 feet. Then in the early 1980's
it was further reduced to 27 feet for several more
January 1999
years and then to the current standard of 21 feet
(~6.5 m). Current analysis indicates the plain
concrete pavement has a lower initial cost than the
reinforced concrete pavement. However,
uncertainties exist regarding the development of
midpanel cracking in plain concrete pavement.
Current preference is to construct Item 452 Plain
Concrete Pavement above dense graded bases
(Item 304) and Item 451 Reinforced Concrete
Pavement above Free Draining Bases (Items 306,
307 Type IA, and 855).
Load transfer is the critical element at joints and
cracks. In undoweled, unreinforced pavements,
load transfer is provided by aggregate interlock.
Aggregate interlock is lost when slabs contract and
the joints/cracks open up. Interlock is also slowly
destroyed by the movement of the concrete as
traffic passes over. Given the high temperature
variations and heavy truck traffic in Ohio,
aggregate interlock is not effective and faulting is
the primary result. To provide load transfer at the
joints, 18 inch (~460 mm) smooth dowels are used
which allow for expansion and contraction.
Transverse joint design and spacing requirements
are shown in the Standard Construction Drawings.
303.2 Expansion Joints
As slabs contract due to seasonal temperature
changes, joints open and cracks form allowing
incompressible materials into the pavement
system. Subsequently, the pavement can grow in
length and the possibility of pushing a bridge back-
wall, or creating a pavement pressure spall, or a
pavement blowup exists Having a certain amount
of pressure in a pavement is good, since lack of
pressure allows joints and cracks to open which
reduces load transfer. Pressure buildup in rigid
pavements seldom creates pavement distress.
Nonetheless, when distresses are found, they tend
to require some type of maintenance, and may
require immediate care in the case of a blowup.
The most immediate need for an expansion joint or
a pressure relief joint is to protect bridge back-
walls. Four types of pressure relief joints are
detailed in the Standard Construction Drawings.
For new pavement construction, the Type A joint
should be provided at all bridge approaches where
the bridges are over 300 feet (~90 m) apart.
Where bridges are less than 300 feet (~90 m)
apart, the standard expansion joints as required by
Item 451, 452 and 305 of the Construction and
Material Specifications and detailed in the
Standard Construction Drawings are considered
adequate. Use of pressure relief joints for
3-2
 Rigid Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
pavements being rehabilitated is discussed in
Section 500.
303.3 Longitudinal Joints
Longitudinal joints are required whenever the
pavement width exceeds 18 feet (~5.4 m). Ideally,
the joints should be located at lane lines, and out of
the wheel paths. Unless advised otherwise, best
practice dictates to tie all lanes together using a
Standard Longitudinal Joint as detailed in the
Standard Construction Drawings. At intersections,
where two independent pavements meet, a
longitudinal joint without tie bars is required to
separate the two pavements and allow for
independent movement.
303.4 Shoulder Considerations
Shoulders are used to provide an area for the
accommodation of disabled vehicles, for the lateral
support of the base and surface courses, to
improve the safety of a highway, and for future
maintenance of traffic operations during
maintenance and rehabilitation work.
Shoulders for concrete pavements shall be
constructed of the same material and thickness as
the mainline pavement for all Interstate, freeways,
expressways, and other multi-lane divided facilities.
This provides a stable temporary pavement for
maintenance of traffic lane shifts, and reduces the
complexity of construction. Tying concrete
shoulders onto the mainline provides lateral
support and spreads the load over a greater area.
Using other types of shoulders, such as flexible,
bituminous surface treated, stabilized aggregate, or
turf shoulders should be in accordance with
Geometric Standards, discussed in the Location &
Design Manual, Volume One - Roadway Design.
Regardless of shoulder type, shoulder base and
subgrade considerations should include keeping
drainage away from the pavement, rather than
towards it. Examples of typical sections depicting
rigid pavement with different types of shoulders are
shown in Figure 303-1.
303.5 Edge Course Design
The Aggregate Base for a rigid pavement shall
extend 18 inches (~450 mm) beyond the pavement
edge, or to the outside edge of the porous backfill
over the pipe underdrain, or to 6 inches (~150 mm)
January 1999
beyond the outside edge of the paved shoulder,
whichever is greater.
Where curb and gutter or integral curb is used,
subbase shall extend 12 inches (~300 mm) beyond
the back of the curb or to the outside of the porous
backfill over the pipe underdrain, whichever is
greater. Refer to Hydraulics Manual and Sample
Plan Sheets.
303.6 Intersection Jointing Details
Intersections require careful consideration of the
joint layout and dowel and tie bar placement. In
order to ensure load transfer and that cracking is
controlled properly and both intersecting
pavements do not hinder the movement of one
another, jointing diagrams should be provided as
part of the plans. Joint diagrams should be
designed with consideration to maintenance of
traffic needs as well as ease of construction. The
number of longitudinal joints should be kept to a
minimum, and all lanes should be the same width.
Examples of jointing diagrams are included in the
“Location & Design Plan Preparation Sample Plan
Sheets-Volume Three”. Also, there are various
publications provided by the American Concrete
Pavement Association (ACPA) which provides
guidance for intersection jointing layout.
304 Smoothness Specifications
Incentive/disincentive for smoothness is specified
using Proposal Note 450 - 451, 452 and 453
Surface Smoothness Requirements. The Note is
to be used on all projects which have in excess of
1 center-line mile (~1.6 center-line km) of concrete
pavement. However, ODOT CMS smoothness
requirements are more appropriate for urbanized
routes with speed limits posted under 50 miles per
hour, regardless of size of project.
305 Composite Pavement
Composite pavement herein refers to a rigid base
with an asphalt surface. Generally the design of a
composite pavement is discouraged due to the
relative performance and associated costs. Where
local preference is strong and there has been good
performance of composite pavements,
consideration may be given to the design and
specification of a composite pavement.
3-3
Rigid Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations

305.1 Composite Pavement Design

Composite pavements are designed as rigid
pavements. Once the required thickness is
determined, common practice is to reduce the
concrete thickness by one inch (~25 mm) and
replace it with 3 to 3.25 inches (~75 mm - 83 mm)
of asphalt overlay. This ratio of 1 inch of concrete
to 3 inches of asphalt only holds true for the first
inch of concrete removed, and is a approximation
at best. The minimum overlay thickness on a rigid
pavement or base is 3 inches (~76 mm). The
reduction in required thickness should be done
prior to rounding to the nearest 0.5 inch (~10 mm).

305.2 Composite Pavement Typical

Section Design.
Composite pavement should be constructed using
Item 305 Concrete Base. The concrete base shall
extend beyond the wearing surface by 3 inches
(~75 mm). Item 413 Sawing and Sealing Asphalt
Concrete Pavement Joints shall be used for all
newly constructed composite pavements.

305.3 Composite Pavement

Smoothness Specifications
Incentive/disincentive for smoothness on
composite pavement applies to the asphalt surface
only. The guidelines in Section 405 apply.

January 1999 3-4

300 Rigid Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
List of Figures
Figure Date Subject

301-1 January 1999 Rigid Pavement Design Parameters

301-2 January 1999 Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Kc)

301-3 January 1999 Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K)

302-1 January 1999 Rigid Pavement Design Example, Page 1

302-1 June 1999 Rigid Pavement Design Example, Pages 2 and 3

302-2 January 1999 Rigid Pavement Design Chart Segment 1

302-3 January 1999 Rigid Pavement Design Chart Segment 2

303-1 January 1999 Bituminous Surface Treated Shoulder And Stabilized

Aggregate Shoulder Typical Sections
 301-1
January 1999
Rigid Pavement Design Parameters
Reference Section
301

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Modulus of Rupture (S’C) 700 psi

Modulus of Elasticity (EC) 5,000,000 psi

Load Transfer Coefficient (J) - Doweled, Edge Support* 2.8

Load Transfer Coefficient (J) - Doweled, No Edge Support* 3.2

SUBBASE FACTORS
Recommended Loss of Support
Elastic Modulus (PSI)
ODOT Specification Thickness (in.)
(ESB)
(DSB) (LS)

Item 301, 302

Bituminous Aggregate 4" 300,000 0
Base

Stabilized (Treated) 10"

Free Draining Base 30,000 0
with Item 304** 6" 304 / 4" SFDB

Non-Stabilized Free 10"

Draining Base with 30,000 0
Item 304** 6" 304 / 4" NSFDB

Item 304 Aggregate

6" 30,000 1
Base

Natural Subgrade *** 2

* Edge support includes tied concrete shoulders, integral curb, widened lane, etc. Widened lane
refers to concrete slabs built 14 feet (~4.2 m) wide or wider, but striped for a standard 12-foot (~3.6 m)
lane, leaving 2 feet (~0.6 m) outside the traveled lane to provide edge support.

** The use of a free draining base always includes a 6-inch (~150 mm) layer of Item 304 Aggregate
Base to be used as a filter layer and is used to keep the subgrade from infiltrating and plugging the
free draining base. The values to be used in the table represent the combined effect of the strength of
the 6-inch (~150 mm) aggregate base filter layer, as well as the free draining base layer.

*** Not recommended for most applications. See Section 301.4

 301-2
Composite Modulus of Subgrade January 1999

Reaction (Kc) Ref. Section & Figure

301.4, 302-1 (step 4)
 301-3
Effective Modulus of Subgrade January 1999

Reaction (k) Ref. Section & Figure

301.6, 302-1 (step 5)
 302-1
January 1999
Rigid Pavement Design Example
Page 1 Reference Section
302

Example - Rigid Pavement Design

Givens:

• Pavement of choice: Doweled, jointed concrete

• Subbase: 6 inches Item 304 Aggregate Base

• Shoulders: Tied, jointed, concrete

• Number of Lanes: 4

• Functional Classification: Rural Principal Arterial

• 1998 Traffic: 14,800 ADT

• 2018 Traffic: 23,360 ADT

• 24 hour truck % 10

• Year Completed: 2000

• Soil Classification: Liquid Limit = 45

Plasticity Index = 12
% Passing #200 sieve = 70

Problem: Solve for the thickness of the concrete slab.

Solution:

Step 1 - Determine the Group Index Number (G.I.) Using Figure 203-2.

In chart A, solve for the Partial Group Index using the 70 % Passing No. 200 Sieve and the Liquid
Limit (L.L.) Of 45. G.I. from Chart A = 7.9. In Chart B, solve for the Partial Group Index using the 70
% (55 or more) Passing No. 200 Sieve and the Plasticity Index of 12. G.I. from Chart B = 0.8. The
total G.I. is 7.9 plus 0.8 or 8.7 (Rounded to 9).

Step 2 - Determine the Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR) using Figure 203-3.

Using a G.I. of 9 from Figure 203-2 (Step 1), the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is 6 (Rounded). The
CBR is used in the following formula to determine the Resilient Modulus.

MR = 1200 X 6 = 7200 psi.

 302-1
June 1999
Rigid Pavement Design Example
Page 2 Reference Section
302

Step 3 - Determine the 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL).

Since the project is expected to begin carrying traffic in the year 2000, the traffic period would be 2000
to 2020, with a mid-year of 2010 and an interpolated ADT of 19,936.

Directional Distribution, D = 50 % (Figure 202-1)

Lane Factor = .90 (Figure 202-1)
B:C Ratio = 4:1 (Figure 202-1)
B factor = 2.36 (Figure 202-1)
C factor = 1.02 (Figure 202-1)

Using the equations given in Section 202.2:

ESAL's from B trucks: 19,936(0.10)(0.50)(0.90)(4/5)(2.36) = 1,693.8 ESAL

ESAL's from C trucks: 19,936(0.10)(0.50)(0.90)(1/5)(1.02) = 183.0 ESAL

Total ESAL's 1,876.8 ESAL’s per day

Design Period ESAL's = 1,876.8 X 365.25 days/yr. X 20 year = 13,709,842 say 13.7x106 ESAL’s

Step 4 - Determine the Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Kc) using Figure 301-2.

Starting with the given subbase thickness (DSB) of 6", a line is projected up to the Subbase Elastic
Modulus (ESB) curve of 30,000 psi (Item 304 Aggregate Base from Figure 301-1). From this point on
the 30,000 psi curve, a line is projected to the right for future intersection. Similarly, from the 6"
subbase thickness (DSB), a line is projected down to the Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR) curve of
1200 psi ( Figure 203-3, Step 2). From this point on the 1200 psi curve, a line is projected to the right
to the turning line and then projected up to intersect with previously projected line. This intersection
results in a Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (KC) of 400 pci.

Step 5 - Determine the Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K) using Figure 301-3.

The Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Kc) is 400 pci from Figure 301-2, Step 4. The Loss of
Support (LS) for Item 304 Aggregate Base is 1.0 from Figure 301-1. This results in a K of 130 pci.
 302-1
June 1999
Rigid Pavement Design Example
Page 3 Reference Section
302

Step 6 - Determine the thickness of the concrete slab using Figures 302-2 and 302-3.

Figure 302-2 is used to solve for the Match Line Number using the following information:

Effective Modulus of Subgrade (K) = 130 pci (Figure 301-3, Step 5).

Concrete Elastic Modulus (EC) = 5,000,000 psi (Figure 301-1).

Concrete Modulus of Rupture (S’C) = 700 psi (Figure 301-1)

Load Transfer Coefficient (J) - 2.8 (Figure 301-1).

Drainage Coefficient (CD) = 1.0 (Section 205.2).

The resulting Match Line Number of 62 is then used on Figure 302-3, along with the following
information, to solve for the Design Slab Thickness (D).

Design Serviceability Loss (PSI) = 1.7 (Figure 201-1).

Reliability = 85% (Figure 201-1).

Overall Standard Deviation = 0.39 (Figure 201-1).

18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load = 13.7x106 ESAL (Step 3)

Therefore: Design Slab Thickness (D) = 9.6 inches

Use 9.5 inches

 302-2
Rigid Pavement Design Chart January 1999

Segment 1 Ref. Section & Figure

302, 302-1 (step 6)
 302-3
Rigid Pavement Design Chart January 1999

Segment 2 Ref. Section & Figure

302, 302-1 (step 6)
Bituminous Surface Treated Shoulder 303-1
January 1999
and Stabilized Aggregate Shoulder
Reference Section
Typical Sections 205.1, 303.4, 303.5
Table of Contents

400 Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations 4-1

400.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

401 Design Parameters 4-1

402 Structural Number Determination 4-1

402.1 Ramps and Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

403 Typical Section and Buildup Considerations 4-1

403.1 Typical Section Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
403.2 Shoulder Buildups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
403.3 Edge Course Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
403.4 Paved Shoulder Edge Course Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

404 Lift Thickness and Specification Guidelines 4-2

404.1 All Item 446 & 448 Type 1 and Type 2 Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
404.2 Superpave Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
404.3 Item 446 & 448 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1, PG64-22 . . . . . 4-3
404.4 Items 446 and 448 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1H . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
404.4.1 Item 858 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, 12.5 mm A & B (446 & 448)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
404.5 Item 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 1, PG64-22 . . . . . . . 4-4
404.6 Item 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2, PG64-28 & PG64-22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
404.6.1 Item 858 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, 19 mm A & B (446)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
404.7 Item 448 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 1, PG64-28 & PG64-22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
404.7.1 Item 858 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, 9.5 mm A & B (448)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.8 Item 448 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2, PG64-28 & PG64-22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.8.1 Item 848 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, 19 mm A & B (448)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.9 Item 301 Bituminous Aggregate Base, PG64-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.10 Item 302 Bituminous Aggregate Base, PG64-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
404.11 Item 407 Tack Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
404.12 Item 408 Prime Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

405 Smoothness Specifications 4-6

400 Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
400.1 Introduction
Flexible pavement design is based on the use of
the Structural Number. The Structural Number is
a regression coefficient expressing the structural
strength of a pavement required for given
combinations of soil support (MR), traffic loading,
and terminal serviceability. Flexible pavements
can be constructed with Superpave mixes, stone
mastic mixes, contractor designed mixes, or
ODOT mixes; however, regardless of the mix
design method used for a flexible pavement, the
ODOT/AASHTO method of pavement design
calculates the same required Structural Number.
Once the Structural Number is determined, the
flexible buildup is determined by using the
appropriate structural coefficient for ODOT
specification materials. Alterations to ODOT’s
Construction and Material Specifications for
asphalt concrete may require adjustments to the
procedures described herein.
Additional information on flexible pavement and
proper construction practices can be found in the
Manual of Procedures for Flexible Pavement
Construction put out by the Office of Highway
Management
401 Design Parameters
Flexible pavement design is based on relatively few
input parameters. Serviceability, traffic loading
(ESAL), subgrade strength (MR), reliability and
overall standard deviation have all been discussed
in Section 200. The appropriate structural
coefficients for ODOT asphalt concrete material
specifications are found in Figure 401-1.
402 Structural Number
Determination
Assembly of all the design input information is
required prior to determination of design thickness.
Structural Number is determined using the
nomographs found in Figures 402-2 and 402-3. An
example flexible pavement design is provided in
Figure 402-1.
January 1999
402.1 Ramps and Interchanges
Ramps and Interchanges also require traffic and
soils information for thickness design. However,
some discretion must be used regarding the
calculation of ESAL’s. In general, use the lower
functional classification factors for Reliability, B:C
Ratio, and ESAL Conversion Factors.
403 Typical Section and Buildup
Considerations
403.1 Typical Section Design
Regardless of the SN required, a buildup which
includes an aggregate base (Item 304) will
generally provide better performance than a full
depth asphalt concrete buildup. The aggregate
base is less sensitive to moisture than the
subgrade is and it separates the pavement further
from the subgrade. An aggregate base is
recommended under all flexible pavements and
particularly when the thickness of a full depth
flexible design is very thin, approximately 5 inches
(~130 mm) (SN ~ 1.8) or less.
All surface and intermediate courses should be
should be specified in 0.25 inch (~5 mm)
increments. Items 301 and 302 should be
specified in 0.5 inch (~10 mm) increments. Item
304 is typically placed at 6 inches (~150 mm) thick.
The minimum thickness for Item 304 is 4 inches
(~100 mm) and it should be specified in 1 inch
(~25 mm) increments.
When designing a flexible pavement, some
consideration should be given to reducing the total
number of separate lifts required. This can be
done by keeping in mind the maximum and
minimum lift thicknesses for all of the materials
involved. Maximum and minimum lift thicknesses
can be found either in the Construction and
Materials Specifications book or Section 404 in this
Manual.
4-1
Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
403.2 Shoulder Buildups
Shoulders are used to provide an area for the
accommodation of disabled vehicles, for the lateral
support of the base and surface courses, to
improve the safety of a highway, and for future
maintenance of traffic operations during
maintenance and rehabilitation work.
Shoulders for flexible pavements shall be
constructed of the same materials and thicknesses
as the mainline pavement for all Interstate,
freeways, expressways, and other multi-lane
facilities. This provides for the ability to have a hot
longitudinal joint at the pavement-shoulder
interface, provides a stable temporary pavement
for maintenance of traffic lane shifts, and reduces
the complexity of construction. Using other types
of shoulders, such as bituminous surface treated,
stabilized aggregate, or turf shoulders should be in
accordance with Geometric Standards, discussed
in the Location & Design Manual, Volume One -
Roadway Design. Regardless of shoulder type,
shoulder base and subgrade considerations should
include directing drainage away from the
pavement, rather than towards it. Examples of
typical sections depicting flexible pavement with
different types of shoulders are located in Figure
403-1. Also refer to the Hydraulics Manual and
Sample Plan Sheets.
403.3 Edge Course Design
Item 304 Aggregate Base shall extend 6 inches
(~150 mm) beyond the edge of the overlying
bituminous base for bituminous base courses 9
inches (~225 mm) or less in thickness and 12
inches (~300 mm) beyond the edge for bituminous
base courses thicker than 9 inches (~225 mm).
Item 302 Bituminous Aggregate Base shall extend
6 inches (~150 mm) beyond the edge of the
overlying Item 301 Bituminous Aggregate Base for
Item 301 courses 9 inches (~225 mm) or less in
thickness and 12 inches (~300 mm) beyond the
edge for Item 301 courses thicker than 9 inches
(~225 mm). Each course, regardless of the
number of lifts required by the specifications, shall
be designed and shown in a vertical plane.
Any base course shall extend beyond the edge of
the overlying intermediate course a distance equal
to the thickness of the surface course plus the
January 1999
intermediate course or 4 inches (~100 mm),
whichever is greater.
The outside edge of the intermediate course shall
be in alignment with the outside edge of the
surface course.
For concrete curbed sections, the asphalt concrete
shall be paved to the face of the curb. Where the
bottom courses of the asphalt pavement buildup lie
below the depth of the curb base, those layers
should be placed as a foundation for the curb, and
should have the proper edge course design as
discussed above.
403.4 Paved Shoulder Edge Course
Design
For shoulders that have the same buildup as
mainline pavement refer to section 403.3. Where
shoulders are constructed with a buildup different
than the mainline pavement, the outside edge of
each course shall extend 6 inches (~150 mm)
beyond the edge of the overlying course.
4 0 4 Li f t Thi c k n e s s and
Specification Guidelines
Items 402, 403, and 404 are no longer used on
ODOT administered projects.
ODOT asphalt concrete specifications contain
gradation requirements for all items. For optimum
performance of the pavement system, it is
important to design the various lifts of asphalt
concrete items in order to achieve maximum
smoothness, durability, and densification. In order
to do this, some constraints are required regarding
maximum and minimum lift thicknesses in relation
to the gradation of the item specified. Refer to
ODOT specification 441.02 and supplemental
specification 858 for gradation differences and BP-
3.1 for feathering details. Of particular importance,
it must be understood that by following the
guidelines provided herein, typical sections which
require heavy mix designs should avoid specifying
overlay thicknesses between 2.5 inches (~65 mm)
and 3.25 inches (~83 mm).
Reference is made to Appendix B - Pavement
Guidelines for Treatment of High Stress Locations.
4-2
 Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
404.1 All Item 446 & 448 Type 1 and
Type 2 Courses
The only difference between 446 and 448 is the
way ODOT accepts the material during
construction. These materials are identical as they
come out of the plant. Because Item 446 carries a
density requirement for acceptance criteria, it is
important to understand that Item 446 must only be
specified where a uniform thickness is used. The
following guidelines are to be used for the
determination of asphalt concrete material
specification:
• Specify 446 for all projects which require a
quantity of greater than 500 cubic yards
(~500 cubic meters) of Type 1H surface
course.
• Specify 446 for all multi-lane resurfacing
and rehabilitation projects.
• Specify 446 for all projects where included
quantities (Type 1 and Type 2) exceed
2000 cubic yards (~1500 cubic meters).
• Specify 448 for all projects where 446 is
not required.
• Superpave shall be implemented in
accordance with direction provided by the
Division of Engineering Policy.
For projects which require 446, and only use
variable thickness at bridges and ramps in order to
taper down to the required elevation, it is
considered good practice to specify only the 446
Item. ODOT construction and testing staff will only
test the areas which are constructed as uniform
thickness, and skip the testing of the variable
thickness courses. This will eliminate a pay item
and other complications.
Where Item 446 is specified for the surface course,
all Type 1 and Type 2 material specified should be
446, except where a uniform lift thickness is not
possible.
404.2 Superpave Specifications
Superpave mixes are similar to 446 and 448 mixes
except the mix design procedures as required in
ODOT CMS 441 are modified by Supplemental
Specification 858.
January 1999
Type A and B requirements are found in SS 858.
They control gradation bands and aggregate
angularity. Type A has higher crush requirements
that may mean the importation of aggregate in
some areas of the state. This will raise product
cost where districts have had good performance
from locally available aggregates. Type B has
more restrictive gradation bands but lower crush
requirements. Gradation requirements of Type B
mix will closely resemble Type 1H mix under 441.
District testing and construction personnel
knowledgeable in materials should be consulted
prior to selection of Type A or B.
Pay descriptions for Superpave items contain a
reference to the maximum aggregate size used in
the mix. Accordingly, the 9.5 mm, 12.5 mm, and
19.0 mm aggregate sizes are used for Superpave
mix types. This reference to the maximum
aggregate size replaces the reference to Type 1,
Type 1H, and Type 2, respectively, used in non-
superpave specifications, and has nothing to do
with any other measurement.
404.3 Item 446 & 448 Asphalt Concrete
Surface Course, Type 1, PG64-22
This item is intended to be used as a surface
course for Medium or Light traffic (see PN 417 and
418). Lift thickness can vary between 1.25 inches
(~32 mm) and 1.5 inches (~38 mm). Lift thickness
can be reduced to 1 inch (~25 mm), but must be a
uniform thickness if 446 is specified.
Where Item 446 is specified for the surface course,
all Type 1 material specified should be Item 446
material, except where a uniform lift thickness is
not possible. Item 446 is to be specified only in
uniform thickness.
404.4 Items 446 and 448 Asphalt
Concrete Surface Course, Type 1H
All projects which require a quantity greater than
500 cubic yards of Type 1H surface course shall
specify Item 446 for the surface course. Item 446
is to be specified only in uniform thickness.
This item is intended to be used as a surface
course for a Heavy mix design (ADTT>1500, see
PN 416). Type 1H mix is designed for maximum
rut resistance at 1.5 inches (~38 mm) thick. Type
1H is generally the most expensive mix and an
4-3
Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
increased thickness may not be economical. In
special situations where an intermediate course is
not possible, Type 1H may be specified up to a
maximum of 2.5 inches (~65 mm). A 1H course
cannot be placed properly at a thickness less than
1.5 inches (~38 mm). Durability and
constructability problems will result. Best practice
is to use 1.5 inches (~38 mm).
A Type 1H will not have a performance grade (PG)
asphalt cement specification. All 1H mixes are
designed using an SBS or SBR polymer modified
asphalt cement. For more detailed information see
PN 101-96 and SS 1055.
404.4.1 Item 858 Asphalt Concrete Surface
Course, 12.5 mm A & B (446 & 448)
This Item is the Superpave version of Type 1H.
The requirements of Section 404.4 apply.
404.5 Item 446 Asphalt Concrete
Intermediate Course, Type 1, PG64-22
This item is to be used as an intermediate course
in pavement overlay situations where the total
overlay thickness is less than 3 inches (~75 mm).
A Type 1 Intermediate Course is required because
of the thin intermediate layer. Lift thickness for this
item can be as thin as 1 inch (~25 mm) and as
thick as 1.5 inches (~38 mm). Item 446 is to be
specified only in uniform thickness. Because the
grading of Type 1 mixes typically exhibit less
stability than that of a Type 1H or a Type 2 mixture,
caution is advised when determining the use and
thickness of this item, such that deformation is
avoided. Best practice is to include some planing
of the existing surface to allow a Type 2 material to
be used for the intermediate course.
This item is not to be used in combination with a
Type 1H surface course.
Where Item 446 is specified for the surface course,
all Type 1 material specified should be Item 446
material, except where a uniform lift thickness is
not possible.
404.6 Item 446 Asphalt Concrete
Intermediate Course, Type 2, PG64-28
& PG64-22
This item is intended to be used as an intermediate
course. The gradation of this mix requires the lift
to be at least 1.75 inches (~45 mm) thick. In
January 1999
special circumstances it is possible to allow this lift
to be as thin as 1.5 inches (~38 mm), but this is
discouraged. Item 446 is to be specified only in
uniform thickness.
Caution is advised when determining the use of
and the thickness of this Item. ODOT CMS
specifies a maximum compaction lift of 3 inches
(~75 mm). For a required layer of say 3.5 inches
(~90 mm), the contractor will automatically place
the material in two lifts of 1.75 inches (~45 mm). It
is best to avoid specifying layers between 3 inches
(~75 mm) and 3.5 inches (~90 mm) due to the 1.75
inch (~45 mm) minimum lift thickness requirement.
For most situations, the total thickness should not
exceed 4.5 inches (~115 mm), as it would be better
to introduce the additional thickness into the 301 or
302 or even the 304 base(s).
Specify PG64-28 for projects which have a Type
1H surface mix, otherwise specify PG64-22.
404.6.1 Item 858 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate
Course, 19 mm A & B (446)
This Item is the Superpave version of Item 446
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2,
PG64-28. The requirements of Section 404.6
apply.
404.7 Item 448 Asphalt Concrete
Intermediate Course, Type 1, PG64-28
& PG64-22
The intent of this item is for a scratch course.
Uniform lift thickness for this item can be as thin as
1 inch (~25 mm) and as thick as 1.5 inches (~38
mm). This item can be used as a variable
thickness course. For some rare occasions, when
this lift is used as a leveling or wedge course, it
may be practical to stretch the lift thickness past
the 1.5 inch (~38 mm) limit. For situations where
the variability of the course thickness is excessive,
say 0 inches to 2 inches (0 mm to ~50 mm),
consideration should be given to pavement planing
to allow for the use of a Type 2 mix which provides
more stability than a Type 1mix. This item can be
tapered to 0 inches (0 mm).
For projects which require 446 specifications, but
need this type of a leveling or wedge, there is
nothing wrong with placing a 448 Intermediate,
Type 1 under a 446 Surface. However, this item is
not to be used as uniform thickness layer
underneath a Type 1H layer. Where Item 446 is
specified for the surface course, all Type 1 material
4-4
 Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
specified should be Item 446 material, except
where a uniform lift thickness is not possible.
Specify PG64-28 for projects which have a Type
1H surface mix, otherwise specify PG64-22.
404.7.1 Item 858 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate
Course, 9.5 mm A & B (448)
This Item is the Superpave version of Item 448
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 1,
PG64-28. The requirements of Section 404.7
apply.
404.8 Item 448 Asphalt Concrete
Intermediate Course, Type 2, PG64-28
& PG64-22
The intent of this item is the same as for Item 446
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2
(Section 404.6). However, there is a difference.
This item can also be used as a variable thickness
course. For some rare occasions, when this lift is
used as a leveling or wedge course, it may be
practical to stretch the maximum recommended
thickness past the 4.5 inch (~115 mm) limit. As for
the minimum lift thickness, this item can be
specified to 0 inches (0 mm).
For projects which require 446 specifications, but
need this type of a leveling or wedge, it is
acceptable to place a 448 Intermediate, Type 2
under a 446 Surface Type 1. However, for high
traffic volumes, this practice should be avoided, if
possible, to minimize pavement densification under
traffic.
Specify PG64-28 for projects which have a Type
1H surface mix, otherwise specify PG64-22.
404.8.1 Item 848 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate
Course, 19 mm A & B (448)
This Item is the Superpave version of Item 448
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2,
PG64-28. The requirements of Section 404.8
apply.
January 1999
404.9 Item 301 Bituminous Aggregate
Base, PG64-22
This item is to be used in conjunction with both a
surface and intermediate course. The gradation of
this mix requires the lift to be at least 3 inches (~75
mm) thick. For most situations, this material
should have 304 underneath, and a minimum of 3
inches (~75 mm) of surface and intermediate
course above. In special circumstances it is
possible to allow this lift to be as thin as 2.5 inches
(~65 mm), but this is discouraged. This item may
be placed in variable thicknesses. ODOT CMS
specifies a maximum compaction lift of 6 inches
(~150 mm). For a required layer of say 7 inches
(~180 mm) the contractor will automatically place
the material in two lifts of 3.5 inches (~90 mm).
For most situations, the total thickness should not
exceed 10 inches (~250 mm), as it would be better
to introduce the additional thickness into a 302
and/or a 304 base(s). This material can handle
traffic during construction due to phasing but care
should be taken to minimize high traffic volume
contact. In high traffic volume situations, an
intermediate course is preferred for maintenance
of traffic, particularly over the winter.
404.10 Item 302 Bituminous Aggregate
Base, PG64-22
This item is to be used in conjunction with both a
surface and intermediate course. This mix was
developed for use with thick flexible pavements
where high volume truck traffic exists. When lift
thicknesses and maintenance of traffic operations
allow, Item 302 is preferred over Item 301. The
gradation of this mix requires the lift to be at least
4 inches (~100 mm) thick. ODOT CMS specifies
a maximum compaction lift of “less than 8 inches
(200 mm).” For a required layer of exactly 8 inches
(~200 mm) the contractor will automatically place
the material in two lifts of 4 inches (~100 mm).
This item may be placed in variable thicknesses.
For most situations, this material should have 304
underneath, and a minimum of 3 inches (~75 mm)
of surface and intermediate course above. It is not
necessary to put a 301 course above a 302 course.
Placement of 301 below 302 is illogical. Item 302
should not be used for maintenance of traffic for
more than approximately 60 days and never over
the winter. If it is necessary to maintain traffic for
more than 60 days or over winter, the top 3 inches
(75 mm) of the 302 could be changed to 301, or
more preferable, the project should be scheduled
to allow the intermediate course to be placed for
maintenance of traffic.
4-5
Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
404.11 Item 407 Tack Coat
A tack coat is used to glue an asphalt layer to the
layer below. Tack coats are required anytime a
surface course is placed on an intermediate course
(CMS 407.052). Tack coat is recommended
anytime new asphalt is being placed on an existing
surface with two exceptions. Tack coat should not
be used under a bondbreaker layer for an
unbonded concrete overlay. Tack coat also should
not be used on rubblized concrete.
Actual application rates of tack coat are set in the
field. The most common application rate used for
estimating quantities is 0.75 gallons per square
yard (0.34 L/m2). Estimated application rate of tack
for surface courses placed on intermediate
courses is 0.04 gallons per square yard (.018
L/m2).
404.12 Item 408 Prime Coat
Prime coats are applied to Item 304 Aggregate
Base to prevent binder from the asphalt from being
absorbed into the 304 or under a free draining
base to prevent erosion of the 304. Prime coats
are required under all free draining bases, see
Section 205.1.4. In the absence of a free draining
base, a prime coat is recommended anytime the
thickness of the Bituminous Aggregate Base (Item
January 1999
301 or 302) is less than or equal to the thickness of
the 304. For thicker pavements a prime coat may
not be necessary but is still optional.
Application rate for prime coat is always 0.4 gallons
per square yard (1.8 L/m2).
405 Smoothness Specifications
Incentive/disincentive for smoothness is specified
using Proposal Note 414 - 446 Surface
Smoothness Requirements. The Note is to be
used on projects which have a 446-type surface
mix, either conventional or Superpave. The traffic
volume should be either heavy or medium (see PN
416 and 417). The project should be greater than
one center-line mile (~1.6 center-line km) of
divided highway with two or more lanes per
direction. On resurfacing projects, the total
thickness of new asphalt must be at least 4 inches
(~100 mm) if the existing surface is not planed, or
3 inches (~75 mm) if the existing surface is planed.
When placing an overlay directly on concrete which
has either never been overlayed or has had the
existing overlay removed, the total thickness of
asphalt must be at least 4 inches (~100 mm). The
exception to this is projects which involve building
a new composite pavement do not require the 4-
inch (~100 mm) minimum.
4-6
400 Flexible Pavement Design Procedures & Considerations
List of Figures
Figure Date Subject

401-1 January 1999 Flexible Pavement Structural Coefficients

402-1 January 1999 Flexible Pavement Design Example

402-2 January 1999 Flexible Pavement Design Chart Segment 1

402-3 January 1999 Flexible Pavement Design Chart Segment 2

403-1 January 1999 Bituminous Surface Treated Shoulder and Stabilized

Aggregate Shoulder Typical Sections
 401-1
Flexible Pavement Structural January 1999

Coefficients Reference Section

401

ASPHALT CONCRETE STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS

English Metric
Material
Coefficient Coefficient

Items 446, 448 - Asphalt Concrete Surface Courses 0.35 0.0138

Items 446, 448 - Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Courses 0.35 0.0138

Items 301, 302 - Bituminous Aggregate Base Courses 0.35 0.0138

Item Special - SMA mixes, Superpave mixes 0.35 0.0138

Cracked & Seated Plain Concrete Pavement 0.27 0.0106

Existing Asphalt Concrete - old, oxidized, & weathered 0.23 0.0092

Item 304 - Aggregate Base 0.14 0.0055

Item Special - Rubblize & Roll Existing Concrete Pavement 0.14 0.0055

Items 306, 307, 855 - Free Draining Base Layers 0.14 0.0055

Asphalt Concrete Drainage Factor = 1.0

 402-1
January 1999
Flexible Pavement Design Example
Page 1 Reference Section
402

Example - Flexible Pavement Design

Givens:

• Number of Lanes: 4

• Functional Classification: Rural Principal Arterial

• 1998 Traffic: 14,800 ADT

• 2018 Traffic: 23,360 ADT

• 24 hour truck % 10

• Year Completed: 2000

• Soil Classification: Liquid Limit = 45

Plasticity Index = 12
% Passing #200 sieve = 70

Problem: Solve for the Structural Number of the Flexible Buildup

Solution:

Step 1 - Determine the Group Index Number (G.I.) Using Figure 203-2.

In chart A, solve for the Partial Group Index using the 70 % Passing No. 200 Sieve and the Liquid
Limit (L.L.) Of 45. G.I. from Chart A = 7.9. In Chart B, solve for the Partial Group Index using the 70
% (55 or more) Passing No. 200 Sieve and the Plasticity Index of 12. G.I. from Chart B = 0.8. The
total G.I. is 7.9 plus 0.8 or 8.7 (Rounded to 9).

Step 2 - Determine the Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR) using Figure 203-3.

Using a G.I. of 9 from Figure 203-2 (Step 1), the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is 6 (Rounded). The
CBR is used in the following formula to determine the Resilient Modulus.

MR = 1200 X 6 = 7200 psi.

 402-1
January 1999
Flexible Pavement Design Example
Page 2 Reference Section
402

Step 3 - Determine the 18 Kip Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL)

Since the project is expected to begin carrying traffic in the year 2000, the traffic period would be 2000
to 2020, with a mid-year of 2010 and an interpolated ADT of 19,936.

Directional Distribution, D = 50 % (Figure 202-1)

Lane Factor = .90 (Figure 202-1)
B:C Ratio = 4:1 (Figure 202-1)
B factor = 1.51 (Figure 202-1)
C factor = 0.66 (Figure 202-1)

ESAL's from B trucks: 19,936(0.10)(0.50)(0.90)(4/5)(1.51) = 1,083.7 ESAL

ESAL's from C trucks: 19,936(0.10)(0.50)(0.90)(1/5)(0.66) = 118.4 ESAL

Total ESAL’s 1,202.1 ESAL per day

Design Period ESAL’s = 1,202.1 X 365.25 days/yr. X 20 year = 8,781,639 say 8.8 x 106 ESAL

Step 4

Determine the Design Structural Number (SN) using Figures 402-2 and 402-3. In Figure 402-2, solve
for the Match Line Number using the following information:

Reliability = 85 % (Figure 201-1)

Overall Standard Deviation = 0.49 (Figure 201-1)
18-kip Single Axle Loads = 8.8 x 106 ESAL (Step 3)
Resilient Modulus = 7,200 psi (Step 2)

The resulting Match Line Number of 39 is then used in Figure 402-3, along with the Design
Serviceability Loss of 2.0 (Figure 201-1), to solve for the Design Structural Number (SN).

Therefore: Design Structural Number (SN) = 4.50

Step 5

Design the typical section using the layer coefficients found in Figure 401-1. The total SN for the
pavement buildup shall equal or exceed the SN (SN = 4.5) determined from Figure 402-3.
 402-1
January 1999
Flexible Pavement Design Example
Page 3 Reference Section
402

By checking the current year Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT, see PN 416), determine the type of
surface mix required.

14,800 X 0.10 = 1,480 trucks < 1,500 trucks (see Note)

Therefore, use a Type I surface course at a minimum lift thickness of 1.25 inches.

The following buildup is not the only solution, but will satisfy the required SN:

Material Thickness Coefficient SN

448 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1, PG64-22 1.25" 0.35 0.44
448 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2, PG64-22 1.75" 0.35 0.61
301 Bituminous Aggregate Base 7.5" 0.35 2.62
304 Aggregate Base 6" 0.14 0.84

16.5" 4.51

Note: 1,480 trucks per day (ADTT) is so close to 1,500 that it may be appropriate to specify
a heavy mix design. Also see PN 416, and Appendix B
 402-2
Flexible Pavement Design Chart January 1999

Segment 1 Ref. Section & Figure

402, 402-1(step 4)
 402-3
Flexible Pavement Design Chart January 1999

Segment 2 Ref. Section & Figure

402, 402-1(step 4)
Bituminous Surface Treated Shoulder 403-1
January 1999
and Stabilized Aggregate Shoulder
Reference Section
Typical Sections 205.1
Table of Contents

500 Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation 5-1

500.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

501 Deflection Measuring Equipment 5-1

501.1 Dynaflect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
501.2 Falling Weight Deflectometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

502 Deflection Testing and Analysis 5-1

502.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
502.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.2.1 Edwards Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.2.2 W 5 vs. CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.2.3 Load Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.2.4 Joint Support Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.3 Factors Affecting Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.3.1 Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.3.2 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
502.3.3 Pavement Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

503 Overlay Design Procedure 5-3

503.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
503.2 Rigid Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
503.3 Flexible Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
503.4 Composite Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
503.4.1 Brick Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

504 Minor Rehabilitation Strategies 5-5

504.1 Asphalt Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.2 Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.2.1 Brick Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.3 Pavement Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.3.1 Rigid and Composite Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
504.3.2 Flexible Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
504.3.3 Brick Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
504.4 Reflective Crack Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.4.1 Sawing and Sealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.4.2 Fabrics and Geogrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.5 Concrete Pavement Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.6 Geometric Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.7 Pavement Widening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
504.7.1 Rigid Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
504.7.2 Flexible Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
504.7.3 Composite Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
500 Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
500.1 Introduction
Minor rehabilitations should occur when the
pavement has deteriorated beyond the point at
which preventive maintenance is effective but does
not yet require major rehabilitation. Minor
rehabilitations usually consist of some combination
of milling, repair, and overlay. ODOT designs
minor rehabilitation overlays using a deflection-
based procedure and twelve-year traffic
projections.
501 Deflection Measuring
Equipment
Deflection measuring equipment imposes a load
on the pavement and measures the response. The
deflections can be correlated to the structural
condition of the pavement and the subgrade.
Designers can interpret the deflections and provide
recommendations for pavement rehabilitation.
ODOT has two kinds of deflection measuring
equipment or Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
devices: the Dynaflect, and the Falling Weight
Deflectometer. Both are described below;
however, this manual is written specifically for use
with the Dynaflect.
501.1 Dynaflect
The Dynaflect is an electro-mechanical device
used for measuring pavement deflection. It is
trailer-mounted and can be towed by a standard
vehicle. A static weight of 2000 pounds (~908 kg)
is applied to the pavement through a pair of 4-inch
wide by 16-inch (~406 mm) diameter rubber-
coated steel wheels placed 20 inches (~508 mm)
apart. Two counter-rotating eccentric weights
produce a dynamic force of 1000 pounds (~454
kg), peak-to-peak, at a frequency of eight cycles
per second. The dynamic force is superimposed
on the static force and the deflections are
measured by five velocity transducers
(geophones). The first geophone is located
between the steel wheels with the rest spaced
twelve inches (~305 mm) apart. The deflections
are recorded on a computer in the tow vehicle.
501.2 Falling Weight Deflectometer
The Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) is an
impact load response device used to measure
pavement deflection. The impact force is created
by dropping a weight of 110, 220, 440, or 660
January 1999
pounds (~50, 100, 200, 300 kg) from a height of
0.8 to 15 inches (~20 to 380 mm). By varying the
drop height and weight, a peak force ranging from
1500 to 24,000 pounds (~6.7 to 106.8 kN) can be
generated. The load is transmitted to the
pavement through a loading plate, 11.8 inches
(~300 mm) in diameter, to provide a load pulse in
the form of a half sine wave with a duration from 25
to 30 ms. The actual magnitude of load applied
may depend on the stiffness of the pavement and
is measured by a load cell. The deflections are
measured by seven velocity transducers. One
transducer is located at the center of the loading
plate while the remaining six can be placed at
locations up to 7.4 feet (~2.25 m) from the center.
The deflections are recorded on a computer
located in the tow vehicle.
502 Deflection Testing and
Analysis
502.1 General
Deflection measurements taken when the
subgrade is frozen are meaningless for design.
The testing season in Ohio runs approximately
April through November. Requests for Dynaflect
testing should be made to the Research and
Development Section of the Office of Materials
Management with a copy of the request to the
Pavement Design Section in the same Office.
Requests are honored on a first-come, first-served
basis, subject to scheduling considerations.
Requests made too late in the season may not be
tested until the following year. Research testing
needs take priority during many of the summer
months. The best time to submit requests is just
prior to and early in the testing season. All
requests must include the exact limits of the
project using the current English straight-line
diagrams issued by the Office of Technical
Services, even for projects being developed in
metric units.
Deflection measurements represent a snapshot of
the pavement at that time. As the pavement
continues to deteriorate, the snapshot changes.
Therefore, deflection data should not be obtained
more than four years prior to construction. If the
project is delayed such that the data will be more
than four-years old, new deflection measurements
should be requested and the design checked
against the new measurements to ensure validity.
5-1
Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
502.2 Analysis
Deflection measurements yield a great deal of
information about the pavement when properly
interpreted. This Manual is not intended to make
the reader an expert in analyzing deflection data.
A training course is available which discusses the
data analysis in much greater detail.
502.2.1 Edwards Ratio
One of the more useful parameters derived from
the Dynaflect data is called the Edwards Ratio.
Named after William F. Edwards, former Bureau
Chief of Research and Development at ODOT.
The Edwards Ratio states that if the w1 sensor
reading divided by the w5 sensor reading is greater
than three, the pavement is acting as a flexible
pavement and should be analyzed as such. If it is
less than three, the pavement is acting as a rigid
pavement and should be analyzed as such. This
is very useful when trying to decide how to analyze
a brick pavement or an existing break & seat or
crack & seat.
502.2.2 W5 vs. CBR
The w5 sensor provides an estimate of the
subgrade strength. The chart in figure 203-3
shows the relationship between the average w5
sensor reading plus two standard deviations and
the CBR value. The average w5 reading and the
standard deviation are given on the Dynaflect
printout.
502.2.3 Load Transfer
The Load Transfer factor can indicate joints which
have deteriorated and are no longer effectively
transferring the load. Load Transfer factors less
than 0.70 indicate poor load transfer. Factors
greater than 0.70 do not necessarily indicate good
joints. If the pavement is warm, the joints may be
locked up and showing better load transfer than
actually exists. The Load Transfer factor is the w2
sensor divided by the w1 sensor, both from the joint
approach reading. A graph of Load Transfer
values is given by the UTPLOT program (Section
503.1).
502.2.4 Joint Support Ratio
The Joint Support Ratio is another measure of the
joint’s effectiveness. Joint Support Ratio is the w1
sensor from the joint leave reading divided by the
w1 sensor from the joint approach reading. Joint
January 1999
Support Ratios between 0.50 and 1.50 are
considered good. Ratios outside this range
indicate probable voids under the joint. Voids are
also likely anytime the w1 sensor reading is above
1.0. The UTPLOT program provides a graph of
the Joint Support Ratio.
502.3 Factors Affecting Deflections
The major factors that influence deflections include
loading, climate and pavement conditions. These
factors must be carefully considered when
conducting nondestructive tests.
502.3.1 Loading
The magnitude and duration of loading have a
great influence on pavement deflections. It is
desirable that the NDT device applies a load to the
pavement similar to the actual design load, e.g., a
9000 pound (~4086 kg) wheel load. Unfortunately,
not every commercially available NDT is capable of
simulating the design load. Some can simulate the
magnitude of the design load but not its duration or
frequency.
Due to the nonlinear or stress-sensitive properties
of most paving materials, pavement deflections are
not proportional to load. Test results obtained for
light loads must be extrapolated to those for heavy
loads. Because extrapolation may lead to
significant error for nonlinear paving materials, the
use of NDT devices that produce loads
approximating those of heavy truck loads is
recommended by most researchers.
In 1989, FHWA/ODOT published Technical Report
No. FHWA/OH-89/020 titled: Implementation of a
Dynamic Deflection System for Rigid and Flexible
Pavements in Ohio. This research study looked
into the non-linearity problems associated with
NDT using light loading as compared to normal
truck loads. The relevant conclusion was: “on the
average, pavement deflections obtained by the
Dynaflect and the FWD correlated quite well and
pavement non-linearity was not as significant as
was anticipated.”
502.3.2 Climate
Temperature and moisture are the two climatic
factors that affect pavement deflections. For
asphalt pavements, higher temperatures cause the
asphalt binder to soften and increase deflections.
For concrete pavements, temperature in the form
of overall change or thermal gradient has a
5-2
 Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
significant influence on deflections near joints and
cracks. The slab expands in warmer temperatures
causing tighter joints and cracks and resulting in
greater efficiency of load transfer and smaller
deflections. The curling of the slab due to
temperature gradients can cause a large variation
in measured deflections. Measurements taken at
night or early morning, when the top of the slab is
colder than the bottom, will result in higher corner
and edge deflections than those taken in the
afternoon, when the top of the slab is much
warmer than the bottom.
The season of the year has a great effect on
deflection measurements. In cold regions, four
distinct periods can be distinguished. The period
of deep frost occurs during the winter season when
the pavement is the strongest. The period of
spring thaw starts when the frost begins to
disappear from the pavement system and the
deflection increases rapidly. The period of rapid
strength recovery takes place in early summer
when the excess free water from the melting frost
leaves the pavement system and the deflection
decreases rapidly. The period of slow strength
recovery extends from late summer to fall when the
deflection levels off slowly as the water content
slowly decreases. For pavements that do not
experience freeze-thaw, the deflection generally
follows a sine curve with the peak deflection
occurring in the wet season when the moisture
contents are high.
502.3.3 Pavement Conditions
Pavement conditions have significant effects on
measured deflections. For asphalt pavements,
deflections obtained in areas with cracking and
rutting are normally higher than those free of
distress. For concrete pavements, voids beneath
the concrete slabs will cause increased deflections,
and the absence or deterioration of load transfer
devices will affect the deflections measured on
both sides of the joint.
503 Overlay Design Procedure
503.1 Introduction
The overlay design procedure for minor
rehabilitations is based on the UTOVER computer
program. A great deal of preparatory work and
research must take place before the computer
program is run. The Dynaflect readings must be
available (Section 502). The traffic projections
January 1999
must be completed (Section 202). Finally, the
history of the pavement must be known.
The history is required to determine the actual
buildup of the pavement at the time the Dynaflect
measurements were taken. There are many
sources for this information such as historical
plans, the pavement management system
database, the joint repair database, etc. On past
overlay projects where existing asphalt was milled,
it is necessary to determine the depth of milling or
at least a reasonable estimate. The UTOVER
program requires the total thickness of asphalt
and/or concrete at the time the Dynaflect readings
were taken. If the thickness changes within the
project, the user must split the data and run
UTOVER separately for each of the different
thicknesses.
Once all the required information is collected, the
first step is to run the UTPLOT.BAT program.
UTPLOT converts the raw Dynaflect file to a format
which can be read by UTOVER. Next is to run the
UTOVER.EXE program. The input files for
UTOVER are the output files created by UTPLOT
and not the raw Dynaflect file.
Most of the user inputs for UTOVER are self-
explanatory and many provide default values.
Some inputs are common to all pavement types:
the title is the users choice, the design traffic input
comes from the ESAL99 program (Section 202.3),
reliability factors are given in Figure 201-1, the
traffic standard deviation is always the default
value of 0.10, the file name containing the
Dynaflect data is one of the files created by
UTPLOT, and the output file name is the users
choice. Inputs specific to each pavement type are
discussed in the following sections. The
information given here is not intended to fully
explain the UTOVER procedure or Dynaflect
analysis. A training course is available which goes
over the procedures in detail.
All of the inputs and outputs for UTOVER are
exclusively in English units.
503.2 Rigid Pavements
Rigid pavement refers to all types of exposed
concrete pavement with no asphalt on top. The
minimum overlay thickness for rigid pavements is
three inches. Pavements which require an overlay
of about one inch or less are candidates for
diamond grinding instead of an overlay.
5-3
Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
Most of the rigid pavement inputs to UTOVER use
the default values. The thickness of the existing
pavement is obtained from the history. Use the
default value for Poisson’s Ratio of the existing
concrete. Use the default values for elastic
modulus, initial PSI, terminal PSI, modulus of
rupture, and the drainage coefficient. The load
transfer coefficient (J) is dependent on the
specifics of the existing pavement. A list of J-
factors for existing pavements is given in Figure
503-1. A rigid pavement with the majority of the
joints replaced with flexible repairs, should use a J-
factor for a pavement with no load transfer at the
joints.
503.3 Flexible Pavements
Flexible pavements are made up entirely of asphalt
with or without an aggregate or macadam base.
Previously rubblized pavements are considered
flexible pavement. Previous break & seat and
crack & seat projects may be flexible pavement but
are more likely acting as composite pavement.
The Edwards Ratio can help in determining
pavement type in questionable cases.
Most of the inputs for flexible pavement require the
user to enter values. The whole thickness of
flexible pavement above subgrade is exactly what
the name implies: the thickness of the aggregate
base, macadam base, or rubblized concrete plus
the entire thickness of asphalt on top. The
thickness of the surface AC layer is required for
temperature adjustment. It is not a sensitive input.
Best practice is to use the thickness of the existing
surface and intermediate courses combined.
Pavement surface temperature is recorded on the
Dynaflect printout. Where additional temperatures
were recorded for the same data, a weighted
average should be used. The 5-day mean air
temperature should be obtained from
meteorological records, if available. In the
absence of actual temperature data, the morning
pavement surface temperature should be used as
the basis for the 5-day mean temperature. Some
adjustment is allowed if the user is aware of
specific temperature conditions in the days just
prior to the Dynaflect readings. Initial and terminal
PSI are always 4.5 and 2.5, respectively.
January 1999
503.4 Composite Pavements
Composite pavements are concrete overlaid with
asphalt. Most old break & seat and crack & seat
projects should be analyzed as composite
pavements. Any asphalt-surfaced road with some
sort of concrete underneath, that is acting like a
rigid pavement according to the Edwards Ratio,
should be analyzed as a composite pavement.
The inputs for composite pavement are nearly
identical to rigid pavement with the addition of
asphalt on top (Section 503.2). Thickness of
existing AC layer is the thickness of all the asphalt
on top of the concrete. The default values should
be used for Poisson’s Ratio and the resilient
modulus of the asphalt. The thickness of existing
PCC slab is obtained from the history or coring.
Use default values for Poisson’s Ratio, new
concrete elastic modulus, initial PSI, terminal PSI,
new concrete modulus of rupture, and drainage
coefficient. The load transfer coefficient (J) is
dependent on the specifics of the existing
pavement. A list of J-factors for existing
pavements is given in Figure 503-1. A composite
pavement with the majority of the joints replaced
with flexible repairs, should use a J-factor for a
pavement with no load transfer at the joints.
503.4.1 Brick Pavements
Most brick pavements in Ohio were built on a
concrete base and have since been overlayed with
asphalt and thus are a special kind of composite
pavement. The UTOVER program was not
designed for use on brick pavements. The
Edwards Ratio can help the user decide which type
of pavement to use to analyze the brick. When
inputting the thicknesses, it is up to the user to
decide if the bricks count as concrete or as
asphalt.
Since brick pavements occur mostly in urban
areas, there are likely to be geometric problems
such as curb reveal, driveways, etc. A possible
solution is to design a crack and seat overlay (see
Section 600) with removal of both the asphalt and
the bricks. This should only be done if the section
has been cored to determine the condition and
thickness of the existing concrete. The actual
cracking and seating operation should not be
5-4
 Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
performed as the concrete is likely already well
cracked. This method merely eliminates the need
to run UTOVER on a brick pavement which it was
not intended for and can sometimes result in
excessive overlay thicknesses.
5 04 M inor Rehabi l i t a t i on
Strategies
As stated before, minor rehabilitations generally
consist of some combination of milling, repair, and
overlay. The structural overlay thickness needed
is determined from the Dynaflect and the UTOVER
program. Even if UTOVER says that no additional
structure is needed, an overlay may still be
required to correct functional deficiencies. The
thickness of a functional overlay is selected based
on factors such as milling depth, lift thickness
requirements, vertical clearance, curb reveal, etc.
A functional overlay with milling should never result
in thinner pavement than existed beforehand. The
other minor rehabilitation actions are at the
designer’s discretion based on the condition of the
pavement. The actions selected should be those
required to reach the full design period for minor
rehabilitation projects.
504.1 Asphalt Considerations
All asphalt items used in minor rehabilitation
overlays should conform to the guidelines given in
Section 404. Prior to completion of the plans, all
asphalt items specified should be discussed with
the District Engineer of Tests or his designee. This
is important to ensure proper binder grades and
mix specifications are specified.
A minimum of 3 inches (~75 mm) of asphalt is
required over any concrete or brick surface.
504.2 Milling
Milling is always recommended. A milled surface
allows for mechanical interlock between the
existing pavement and the overlay which helps
prevent rutting and debonding. Milling removes the
old, raveled, oxidized asphalt which, if left in place,
would be a weak layer in the pavement structure
and would tend to hold water due to the lower
binder content. Milling reduces the overall
elevation increase and thus helps reduce
geometric problems. Milling removes ruts and
other irregularities and provides a level surface for
the contractor to achieve proper density for 446
mixes.
January 1999
When old asphalt is removed, it is necessary to
replace the structure removed with an equivalent
structure of new asphalt. The structural ratio of
new asphalt to old asphalt used in Ohio is 2:3. For
example, if 3" (~75 mm) of asphalt are removed, 2"
(~50 mm) of asphalt are required to replace the
lost structure. Any required structural overlay is
then placed in addition to the 2 inches (~50 mm).
This ratio should not be used to make major
reductions in the pavement thickness. In virtually
all cases, the pavement thickness after
rehabilitation should be equal to or greater than the
thickness prior to rehabilitation.
On composite pavements, including brick, if all the
asphalt is removed down to the concrete, or bricks,
the minimum overlay thickness for rigid pavements
of 3 inches (~75 mm) applies.
When milling down to a concrete surface,
consideration should be given to lightly scarifying
the top of the concrete if the total overlay is less
than 5 inches (~125 mm) thick. The scarification
should be specified by plan note. The roughened
surface increases the bond between the asphalt
and the concrete, therefore reducing the chances
of rutting and debonding.
504.2.1 Brick Pavements
When milling asphalt over an existing brick base,
it is recommended to leave about two inches (~50
mm) of asphalt on the bricks. Milling any closer
can easily dislodge the bricks and pull them up with
the asphalt. Dislodged bricks should be quickly
repaired, preferably using Asphalt Concrete (Items
301 or 448 Type 2), to prevent adjacent bricks from
moving. Repairs should be made prior to running
any traffic over the area, including construction
traffic.
504.3 Pavement Repair
504.3.1 Rigid and Composite Pavements
Pavement repairs in rigid and composite
pavements most often occur at transverse joints
and cracks and are generically referred to as joint
repairs. Joint repairs can be made using either
concrete or asphalt. The repairs can be at existing
transverse joints or transverse cracks or any other
place which requires full-depth repair. Rigid
repairs per BP-2.5, using Item 255 Full Depth
Pavement Removal and Rigid Replacement are
recommended in almost every case. Prior to
repair, coring is recommended to determine if solid
5-5
Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
concrete exists near the joints to dowel into.
Where solid concrete does not exist, flexible
repairs are an option but more likely the pavement
requires major rehabilitation. Only coring can
reveal if the concrete near the joints is solid,
Dynaflect analysis and visual inspection of the
surface cannot reveal this.
Joint repair is considered economical for repair
quantities up to ten percent of the pavement
surface area. When more than ten percent repair
is needed, a more thorough investigation is
warranted. If not already done, the pavement
should be cored to better determine exact repair
needs. The required overlay thickness needs to be
examined and the possibility of major rehabilitation
should be considered. It should be remembered
that minor rehabilitations are intended to last
twelve years, not twenty. It may not be necessary
to repair every joint, especially if the pavement is to
receive a thick overlay.
When estimating repair quantities, it is important to
correctly calculate the pavement sawing quantities.
Transverse saw cuts are required across the
pavement at the limits of the repair. A saw cut is
also required along any tied longitudinal joint. For
a typical six foot repair in one twelve foot wide lane
on a four-lane divided highway with asphalt
shoulders, the total sawing quantity would be 12'
+12' +6' = 30' (3.6 m +3.6 m +1.8 m = 9 m).
In the past, due to concerns over pressure in
concrete pavements, Type D pressure relief joints
(per BP-2.4) were sawed at approximately 1000-
foot (~300 m) intervals in many concrete
pavements around the state. This not only relieved
the pressure in the pavements but allowed the
midpanel cracks to open up and thus lose
aggregate interlock required for load transfer.
These Type D joints should be repaired full depth
with rigid joint repairs whenever they are
encountered. To guard against pressure damage
to the bridges, a Pressure Relief Joint, Type A per
BP-2.3, may be installed at the approach slabs.
Some concrete pavements have had joints
repaired with full depth flexible repairs. These
asphalt repairs tend to hump up as the concrete
expands, forming mini speed bumps which can be
very detrimental to the ride and can be a
maintenance headache. When a majority of the
joints have been repaired with asphalt, it is
generally impractical to re-repair them with
January 1999
concrete. However, if there are only a few flexible
repairs or if the concrete is in excellent condition
except for the flexible repairs, it may be practical to
replace all the flexible repairs with rigid repairs.
504.3.2 Flexible Pavements
Flexible pavements may require full-depth repair
due to potholes, severe alligator cracking,
transverse thermal cracks, etc. Repairs in flexible
pavements are done using Item 253 Pavement
Repair. As with rigid and composite pavements,
when repair quantities exceed about ten percent,
further investigation is warranted and major
rehabilitation should be considered. For
construction purposes, the minimum practical
repair size is 2 feet by 2 feet (~0.6 m x 0.6 m).
Transverse thermal cracks are similar to
transverse joints in concrete pavement. As flexible
pavements expand and contract with temperature,
if the binder is too stiff the pavement will crack.
These cracks can be random or can be regularly
spaced just like joints in concrete. Thermal cracks
are full-depth cracks through the entire thickness
of the pavement and must be repaired full depth to
correct them and prevent them from reflecting
through the surface.
504.3.3 Brick Pavements
Brick pavements built on a concrete base typically
do not have joints but often require full-depth
repair. Full-depth repairs should be made using
Item 305 Concrete Base, As Per Plan. A plan note
needs to be written to handle all project specific
concerns. In general, the note should eliminate the
need for dowels, tie bars, joint forming, joint
sealing, and texturing requirements. This assumes
the brick has an asphalt overlay or is going to
receive one.
Full-depth repair of brick pavements built on a
flexible base should be made with materials similar
to existing. Generally this means Item 304
Aggregate Base and/or Item 301 Bituminous
Aggregate Base.
As many brick pavements occur inside
municipalities, the agency responsible for
maintenance should be contacted regarding their
repair standards. This is particularly true for
exposed brick pavements that will remain exposed.
5-6
 Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
504.4 Reflective Crack Control
Reflective cracks refer to cracks in the asphalt
over transverse or longitudinal joints or cracks in
the concrete below. Reflective cracks are
inevitable with composite pavements.
504.4.1 Sawing and Sealing
Sawing and sealing, Item 413, consists of making
a partial-depth saw cut in the asphalt overlay
directly over existing transverse joints, immediately
after paving. After the saw cuts are made, they are
filled with a hot bituminous sealer. Sawing and
sealing has proved very effective in controlling the
location and deterioration of reflective cracks.
Care must be taken to properly locate and align the
saw cuts or the treatment will not be effective.
Sawing and sealing is recommended anytime the
concrete is exposed, either because it has never
been overlayed or because the existing overlay has
been removed.
504.4.2 Fabrics and Geogrids
Paving fabrics and geogrids have not been found
to be cost effective in reducing transverse
reflective cracking. However, studies have shown
that fabrics can delay and sometimes reduce
reflective transverse cracking, but not to the extent
that future maintenance decisions are less costly
or come at a later time. Paving fabrics can be
effective in reducing reflective cracks over
longitudinal joints. Fabrics may be considered for
longitudinal joints, particularly widening joints and
joints at concrete/asphalt interfaces. A Minimum
overlay thickness of 1-1/2" (~38 mm) should be
placed above fabric installations.
504.5 Concrete Pavement Restoration
Concrete Pavement Restoration (CPR) generally
consists of some combination of full- and partial-
depth repair, diamond grinding, joint resealing,
crack sealing and undersealing. Experience has
shown that adding tied concrete shoulders is not
cost effective and is not recommended as part of
a CPR. CPR is recommended as the first
rehabilitation action for most existing concrete
pavements. CPR maintains the concrete surface
and avoids the reflective cracking that comes with
composite pavements. CPR may not be the best
choice for pavements built with slag aggregate as
they tend to deteriorate on the surface first.
January 1999
504.6 Geometric Issues
Many times there are geometric problems with the
roadway such as vertical clearance, curb reveal,
cross-slope, etc., that need to be addressed.
Some geometric problems can be easily corrected
as part of the pavement rehabilitation. Cross-
slopes can be adjusted with either variable depth
milling or a layer of asphalt with variable thickness
or a combination of the two. Other problems are
not fixed so easily.
To meet at-grade bridges and provide clearance
under overhead bridges, the overlay is often
thinned down or the milling depth increased. The
minimum overlay thickness on concrete must still
be maintained. If the minimum overlay thickness
cannot be maintained, pavement must be removed
or bridges raised. These areas with thinner
pavement structure may exhibit more extensive
and severe distresses as they age and will require
more maintenance than the surrounding pavement.
In some cases where a thick structural overlay is
required, thinning down is not recommended and
the pavement should be replaced or bridges
raised.
Curb reveal is often a problem in urban areas. The
structural needs of the pavement should not be
compromised to save old curb. Where there is
insufficient curb height for the required overlay, the
curbs should be replaced. When only a functional
overlay is needed, then it may be practical to
increase the milling depth at the face of the curb to
provide the full overlay thickness while still
maintaining the curb height.
504.7 Pavement Widening
When widening a pavement, the best practice is to
design the widening for the traffic and soils
conditions present. When traffic and soils
information is not available, match the existing
pavement type, materials and thicknesses. In all
cases the existing pavement and the widening
should meet at the same subgrade elevation. The
base under the widening should slope away from
the existing pavement and drainage should be
provided for the widening. Drainage can be
achieved with pipe underdrains or possibly
aggregate drains. Pipe underdrains should be tied
into the existing outlets.
Pavement widening in this section refers to
additional lanes or turn lanes, etc. Adding paved
shoulders or widening shoulders does not fall
5-7
Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
under this definition. Rebuilt or widened shoulders
should generally use asphalt. Widening projects in
excess of four lane-miles must follow the
Pavement Design and Selection Process.
504.7.1 Rigid Pavement
When widening existing rigid pavement with
concrete, the new pavement should be the same
type as the old (plain or reinforced) and should be
tied to the existing concrete using a Type D
Longitudinal Joint per BP-2.1. Prior to specifying a
Type D joint, the existing concrete should be cored
to determine soundness. Where coring discloses
unsound pavement; pavement repair, pavement
replacement, or the elimination of the Type D joint
should be considered. Widening of concrete
pavement without tying longitudinally may create
separation and/or faulting depending on traffic.
The most important consideration when widening
and tying rigid pavement is that transverse joints in
the widening must be of the same type, placed at
the same location, and in the same alignment as
the existing. Mismatched transverse joints will
induce cracking. Longitudinal joints are best
located at lane lines. The worst location for a
longitudinal joint is in the wheel path. If necessary,
remove part of the existing pavement to prevent
locating a longitudinal joint in the wheel path.
Rigid pavements which are to be overlayed as part
of the widening project should be considered
composite pavements and follow the widening
guidelines given in Section 504.7.3.
When widening a rigid pavement with another
pavement type, the widening should be designed
for the conditions at hand. If necessary, the base
under the widening should be thickened so that the
subgrade elevations will match. If the widening is
thicker than the existing, the subgrade should be
sloped away from the existing and drainage
provided.
504.7.2 Flexible Pavement
When widening existing flexible pavement with
asphalt, the best practice is to make a saw cut at
the edge of a lane and remove the outside edge of
January 1999
the existing asphalt. This not only removes the
uncompacted asphalt at the edges, but ensures
there will not be a longitudinal construction joint in
the wheel path. When matching thickness with the
existing, the exact buildup and lift thicknesses
should follow the guidelines given in Section 404.
When widening a flexible pavement with another
pavement type, the widening should be designed
for the conditions at hand. If necessary, the base
under the widening should be thickened so that the
subgrade elevations will match. If the widening is
thicker than the existing the subgrade should be
sloped away from the existing and drainage
provided.
504.7.3 Composite Pavement
When widening existing composite pavement with
composite pavement, not only should the subgrade
elevations match but the surface of the concrete
must match as well. Because it will be overlayed
immediately, use Item 305 Concrete Base for the
concrete regardless what type the existing
concrete is. However, if the existing concrete is
reinforced, add a note requiring the 305 also be
reinforced. Transverse joints should be the same
location, alignment and type as the existing.
Mismatched transverse joints will induce cracking.
Tie the 305 to the existing concrete using a Type D
Longitudinal Joint per BP-2.5. Prior to specifying a
Type D joint, the existing concrete should be cored
to determine soundness. If the existing concrete is
too deteriorated at the edge, the widening should
not be tied but simply butted up against. The
longitudinal joint between the old and new concrete
is best located at a lane line. It is recommended
that some of the existing pavement be removed
rather than placing the longitudinal joint in a wheel
path.
When widening a composite pavement with
another pavement type, the widening should be
designed for the conditions at hand. If necessary,
the base under the widening should be thickened
so that the subgrade elevations will match. If the
widening is thicker than the existing the subgrade
should be sloped away from the existing and
drainage provided.
5-8
500 Pavement Design Procedures for Minor Rehabilitation
List of Figures

Figure Date Subject

503-1 January 1999 UTOVER Design Inputs
 503-1
January 1999
UTOVER Design Inputs
Reference Section
503

Parameter Default Value Recommended Value

Reliability - All none see Figure 201-1

Standard Deviation of Traffic - All 0.10 0.10

Poisson’s Ratio - Concrete 0.15 0.15

Poisson’s Ratio - Asphalt 0.35 0.35

Elastic Modulus - Concrete 5,000,000 5,000,000

Resilient Modulus - Asphalt 450,000 450,000

Initial PSI - All 4.5* 4.5

Terminal PSI - All 2.5 2.5

Modulus of Rupture - Concrete 700 700

Load Transfer Coefficient - Concrete 3.2 See below

Drainage Coefficient - Concrete 1.0 1.0

* Early versions of UTOVER list 4.2 as the default Initial PSI when analyzing Flexible pavements.

Load Transfer Coefficient (J)

Existing Pavement Edge Support** No Edge Support

Jointed Doweled 2.8 3.2

Jointed Undoweled 3.8 4.2

Continuously Reinforced 2.4 2.8

** Edge support includes tied concrete shoulders, integral curb, widened lane, etc. Widened lane
refers to concrete slabs built 14 feet (~4.2 m) wide or wider, but striped for a standard 12-foot (~3.6 m)
lane, leaving 2 feet (~0.6 m) outside the traveled lane to provide edge support.
Table of Contents

600 Major Rehabilitation Design 6-1

600.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
600.2 Subgrade Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

601 Unbonded Concrete Overlay 6-1

602 Fractured Slab Techniques 6-2

602.1 Crack & Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
602.2 Rubblize & Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

603 Whitetopping 6-3

600 Major Rehabilitation Design
600.1 Introduction
Major rehabilitations are performed when the
pavement condition is such that minor rehabilitation
is no longer feasible. The Pavement Design and
Selection Process, Appendix A, requires major
rehabilitation when the PCR falls below 55. Minor
rehabilitation projects may be bumped up to major
because of specific conditions on the project. For
example, project level analysis may reveal
excessive repair quantities which make minor
rehabilitation a poor choice economically.
Major rehabilitations are designed for twenty-year
traffic projections using the ESAL99 procedure. All
major rehabilitations require a life-cycle cost
analysis using the procedures in Section 700.
Major rehabilitations include the techniques given
here, as well as complete removal of the existing
pavement and replacement with either concrete or
asphalt. The design of new concrete and asphalt
is given in Sections 300 and 400.
600.2 Subgrade Determination
To design all major rehabilitations, including
complete replacement, it is necessary to know the
strength of the subgrade under the existing
pavement. Subgrade strength can be estimated
from historical subsurface investigations or by
using the w5 sensor readings from the Dynaflect.
The chart in Figure 203-3 shows the relationship
between the w5 readings and CBR. The chart uses
the average w5 reading plus two standard
deviations. This information is shown on the
Dynaflect printout for each direction tested.
Once a major rehabilitation strategy is selected,
additional soils investigation may be necessary.
For all projects selected for complete replacement
or rubblize and roll, soil borings or a soils profile is
highly recommended. Projects selected for
unbonded concrete overlay do not require
additional soils information except possibly in areas
where the pavement is being replaced because of
bridges, etc. Projects selected for crack and seat
generally do not need additional soils information
but if the designer suspects soft subgrade it should
be investigated as it can cause problems.
When additional soils information is received and
reviewed, the pavement design should be checked
for adequacy. If the actual subgrade conditions are
January 1999
different from what was estimated, the pavement
design may have to be adjusted. Local areas of
weak or wet subgrade should be considered
unsuitable subgrade soil and treated per the
recommendations in Section 203.4.1.
601 Unbonded Concrete Overlay
An unbonded concrete overlay is a new concrete
pavement placed on top of an old, deteriorated
concrete pavement with a thin layer of asphalt in
between to act as a bond-breaker. The thickness
of an unbonded concrete overlay is derived from
the required thickness for a new concrete
pavement reduced by an amount based on the
effective thickness of the existing concrete.
The design of an unbonded concrete overlay
begins with the design of a new rigid pavement
according to the procedures in Section 300. Next
an asphalt overlay is designed using the UTOVER
computer program and the procedures given in
Section 500. The equation for determining the
thickness of an unbonded concrete overlay,
developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is
given below:
(T ) − (T )
2 2
TUCO = N E
where:
TUCO = Required thickness of the
unbonded concrete overlay.
TN = Required thickness for a new
concrete pavement.
TE = Effective thickness of the existing
concrete.
The effective thickness of the existing concrete
comes from the UTOVER printout. The column
labeled “Deff (PCC)” must be manually averaged
to find the effective thickness of the existing
concrete. Best practice dictates averaging all the
readings for the entire project, both directions,
rather than averaging each direction separately
and using the smaller or larger number. The
design period used in the UTOVER analysis does
not need to be twenty years as the Deff (PCC)
does not change with different traffic inputs. An
example of an unbonded concrete overlay design
is given in Figures 601-1 and 601-2.
6-1
Major Rehabilitation Design
To minimize the elevation increase of an unbonded
concrete overlay, removal of any existing asphalt
overlay is recommended. Deteriorated joints and
cracks do not need to be repaired prior to the
overlay. Where existing pavement must be
removed to meet the elevation of at-grade bridges
or as a means of providing clearance at overhead
bridges, it should be replaced with new concrete
pavement. The thickness required is that which
was calculated for new pavement when designing
the unbonded concrete overlay, TN. A base of at
least 6 inches (~150 mm) of Item 304 should be
placed under the concrete.
Item 452 Plain Concrete Pavement is
recommended for all unbonded concrete overlays
and the replacement areas. Because of the
dowels and the required concrete cover, the
minimum thickness is 8 inches (~200 mm).
602 Fractured Slab Techniques
Fractured Slab Techniques are for rehabilitation of
existing rigid or composite pavements. They
involve impacting the concrete to break it into
smaller pieces. The intent being to retard or
eliminate reflective cracking in the asphalt overlay.
Fractured slab techniques involve placement of a
thick asphalt overlay. The increased elevation due
to the thick overlay requires full-depth replacement
to meet at-grade bridges and possibly to provide
clearance at overhead bridges. The pavement in
these replacement areas should be designed as
full-depth flexible pavement on an aggregate base.
The design of fractured slab techniques begins
with the design of a new flexible pavement as
described in Section 400. The structural number
required for the new flexible pavement is the basis
for all the fractured slab designs.
Because these techniques turn a rigid pavement
into a flexible pavement, subgrade conditions take
on increased importance. Weak or wet subgrade
can hamper the fracturing operation and may make
the seating or rolling operation impossible. Ohio
has a very famous photograph of a 50 ton roller
buried up to its axles in the pavement because of
too soft subgrade. Prior to designing a fractured
slab technique, the w5 sensor readings from the
Dynaflect should be carefully reviewed to try and
determine local areas of soft subgrade that may
January 1999
require undercutting and replacement. Prior to
constructing a fractured slab technique, soil
borings should be taken and specific replacement
and undercut quantities should be set up in the
plans.
A third fractured slab technique, break and seat,
was used extensively in Ohio in the past. While
some sections had good performance, others
performed very poorly. Break and seat is not to be
used as a major rehabilitation strategy per the
Pavement Design and Selection Process,
Appendix A.
602.1 Crack & Seat
Crack and seat is for use on plain concrete
pavements only. It is not for use on reinforced
pavements whether jointed or continuous. The
cracks induced are very light and are visible only
with the application of water. Prior to cracking, any
existing asphalt overlay must be removed.
To design a crack and seat, the thickness of the
cracked concrete is multiplied by a structural
coefficient, given in Figure 401-1. Asphalt layers
are then added until the total structural number is
equal to or greater than the structural number
required for a new flexible pavement. Any existing
subbase under the concrete is neglected. An
example is shown in Figure 602-1.
602.2 Rubblize & Roll
Rubblize and roll can be used on all concrete
pavements although it is primarily intended for
reinforced concrete. The rubblizing process does
just what the name implies, it reduces the concrete
to rubble. All slab action is destroyed and the
concrete is transformed into an aggregate base.
Prior to rubblizing, any existing asphalt overlay
must be removed.
Subgrade support is even more important for
rubblize and roll than for crack and seat. Soil
borings are strongly encouraged as early as
possible in the design phase. Where subgrade
conditions are very poor, analysis of the soil
borings may reveal such large areas requiring
replacement and undercutting that the decision to
rubblize should be reconsidered. As a rule of
thumb, areas three percent or more above
6-2
 Major Rehabilitation Design

optimum water content will require undercutting 603 Whitetopping

and replacement. Another rule of thumb was
developed to estimate optimum water content: the
Whitetopping is the construction of a new rigid
optimum water content is the Plastic Limit minus
pavement on top of an existing asphalt pavement.
four. Plastic Limit is not to be confused with the
It is not to be confused with ultra-thin whitetopping
Plasticity Index. The Plastic Limit is equal to the
which is a thin layer of concrete placed on top of
Liquid Limit minus the Plasticity Index.
asphalt to prevent rutting and shoving.
Whitetopping is designed as a new rigid pavement
To design a rubblize and roll, the thickness of the
using the existing asphalt pavement as the base
rubblized concrete is multiplied by a structural
for determining the modulus of subgrade reaction.
coefficient, given in Figure 401-1. Asphalt layers
are then added until the total structural number is
equal to or greater than the structural number
required for a new flexible pavement. Any existing
subbase under the concrete is neglected. An
example is shown in Figure 602-1.

January 1999 6-3

600 Major Rehabilitation Design
List of Figures

Figure Date Subject

601-1 January 1999 Unbonded Concrete Overlay Example
601-2 January 1999 UTOVER Output (Modified)
602-1 January 1999 Fractured Slab Examples
 601-1
Unbonded Concrete Overlay January 1999

Example Reference Section

601

Given:

• Rigid Pavement Design Example, Figure 302-1

• Existing pavement buildup: 3" Asphalt
9" Reinforced Concrete
6" Subbase
• UTOVER output, Figure 601-2

Problem:

Design an unbonded concrete overlay.

Solution:

Obtain required thickness for new rigid pavement.

TN = 9.6" (from Figure 302-1)

Obtain effective thickness of existing concrete.

TE = 8.69" (from Figure 601-2)

Calculate required thickness of unbonded concrete overlay.

TUCO = (9.6) − (8.7)

2 2

TUCO = 9216
. − 75.69
TUCO = 16.47
TUCO = 4.06"

Minimum thickness of unbonded concrete overlay = 8"

Items of work:

452 8" Plain Concrete Pavement

448 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 1, PG 64-22 (1" thick)
202 Wearing Course Removed
 601-2
January 1999
UTOVER Output (Modified)
Reference Section
601
TITLE: MIL-1-0.000 Lane 4 12-yr 4/29/98
PROJECT: 099989 DISTRICT: 15 COUNTY: MILLER
ROUTE: 001 PAVE. TYPE: COMPOSITE LANE TESTED/NO. OF LANES: 4/4
TEST DATE: 4/ 1/97 WEATHER: CLOUDY PAVE. TEMP.: 31F
EXISTING PAVEMENT TYPE: COMPOSITE OVERLAY PAVEMENT TYPE: AC OVERLAY
GEOMETRY OF EXISTING PAVEMENT: OVERLAY DESIGN:
THICKNESS OF AC LAYER = 3.00 DESIGN TRAFFIC, E18 = 27000000.
POISSON RATIO AC = .350 RELIABILITY, R = 90.0%
ELAS. MODULUS OF NEW AC = 450000. ZR = -1.282
THICKNESS OF PCC SLAB = 9.00 TRAFFIC STANDARD DEVIATION, S0 = .10
POISSON RATIO OF PCC = .150 INITIAL PSI Pi = 4.50
ELAS. MODULUS OF NEW PCC= 5000000. TERMINAL PSI Pt = 2.50
ELASTIC MODULUS OF NEW PCC Ec = 5000000.
TOTAL DEPTH OF PAVEMENT = 12.00 NEW PCC MODULUS OF RUPTURE Sc = 700.0
EQUIVALENT POISSON RATIO= .200 LOAD TRANFER COEFFICIENT J = 3.20
EQUIVALENT ELAS. MODULUS= 2436712. DRAINAGE FACTOR Cd = 1.00
LOCA. W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 Lk Ep k Deff Dreq Hover
(PCC) (PCC) (AC)
(mils) (in.) (ksi) (pci) (in.)
.043 .40 .33 .32 .26 .16 29.79 1688.2 160.7 9.29 10.10 1.71
.107 .45 .38 .35 .27 .23 29.77 1497.9 143.1 8.93 10.15 2.51
.221 .39 .32 .31 .25 .14 28.96 1629.5 173.8 9.18 10.07 1.86
.284 .32 .25 .23 .18 .06 23.61 1279.1 308.8 8.47 9.78 2.67
.461 .38 .31 .30 .23 .12 27.49 1496.6 196.5 8.93 10.01 2.25
.521 .30 .23 .22 .16 .05 23.03 1292.1 344.6 8.50 9.72 2.49
.582 .41 .35 .33 .25 .12 28.24 1469.0 173.3 8.87 10.07 2.46
.642 .35 .28 .27 .21 .10 26.41 1491.3 229.8 8.92 9.94 2.12
.703 .33 .25 .23 .17 .06 22.20 1084.5 334.7 8.02 9.73 3.41
.820 .38 .29 .27 .20 .08 22.89 1006.5 275.1 7.82 9.84 3.95
.880 .29 .23 .23 .17 .06 25.57 1678.0 294.4 9.27 9.81 1.14
1.005 .47 .40 .36 .27 .14 26.66 1132.6 168.2 8.14 10.08 3.82
1.145 .35 .27 .26 .19 .08 23.88 1199.4 276.4 8.29 9.84 3.11
1.205 .38 .30 .28 .22 .10 24.86 1204.9 236.6 8.31 9.92 3.24
1.261 .35 .28 .26 .19 .07 23.97 1208.9 274.6 8.31 9.84 3.08
1.383 .29 .23 .23 .18 .08 27.11 1903.3 264.3 9.67 9.87 .43
1.441 .37 .30 .29 .22 .10 26.55 1425.9 215.4 8.78 9.97 2.43
1.496 .33 .24 .23 .17 .07 22.11 1074.7 337.2 7.99 9.73 3.45
1.605 .33 .26 .25 .19 .08 24.94 1396.8 270.9 8.72 9.85 2.33
1.662 .32 .24 .23 .18 .06 23.26 1238.2 317.3 8.38 9.76 2.81
1.723 .23 .22 .21 .16 .05 34.28 3950.6 214.6 10.50 9.97 -1.22
1.781 .32 .23 .22 .15 .04 20.41 928.9 401.2 7.62 9.62 3.92
1.844 .33 .25 .24 .18 .07 23.40 1216.6 304.3 8.33 9.79 2.94
1.962 .38 .29 .27 .20 .09 23.10 1027.3 270.5 7.88 9.85 3.87
2.025 .31 .24 .23 .17 .07 23.97 1364.5 310.1 8.66 9.78 2.31
2.085 .31 .25 .24 .18 .08 25.83 1604.6 270.3 9.14 9.85 1.52
2.241 .33 .26 .25 .18 .07 24.20 1308.9 286.2 8.54 9.82 2.62
2.302 .34 .27 .26 .20 .09 25.69 1445.3 249.1 8.82 9.90 2.22
2.361 .35 .26 .24 .17 .06 21.31 934.0 339.8 7.63 9.72 4.07
2.421 .32 .25 .24 .18 .07 24.34 1366.8 292.1 8.66 9.81 2.37
2.481 .32 .25 .24 .18 .05 23.83 1305.3 303.6 8.53 9.79 2.58
2.541 .31 .23 .22 .16 .05 22.07 1139.3 360.2 8.15 9.69 3.09
2.600 .37 .30 .28 .22 .10 25.98 1361.2 224.1 8.65 9.95 2.65
2.662 .34 .26 .25 .19 .08 24.01 1248.4 281.9 8.40 9.83 2.89
2.721 .38 .30 .29 .23 .11 26.24 1353.8 214.3 8.63 9.97 2.72
2.882 .28 .21 .21 .15 .05 23.23 1411.2 363.4 8.75 9.68 1.94
2.943 .31 .26 .28 .20 .09 31.12 2390.1 191.0 10.43 10.03 -.93
3.004 .30 .23 .22 .16 .05 23.03 1292.1 344.6 8.50 9.72 2.49
3.063 .28 .21 .20 .15 .04 22.40 1302.6 388.4 8.52 9.64 2.31
3.123 .17 .12 .13 .11 .10 29.27 3824.9 390.9 10.50 9.64 -2.03
3.183 .28 .20 .20 .15 .04 22.00 1252.0 401.2 8.41 9.62 2.48
3.301 .23 .16 .16 .12 .11 24.02 1847.2 416.4 9.57 9.60 .05
3.351 .30 .23 .22 .17 .04 23.29 1324.8 337.6 8.57 9.73 2.38
3.821 .28 .22 .21 .15 .03 23.05 1386.9 368.7 8.70 9.68 2.03
3.882 .34 .26 .25 .19 .08 24.01 1248.4 281.9 8.40 9.83 2.89
3.941 .33 .26 .25 .19 .07 24.69 1366.9 275.9 8.66 9.84 2.43
STATISTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY:
NUMBER OF DATA POINTS = 46 Avg. Deff = 8.69"
AVG A(Dreq - Deff) = 2.301
STD A(Dreq - Deff) = 1.266
DESIGN AC OVERLAY THICKNESS AT 90.00% RELIABILITY LEVEL = 3.92
 602-1
January 1999
Fractured Slab Examples
Reference Section
602

Crack & Seat Example

Given:

• Flexible Pavement Design Example, Figure 402-1

• Existing pavement buildup: 3" Asphalt
8" Item 305 Concrete Base
6" Subbase

Problem:

Design a Crack & Seat project.

Solution:

Obtain required structural number for a new flexible pavement

SN = 4.5 (from Figure 402-1)

Determine the required buildup using the structural coefficients given in Figure 401-1

Material Thickness Coefficient SN

446 Surface 1.5" x 0.35 = 0.52
446 Intermediate 1.75" x 0.35 = 0.61
301 4" x 0.35 = 1.40
305 (cracked & seated) 8" x 0.27 = 2.16
Total Structural Number = 4.69

Rubblize & Roll Example

Given:

• Flexible Pavement Design Example, Figure 402-1.

• Existing Pavement Buildup: 4" Asphalt
9" Reinforced Concrete
6" Subbase

Problem:

Design a Rubblize & Roll project.

Solution:

Obtain required structural number for a new flexible pavement.

SN = 4.5 (from Figure 402-1)

Determine the required buildup using the structural coefficients given in Figure 401-1.

Material Thickness Coefficient SN

446 Surface 1.5" x 0.35 = 0.52
446 Intermediate 2" x 0.35 = 0.70
302 6" x 0.35 = 2.10
Rubblized Concrete 9" x 0.14 = 1.26
Total Structural Number = 4.58
Table of Contents

700 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 7-1

700.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
700.1.1 Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
700.1.2 Analysis Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
700.1.3 Estimated Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
700.1.4 Discount Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

701 Initial Construction 7-1

702 Future Maintenance 7-2

702.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
702.2 Maintenance Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
702.2.1 Flexible Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
702.2.2 Rigid Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
702.2.3 Composite Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
702.2.4 Unbonded Concrete Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
702.2.5 Fractured Slab Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
702.2.6 Whitetopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

703 Total Cost 7-4

703.1 Discounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

704 Lane Closure Days 7-4

705 Results Presentation 7-4

700 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
700.1 Introduction
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is a process for
evaluating the economic worth of a pavement
segment by analyzing initial costs and discounted
future costs such as preventive maintenance,
resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction costs
over a defined analysis period. Personal and
District preferences must be set aside to attempt to
come up with a fair, unbiased LCCA. It is
important to be fair to all alternatives in terms of
price and performance. The LCCA is only a tool in
the decision-making process, it does not dictate a
decision. The results of the LCCA are not
decisions but are important information used in
reaching decisions.
700.1.1 Alternatives Considered
All reasonable alternatives are to be included in the
LCCA. This includes rigid pavement, new or
complete replacement; flexible pavement, new or
complete replacement; unbonded concrete overlay;
crack and seat; rubblize and roll; and whitetopping.
Expected cost is not a good reason to exclude an
alternative from the analysis. For example,
complete replacement is generally the most
expensive alternative but it should not be
disregarded simply because of the expectation of
high cost. The analysis may show replacement as
the highest cost but the cost differential between
replacement and the other alternatives may be
small enough to make replacement the better
choice.
Sometimes it is necessary to eliminate alternatives
because of the overlay thickness and problems
with bridges. Particularly on urban projects where
there may be a high number of at-grade and
overhead bridges, alternatives which require a
thick overlay and therefore a significant increase in
elevation may not be good choices. Some
preliminary investigation should be done to
determine the amount of pavement removal and
undercutting necessary to meet at-grade bridges
and provide clearance under overhead bridges. If
the amount of removal necessary for an alternative
exceeds about 40% of the pavement, assuming
none of the bridges are jacked, then it may not be
necessary to consider that alternative.
700.1.2 Analysis Period
The LCCA analysis period for new pavements and
major rehabilitations is 35 years. Because the
analysis period exceeds the structural design life,
future maintenance and rehabilitation actions must
January 1999
be predicted and included in the analysis to keep
the pavement in serviceable condition for the 35-
year period.
700.1.3 Estimated Prices
Prices should be estimated based on recent
projects; similar quantities; and, where possible,
geographic proximity. All prices, for both initial
construction and future maintenance, are to be
estimated using current bid prices. No escalation
is to be given for inflation. The analysis is
performed using constant (or real) dollar values
and real discount rates instead of using inflated (or
nominal) dollar values and nominal discount rates.
Prices should be relative for all projects. If low
prices are selected for one alternative, then low
prices must be used for all alternatives. Prices
should not be manipulated to achieve the desired
outcome. No unusually high or low prices should
be used without solid justification.
The use of statewide average prices is
discouraged. The state averages, while weighted,
tend to be too high due to all the small quantity
jobs. Most LCCA’s involve large quantities and the
prices come in much lower than the statewide
averages.
700.1.4 Discount Rate
Rather than choose one explicit discount rate,
ODOT uses a range of rates to see how the
discount rate affects the outcome. Total life-cycle
cost is calculated for discount rates of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6 percent. Results are then displayed in
tabular and graphical form to see how the discount
rate affects the apparent least-cost alternative.
701 Initial Construction
All alternatives for initial construction are designed
using the procedures outlined in this Manual and in
accordance with Appendix A, Pavement Design &
Selection Process. Initial construction is
considered to take place in year zero.
All pavement items are to be included in the
analysis such as excavation, subgrade
compaction, pavement removed, base, free
draining base, and pavement. Non-pavement
items and items common to all alternatives can be
neglected. Items such as striping, signing, lighting,
guardrail, barrier, underdrains, culverts, bridges,
embankment, etc., are not pavement items, are
essentially equal for all alternatives and are not to
7-1
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
be included in the analysis. On new locations,
earthwork items including subgrade compaction
are common to all pavement alternatives and are
essentially equal and therefore do not need to be
included.
For rehabilitations that raise the elevation of the
existing pavement, a cost needs to be included for
maintaining clearance under overhead structures
and for meeting elevations of at-grade bridges.
For convenience, this is known as the “cost of
maintaining clearance”. This cost can be
calculated in various ways. One way is to calculate
the cost to remove the existing pavement,
excavate down, and build back up with new
pavement. Another way is to calculate the cost of
jacking the bridges, including any approach work
necessary on overheads. A third option could be
a combination of the two.
It is not important which method is selected for
computing cost of maintaining clearance. What is
important is that a dollar amount is included in the
analysis to account for the cost of maintaining
clearance. For convenience, it is recommended to
use the same method for all alternatives, i.e. do not
remove pavement and excavate for the rubblize
alternative and then jack bridges for the unbonded
concrete overlay alternative. The method used in
the LCCA for computing cost of maintaining
clearance does not have to be the actual method
used in the plans and in construction.
702 Future Maintenance
702.1 Introduction
The future maintenance required to keep the
pavement in serviceable condition for the next 35
years must be predicted. The number one factor
when determining required maintenance is
engineering judgement. The performance
equations given in Figure 101-2 are useful
guidance. It is important to note the performance
being predicted is for pavements built to current
specifications, not 1960's specifications. Many
changes and improvements have been made to
both asphalt and concrete including such things as
PG binders, polymers, gradation changes, free
draining bases, epoxy coated steel, non d-cracking
aggregates, etc. These changes are expected to
result in improved performance and this improved
performance should be reflected in the LCCA.
January 1999
Routine maintenance performed by ODOT forces
has traditionally been ignored due to lack of
dependable data. Only contract maintenance is
considered.
ODOT does not use salvage value. This means
when choosing the maintenance strategies and
timing, the designer must try to balance them such
that all alternatives are in approximately the same
condition in year 35. Generally the goal is to have
each alternative require additional maintenance
just after the end of the analysis period. In other
words, do not place a thick overlay on one
alternative in year 32 while doing nothing since
year 25 on the other alternatives.
702.2 Maintenance Schedules
The maintenance strategies and schedules given
below are for informational purposes only. This
information is intended to give designers some
reasonable guidance when deciding the
maintenance actions for an LCCA. Wide latitude
is given on both the timing and the work predicted.
The designer is not restricted to these schedules;
but, because of the wide latitude given, anything
outside the schedules may be questioned. All
thicknesses given are approximate but overlays
much thicker or much thinner than those listed are
not expected.
The schedules list only major items of work. The
designer may need to include additional items. For
instance, tack coats are not listed but are required
with all overlays. It is not intended that every item
listed be used in a given year. For example,
concrete pavement shows both an asphalt overlay
and diamond grinding as options but never would
the two of them be done at the same time. It is
further not intended that actions must take place in
every one of the years listed. Depending on the
expected performance and the actions predicted
for the early years, the later rehabilitation(s) may
not be necessary.
702.2.1 Flexible Pavement
Flexible pavement includes new pavement on a
new alignment and complete replacement of
existing pavement.
Year 10 - 15: Thin overlay, 1.25" -
3" (~32 - 75 mm), with or without
milling.
7-2

Year 18 - 25: Thick overlay, 3" - 7"
(~75 - 175 mm), with milling,
possibly pavement repairs.
Year 28 - 32: Thin overlay or
micro-surfacing or crack sealing.
Many times the third treatment would not be
necessary at all depending on the timing of the first
two and the thickness of the overlays and their
expected performance.
702.2.2 Rigid Pavement
Rigid pavement includes new pavement on a new
alignment and complete replacement of existing
pavement. Percentages given are of the total
mainline pavement area not including shoulders or
ramps or turn lanes, etc.
Year 18 - 25: 2% - 10% full-depth
rigid repairs, 1% - 5% partial-
depth bonded repairs, diamond
grinding, 3" - 6" (~75 - 150 mm)
overlay, sawing and sealing.
Year 28 - 32: 1% - 3% full- and/or
partial-depth repairs, 1.25" - 2"
(~32 - 50 mm) second overlay
with or without milling, 3" - 4" (~75
- 100 mm) first overlay, sawing
and sealing, micro-surfacing,
crack sealing, diamond grinding.
Best practice dictates the use of diamond grinding
for the first treatment. Placing an asphalt overlay
on a concrete pavement brings on a new set of
problems and is discouraged as the first predicted
maintenance action. Remember, this is the
predicted performance of pavements built to
current specifications, not 1960's specifications.
Again, in many cases the second treatment may
not be necessary at all.
June 1999
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
702.2.3 Composite Pavement
Composite pavement is a hybrid of rigid and
flexible pavement and requires the maintenance
actions of both. It is generally expected to receive
full-depth rigid repairs, milling and an overlay every
8 - 12 years.
702.2.4 Unbonded Concrete Overlay
An unbonded concrete overlay is in essence a new
concrete pavement built on top of the old. It will
require maintenance similar to that for a rigid
pavement. It may be reasonable to expect slightly
less repair for an unbonded concrete overlay
versus new rigid pavement due to the much thicker
pavement section.
702.2.5 Fractured Slab Techniques
Fractured slab techniques include crack & seat,
and rubblize & roll.
Year 8 - 12: Thin overlay, 1.25" -
4" (~32 - 100 mm) with or without
milling.
Year 16 - 22: Thick overlay, 4" - 8"
(~100 - 200 mm) with milling,
pavement repair.
Year 24 - 32: Thin overlay, 1.25" -
4" (~32 - 100 mm) with or without
milling, micro-surfacing, crack
sealing.
Fractured slab techniques are more likely to
require the third maintenance action than is flexible
pavement.
702.2.6 Whitetopping
Whitetopping is in essence a new concrete
pavement built over an existing flexible pavement.
It is expected to perform similar to a rigid pavement
or an unbonded concrete overlay.
7-3
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
703 Total Cost
Once all the costs for initial construction and future
maintenance have been calculated, they are
summed to determine the net present value of
each alternative. Future maintenance costs are
discounted which accounts for and the time value
of money.
703.1 Discounting
Discounting is a simple yet effective way to
account for the time value of money. The discount
rate is essentially the difference between market
interest rates and the general rate of inflation. For
example, one-year Certificates of Deposit (CD)
might be paying 5.5% while inflation is running
2.0% per year, the discount rate would be 3.5%.
By the same token, if CD’s are paying 8.0% and
inflation is running 4.5%, the discount rate is still
3.5%. Using a discount rate thus eliminates the
need to predict what inflation will do for the next 35
years or what return one might get on an
investment.
The formula for applying the discount rate is as
follows:
1 gives background information on the project
(1+ i)
(P/F,i%,n) = n
where:
(P/F,i%,n) = discount factor
i = discount rate (0% to 6%)
n = year costs occur
An example showing how to use the discount rate
and calculate total cost is given in Figure 703-1.
704 Lane Closure Days
Lane closure days is a measure of the impact of
each alternative on the traveling public. It is not a
measure of the time needed to construct each
alternative. It is merely a comparison tool given a
standard work crew, a ten-hour day, a single-lane
closure, etc., of how many days it would take to
complete each alternative. One lane closure day
equals twenty-four hours that a lane is not available
to traffic even though work is only being performed
for ten hours. The production rates for certain
June 1999
items which can be opened to traffic upon
completion of each day’s work have been adjusted
to account for the fact the lane is not closed
twenty-four hours.
The production rates used in calculating the
number of days of lane closure are given in Figure
704-1.
705 Results Presentation
A great deal of information is contained in the
LCCA and the supporting documentation. It is
important it be presented in a standard format.
Examples are given in Figures 705-1 and 705-2.
The first page of the report gives general
information about the project and the alternatives
and provides space for the members of the
Pavement Selection Committee to sign off on one
alternative. The second page summarizes the
District’s selected alternative. This page lists each
of the principal and secondary factors from the
Pavement Design and Selection Process,
Appendix A, and gives justification for the selected
alternative for each factor. Additional pages may
or may not be necessary to give more detailed
information on the initial buildups, predicted future
maintenance, widening buildups, etc. One page
including historical data on the project, the original
construction project, all rehabilitations to date, the
existing buildup, etc.; also, the physical attributes
such as interchanges, intersections, overhead and
at-grade bridges, etc.; and the condition of the
existing pavement, PCR, traffic, functional
classification, etc. Next are pages showing the
details of the LCCA such as items, quantities,
prices and costs for initial and future construction.
Next, a graph showing how the discount rate
affects the apparent least cost alternative and
finally a page giving the lane closure analysis.
Once all the information is assembled, the District
Deputy Director should sign off on one alternative.
The package is then sent to the Pavement Design
Section of the Office of Materials Management who
will review the LCCA package for concurrence and
then forward the report to the Pavement Selection
Committee for approval. The Committee will return
the signed copy to the Pavement Design Section
who will inform the District of the decision and
notify FHWA, if necessary.
7-4
700 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
List of Figures

Figure Date Subject

703-1 January 1999 Discounting Example
704-1 January 1999 Lane Closure Days
705-1 January 1999 Rehabilitation Example Page 1
705-1 June 1999 Rehabilitation Example Page 1a
705-1 January 1999 Rehabilitation Example Pages 2 - 11
705-2 June 1999 New Pavement Example Pages 1 - 5
 703-1
January 1999
Discounting Example
Reference Section
703.1

Given:

• Initial Construction (Year 0): $6,500,000

• First Maintenance (Year 12): $800,000
• Second Maintenance (Year 20): $1,600,000
• Third Maintenance (Year 30): $200,000

Problem:

Solve for the net present value using discount rates of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6%.

Solution:

Calculate the discount factor for each year and discount rate using the equation given in Section
703.1.

Rate Year 0 Year 12 Year 20 Year 30

0% 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
1% 1.0000 0.8874 0.8195 0.7419
2% 1.0000 0.7885 0.6730 0.5521
3% 1.0000 0.7014 0.5537 0.4120
4% 1.0000 0.6246 0.4564 0.3083
5% 1.0000 0.5568 0.3769 0.2314
6% 1.0000 0.4970 0.3118 0.1741

Multiply costs by discount factors and sum to find Net Present Value (NPV) at each discount rate.

NPV0% = (6500000)*(1)+(800000)*(1)+(1600000)*(1)+(200000)*(1)
= $9,100,000

NPV1% = (6500000)*(1)+(800000)*(0.8874)+(1600000)*(0.8195)+(200000)*(0.7419)
= $8,669,500

NPV2% = (6500000)*(1)+(800000)*(0.7885)+(1600000)*(0.6730)+(200000)*(0.5521)
= $8,318,020

NPV3% = (6500000)*(1)+(800000)*(0.7014)+(1600000)*(0.5537)+(200000)*(0.4120)
= $8,029,440

NPV4% = (6500000)*(1)+(800000)*(0.6246)+(1600000)*(0.4564)+(200000)*(0.3083)
= $7,791,580

NPV5% = (6500000)*(1)+(800000)*(0.5568)+(1600000)*(0.3769)+(200000)*(0.2314)
= $7,594,760

NPV6% = (6500000)*(1)+(800000)*(0.4970)+(1600000)*(0.3118)+(200000)*(0.1741)
= $7,431,300
 704-1
January 1999
Lane Closure Days
Reference Section
704

Item # Description ENGLISH METRIC

Prod. Rate Prod. Rate
--------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

202 Wearing Course Removed 11,250 SY/Day 9406 m2/Day

1 1
202 Pavement Removed 2250 SY/Day 1881 m2/Day
202 Base Removed 1000 CY/Day 765 m3/Day
203 Excavation not Inc. Embankment 2500 CY/Day 1911 m3/Day
203 Subgrade Compaction 1 Day/Lane 1 Day/Lane
203 Proof Rolling 48,750 SY/Day 40,761 m2/Day
206 Lime Soil Stabilized Subgrade 2125 SY/Day 1776 m2/Day
252 Partial Depth Pavement Repair 1625 SY/Day 1359 m2/Day
252 Rigid Remove/Flexible Replace 1000 SY/Day 836 m2/Day
252 Pavement Sawing 1 Day/Lane 1 Day/Lane
253 Pavement Repair 875 CY/Day 669 m3/Day
2,3 2,3
254 Pavement Planing - Bituminous 8750 SY/Day 7316 m2/Day
4 4
254 Pavement Planing - PCC 8750 SY/Day 7316 m2/Day
5 5
255 Rigid Remove/Rigid Repl. Class C 875 SY/Day 731 m2/Day
255 Pavement Sawing 1 Day/Lane 1 Day/Lane
301 Bituminous Aggregate Base (302) 875 CY/Day 669 m3/Day
304 Aggregate Base 1250 CY/Day 956 m3/Day
5 5
305 Concrete Base 2875 SY/Day 2404 m2/Day
6 6
306 Cement Treated FDB 2875 SY/Day 2404 m2/Day
6 6
307 Non Stabilized Drainage Base 3750 SY/Day 3135 m2/Day
407 Tack Coat Neglect Neglect
408 Bituminous Prime Coat Neglect Neglect
409 Seal Coat Neglect Neglect
413 Sawing and Sealing 1875 LF/Day 571 m/Day
4,7 4,7
446-1 AC Surface Course, Type 1 1124 CY/Day 860 m3/Day
3 3
446-2 AC Intermediate Course, Type 2 625 CY/Day 478 m3/Day
4,7 4,7
448-1 AC Surface Course, Type 1 1250 CY/Day 956 m3/Day
3 3
448-2 AC Intermediate Course, Type 2 688 CY/Day 526 m3/Day
5 5
451 & 452 Concrete Pavement (MAINLINE) 4750 SY/Day 3972 m2/Day
5 5
451 & 452 Concrete Pavement (SHOULDERS) 3175 SY/Day 2655 m2/Day
5 5
453 CRC Pavement 1875 SY/Day 1568 m2/Day
6 6
Special Asphalt Treated FDB 3125 SY/Day 2612 m2/Day
Special Cracking and Seating 12,500 SY/Day 10,451 m2/Day
Special Rubblize and Roll 2500 SY/Day 2090 m2/Day
4 4
450...801 Joint Clean/Seal - All Types 13,750 LF/Day + 4190 m/Day +
1 Day/ Lane 1 Day/Lane
 Notes to Lane Closure Days
Figure 704-1

1. For situations where shoulders are being removed for replacement, pavement removal and
wearing course removal can be done simultaneously. Only use the greater of the two
quantities depending on the project

2. On future maintenance only, where planing and a one-course overlay are being performed as
one continuous operation, such as thin mill and fill jobs often done as night work, the
production rate for this item should be doubled and the time for the overlay neglected.

3. On future maintenance only, where conditions allow the pavement to be opened to traffic at
the end of each ten hour work day, the production rate for this item should be doubled. When
the dropoff between lanes is too large and the pavement cannot be opened to traffic until the
item is completed or other work is being performed which prevents the pavement from being
opened, the given production rate should be used with no doubling.

4. Production rates for these items have been adjusted to reflect the fact that the pavement is
opened to traffic during the part of the day when work is not being performed.

5. All concrete pavement items do not include the curing time. The curing time should be added
to the summary where applicable in the final analysis.
Class C - 10 Days/Project
Class MS - 2 Days/Project
Class FS - 1 Day/Project

6. Where type is yet to be determined, use 3125 SY/Day (2612 m2/Day).

7. Where Sawing and Sealing is specified, use only 1 Day/Lane for 446-1 or 448-1.
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 1 Reference Section
705

Pavement Type and Rehabilitation Strategy Approval

Project: ABC-1-8.30 Date: February 29, 1999

Length: 7.84 miles PID No.: 12345
Plans: 20 % complete Program Amount: $25,000,000

• Alternative 1: Rubblize and Roll - Remove the existing asphalt overlay, rubblize the existing
concrete and overlay with 13.5" of asphalt. Twenty-nine percent removal, undercut and replacement is
required to meet at-grade bridges and provide clearance at overhead bridges, assuming bridges are not
jacked.

• Alternative 2: Unbonded Concrete Overlay - Remove the existing asphalt overlay, place a 1"
asphalt bondbreaker layer and overlay with 8" of plain concrete. Twenty-two percent removal,
undercut and replacement is required to meet at-grade bridges and provide clearance at overhead
bridges, assuming bridges are not jacked.

• Alternative 3: Flexible Replacement - Remove the existing pavement and replace with 12.75" of
asphalt on 12" of 304.

• Alternative 4: Rigid Replacement - Remove the existing pavement and replace with 12" of
reinforced concrete on a Free Draining Base on 6" of 304.

PLEASE INDICATE BELOW YOUR APPROVAL OF ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES THEN RETURN
TO MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Pavement Selection Committee New Design/ Rehabilitation Approval

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

District Deputy Director ______________________________________________

Assistant Director for Transportation Policy ______________________________________________

Assistant Director for Field Operations ______________________________________________

Deputy Director of Engineering Policy ______________________________________________

 705-1
June 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 1a Reference Section
705

Selection Summary Sheet

Alternative 2, Unbonded Concrete Overlay, has been selected by the District. The following discussion
concerning this selection is provided in an effort to communicate the rational for this decision.

Principal Factors

LCCA: The Unbonded Concrete Overlay has the lowest life-cycle cost for discount rates between zero and
three percent. Above approximately 3.5%, Alternative 3, Flexible Replacement, has the lowest life-
cycle cost, however, even at a 6% discount rate, the Unbonded Concrete Overlay is less than 5%
more than the Flexible replacement. Differences of five to ten percent between alternatives are
considered insignificant for most life-cycle cost analyses.

Initial Cost: The Flexible Replacement has the lowest initial cost and none of the other alternatives are within
five percent. The Unbonded Concrete Overlay is more than ten percent greater than the Flexible,
however, given its other advantages, District felt the additional initial cost was justified.

User Delay: The Unbonded Concrete Overlay has the fewest days of lane closure.

Municipal Preference: This project is rural and is not located within any municipality.

Secondary Factors

Geometrics: This project, classified as hilly terrain, includes three locations where grade is in excess of 3%.
The District has had problems in the past with rutting where 1% to 2% grades are present for bridge
embankments. Based on our desire to reduce maintenance required on the pavement, the Unbonded
Concrete Overlay is preferred. The life-cycle cost analysis did not account for any additional costs
which might be associated with the use of special rut-resistant asphalt mixes.

Constructability: Due to the widening, all of the alternatives could be constructed without crossing traffic over,
however, part-width construction is not recommended with free draining bases. Since there are no
interchanges on this project, traffic could easily be crossed over to allow the contractor full access to
one side. We see no major advantages or disadvantages regarding constructability/maintenance of
traffic for any of the alternatives.

Availability of Local Materials: Our District finds it difficult to find quality aggregates for both asphalt and
concrete. We see no real advantage for any alternative.

Other Issues: Our District has had very good performance with unbonded concrete overlays in the past.
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 2 Reference Section
705

Initial Construction Designs

Alternative 1: Rubblize and Roll

1.5" 446 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1H

407 Tack Coat for Intermediate Course
1.75" 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2
10.5" 302 Bituminous Aggregate Base
Special Rubblize and Roll Existing Reinforced Concrete Pavement

Alternative 2: Unbonded Concrete Overlay

8" 452 Plain Concrete Pavement

1" 448 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 1

Alternative 3: Flexible Replacement

1.5" 446 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1H

407 Tack Coat for Intermediate Course
1.75" 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2
9.5" 302 Bituminous Aggregate Base
12" 304 Aggregate Base

Alternative 4: Rigid Replacement

12" 451 Reinforced Concrete Pavement

Special Free Draining Base
408 Bituminous Prime Coat
6" 304 Aggregate Base
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 3 Reference Section
705

Widening Buildups

Alternative 1: Rubblize and Roll

1.5" 446 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1H

407 Tack Coat for Intermediate Course
1.75" 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2
10.5" 302 Bituminous Aggregate Base
12" 304 Aggregate Base

Alternative 2: Unbonded Concrete Overlay

12" 452 Plain Concrete Pavement

13" 304 Aggregate Base
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 4 Reference Section
705

Anticipated Future Maintenance

Alternative 1: Rubblize and Roll

@ 12 years: 1.5" mill and fill

@ 20 years: 4" overlay with milling
@ 30 years: 1.5" mill and fill

Alternative 2: Unbonded Concrete Overlay

@ 25 years Repair 5% of the pavement, grind for smoothness and reseal joints

Alternative 3: Flexible Replacement

@ 15 years: 2" mill and fill

@ 25 years: 4" overlay with milling

Alternative 4: Rigid Replacement

@ 25 years: Repair 5% of the pavement, grind for smoothness and reseal joints
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 5 Reference Section
705

Project Summary
• Historical Data

Project Numbers 530(57)

557(57)
SLM 8.30
Project Length 7.84 miles
Pavement Buildup 5.25" Asphalt
10" Reinforced Concrete
6" Subbase
Joint Spacing 60'
Drainage Pipe Underdrains
Rehabilitations to date 571(72)
159(86)

• Physical Attributes

Signalized Intersections None

Interchanges None
Overhead Structures Five
Structure Clearance
0844 16'-3" ) 15'-1"
0995 14'-11" ) 15'-3"
1111 14'-8" ) 15'-0"
1268 14'-0" ) 15'-7"
1559 19'-1" ) 14'-10"
At-Grade Structures Three Sets

• Project Evaluation

Overall Condition Fair to Poor

PCR/Structural Deduct 59/21
20-year Design ESAL’s 65.5 million (Rigid)
47.4 million (Flexible)
ADT (1994) 25390
% Trucks (1994) 34%
Functional Classification Rural Interstate
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 6 Reference Section
705

Initial Construction Quantities

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT AMT. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

202 Pavement Removed SY 62,400 49,067

202 Pavement Removed SY 218,293 218,293
202 Wearing Course Rem. SY 220,849 239,738
203 Excavation CY 237,668 190,709 215,767 196,060
203 Subgrade Compaction SY 324,884 305,996
203 Subgrade Compaction SY 545,733 545,733
302 Bit. Aggregate Base CY 9.5 144,013
302 Bit. Aggregate Base CY 10.5 90,861
302 Bit. Aggregate Base CY 14.5 132,034
304 Aggregate Base CY 6 90,956
304 Aggregate Base CY 12 112,193
304 Aggregate Base CY 12 181,911
304 Aggregate Base CY 13 112,510
407 Tack Coat Gal 40,930 40,930
408 Bituminous Prime Coat Gal 218,293
446 AC Surface, Type 1 CY 1.5 22,739 22,739
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 CY 1.75 26,529 26,529
448 AC Intermediate, Type 1 CY 1 15,159
452 Plain Concrete Pavem't SY 8 239,738
452 Plain Concrete Pavem't SY 12 305,996 545,733
Special Rubblize and Roll SY 155,893
Special Free Draining Base SY 545,733
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 7 Reference Section
705

Future Maintenance Quantities

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT AMT. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

@ 12 Years
254 Pavement Planing SY 545,733
254 Patching Planed Surface SY 3% 16,372
407 Tack Coat Gal 40,930
446 AC Surface, Type 1 CY 1.5 22,739

@ 15 Years
254 Pavement Planing SY 545,733
254 Patching Planed Surface SY 3% 16,372
407 Tack Coat Gal 40,930
446 AC Surface, Type 1 CY 2 30,319

@ 20 Years
254 Pavement Planing SY 545,733
254 Patching Planed Surface SY 3% 16,372
407 Tack Coat Gal 81,860
446 AC Surface, Type 1 CY 1.5 22,739
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 CY 2.5 37,898

@ 25 Years
254 Pavement Planing SY 545,733
254 Patching Planed Surface SY 3% 16,372
255 Rigid Repairs SY 5% 16,372 16,327
255 Pavement Sawing LF 5% 73,674 73,674
407 Tack Coat Gal 81,860
446 AC Surface, Type 1 CY 1.5 22,739
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 CY 2.5 37,898
801 Longit. Joint Sealing LF 327,440 327,440
801 Trans. Joint Sealing LF 313,476 313,476
Special Diamond Grinding SY 327,440 327,440

@ 30 Years
254 Pavement Planing SY 545,733
254 Patching Planed Surface SY 3% 16,372
407 Tack Coat Gal 40,930
446 AC Surface, Type 1 CY 1.5 22,739
 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 8 Reference Section
705

Initial Construction Costs

Price
ITEM DESCRIPTION Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

202 Pavement Removed $4.74 $295,776 $232,576

202 Pavement Removed $4.00 $873,173 $873,173
202 Wearing Course Rem. $0.75 $165,637 $179,803
203 Excavation $2.11 $501,480 $402,397 $455,268 $413,686
203 Subgrade Compaction $0.55 $178,686 $168,298
203 Subgrade Compaction $0.50 $272,867 $272,867
302 Bit. Aggregate Base $32.41 $4,667,460
302 Bit. Aggregate Base $32.12 $2,918,449
302 Bit. Aggregate Base $32.12 $4,240,929
304 Aggregate Base $20.00 $1,819,111
304 Aggregate Base $20.00 $2,243,867
304 Aggregate Base $18.00 $3,274,400
304 Aggregate Base $20.00 $2,250,196
407 Tack Coat $0.77 $31,516 $31,516
408 Bituminous Prime Coat $0.70 $152,805
446 AC Surface, Type 1 $60.00 $1,364,333 $1,364,333
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 $42.49 $1,127,205 $1,127,205
448 AC Intermediate, Type 1 $37.00 $560,893
452 Plain Concrete Pavement $18.00 $4,315,280
452 Plain Concrete Pavement $20.00 $6,119,911 $10,914,667
Special Rubblize and Roll $1.77 $275,931
Special Free Draining Base $2.35 $1,282,473

Total Initial Construction $13,048,034 $13,996,777 $12,066,222 $15,728,783

 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 9 Reference Section
705

Future Maintenance Costs

Price
ITEM DESCRIPTION Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
@ 12 Years
254 Pavement Planing $0.55 $300,153
254 Patching Planed Surface $0.40 $6,549
407 Tack Coat $0.77 $31,516
446 AC Surface, Type 1 $60.00 $1,364,333

@ 15 Years
254 Pavement Planing $0.55 $300,153
254 Patching Planed Surface $0.40 $6,549
407 Tack Coat $0.77 $31,516
446 AC Surface, Type 1 $60.00 $1,819,111

@ 20 Years
254 Pavement Planing $0.55 $300,153
254 Patching Planed Surface $0.40 $6,549
407 Tack Coat $0.77 $35,200
446 AC Surface, Type 1 $60.00 $1,364,333
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 $39.67 $1,503,420

@ 25 Years
254 Pavement Planing $0.55 $300,153
254 Patching Planed Surface $0.40 $6,549
255 Rigid Repairs $45.00 $736,740 $736,740
255 Pavement Sawing $1.42 $104,617 $104,617
407 Tack Coat $0.43 $35,200
446 AC Surface, Type 1 $60.00 $1,364,333
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 $39.67 $1,503,420
801 Longit. Joint Sealing $1.00 $327,440 $327,440
801 Trans. Joint Sealing $1.25 $391,845 $391,845
Special Diamond Grinding $2.00 $654,880 $654,880

@ 30 Years
254 Pavement Planing $0.55 $300,153
254 Patching Planed Surface $0.40 $6,549
407 Tack Coat $0.77 $31,516
446 AC Surface, Type 1 $60.00 $1,364,333

Total Future Maintenance $6,614,758 $2,215,522 $5,799,023 $2,215,522

Total Cost of Alternative $19,662,792 $16,212,299 $17,865,245 $17,944,304

 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 10 Reference Section
705

Sensitivity Analysis of the Discount Rate

The Discount Rate is a tool used in evaluating the time value of money. It is broadly
defined as the difference between market interest rates and inflation. Because costs
are incurred at different points in time over the life of a pavement, the discount rate is
used to compare these costs in terms of constant dollars. In this case, 1998 dollars
have been used as constant dollars. A survey of states done in the mid 1990's
indicated the range of discount rates used throughout the country varies from 0% to
7%. The most common rate used was 4%. Rather than using just one discount rate,
a range of rates has been used to show how different rates affect the apparent least
cost alternative.

Rate Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

0% $19,662,792 $16,212,299 $17,868,929 $17,944,304
1% $18,452,579 $15,724,371 $16,802,534 $17,456,376
2% $17,490,419 $15,347,206 $15,949,282 $17,079,211
3% $16,720,706 $15,054,922 $15,263,552 $16,786,928
4% $16,101,215 $14,827,856 $14,710,047 $16,559,862
5% $15,599,695 $14,651,027 $14,261,344 $16,383,032
6% $15,191,367 $14,515,990 $13,896,057 $16,244,996

20

19

18
Total Cost
Millions

17

16

15

14

13
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Discount Rate

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

 705-1
January 1999
Rehabilitation Example
Page 11 Reference Section
705

Lane Closure Summary*

Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Initial Construction 614 381 562 577
Future Maintenance
@ 12 Years 31
@ 15 Years 31
@ 20 Years 143
@ 25 Years 119 143 119
@ 30 Years 31

Total of Future 205 119 174 119

Total No. of Days 819 500 736 696

* Lane Closure Summary is for comparison purposes only and is

not an estimate of the actual time for construction as many factors
exist which were not considered.
 705-2
June 1999
New Pavement Example
Page 1 Reference Section
705

New Pavement Type Approval

Project: XYZ-999-2.66 Date: February 29, 1999

Length: 4.48 miles PID No.: 98765
Plans: 10% complete Program Amount: $15,000,000

! Flexible Alternative:

1.5" 446 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type 1H

1.75" 446 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type 2
7.5" 302 Bituminous Aggregate Base
307 Non-Stabilized Drainage Base Type IA or NJ
408 Bituminous Prime Coat
6" 304 Aggregate Base

Anticipated Future Maintenance

@ 12 Years: Mill and fill mainline only with 1.5 inches
@ 22 Years: Repair 1% of the pavement, mill and overlay with 4 inches

! Rigid Alternative:

10" 452 Plain Concrete Pavement

307 Non-Stabilized Drainage Base Type IA
408 Bituminous Prime Coat
6" 304 Aggregate Base

Anticipated Future Maintenance

@ 22 Years: Repair 2% full depth and 1% partial depth and grind for smoothness

PLEASE INDICATE BELOW YOUR APPROVAL OF ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES THEN RETURN
TO MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Pavement Selection Committee New Design Approval

Flexible Rigid

District Deputy Director ________________________________________

Assistant Director for Transportation Policy ________________________________________

Assistant Director for Field Operations ________________________________________

Deputy Director of Engineering Policy ________________________________________

 705-1
June 1999
New Pavement Example
Page 2 Reference Section
705

Selection Summary Sheet

The Flexible Alternative has been selected by the District. The following discussion concerning this selection is
provided in an effort to communicate the rational for this decision.

Principal Factors

LCCA: The Flexible Alternative has the lowest life-cycle cost at all discount rates although the Rigid Alternative
is within 5% of it at zero percent discount rate.

Initial Cost: The Flexible Alternative has the lowest initial cost and the Rigid Alternative is more than 10%
greater.

User Delay: The Flexible Alternative has almost twice as many days of lane closure as the Rigid Alternative. This
project is located in a rural area with low ADT however, and we don’t feel the lane closures will cause
any backups or significant disruption to the traveling public and the other factors in favor of the Flexible
Alternative outweigh this drawback.

Municipal Preference: This project is rural and not located within any municipality.

Secondary Factors

Geometrics: This project is located on flat terrain with very little grade. There are no geometric constraints which
would favor either alternative.

Constructability: This project is new pavement on new alignment and any pavement can be constructed easily.

Availability of Local Materials: There are currently no available aggregate sources nearby for coarse aggregates
which have passed the D-cracking test required for concrete.

Other Issues: Our District has had very good performance with flexible pavement the past.
 705-2
June 1999
New Pavement Example
Page 3 Reference Section
705

Project Summary

20-year Design ESAL’s 24.7 million (Rigid)

16.7 million (Flexible)
ADT (1997) 8430
% Trucks (1997) 12 %
Functional Classification Rural Principle Arterial

Days of Lane Closure*

Action Flexible Rigid

Initial Construction (Not applicable, new location)

Future Maintenance

@ 12 Years 7
@ 22 Years 53 34

Total of Future Maint. 60 34

Total No. of Days 60 34

* Lane Closure summary is for comparison purposes only and is not an estimate of the actual time
for construction as many factors exist which were not considered.
 705-2
June 1999
New Pavement Example
Page 4 Reference Section
705

Initial Construction Quantities Costs

Item Description Unit Amt. Flexible Rigid Price Flexible Rigid

203 Subgrade Compaction SY 199,748 199,748 $0.58 $115,854 $115,854

302 Bituminous Aggregate Base CY 7.5 42,709 $44.00 $1,879,211
304 Aggregate Base CY 6 35,044 34,167 $21.10 $739,419 $720,934
307 Non-Stabilized DB SY 199,748 199,748 $3.17 $633,202 $633,202
407 Tack Coat for Intermediate Gal 14,981 $0.65 $9,738
408 Prime Coat Gal 79,899 79,899 $0.84 $67,115 $67,115
446 AC Surface, Type 1H CY 1.5 8,323 $68.15 $567,202
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 CY 1.75 9,710 $43.47 $422,093
452 Plain Concrete SY 10 199,748 $21.00 $4,194,714

Total Cost of Initial Construction $4,433,834 $5,731,819

Future Maintenance Quantities Costs

Item Description Unit Amt. Flexible Rigid Price Flexible Rigid

@ 12 Years
254 Pavement Planing SY 126,157 $0.59 $74,433
254 Patching Planed Surface SY 1,262 $2.95 $3,722
407 Tack Coat Gal 9,462 $0.71 $6,718
446 AC Surface, Type 1H CY 1.5 5,257 $68.15 $358,233

@ 22 Years
253 Pavement Repair SY 0.5% 631 $85.97 $54,229
254 Pavement Planing SY 199,748 $0.59 $117,851
254 Patching Planed Surface SY 1,997 $2.95 $5,893
407 Tack Coat Gal 14,981 $0.65 $9,738
407 Tack Coat for Intermediate Gal 14,981 $0.65 $9,738
446 AC Surface, Type 1H CY 1.5 8,323 $68.15 $567,202
446 AC Intermediate, Type 2 CY 2.5 13,871 $43.47 $602,990

@ 22 Years
255 Rigid Repairs SY 2% 2,523 $56.28 $142,002
255 Pavement Sawing LF 11,354 $2.17 $24,638
256 Bonded Patching SF 1% 11,354 $30.00 $340,623
Spec. Diamond Grinding SY 126,157 $2.44 $307,823

Total Cost of Future Maintenance $1,810,745 $815,086

Total Cost of Alternative $6,244,578 $6,546,905

 705-2
June 1999
New Pavement Example
Page 5 Reference Section
705

Sensitivity Analysis of the Discount Rate

The Discount Rate is a tool used in evaluating the time value of money. It is broadly defined
as the difference between market interest rates and inflation. Because costs are incurred at
different points in time over the life of a pavement, the discount rate is used to compare these
costs in terms of constant dollars. In this case, 1998 dollars have been used as constant
dollars. A survey of states done in the mid 1990's indicated the range of discount rates used
throughout the country varies from 0% to 7%. The most common rate used was 4%. Rather
than using just one discount rate, a range of rates has been used to show how different rates
affect the apparent least cost alternative.

Discount Rate Flexible Rigid

0% $6,244,578 $6,546,905
1% $5,925,832 $6,386,656
2% $5,667,862 $6,259,048
3% $5,458,380 $6,157,206
4% $5,287,679 $6,075,749
5% $5,148,099 $6,010,456
6% $5,033,570 $5,958,009

$6,600

$6,400

$6,200
Thousands
Total Cost

$6,000

$5,800

$5,600

$5,400

$5,200

$5,000
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Discount Rate

Flexible Rigid
Appendix A

Pavement Design and Selection Process

Approved: Effective:June10,1999
ResponsibleOffice:MaterialsManagement
PolicyNumber:515-002(P)
//s//GordonProctor Page1of11
GordonProctor
Director

PAVEMENT DESIGN AND SELECTION PROCESS

POLICY STATEMENT:

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) must select projects and design new
pavements and rehabilitations of existing pavements such that they: are structurally adequate
to serve the anticipated loadings, employ cost-effective materials, require a minimum amount
of maintenance, and result in long-term customer satisfaction. This goal is brought about by
assuring a consistent, statewide strategy exists for identifying how resources will be utilized,
that proper pavement treatments are applied at the proper time, cost-effective materials are
used and best practice construction methodologies are pursued.

This Policy will establish uniform procedures to assure that the above objectives are achieved
and the experience, collective knowledge, and technical expertise of all involved in the
pavement design and selection process are considered.

AUTHORITY:

The Director of Transportation’s authority to establish rules as conferred by 5501.02 of the

Ohio Revised Code.

REFERENCES:

# “Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual”, Ohio Department of Transportation,

current revision.

# “Guide for Design of Pavement Structures”, American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials, 1993.

# “Pavement Rehabilitation Design Training Course - Participants Manual” Y.J.Chou,

A.A. Morse, D.W. Miller, 1997.

# “Specifications for Subsurface Investigations”, Ohio Department of Transportation,

November 1, 1995.
 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 2 of 11

# “Implementation and Revision of Developed Concepts for ODOT Pavement

Management Program--Volume II Pavement Condition Rating Manual”, February
1987.

SCOPE:

This policy applies to all multi-lane and all National Highway System (NHS) pavements
under the jurisdiction of the Ohio Department of Transportation. Routes other than multi-
lane and NHS are to be managed and designed consistent with fiscal responsibility and sound
pavement management practices.

Each District Deputy Director will administer this policy, with the approval of the Pavement
Selection Committee (PSC) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) when
required. The Pavements Section of the Office of Materials Management (Pavements
Section) will provide technical assistance, advice, training, and support.

DEFINITIONS:

Analysis Period - The number of years for which a Life-Cycle Cost Analysis is made.

Design Period - The number of years, over which a pavement structure is expected to
deteriorate from its initial condition (new or rehabilitated) to its terminal serviceability. The
length of this period is directly related to the loading the pavement is expected to carry.

Functional Characteristics - Qualities of a pavement such as surface smoothness, skid

resistance, and non-load related distresses such as block cracking, and oxidation of asphalt
pavement surfaces.

Major Rehabilitation - Work performed on a pavement intended to restore structural integrity

and functional characteristics.

Minor Rehabilitation - Work performed on a pavement intended to restore functional

characteristics and protect the structural integrity.

Multi-Lane Pavements - Pavements with four or more lanes. Continuous two-way left turn
lanes are considered lanes in this definition.
 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 3 of 11

New Pavements - Include those: (1) at a location where no pavement exists beforehand, (2)
in the place of an existing pavement removed to a level at or below the top of the subgrade,
or (3) being placed next to an existing pavement (widening) for additional highway capacity.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis - A process for evaluating the economic worth of a pavement
segment by analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs over a defined period.

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) - A numerical rating of pavement distresses on a 0 to 100

scale based on visual inspection. A PCR of 100 signifies a perfect pavement with no distress.

Present Serviceability Index (PSI) - A numerical index which correlates roughness

measurements on a scale of 0 to 5. A PSI of 5 indicates an exceptionally smooth pavement.

Preventive Maintenance - Work performed on a structurally sound pavement, generally in the

form of a surface treatment, intended to preserve the pavement, retard future deterioration,
and maintain or improve the functional condition without substantially increasing the
structural capacity.

Serviceability - Expressed by the Present Serviceability Index.

Structural Deduct - An indicator of load-related pavement distress (see Pavement Condition

Rating Manual, Volume II ).

Structural integrity is measured by the flexural characteristics of a pavement under a load,

using nondestructive pavement deflection testing, and indicates the ability of the pavement
structure to carry loads. The basic idea being the more a pavement deflects under a load, the
less load-carrying capacity.

POLICY:

I. ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. The Pavement Selection Committee (PSC)

1. Will consist of the following persons:

a. District Deputy Director (District having jurisdiction)

b. Assistant Director for Transportation Policy
c. Assistant Director for Field Operations
d. Deputy Director of Engineering Policy
 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 4 of 11

2. The Assistant Director for Transportation Policy will chair the PSC.

3. The PSC:

a. Will meet to make decisions based on consensus.

b. May call on the District Pavement Designer and/or the Central

Office Pavement Section representative to assist the PSC or
participate in the meeting.

4. Pavement type selections for new pavements and major rehabilitation

projects that exceed four lane-miles (six lane-kilometers) in length,
must be approved by the Committee.

B. Office of Materials Management - Pavements Section will be responsible for:

1. All policies, manuals, and guidelines concerning pavement design,

maintenance, and rehabilitation.

2. Providing advice and assistance to the PSC.

3. Review District Pavement Review Team recommendation and provide

concurrence/nonconcurrence documentation to the PSC.

4. Providing technical support, advice, training, and assistance to District

personnel involved in development of Work Plans, project scopes,
design, and preparation of plans.

C. District Offices

1. The Districts will be responsible for all project-related design activities

including pavement design, pavement rehabilitation design, and life-
cycle cost analysis.

2. The District will be responsible for the development of a

comprehensive pavement management strategy as defined in Section
IV.F.1.

3. The District will establish a Pavement Review Team which will, at a

minimum, consist of:
 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 5 of 11

a. District pavement designer

b. Appropriate District Planning, Production and Highway

Management personnel.

c. County Manager

d. A representative from FHWA.

4. The Pavement Review Team will:

a. Review all candidate projects in the preventive maintenance,

minor rehabilitation and major rehabilitation categories to
ensure the proper treatments are being applied to the right roads
at the right time.

b. Develop a life-cycle cost analysis on all new construction and

major rehabilitation projects in accordance with Section II and
provide a summary report in accordance with the Pavement
Design and Rehabilitation Manual.

c. Transmit the report and life-cycle cost analysis (where

necessary) to the PSC under the signature of the District
Deputy Director and through the Office of Materials
Management - Pavements Section.

5. Districts will be responsible for maintaining pavement design records

and documentation concerning project decisions for a time period
which exceeds the life of the strategy.

II. GENERAL

A. The results of life-cycle cost analyses will be given thorough consideration in

the determination of pavement type for new pavements and major
rehabilitations. In addition to the LCCA, the principal and secondary factors
to be considered are listed in the table below.

Principal Factors Secondary Factors

Initial Cost Geometrics
User Delay Constructability
Municipal Preference Availability of Local Materials
 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 6 of 11

B. Life-cycle cost analyses will use an Analysis Period of 35 years, and will be
performed in accordance with the Pavement Design and Rehabilitation
Manual. All construction costs anticipated to accrue during the period will be
considered in the analyses.

III. PROCEDURES FOR NEW PAVEMENTS

A. Structural Design Parameters

1. Pavement design will be done following the Pavement Design and

Rehabilitation Manual, Sections 200, 300, and 400.

2. New pavements will be designed structurally for a twenty year period

using projected equivalent single-axle loadings and appropriate soil
support values.

B. Pavement Type Selection

1. Procedures to follow for pavement selection vary with the length of the
pavement to be constructed. For projects with more than four lane-
miles (six-lane kilometers) of mainline pavement, approval of
pavement type selection must be obtained from the PSC. Projects that
contain less than four lane-miles (six-lane kilometers) need only
consensus from the District Pavement Review Team and approval of
the District Deputy Director.

2. Projects that require PSC approval also require a Life-Cycle Cost

Analysis following current ODOT practice as outlined in Section 700
of the Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual. The analysis will
include both rigid and flexible alternatives. A completed analysis,
indicating the District’s preferred alternative, is to be sent to the
Pavements Section under the District Deputy Director’s signature. The
Pavements Section will review the analysis and provide
concurrence/nonconcurrence documentation to the PSC.

IV. PROCEDURES FOR EXISTING PAVEMENTS

A. Network-Level Corrective Action Categories

 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 7 of 11

The Pavement Management System (PMS), managed by the Office of

Technical Services, provides a detailed ranking and distress identification for
all pavements on a District and Statewide basis. An initial determination for
Network-Level Corrective Action Category will be made according to the
following table. This table relates corrective actions with the Pavement
Condition Rating values predicted to exist at the time any corrective actions
are expected to take place. Pavement condition prediction will be based on
the latest analysis from ODOT’s PMS as detailed in Section 100 of the
Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual. Any deviations to these categories
must be justified and documented in the project- level analysis.

Predicted PCR value Network-Level Corrective Action Category *

PCR> 85 No action required
85>PCR>75 Preventive maintenance
75>PCR>55 Minor rehabilitation
PCR<55 Major rehabilitation

* Pavements having a structural deduct greater than or equal to 25 generally

require major rehabilitation, no matter of the overall PCR.

B. Project-Level Corrective Action Considerations

1. Although the Network-Level Corrective Action Categories provide

initial strategies as a function of predicted PCR value, it must be
understood that these strategies are for initial estimates only and there
will be situations where this framework will not apply. Therefore, it is
imperative that each project has a detailed project-level analysis
performed before making final detailed design decisions concerning
the pavement.

2. The project-level analysis should always begin with a PCR history plot
coupled with all available design, construction, and maintenance
information regarding the project. A field review to consider all the
necessary information for the project-level analysis should be
performed by the District Pavement Review Team. The Central Office
Pavement Section is available to provide assistance on a case by case
basis.

C. Preventive Maintenance - General

 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 8 of 11

1. Preventive Maintenance strategies and techniques are identified in the

Pavement Preventive Maintenance Program Guidelines.

2. Preventive Maintenance projects funded under this program (which by

definition have only the intention of correcting functional distress,
restoring ride quality and extending the service life of the existing
pavement structure) will not require design exceptions.

3. Candidate projects will be field reviewed by the Pavement Review

Team, after the required project data and analysis has been assembled.
The Pavement Review Team will make recommendations regarding
appropriate treatments.

D. Minor Rehabilitations - General

1. Candidate projects will be field reviewed by the Pavement Review

Team, after the required project data and analysis has been assembled.
The Pavement Review Team will make recommendations regarding
appropriate treatments

2. Design parameters will be determined from the Pavement Design &

Rehabilitation Manual.

3. Rehabilitations will be designed structurally for a 12-year period using

projected equivalent single-axle loading and dynaflect data. Where
analysis shows no structural overlay is required, the project can be
considered as preventive maintenance.

4. Upgrading of all roadside appurtenances and appropriate bridge

rehabilitations or replacements need to be considered in conjunction
with minor rehabilitation projects.

5. Minor rehabilitation strategies will be chosen by the District.

E. Major Rehabilitations - General

1. Candidate projects will be field reviewed by the Pavement Review

Team, after the required project data and analysis has been assembled.
The Pavement Review Team will make recommendations regarding
appropriate treatments
 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 9 of 11

2. Design parameters will be determined using Sections 300, 400, and

600 of the Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual

3. Strategies will be designed structurally for a 20-year design period

using projected equivalent single-axle loading and dynaflect data.

4. Upgrading of all roadside appurtenances and appropriate bridge

rehabilitations or replacements should be done in conjunction with
major rehabilitation projects.

5. The following alternative rehabilitation strategies will be considered

for major rehabilitations. A Life-Cycle Cost Analysis will be used for
comparison purposes. Acceptable strategies include:

a. Complete Replacement - Rigid Pavement (required)

b. Complete Replacement - Flexible Pavement (required)

c. Complete Replacement - Composite Pavement (optional)

d. Fractured Slab Techniques:

(1) Rubblize & Roll - all concrete pavements and bases
(2) Crack & Seat - Plain concrete pavement and base

e. Unbonded Concrete Overlay / Whitetopping

6. Strategy Selection will be handled the same as defined for New

Pavements, Section III.

F. Project Development

1. Each District will be responsible for a ten-year preventive maintenance

program and a ten-year minor and major rehabilitation program to be
established and updated each year as a part of the District’s Work Plan.
The ten-year minor and major rehabilitation program shall be
determined during the biennial development of the four-year STIP/TIP.
These programs shall be sent to the Pavements Section for
informational purposes upon the completion of the District’s Work
Plan. Additionally, the Pavements Section shall be notified of any
revisions to these programs throughout the completion of the District’s
Work Plan. The District’s updated program shall indicate the need for
 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 10 of 11

Dynaflect data. Dynaflect data should not be obtained more than four
years prior to construction.

2. A reevaluation of the pavement design will be necessary if the project

award date surpasses the originally projected date (at the time of
pavement analysis) by two years.

G. Quality Assurance Reviews

1. The Office of Multi-modal Planning will be the lead office in

establishing statewide and district trends in pavement condition.

2. The Office of Materials Management will:

a. Do quality assurance reviews at the time of construction to

determine:

(1) Appropriateness of strategy selection

(2) Appropriateness of the pavement treatment and design
procedure
(3) Adherence to this policy

b. Share best practices identified by the quality assurance reviews

with the districts.

c. Identify training needs.

H. Training:

The following courses must be included in appropriate personnel’s training

schedule over a three-year period:

1. Planning and Production Staff:

a. Pavement Condition Rating

b. Pavement Design Essentials

c. Pavement Rehabilitation

d. Pavement Type Selection

 Policy No. 515-002 (P)
Page 11 of 11

2. Highway Management Staff will provide training in appropriate

construction techniques (i.e., winter construction schools)

I. Fiscal Analysis:

1. The objective of this policy is to implement a strategy that optimizes

the combination of pavement preventive maintenance, routine
maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction techniques to provide
the lowest life-cycle costs consistent with a high level of service to the
road users.

2. The strategy depends on implementing a system of preventive

maintenance that keeps good roads in good condition. Various
national studies have confirmed the effectiveness of a sound
preventive maintenance program in reducing the life-cycle costs of
pavements while providing a high level of service.

3. Overall, in the short term, this policy is intended to be cost-neutral,

neither increasing nor decreasing the level of investment in pavement
maintenance and restoration. Initially, investing in preventive
maintenance represents a shift in investment funds relative to the prior
strategy of only minor and major rehabilitation. Some initial cost
reduction will be realized by reducing the minor rehabilitation design
period from 20 to 12 years which will balance out over a period of
time. Long term benefits in the form of improved levels of
serviceability and decreases in the costs of maintaining, rehabilitating,
and reconstructing pavements can be expected.
Appendix B

Pavement Guidelines for Treatment of High Stress Locations

January1999

PAVEMENT GUIDELINES FOR TREATMENT OF

HIGH STRESS LOCATIONS

BACKGROUND:

These guidelines are intended to be used to reduce or eliminate rutting and or shoving problems
associated with the use of asphalt concrete pavement surfaces.

These guidelines are intended to be used by District office staff in making best practice decisions
regarding pavement resurfacing and design considerations.

As there are no previous documents regarding the treatment of rutting and or shoving, it is
anticipated there will be numerous questions dealing with special circumstance issues. Technical
assistance with these guidelines is available by contacting any of the following individuals:

Dave Powers - Asphalt Materials Engineer, Office of Materials Management (614-275-1387)

Bill Christensen - Flexible Pavement Engineer, Office of Highway Management (614-644-6634)
Aric Morse - Pavement Design Engineer, Office of Materials Management (614-275-1316)

DEFINITIONS:

Rutting: Rutting is visually identified by vertical depressions in the pavement surface along the
wheel tracks. Rutting is measured transversely across the depression using a string line or other
appropriate straight edge. Rutting is generally considered significant when it approaches 0.4
inches (~10 mm) in depth. The presence of significant rutting may or may not indicate a high
stress location. Circumstances resulting in faulty mix design, production or placement could
contribute to rutting.

Shoving: Shoving is a longitudinal displacement of a localized area of the pavement surface. It

is generally caused by braking or accelerating vehicles, and is usually located on hills, curves,
or intersections. Shoving may also include vertical displacement. Shoving is generally
considered significant when it affects ride quality. The presence of shoving may or may not
indicate a high stress location. Circumstances resulting in faulty mix design, production or
placement could contribute to shoving.

Medium Traffic: Medium traffic is 50 to 1499 trucks per day using the current year designation.

High Traffic: High traffic is 1500 or more trucks per day using the current year designation.

High Stress Location: High stress locations are found at areas of high acceleration and braking,
at intersections, sharp curves, ramps, and where heavy vehicles frequent at slow speeds. High
stress locations occur at intersections with forced stop control and one or more of the following
criteria:
Appendix B: High Stress Guidelines
Page 2 of 3
January 1999

! The approach grade to the stop control is greater than or equal to 3.5 percent.
! Current Design Designation of 500 trucks per day or greater in the design lane.
! Current Design Designation of 250 trucks per day or greater in a turn lane.

High stress locations occur on ramps or sharp curves with or without forced stop control which
have greater than 250 trucks per day, or have exhibited significant repeated rutting problems in
the past. As truck counts on ramps are often unknown, and the definition of a sharp curve
depends upon the speed of the curve some judgment is required on new locations.

High stress locations occur on stretches of roadway which continue to exhibit significant rutting
after several trials of standard mixes. These stretches of roadway generally exhibit rutting due
to some combination of long and/or steep grades, trucking/traffic patterns, counts and weights.

High stress locations occur at standard bus stops on bus routes or at park and ride lots.

High stress locations occur at all truck and bus lots located in the Department’s Rest Areas.

TREATMENT OF HIGH STRESS LOCATIONS:

I. RIGID PAVEMENT:

No consideration is made for high stress locations where rigid pavement exists or is proposed.
When replacing a composite or flexible pavement with a rigid pavement at a high stress location,
the following needs to be considered:

A. When new pavement is being constructed, the designer should try to match
subgrade elevation at the high stress termini. For most situations, the rigid
pavement should be placed on a minimum of 6 inches (~150 mm) of Item 304
Aggregate Base; however, if the surrounding flexible or composite pavement is
constructed on subgrade, it would be acceptable to do the same with the rigid
pavement. The thickness of the rigid pavement should be a minimum of 8 inches
(~200 mm) and a maximum of 15 inches (~375 mm). The exact thickness should
be determined by design calculations in accordance with the procedures specified
in Section 300 of the Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual.

B. Where clearance requirements are not a concern, an unbonded concrete overlay

may be placed. Unbonded concrete overlays should be constructed a minimum
of 8 inches (~200 mm) thick.

II. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT:

A. There are several options available for the use of Flexible Pavement in high stress
locations. For cost consideration, the ‘Next Step’ approach should be used.
Next Step approaches are as follows:
Appendix B: High Stress Guidelines
Page 3 of 3
January 1999

1. In a high stress area which would otherwise require a medium traffic

pavement mix design, specify a heavy traffic pavement mix design. All
high stress areas using a Type 1H design shall use Item 446 regardless of
the quantity limitations given in Section 404.1.

2. In a high stress area which would otherwise require a heavy traffic

pavement mix design, specify a non-standard modified asphalt concrete
pavement mix design. A list of all available modified asphalt concrete
mixes is on file with the Office of Materials Management. Contact the
Asphalt Materials Section for a current list of available options.

B. For all high stress locations where rutting is evident, pavement planing should be
specified to remove all deformed material.

1. For flexible pavement, planing should be specified to the bottom of the

material responsible for the rutting. In order to determine the responsible
layer, the comparison of pavement cores taken in the rutted area with
cores taken outside of the rut may be helpful. Where this information is
not available, best practice is to remove up to 3 inches (~75 mm) below
the deepest portion of the rut. Standard practice concerning tack coat
should be followed prior to the placement of the Next Step asphalt mixes.

2. For composite pavement, planing should be specified as per II.B.1.

Where the surface of the rigid base pavement is within 2 inches (~50mm)
of the required milled depth, best practice is to take the milling down to
the concrete, in order to provide a course of larger aggregate (301 or 302)
material.

C. Lift combinations and thickness requirements will generally be the same as

would be required for a standard flexible pavement or overlay.

LIMITS OF HIGH STRESS LOCATIONS:

The limits of the high stress treatment should be determined as follows:

A. A minimum of 250 feet (~75 m) back from the location of stop termini or traffic
signal.

B. The length of the turn lane.

C. The limits of the existing problem condition.

In urban areas where several intersections exist within close proximity to each other and meet
high stress criteria, best practice is to specify the required high stress mix the length of the
section bounded at the outermost limits of the high stress locations.
Appendix C

Simplified Pavement Design for Short Projects

Simplified Pavement Designs for Short Projects

Many projects exist such as bridge replacement projects which include a short stretch of new pavement
or pavement replacement. For projects in which the total length of new pavement or pavement
replacement is less than 300 feet (~100 m), the chart on the following page may be used in lieu of a
complete pavement design per Sections 200, 300 and 400 of this Manual. The buildups given on the
chart are conservative and are based on the amount of truck traffic expected for the opening day. The
following procedures and precautions should be recognized:

1. The length of pavement replacement is exclusive of bridge length, where applicable.

2. The designer should first evaluate the buildup of the existing pavement. If the strength of the
existing pavement exceeds the chart value, then the existing design should be perpetuated.

3. Where opening day truck traffic exceeds 800, this chart is not to be used and the procedures
described in Sections 200, 300 and 400 of this Manual are to be followed.

4. If it is known in advance that poor soils may be encountered at subgrade level or if the designer
is unsure of proper subgrade or slope treatments, review by the Geotechnical Design Section of
the Office of Materials Management is recommended.

5. The designer is always welcome to do a complete design per Sections 200, 300 and 400 rather
than using the chart.
 Simplified Pavement Designs for Short* Projects
Pavement Course Thicknesses
Number of Trucks in Opening Day ADT
Pavement Composition (ADT x T24)
<=10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-200 201-400 401-800 >800
in. ~mm in. ~mm in. ~mm in. ~mm in. ~mm in. ~mm in. ~mm

Flexible Design

448 AC Surface, Type 1, PG 64-22 1.25 32 1.25 32 1.25 32 1.25 32 1.25 32 1.25 32 1.25 32 n/a
448 AC Intermediate, Type 2, PG 64-22 1.75 45 1.75 45 1.75 45 1.75 45 1.75 45 1.75 45 n/a
301 Bituminous Aggregate Base 4 100 4 100 5 125 6 150 7 180 8 200 9 230 n/a
408 Bituminous Prime Coat r r r r r r p p p p p p p p n/a
304 Aggregate Base 6 150 6 150 6 150 6 150 6 150 6 150 6 150 n/a

Alternate Flexible Design

448 AC Surface, Type 1, PG 64-22 1.25 32 - - - - - - - - - - - - n/a

448 AC Intermediate, Type 2, PG 64-22 1.75 45 - - - - - - - - - - - - n/a
408 Bituminous Prime Coat r r - - - - - - - - - - - - n/a
304 Aggregate Base 12 300 - - - - - - - - - - - - n/a

Rigid Design

452 Plain Concrete Pavement - - - - - - 7 180 8 210 9 230 10 260 n/a

304 Aggregate Base - - - - - - 6 150 6 150 6 150 6 150 n/a

* Less than 300 linear feet (~100 meters) of total pavement replacement

r - required
p - optional
Appendix D

ODOT’s PCR Manual

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING
SYSTEM
REVIEW OF PCR METHODOLOGY

Report No. FHWA/OH-99/004

Prepared by

Resource International, Inc.

281 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
March, 1998
 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession Number 3. Recipients Catalog No.

FHW A/OH-99/004
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Repo rt Date

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING SYSTEM March, 1998

6. Performing Organization Code
REVIEW OF PCR METHODOLOGY

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Chhote L. Saraf
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 1 0 . W o rk U n i t N o . (T R A I S )

Resource International, Inc.

281 Enterprise Drive
11. Contract or Grant No.
Westerville, OH 43081
State Job No. 14638(0)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Ohio Department of Transportation Manual

1600 West Broad Street
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Columbus, OH 43223

15. Supplementary Notes

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract

This repo rt des cribe s the Pave me nt Co nditio n Ra ting m etho d wh ich w as de velop ed fo r the S tate o f Oh io
High way N etwo rk. T he m etho d is ba sed upon visua l inspe ction of pa vem ent d istres ses . Altho ugh the re lation ship
between pavement distresses and performance is not well defined, there is general agreement that the ability of
a pavement to sustain traffic loads in a safe and smooth manner is adversely affected by the occurrence of
observable distress. The rating method described in this report provides a procedure for uniformly identifying and
describing, in terms of severity and extent, pavement distress. The mathematical expression for pavement
condition rating (PC R) prov ides an ind ex reflec ting the co mpo site effec ts of variou s distress types, their se verity
and ex tent upon the overa ll condition of th e pavem ent.

Distr ess es of four (4) typ es of Pave me nts (F lexible , Com pos ite, Jo inted Con crete and C ontin uou sly
Reinforced or CRC) are described in this report and each distress is illustrated with the help of photographs.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Pavement Condition Rating, Flexible Pavements, No Restrictions. This document is available to the
Composite Pavements, Jointed Concrete Pavements, public through the National Technical Information
Continu ously Rein forced Conc rete Pav eme nts Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Class (This Report) 20. Security Class (This Page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
 DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts
and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views
or policies of the Ohio Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This is Volume II of the final draft report of research project 3628, entitled “Implementation
and Revision of Developed Concepts for ODOT Pavement Management Program,” which was
conducted by Resource International, Inc. The financial support for this project was provided by the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Ohio Department of
Transportation.

This study was carried out in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation. The
authors with to express their sincere appreciation to Messrs. Leon O. Talbert, Engineer of Research
and Development; Ken Miller, Engineer of Pavement and Soils; Anthony Manch, Engineer of
Pavement Management; Jim McQuirt, Planning Research Engineer; Roger Green, Design Engineer,
and the many other members of the Ohio Department of Transportation for their invaluable
assistance in conducting this study.

The authors also wish to extend appreciation to E. Rouch of the Federal Highway
Administration for his valuable suggestions during the review of this report. Special
acknowledgments are due to Jack Holbrook for editing and production of this manuscript and to
Donna Roberts and Margaret Larcomb for preparing and typing it.

The revision of this manual was performed under the project “A Review of PCR
Methodology for the Ohio DOT,” State Job Number 14638(0). This report is made possible through
the help and support received from the Ohio Department of Transportation staff, Messrs. Roger
Green, Kenneth Corns, Andrew Williams, Aric Morse, Dave Miller, and Murphy Hsu. Most of the
photographs have been revised and the original photographs are in color now. The sources of these
photographs are listed in Appendix E.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FIELD MONITORING PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING FORMS AND KEY FORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Key - Flexible Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Flexible Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Key - Composite Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Composite Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Key - Jointed Concrete Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Jointed Concrete Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Key - CRC Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CRC Pavement Condition Rating Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

APPENDIX A. Description of Distresses in Flexible Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Raveling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Bleeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
Patching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
Potholes/Debonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
Crack Sealing Deficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10
Rutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12
Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
Corrugations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16
Wheel Track Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-18
Block and Transverse Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-20
Longitudinal Joint Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-22
Edge Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-24
Random Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-26

iii
 Page

APPENDIX B. Description of Distresses in Composite Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Raveling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
Bleeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4
Patching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6
Surface Disintegration or Debonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8
Rutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10
Corrugations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-12
Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-14
Shattered Slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16
Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-18
Transverse Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-20
Severity Level: Unjointed Base or Jointed Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-20
Extent Level: Jointed Base - Intermediate Transverse Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . B-22
Extent Level: Unjointed Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-22
Extent Level: Jointed Base-Joint Reflection Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-22
Longitudinal Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-24
Pressure Damage/Upheaval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26
Crack Sealing Deficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-28

APPENDIX C. Description of Distresses in Jointed Reinforced Concrete or

Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JRC/JPC Pavements) . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Surface Deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2

Popouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
Patching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6
Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8
Faulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10
Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12
Transverse Joint Spalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14
Joint Sealant Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-16
Pressure Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18
Transverse Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-20
Longitudinal Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-22
Corner Breaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-24

APPENDIX D. Description of Distresses in Continuously Reinforced Concrete

Pavements (CRCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Surface Deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2

Popouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

iv
 Page

Patching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-6
Pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8
Settlements and Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-10
Transverse Crack Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-12
Longitudinal Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-14
Punchouts or Edge Breaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-16
Spalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-18
Pressure Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-20

APPENDIX E. Sources of Photographs used in Appendices A - D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Abbreviations used in the Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2

LIST OF TABLES

Table E-1. List of Sources of Photographs of Appendix A and B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3

Table E-2. List of Sources of Photographs of Appendix C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

v
 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Page
APPENDIX A. Description of Distresses in Flexible Pavements

Photo A-1. Raveling in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

Photo A-2. Raveling in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

Photo A-3. Bleeding in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5

Photo A-4. Close-up view of Bleeding, High and Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5

Photo A-5. Patching in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7

Photo A-6. Patching in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7

Photo A-7. Pothole in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9

Photo A-8. Debonding in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9

Photo A-9. Crack Sealing Deficiency in Flexible Pavement, Unsealed Cracks . . . . . . . . A-11
Photo A-10. Crack Sealing Deficiency in Flexible Pavement, Cracks not sealed properly A-11

Photo A-11. Rutting in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13

Photo A-12. Rutting in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13

Photo A-13. Settlement, Low Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15

Photo A-14. Settlement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15

Photo A-15. Corrugations in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-17

Photo A-16. Wheel Track Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Med. Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . A-19
Photo A-17. Wheel Track Cracking in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . A-19

Photo A-18. Block and Transverse Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . A-19
Photo A-19. Block and Transverse Cracking in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . A-19

Photo A-20. Longitudinal Joint Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . A-23
Photo A-21. Longitudinal Joint Cracking in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . A-23

Photo A-22. Edge Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-25

Photo A-23. Edge Cracking in Flexible Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-25

Photo A-24. Random Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-27

vi
 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Page
APPENDIX B. Description of Distresses in Composite Pavements

Photo B-1. Raveling in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

Photo B-2. Raveling in Composite Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

Photo B-3. Bleeding, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5

Photo B-4. Close-up view of Bleeding, High and Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5

Photo B-5. Patching in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7

Photo B-6. Patching in Composite Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7

Photo B-7. Surface Disintegration in Composite Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9

Photo B-8. Debonding in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9

Photo B-9. Rutting, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11

Photo B-10. Rutting, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11

Photo B-10a. Corrugations in Composite Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-13

Photo B-11. Pumping in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15

Photo B-12. Pumping in Composite Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15

Photo B-13. Shattered Slab of Composite Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17

Photo B-14. Settlement in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19

Photo B-15. Unjointed Base, Transverse Cracking in Composite Pavement,

Low Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-21
Photo B-16. Unjointed Base, Transverse Cracking in Composite Pavement,
High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-21

Photo B-17. Jointed Base, Reflection Cracking in Composite Pavement,

Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23
Photo B-18. Jointed Base, Reflection Cracking in Composite Pavement, High Severity . . B-23

Photo B-19. Longitudinal Cracking in Composite Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . B-25

Photo B-20. Pressure Damage/Upheaval in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . B-27

Photo B-21. Crack Sealing Deficiency, Unsealed Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-29

Photo B-22. Crack Sealing Deficiency, Cracks not sealed properly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-29

vii
 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Page
APPENDIX C. Description of Distresses in Jointed Reinforced Concrete or Jointed
Plain Concrete Pavements (JRC/JPC Pavements)

Photo C-1. Surface Deterioration in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . C-3
Photo C-2. Surface Deterioration in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . C-3

Photo C-3. Popout in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Plan and Cross-sectional Views . . . . . . C-5
Photo C-4. Popouts in a Jointed Concrete Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Photo C-5. Patching in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Low Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7

Photo C-6. Patching in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7

Photo C-7. Pumping in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9

Photo C-8. Pumping in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Low Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9

Photo C-9. Sketch showing Faulting in Jointed Concrete Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-11

Photo C-10. Faulting in Jointed Concrete Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-11

Photo C-11. Settlements in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . C-13

Photo C-12. Transverse Joint Spalling in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Low Severity . . . . C-15
Photo C-13. Transverse Joint Spalling in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity . . . . C-15

Photo C-14. Joint Sealant Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-17

Photo C-15. Joint Sealant Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-17

Photo C-16. Pressure Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19

Photo C-17. Pressure Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19

Photo C-18. Transverse Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Low Severity . . . . . . . . C-21
Photo C-19. Transverse Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . C-21

Photo C-20. Longitudinal Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . C-23
Photo C-21. Longitudinal Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . C-23

Photo C-22. Corner Break in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . C-25
Photo C-23. Corner Break in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-25

viii
 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Page
APPENDIX D. Description of Distresses in Continuously Reinforced Concrete
Pavements (CRCP)

Photo D-1. Surface Deterioration in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Photo D-2. Surface Deterioration in CRC Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Photo D-3. Popout in CRC Pavement, Plan and Cross-sectional Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5
Photo D-4. Popouts in CRC Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5

Photo D-5. Patching in CRC Pavement, Low Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7

Photo D-6. Patching in CRC Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7

Photo D-7. Pumping in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-9

Photo D-8. Pumping, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-9

Photo D-9. Settlement in CRC Pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-11

Photo D-10. Transverse Cracks in CRC Pavement, Low Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-13

Photo D-11. Transverse Cracks in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-13

Photo D-12. Longitudinal Cracking in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . D-15

Photo D-13. Longitudinal Cracking in CRC Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-15

Photo D-14. Punchouts in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-17

Photo D-15. Punchouts in CRC Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-17

Photo D-16. Spalling in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-19

Photo D-17. Spalling in CRC Pavement, High Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-19

Photo D-18. An Example of Pressure Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Pressure

Damage in CRCP is similar to as shown above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-21

ix
 PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING PROCEDURES

INTRODUCTION

The rating method is based upon visual inspection of pavement distress. Although the
relationship between pavement distress and performance is not well defined, there is general
agreement that the ability of a pavement to sustain traffic loads in a safe and smooth manner is
adversely affected by the occurrence of observable distress. The rating method provides a procedure
for uniformly identifying and describing, in terms of severity and extent, pavement distress. The
mathematical expression for pavement condition rating (PCR) provides an index reflecting the
composite effects of varying distress types, severity, and extent upon the overall condition of the
pavement.

The model for computing PCR is based upon the summation of deduct points for each type
of observable distress. Deduct values are a function of distress type, severity, and extent. Deduction
for each distress type is calculated by multiplying distress weight times the weights for severity and
extent of the distress. Distress weight is the maximum number of deductible points for each
different distress type. The mathematical expression for PCR is as follows:

n
PCR = 100 - E Deducti (1)
I=1
Where:
n = number of observable distresses, and
Deduct = (Weight for distress) (Wt. for severity) (Wt. for Extent)

The Appendices A-D that follow describe various distresses for rigid, flexible, and composite
pavements and current guidelines for establishing their severity and extent. Three levels of severity
(Low, Medium and High) and three levels of extent (Occasional, Frequent, and Extensive) are
defined. The definition for distress type, severity, and extent must be followed closely and be clearly
understood by field personnel if the rating method is to provide meaningful data. To illustrate the
method for calculating PCR, consider the distress “Faulting” in a hypothetical jointed concrete
pavement. If the severity of this distress in the pavement is “Medium” and extent is “Frequent”, then,
the deduct points for “Faulting” in the pavement would be equal to [(10) (0.7) (0.8)] or 5.6 (see
Table on page 11 for the weights of this distress). If an extensive amount of medium severity
“Surface Deterioration” is also observed the deduct points for this distress would be equal to [(10)
(0.7) (1)] or 7.0. The PCR for the pavement based upon these 2 distresses would equal to:

PCR = 100 - (5.6 + 7.0) = 87.4 (2)

1
 The deduct weights for each pavement type have been developed on the basis of the review
of the rating methods developed in the United States, Europe, and Canada and the experience gained
from the rating methods developed by the Resource staff as a result of studies conducted in this
connection. Two premises were considered when assigning the weights:

1. Overlaying and/or rehabilitation of high type (multi-lane) roadways should be

considered when the PCR drops within the range of 65 to 55.

2. Deteriorated pavements normally exhibit several different types of distress. Rarely

is only a single type of distress observed for a particular pavement.

The first premise is useful in establishing a target value for the proper PCR of pavements that
are in a certain state or condition. Roadways scheduled for rehabilitation and resurfacing have to
be rated by the PCR procedure.

A Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Scale was developed to describe the pavement
condition using the PCR numbers calculated from Equation (1). This scale has a range from 0 to 100;
a PCR of 100 represents a perfect pavement with no observable distress and a PCR of 0 represents
a pavement with all distress present at their “High” levels of severity and “Extensive” levels of
extent. Figure 1 illustrates the PCR Scale and the descriptive condition of a pavement associated
with the various ranges of the PCR values.

2
 PCR Condition

100

Very Good

90

Good

75

Fair

65

Fair to Poor

55

Poor

40

Very Poor

Figure 1. Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Scale

3
FIELD MONITORING PROCEDURE

The pavement condition rating is intended to apply to the entire pavement section being
monitored. Section lengths are established by the monitoring procedure, with the average length
being from 3 to 5 km (2 to 3 miles). Directional lanes of multilane roadways are considered separate
roadways by the monitoring procedure. On multilane roadways the heaviest traveled lane (usually
the outside lane) should be rated. For two lane roadways, rating one direction is sufficient unless
a significant difference in condition is observed between the two lanes. The monitoring procedure
checks the variance of the Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI) within a section to limit section
length. This limitation should produce sections that have a fairly constant visual condition. If a
definite variation in condition is observed within a section, the section should then be subdivided
for condition rating. Recording of visible distress for the PCR calculations involves three steps:

Step 1. The rating team (the rating team should consist of a Driver and a Rater)
should ride the predetermined roadway section at a speed of about 60 km (40
MPH). During this step, readily visible distresses such as potholes, bleeding,
settlement, faulting, spalling, and surface deterioration should be rated. Also
the need for subdividing the section should be evaluated in step 1.

Step 2. A second pass along the roadway section should be made with stops at
approximately 1.5 km (1 mile) intervals. For example, a 3 km (2-mile
section) would require 2 stops to be made. At each stop the raters should
evaluate the roadway by viewing 30 m (100') of the pavement. Close
inspection of pavement cracking, crack sealing, rutting, raveling, joint
spalling, D-cracking, and other visible distress should be made by viewing
the pavement from the roadway shoulder.

Step 3. Complete the PCR form. The final rating form for the roadway section should
represent the observed average of visible distress for the entire section.
Separate rating forms based upon the step 1 observations and the individual
stops made during step 2 are not required. However, raters may wish to use
additional rating forms for each stop, simply for note keeping purposes.

4
PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING FORMS AND KEY FORMS

Note: The Key forms summarize data presented in Appendices A through D. These key forms
will aid field personnel in establishing distress severity and extent while performing the PCR
surveys.

5
Section:__________________ KEY Date: ____________________

Log Mile: _______ to _______ FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONDITION Rated by: ________________

Sta:____________ to_______ RATING FORM _________________________

Distress SEVERITY* EXTENT** STR

DISTRESS
Weight L M H O F E ***
Slight Loss of Rough or
RAVELING 10
Sand
Open Te xture
pitted
<20% 20-50% >50%

Bit and Agg

BLEEDING 5 not rated
visible
Black Surface <10% 10-30% >30%

PATCHING 5 <1 ft 2. <1 yd 2 >1 yd 2 <10/ mile 10-2 0/m ile >20/ mile
depth <1" <1", > 1 yd 2 >1" and
POTHOLES/DEBONDING 10
area <1 yd 2 >1",< 1 yd 2 >1 yd 2
<5/m ile 5-10 /mile >10/ mile U
CRACK SEALING DEFIC. 5 Not considered <20% 20-50% >50%
RUTTING 10 <1/4" 1/4-1" >1" <20% 20-50% >50% U
Notic eab le S om e
SETTLEMENTS 10
effect on ride Discomfo rt
Poor Ride <2/m i 2-4/m i >4/m i

Notic eab le S om e
CORRUGATIONS 5
effect on ride Discomfo rt
Poor Ride <10% 10-30% >30%

WHEEL TRACK Sing le/m ultiple Multiple cracks Alligator >1/4"

15 <20% 20-50% >50% U
CRACKING cracks <1/4" >1/4" Spalling
BLOCK & TRANSVERSE <1/4" wide, no 1/4-1" along >1" a long m in
10 <20% 20-50% >50% U
CRACKING Spalling min .5 len gth .5 length
sing le/m ultiple
LONGITUDINAL JOINT Single, <1 /4", Multiple, >1 ",
5 1/4-1", some <20% 20-50% >50%
CRACKING no Spalling
Spalling
Spalling

>1/4",
>1/4", some
EDGE CRACKING 5 Tight, <1/4"
Spalling
mod erate <20% 20-50% >50%
Spalling
RANDOM CRACKING 5 <1/4" 1/4-1" >1" <20% 20-50% >50% U
*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL ***STR = DISTRESS INCLUDED IN STRUCTURAL DEDU CT CALCULATIONS.
M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE

6
Section: __________________ Date: ____________________
Log mile: ______ to_________
FLEXIBLE Rated by: ________________
Sta: __________ to_________ _________________________

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING FORM

DISTRESS SEVERITY WT.* EXTENT WT.** DEDUCT
DISTRESS
WEIGHT L M H O F E POINTS***
RAVELING 10 0.3 0.6 1 0.5 0.8 1
BLEEDING 5 0.8 0.8 1 0.6 0.9 1
PATCHING 5 0.3 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 1
POTHOLES/DEBONDING 10 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1T
CRACK SEALING DEFICIENCY 5 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 1
RUTTING 10 0.3 0.7 1 0.6 0.8 1T
SETTLEMENT 10 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1
CORRUGATIONS 5 0.4 0.8 1 0.5 0.8 1
WHEEL TRACK CRACKING 15 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1T
BLOCK AND TRANSVERSE CRACKING 10 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1T
LONGITUDINAL JOINT CRACKING 5 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1
EDGE CRACKING 5 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1
RANDOM CRACKING 5 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.7 1T
*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL TOTAL DEDUCT =
M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT SUM OF STRUCTURAL DEDUCT (T ) =
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE 100 - TOTAL DEDUCT = PCR =
*** DEDUCT POINTS = DISTRESS WEIGHT X SEVERITY WT. X EXTENT WT.
REMARKS:

7
Section:__________________ KEY Date: ____________________

Log Mile: _______ to _______ COMPOSITE PAVEMENT CONDITION Rated by: ________________

Sta:____________ to_______ RATING FORM _________________________

Distress SEVERITY* EXTE NT** STR

DISTRESS
Weight L M H O F E ***
Slight Loss of Rough or
RAVELING 10 Open Te xture <20% 20-50% >50%
Sand Pitted
Bitumen &
BLEEDING 5 not rated Black Surface <10% 10-30% >30%
Agg . Visib le
PATCHING 5 <1 ft 2 <1 yd 2 >1 yd 2 <10/ mile 10-2 0/m ile >20/ mile
SURFACE
depth <1" <1", > 1 yd 2 >1" and
DISINTEGRATION/ 5 <5/m ile 5-10 /mile >10/ mile
area <1 yd 2 >1",< 1 yd 2 >1 yd 2
DEBONDING
RUTTING 10 <1/4" 1/4-1" >1" <20% 20-50% >50%
Notic eab le S om e
CORRUGATIONS 5 Poor Ride <10% 10-30% >30%
effect on ride Discomfo rt
excessive
PUMPING 10 Slight Staining <10% 10-25% >25% U
stain ing, fa ult
Som e Sp all. Severe
Little S pall,
SHATTERED SLAB 10 Mode rate Distortion, <2/m i 2-5/m i >5/m i U
No Fa ults
Faults Poor Ride
Notic eab le S om e
SETTLEMENTS 5 Poor Ride <2/m i 2-4/m i >4/m i
effect on ride Discomfo rt
TRANSVERSE CRACKS, <1/4", 1/4 - 1", >1",
20 CS>15' 10'<CS<15' CS<10' U
UNJOINTED BASE no spalling >.5 spalled >.5 spalled
JOINT REFLECTION <1/4", 1/4 - 1", >1",
12 <20% 20-50% >50% U
CRACKS, JOINTED BASE no spalling >.5 spalled >.5 spalled
INTERMEDIATE
<1/4", 1/4 - 1", >1",
TRANSVERSE CRACKS, 8 CS>15' 10'<CS<15' CS<10' U
no spalling >.5 spalled >.5 spalled
JOINTED BASE
<1/4", 1/4 - 1", >1", <50' 50 -150' >150'
Longitudinal Cracking 5 U
no spalling >.5 spalled >.5 spalled per 100' per 100' per 100'
bum p <½", ½-1", >1",
Pressure Damage/ Upheaval 5 <20% 20-50% >50%
Good Ride Fair Ride Poor Ride
Crack Sealing Deficiency 5 Not considered <20% 20-50% >50%

*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL ***STR = DISTRESS INCLUDED IN STRUCTURAL DEDUCT CALCULATIONS.

M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE

8
Section: __________________ Date: ____________________
Log mile: ______ to_________ COMPOSITE Rated by: ________________
Sta: __________ to_________ _________________________

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING FORM

DISTRESS SEVERITY WT.* EXTENT WT.** DEDUCT
DISTRESS
WEIGHT L M H O F E POINTS***
RAVELING 10 0.3 0.6 1 0.5 0.8 1
BLEEDING 5 0.8 0.8 1 0.6 0.9 1
PATCHING 5 0.3 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 1
SURFACE DISINTEGRATION or DEBONDING 5 0.3 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 1
RUTTING 10 0.3 0.7 1 0.6 0.8 1
CORRUGATIONS 5 0.4 0.8 1 0.5 0.8 1
PUMPING 10 0.7 0.7 1 0.3 0.7 1T
SHATTERED SLAB 10 0.6 0.8 1 0.7 0.9 1T
SETTLEMENTS 5 0.4 0.7 1 0.6 0.8 1
TRANSVERSE CRACKS, UNJOINTED BASE 20 0.2 0.6 1 0.4 0.8 1T
JOINT REFLECTION CRACKS, JOINTED BASE 12 0.2 0.6 1 0.4 0.8 1T
INTERMEDIATE TRANSVERSE CRACKS,
8 0.2 0.6 1 0.4 0.8 1T
JOINTED BASE
LONGITUDINAL CRACKING 5 0.2 0.6 1 0.4 0.8 1T
PRESSURE DAMAGE/UPHEAVAL 5 0.4 0.6 1 0.5 0.8 1
CRACK SEALING DEFICIENCY 5 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 1
*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL TOTAL DEDUCT =
M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT SUM OF STRUCTURAL DEDUCT (T ) =
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE 100 - TOTAL DEDUCT = PCR =
*** DEDUCT POINTS = DISTRESS WEIGHT X SEVERITY WT. X EXTENT WT.
REMARKS:

9
 Section:__________________ KEY Date: ____________________

Log Mile: _______ to _______ JOINTED CONCRETE PAVEMENT Rated by: ________________

Sta:____________ to_______ CONDITION RATING FORM _________________________

Distress SEVERITY WEIGHT* EXTE NT W EIGHT ** STR

DISTRESS
Weight L M H O F E ***

SURFACE Aggre gate Loss of fine Surface rough

10 <20% 20-50% >50%
DETERIORATION visible aggregate or pitted

POPOUTS 5 Not considered <20% 20-50% >50%

<1 ft 2, no <1 ft 2,
PATCHING 5 >1 ft 2 < 10 /m i 10-20/m i > 20 /m i U
deterioration. deterioration.

some staining, rater is certain of excessive

PUMPING 15 <10% 10-25% >25% U
pumping staining

FAULTING (Joints & Cracks) 10 <1/4" 1/4-1/2" >½" <20% 20-50% >50%

Notic eab le S om e
SETTLEMENTS 5 Poor Ride 2/m i. 2-4/m i. >4/m i.
effect on Ride discomfort

TRANSVERSE JOINT
15 <4" wide 4-9" wide >9" wide <25% 25-75% 75%
SPALLING

JOINT SEALANT DAMAGE 5 Not considered <20% 20-50% 50%

PRESSURE DAMAGE 5 Not considered <1/m i 1-3/m i >3/m i

TRANSVERSE CRACKING 10 Hairline 1/4-1" >1 “ CS>15' 10<CS<15' CS<10' U

LONGITUDINAL CRACKING 5 Hairline 1/4-1" >1" <5% 5-20% >20% U
CORNER BREAKS 10 <1/4" 1/4-1 “ >1" 3/mi 4-10 /mi. >10 m i. U

*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL ***STR = DISTRESS INCLUDED IN STRUCTURAL DEDU CT CALCULATIONS.

M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE

10
Section: __________________ Date: ____________________
Log mile: ______ to_________
JOINTED CONCRETE Rated by: ________________
Sta: __________ to_________ _________________________

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING FORM

DISTRESS SEVERITY WT.* EXTENT WT.** DEDUCT
DISTRESS
WEIGHT L M H O F E POINTS***
SURFACE DETERIORATION 10 0.4 0.7 1 0.6 0.8 1
POPOUT 5 1 1 1 0.4 0.6 1
PATCHING 5 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1
PUMPING 15 0.7 0.7 1 0.3 0.7 1T
FAULTING (JOINTS AND CRACKS) 10 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1T
SETTLEMENTS 5 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1
TRANSVERSE JOINT SPALLING
15 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1
(CIRCLE IF D-CRACKED)
JOINT SEALANT DAMAGE 5 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 1
PRESSURE DAMAGE 5 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 1
TRANSVERSE CRACKING 10 0.3 0.8 1 0.4 0.8 1T
LONGITUDINAL CRACKING 5 0.5 0.7 1 0.4 0.9 1
CORNER BREAKS 10 0.4 0.8 1 0.5 0.8 1T
*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL TOTAL DEDUCT =
M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT SUM OF STRUCTURAL DEDUCT (T ) =
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE 100 - TOTAL DEDUCT = PCR =
*** DEDUCT POINTS = DISTRESS WEIGHT X SEVERITY WT. X EXTENT WT.
REMARKS:

11
Section:__________________ KEY Date: ____________________

Log Mile: _______ to _______ CRC PAVEMENT CONDITION Rated by: ________________

Sta:____________ to_______ RATING FORM _________________________

DISTRESS SEVERITY WEIGHT* EXTE NT W EIGHT ** STR

DISTRESS
WEIGHT L M H O F E ***

SURFACE Aggre gate Loss of fine Surface rough

10 <20% 20-50% >50%
DETERIORATION visible aggregate or pitted
POPOUTS 5 Not considered <20% 20-50% >50%
2 2
<1 ft , no <1 ft ,
PATCHING 5 >1 ft 2 < 10 /m i 10-20/m i > 20 /m i U
deterioration deterioration
some staining, rater is certain of excessive
PUMPING 15 <10% 10-25% >25% U
pumping staining
Notic eab le S om e <2/m i. 2-4/m i >4/m i
SETTLEMENTS & W AVES 10 Poor Ride U
effect on Ride discomfort ( <20%) 20-50% ( >50%)
CS < 3'
TRANSVERSE CRACK
10 CS 3-5' CS <3' Many cracks <20% 20-50% >50% U
SPACING
intersect
LONGITUDINAL CRACKING 10 Hairline >1/4" - 1" >1" <5% 5-15% >15% U
PUNCHOUTS & EDGE cracks <1/4" depress >½"
15 Not rated <2/m i. 2-5/m i >5/m i U
BREAKS depress <½" Breaking up
1 - 4" wide,
<1", few >4" wide, most
SPALLING 15 most pieces <20% 20-50% >50%
pieces missing pieces missing
missing
PRESSURE DAMAGE 5 Not considered <1/m i. 1 - 3/m i. >3/m i.

*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL ***STR = DISTRESS INCLUDED IN STRUCTURAL DEDU CT CALCULATIONS.

M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE

12
Section: __________________ Date: ____________________
Log mile: ______ to_________
CRC Rated by: ________________
Sta: __________ to_________ _________________________

PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING FORM

DISTRESS SEVERITY WT.* EXTENT WT.** DEDUCT
DISTRESS
WEIGHT L M H O F E POINTS***

SURFACE DETERIORATION 10 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1

POPOUT 5 1 1 1 0.4 0.6 1
PATCHING 5 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 1T
PUMPING 15 0.7 0.7 1 0.3 0.7 1T
SETTLEMENTS & WAVES 10 0.3 0.7 1 0.4 0.7 1T
TRANSVERSE CRACK SPACING 10 0.4 0.7 1 0.4 0.8 1T
LONGITUDINAL CRACKING 10 0.4 0.8 1 0.5 0.8 1T
PUNCHOUTS OR EDGE BREAKS 15 0 0.8 1 0.6 0.9 1T
SPALLING 15 0.3 0.6 1 0.5 0.8 1
PRESSURE DAMAGE 5 1 1 1 0.7 0.9 1
*L = LOW **O = OCCASIONAL TOTAL DEDUCT =
M = MEDIUM F = FREQUENT SUM OF STRUCTURAL DEDUCT (T ) =
H = HIGH E = EXTENSIVE 100 - TOTAL DEDUCT = PCR =
*** DEDUCT POINTS = DISTRESS WEIGHT X SEVERITY WT. X EXTENT WT.
REMARKS:

13
 APPENDIX A

Description of Distresses in Flexible Pavements

A-1
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Raveling

Description: Disintegration of the pavement from the surface downward due to the loss of
aggregate particles. Raveling may occur as a result of asphalt binder aging,
poor mixture quality, segregation, or insufficient compaction.

Severity Level: Low-- Very little coarse aggregate has worn away. Loss of fine
aggregate. Coarse aggregate exposed.

Medium-- Surface has an open texture and is moderately rough with

considerable loss of fine aggregate and some coarse aggregate
removed.

High-- Most of the surface aggregate has worn away or become

dislodged. Surface is severely rough and pitted and may be
completely removed in places.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 20 percent of the surface area is raveling.

Frequent-- Between 20 and 50 percent of the surface area is raveling.

Extensive-- More than 50 percent of the surface area is raveling.

A-2
Photo A-1. Raveling in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo A-2. Raveling in Flexible Pavement, High Severity

A-3
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Bleeding

Description: Bleeding or flushing is the presence of free asphalt binder on the pavement
surface. Bleeding is caused by an excess amount of bituminous binder in the
mixture and/or low air void content.

Severity Level: Only 2 severity levels are defined.

Medium-- both coarse aggregate and free bitumen are noticeable at the
pavement surface.

High-- surface appears black with very little aggregate noticeable.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 10 percent of the length exhibits bleeding.

Frequent-- between 10 and 30 percent of the length is bleeding.

Extensive-- bleeding occurs in more than 30 percent of the length.

A-4
 Photo A-3. Bleeding in Flexible Pavement, High Severity

Photo A-4. Close-up view of Bleeding, High and Medium Severity

High Sev erity on left show s most aggreg ates covered with aspha lt and M edium Sever ity on right show s less
aggre gates co vered w ith aspha lt

A-5
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Patching

Description: Patching is either the placing of asphalt concrete on the surface of the existing
pavement or the replacement of the existing pavement in small isolated areas.

Deductions shall be made for all patches present in the pavement which are
the result of deterioration and/or maintenance since the last construction
project.

Large patched areas [greater than 12.5 m2 (15 sq. yd.)], such as spot overlays
or wedge courses, shall be rated for condition as a part of the existing
pavement rather than as patches.

Severity Level: Low-- patch size < 0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.).

Medium-- patch size < 0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.).

High-- patch size > 0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.).

Extent Level: Occasional-- < 10 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- 10 - 20 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- > 20 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

A-6
Photo A-5. Patching in Flexible Pavement, High Severity

Photo A-6. Patching in Flexible Pavement, High Severity

A-7
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Potholes/Debonding

Description: Potholes are bowl-shaped voids or depressions in the pavement surface.

Potholes are localized failure areas which are usually caused by weak base or
subgrade layers.

Loss of surface by debonding is the removal of the asphaltic surface layer

from the underlying layer. The problem is most common with thin asphalt
surface layers [less than 50 mm (2 inches)] and is caused by freeze-thaw
action or poor bonding of the two layers during construction.

Severity Level: Use the following table to determine the severity levels:

Depth of Debonded Debonded Area Debonded Area

Area <0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.) >0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.)
< 25 mm (1") Low Medium
> 25 mm (1") Medium High

Regardless of depth, potholes less than 150 mm (6 inches) in diameter shall

be considered to be of low severity.

Extent Level: Occasional-- < 5 potholes/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- 5 - 10 potholes/1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- > 10 potholes/1.6 km (per mile).

A-8
 Photo A-7. Pothole in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo A-8. Debonding in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

A-9
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Crack Sealing Deficiency

Description: Crack sealing deficiency is crack sealing which is no longer effective in

preventing intrusion of water or cracks which have never been sealed.

Severity Level: Severity levels are not considered.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 20 percent of the cracks along the pavement section
are not effectively sealed.

Frequent– between 20 and 50 percent of the cracks along the pavement

section are not effectively sealed.

Extensive-- more than 50 percent of the cracks along the pavement section
are not effectively sealed.

A-10
Photo A-9. Crack Sealing Deficiency in Flexible Pavement,
Unsealed Cracks

Photo A-10. Crack sealing Deficiency in Flexible Pavement,

Cracks not sealed properly

A-11
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Rutting

Description: Ruts are vertical deformations in the pavement surface along the wheel
tracks. In severe cases pavement uplift may occur along the sides of the rut,
but in most instances only a depression is noticeable. Rutting is caused by
consolidation or lateral movement of any or all pavement layers, including
subgrade, under traffic.

Severity Level: Rutting severity is based upon rut depth, as approximated visually.

Low-- barely noticeable, depth less than 6 mm (1/4 inch).

Medium-- readily noticeable, depth more than 6 mm (1/4 inch), less than
25 mm (1 inch).

High-- definite effect upon vehicle control, depth greater than 25 mm

(1 inch).

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 20 percent of the section length is rutted.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50 percent of the section length is rutted.

Extensive-- more than 50 percent of the section length is rutted.

A-12
Photo A-11. Rutting in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo A-12. Rutting in Flexible Pavement, High Severity

A-13
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Settlement

Description: Settlement is a dip in the longitudinal profile of the pavement surface.

Settlement shall be considered a distress when it causes a noticeable effect
upon riding quality. Settlement should not be confused with corrugation,
which is another type of surface profile deficiency.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon the effect of the settlement on vehicle control when
traveling along the roadway at 60 km/hour (40 MPH), as discussed in step 1
of the monitoring procedure.

Low-- noticeable effect upon ride, driver able to maintain vehicle

control easily.

Medium-- some discomfort to passengers, driver able to maintain control

with slight corrective action.

High-- definite effect upon ride quality, noticeable profile dip

generally greater than 150 mm (6 inches). Poor ride,
corrective action needed.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 2 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

Frequent-- 2 to 4 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

Extensive-- more than 4 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

A-14
 Photo A-13. Settlement, Low Severity

Photo A-14. Settlement, Medium Severity

A-15
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Corrugations

Description: Corrugations are a series of transverse ridges and valleys (or ripples)
occurring at regular intervals along the pavement. Unstable bituminous
mixture or poor base quality are associated with this distress.

Severity Level: Low-- noticeable effect upon ride, but no significant reduction in
comfort.

Medium-- moderate ride discomfort is noticeable, driver able to maintain

vehicle control easily.

High-- vehicle vibration is severe, speed reduction is necessary for

comfort and to maintain vehicle control.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 10 percent of the section length is affected by this
distress.

Frequent-- between 10 and 30 percent of the section length is affected by

this distress.

Extensive-- greater than 30 percent of the section length is affected by this

distress.

A-16
Photo A-15. Corrugations in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

A-17
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Wheel Track Cracking

Description: Cracks located within or near the wheel tracks. For evaluation purposes each
wheel track shall be considered 1 m (3 feet) in width. Wheel track cracking
usually starts as intermittent, single longitudinal cracks progressing to
multiple longitudinal cracking, and eventually interconnected or alligator
cracking. Wheel track cracking usually results from fatigue failure of the
asphaltic layer.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon both crack width and multiplicity of the cracking.
Both criteria must be satisfied when assigning severity level.

Low-- single or intermittent multiple cracking with average crack

width less than 6 mm (1/4 inch).

Medium-- single or multiple cracking (may also include regions of

intermittent alligator cracking) with average crack width
greater than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with little spalling or loose
pieces.

High-- multiple cracking with extensive alligator cracking. Spalling

is fairly common, with average crack width greater than 6 mm
(1/4 inch), and some alligator blocks are easily removed.

Extent Level: Extent is based upon percentage of the wheel track length within the section
which exhibits cracking.

Occasional-- less than 20 percent.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50 percent.

Extensive-- more than 50 percent.

A-18
Photo A-16. Wheel Track Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Med. Severity

Photo A-17. Wheel Track Cracking in Flexible Pavement, High Severity

A-19
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Block and Transverse Cracking

Description: Block cracks are interconnected cracks which divide the pavement into large
rectangular pieces or blocks. Block size may range from 1 m by 1 m (3 ft. by
3 ft.) upwards to 3 m by 3 m (10 ft. by 10 ft.). Transverse cracking is cracks
at approximately right angles to the pavement centerline. The occurrence of
both block and/or transverse cracking is usually related to thermal shrinkage
of the asphalt binder. Binder age hardening is also related to formation of
these crack types.

Severity Level: Low-- average crack width less than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with no
spalling or distortion along crack edges.

Medium-- average crack opened or spalled to a width between 6 mm to

25 mm (1/4 to 1 inch) along at least half its length.

High-- average crack opened or spalled to a width greater than 25

mm (1 inch) along at least half its length.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 20 percent of the section length is affected by this
distress.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50 percent of this section length is affected by

this distress.

Extensive-- greater than 50 percent of the section length is affected by this

distress.

A-20
Photo A-18. Block and Transverse Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo A-19. Block and Transverse Cracking in Flexible Pavement,

High Severity

A-21
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Longitudinal Joint Cracking

Description: Deterioration or cracking of the longitudinal joints formed by separate passes

of an asphalt paver, including shoulders and widening. Poor compaction
along the longitudinal joint often results in the disintegration of material
along the joint and may be accompanied by single or multiple cracking.

Severity Level: Low-- single longitudinal crack with width less than 6 mm (1/4")
and no spalling.

Medium-- single or multiple cracking 6 mm - 25 mm (1/4"-1") with

some spalling.

High-- multiple cracking > 25 mm (1") wide with much spalling.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 20%.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50%.

Extensive-- more than 50%.

A-22
Photo A-20. Longitudinal Joint Cracking in Flexible Pavement,
Medium Severity

Photo A-21. Longitudinal Joint Cracking in Flexible Pavement,

High Severity

A-23
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Edge Cracking

Description: Edge cracks are longitudinal or crescent shaped cracks usually within 0.3 m
(1 foot) of the pavement edge line.

Severity Level: Low-- tight cracks, width less than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with no break up
or spalling.

Medium-- crack width greater than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with some spalling.

High-- multiple cracking with moderate spalling and average crack

width greater than 6 mm (1/4 inch).

Extent Level: Occasional-- cracking occurs along less than 20 percent of the pavement
edge within the section.

Frequent-- cracking occurs along 20 to 50 percent of the pavement edge

within the section.

Extensive-- cracking occurs along more than 50 percent of the pavement

edge within the section.

A-24
Photo A-22. Edge Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo A-23. Edge Cracking in Flexible Pavement, High Severity

A-25
 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Random Cracking

Description: Random cracks are those cracks which are not categorized as one of the 4
previous types of cracks. For example, cracks which meander across or along
the pavement would be classified as random cracks.

Severity Level: Low-- average crack width less than 6 mm (1/4 inch), no spalling.

Medium-- average crack opened or spalled to a width between 6 mm to

25 mm (1/4 to 1 inch) along at least half of its length.

High-- average crack opened or spalled to a width greater than 25mm

(1 inch) along at least half of its length.

Extent Level: Occasional-- random cracks occur along less than 20 percent of the section.

Frequent-- random cracks occur along 20 to 50 percent of the section.

Extensive-- random cracks occur along more than 50 percent of the

section.

A-26
Photo A-24. Random Cracking in Flexible Pavement, Medium Severity

A-27
 APPENDIX B

Description of Distresses in Composite Pavements

[Composite Pavements have rigid bases (concrete or brick)

and asphaltic surfaces]

B-1
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Raveling

Description: Disintegration of the pavement from the surface downward due to the loss of
aggregate particles. Raveling may occur as a result of asphalt binder aging,
poor mixture quality segregation, or insufficient compaction.

Severity Level: Low-- very little coarse aggregate has worn away. Loss of fine
aggregate. Coarse aggregate exposed.

Medium-- surface has an open texture and is moderately rough with

considerable loss of fine aggregate and some coarse aggregate
removed.

High-- most of the surface aggregate has worn away or become

dislodged. Surface is severely rough and pitted and may be
completely removed in places.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 20 percent of the surface area is raveling.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50 percent of the surface area is raveling.

Extensive-- more than 50 percent of the surface area is raveling.

B-2
Photo B-1. Raveling in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo B-2. Raveling in Composite Pavement, High Severity

B-3
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Bleeding

Description: Bleeding or flushing is the presence of free asphalt binder on the pavement
surface. Bleeding is caused by an excess amount of bituminous binder in the
mixture and/or low air void content.

Severity Level: Only 2 severity levels are defined.

Medium-- both coarse aggregate and free bitumen are noticeable at the
pavement surface.

High-- surface appears black with very little aggregate noticeable.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 10 percent of the length exhibits bleeding.

Frequent-- between 10 and 30 percent of the length is bleeding.

Extensive-- bleeding occurs in more than 30 percent of the length.

B-4
 Photo B-3. Bleeding, High Severity

Photo B-4. Close-up view of Bleeding, High and Medium Severity

High Severity on left show s most aggregates covered w ith asphalt and Med ium Severity
on right shows less aggregates cov ered with asphalt

B-5
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Patching

Description: Patching is either the placing of asphalt concrete on the surface of the existing
pavement or the replacement of the existing pavement in small isolated areas.

Deductions shall be made for all patches present in the pavement which are
the result of deterioration and/or maintenance since the last construction
project.

Large patched areas [greater than 12.5 m2 (15 S.Y.)], such as spot overlays
or wedge courses, shall be rated for condition as a part of the existing
pavement rather than as patches.

Severity Level: Low-- patch size < 0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.).

Medium-- patch size < 0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.).

High-- patch size > 0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.).

Extent Level: Occasional-- < 10 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- 10 - 20 patches/1.6 km ((per mile).

Extensive-- > 20 patches/1.6 km ((per mile).

B-6
Photo B-5. Patching in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo B-6. Patching in Composite Pavement, High Severity

B-7
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Surface Disintegration or Debonding

Description: Loss of surface by debonding is the removal of the asphaltic surface layer
from the underlying layer. The problem is most common with thin asphalt
surface layers [less than 50 mm (2 inches)] and is caused by freeze-thaw
action or poor bonding of the two layers during construction.

Severity Level: Use the following table:

Debonded Area Debonded Area

Depth of Debonded Area
<0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.) >0.8 m2 (1 sq. yd.)
< 25 mm (1") Low Medium
> 25 mm (1") Medium High

Extent Level: Occasional-- <5 debonded areas per 1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- 5 - 10 debonded areas per 1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- >10 debonded areas per 1.6 km (per mile).

B-8
 Photo B-7. Surface Disintegration in Composite Pavement

Photo B-8. Debonding in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity

B-9
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Rutting

Description: Ruts are vertical deformations in the pavement surface along the wheel
tracks. In severe cases pavement uplift may occur along the sides of the rut,
but in most instances only a depression is noticeable. Rutting is caused by
consolidation or lateral movement of any or all pavement layers, including
subgrade, under traffic.

Severity Level: Rutting severity is based upon rut depth, as approximated visually.

Low-- barely noticeable, depth less than 6 mm (1/4 inch).

Medium-- readily noticeable, depth more than 6 mm (1/4 inch), less than
25 mm (1 inch).

High-- definite effect upon vehicle control, depth greater than 25 mm

(1 inch).

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 20 percent of the section length is rutted.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50 percent of the section length is rutted.

Extensive-- more than 50 percent of the section length is rutted.

B-10
Photo B-9. Rutting, Medium Severity

Photo B-10. Rutting, High Severity

B-11
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Corrugations

Description: Corrugations are a series of transverse ridges and valleys (or ripples)
occurring at regular intervals along the pavement. Unstable bituminous
mixture is associated with this distress.

Severity Level: Low-- noticeable effect upon ride, but no significant reduction in
comfort.

Medium-- moderate ride discomfort is noticeable, driver able to maintain

vehicle control easily.

High-- vehicle vibration is severe, speed reduction is necessary for

comfort and to maintain vehicle control.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 10 percent of the section length is affected by this
distress.

Frequent-- between 10 and 30 percent of the section length is affected by

this distress.

Extensive-- greater than 30 percent of the section length is affected by this

distress.

B-12
 Photo not available

See Photo A-15 for similar distress in Flexible Pavement

Photo B-10a. Corrugations in Composite Pavement

B-13
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Pumping

Description: Pumping is the ejection of fine soil particles through pavement cracks, joints,
or along pavement edges. Pumping can be identified by the presence of
surface staining and base or subgrade material near joints or cracks. Shoulder
disintegration at the pavement edge is often an indicator of pumping beneath
the slab.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon the rater's degree of certainty that pumping is
occurring as indicated by visual evidence.

L & M-- Some staining of the surface around cracks or joints is noted.
Rater is quite certain that pumping exists.

High-- Clear evidence that pumping exists. Excessive staining,

medium severity or greater, faulting, corner breaks or
punchouts. Rater is quite certain that pumping exists.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 10 of the joints and cracks exhibit pumping.

Frequent-- 10 to 25 percent of the joints and cracks exhibit pumping.

Extensive-- More than 25 percent of the joints and cracks exhibit

pumping.

B-14
Photo B-11. Pumping in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo B-12. Pumping in Composite Pavement, High Severity

B-15
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Shattered Slab

Description: Shattered slab is the breakup of the underlying rigid base made evident by
surface reflection cracking and/or distortion. Reflection cracks in the
asphaltic layer forming rectangular areas less than 1.5 m by 1.5 m (5 ft. by 5
ft.) may indicate that the underlying slab is broken up. Diagonal reflection
cracks at transverse joints are indicative of corner breaks in the rigid base.
Progressive deterioration will include distortion and faulting of the shattered
area. This distress is caused by poor base support or fatigue of the concrete
layer.

Severity Level: Low-- cracks defining the shattered area are tight [less than 3mm
(1/8 inch in width)] with little or no spalling. There is no
faulting of the shattered area.

Medium-- crack width greater than 3 mm (1/8 inch) with some spalling.
Moderate distortion which does effect ride quality somewhat.

High-- severe distortion and poor ride quality over the shattered area.
Crack pattern indicates break up of the slab into small pieces
[less than 0.8 m2 (1 yd 2)].

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 2 shattered slab areas/1.6 km (per mile) of section
length.

Frequent-- between 2 and 5 shattered slab areas/1.6 km (per mile) of

section length.

Extensive-- more than 5 shattered slab areas/1.6 km (per mile) of section

length.

B-16
Photo B-13. Shattered Slab of Composite Pavement, High Severity

B-17
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Settlement

Description: Settlement is a dip in the longitudinal profile of the pavement surface.

Settlement shall be considered a distress when it causes a noticeable effect
upon riding quality. Settlement should not be confused with corrugation,
which is another type of surface profile deficiency.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon the effect of the settlement on vehicle control when
traveling along the roadway at 60 km/hour (40 MPH), as discussed in step 1
of the monitoring procedure.

Low-- noticeable effect upon ride, driver able to maintain vehicle

control easily.

Medium-- some discomfort to passengers, driver able to maintain control

with slight corrective action.

High-- definite effect upon ride quality, noticeable profile dip

generally greater than 150 mm (6 inches). Poor ride,
corrective action needed.

Extent Level: Occasional-- less than 2 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

Frequent-- 2 to 4 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

Extensive-- more than 4 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

B-18
Photo B-14. Settlement in Composite Pavement, Medium Severity

B-19
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Transverse Cracking

Description: A crack or break at approximately right angles to the pavement centerline.

For composite pavements where the rigid base layer does not have transverse
joints (CRC pavements for instance) all transverse cracking is evaluated
regardless of location. For jointed bases, a separate evaluation is made of
reflective cracks at 1) the joints; and 2) other (non-joint) transverse cracking.
Usually all underlying base cracks and joints are eventually reflected through
the flexible surface. Additional transverse surface cracking may result from
thermal shrinkage and age hardening of the asphaltic layer.

Note 1: A significant amount of joint repair and bituminous overlay of

Jointed Concrete (JC) pavement has been completed in Ohio. The repair
method usually included removal of original pavement at the joint for ± 1 m
(3 feet) in each adjacent slab and replacing it with an asphalt or concrete
patch. For projects which contain this type of repair, both transverse joints
will be evaluated if visible.

Note 2: Crack width is defined as the sum of all cracks if more than one is
present at the location of measurement (measured as a continuous length
from the beginning of the first crack to the end of the last crack).

Severity Level: Unjointed Base or Jointed Base

Low-- crack width less than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with no spalling or

distortion along crack edges.

Medium-- crack opened or spalled to a width between 6 mm and 25 mm

(1/4 and 1 inch) over at least one half its length.

High-- crack opened or spalled to a width greater than 25 mm (1

inch) over at least one half its length.

B-20
Photo B-15. Unjointed Base, Transverse Photo B-16. Unjointed Base, Transverse
Cracking in Composite Pavement, Low Cracking in Composite Pavement, High
Severity Severity

B-21
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Extent Level: Jointed Base - Intermediate Transverse Cracking

Extent level is based upon average crack spacing (CS) as given by the
following formula:

CS = L/ (Z + 1)

Where:
CS = average crack spacing in m (ft.),
Z = average number of transverse cracks per panel, and
L = transverse joint spacing in m (ft.).

(Please Note: average CS is based on Step 2 observations).

Occasional-- average transverse crack spacing greater than 4.5 m (15 feet).

Frequent-- average spacing 3 to 4.5 m (10 to 15 feet).

Extensive-- average crack spacing less than 3 m (10 feet).

Extent Level: Unjointed Base

Occasional-- average intermediate transverse crack spacing greater than 4.5

m (15 feet).

Frequent-- average intermediate transverse crack spacing 3 to 4.5 m (10

to 15 feet).

Extensive-- average intermediate transverse crack spacing less than 3 m

(10 feet).

Extent Level: Jointed Base-Joint Reflection Cracks

Extent is based upon the estimated percentage of transverse joint length

which has reflected through the asphalt surface. Except for new pavements
or overlays the extent will likely be extensive.

Occasional-- less than 20 percent.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50 percent.

Extensive-- more than 50 percent.

B-22
Photo B- 17. Jointed Base, Reflection Cracking in Composite
Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo B- 18. Jointed Base, Reflection Cracking in Composite

Pavement, High Severity

B-23
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Longitudinal Cracking

Description: A crack or break approximately parallel to the pavement centerline.

Longitudinal joints and pavement edges of underlying rigid base usually
reflect through the asphalt surface as a result of thermal movement in the
underlying slab. Poor paving lane joint construction can also result in a
longitudinal crack. All types of longitudinal cracking (random, centerline,
edge, etc.) are included in this distress classification for composite
pavements.

Note: Crack width is defined as the sum of all cracks if more than one is
present at the location of measurement.

Low-- crack width less than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with no spalling or

distortion along crack edges.

Medium-- crack opened or spalled to a width between 6 mm and 25 mm

(1/4 and 1 inch) over at least one half its length.

High-- crack opened or spalled to a width greater than 25 mm (1

inch) over at least one half its length.

Extent Level: Based upon the average linear feet of longitudinal cracking per 30 m (per
station of 100 feet length).

Occasional-- less than 15 m/30 m (50 feet per station).

Frequent-- between 15 and 45 m/30 m (50 and 150 feet per station).

Extensive-- more than 45 m/30 m (150 feet per station). Complete

reflective longitudinal cracking along the pavement centerline
and edge [60 linear m/ 30 m (200 linear feet per station)] is
termed extensive.

B-24
Photo B- 19. Longitudinal Cracking in Composite Pavement,
High Severity

B-25
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Pressure Damage/Upheaval

Description: Upheaval is a bump or hump in the pavement surface at a transverse joint or

crack. The upheaval is a result of thermal expansion in the underlying
concrete base creating compressive forces.

Severity Level: Low-- bump height less than 13 mm (½ inch), barely noticeable
effect upon ride.

Medium-- bump height 13 to 25 mm (½ to 1 inch) with a readily

noticeable effect upon ride quality.

High-- bump height greater than 25 mm (1 inch) severely reducing

ride quality.

Extent Level: Occasional-- upheaval is present along less than 20 percent of the joints.

Frequent-- upheaval occurs along 20 to 50 percent of the joints.

Extensive-- greater than 50 percent of the joints exhibit upheaval.

B-26
Photo B- 20. Pressure Damage/Upheaval in Composite Pavement,
Medium Severity

B-27
 COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Crack Sealing Deficiency

Description: Crack sealing deficiency is crack sealing which is no longer effective in

preventing intrusion of water or cracks which have never been sealed.

Severity Level: Severity levels are not considered.

Extent Level: Extent is based upon the percentage of crack length in the pavement surface
which is not effectively sealed.

Occasional-- less than 20 percent of the cracks along the pavement section
are not effectively sealed.

Frequent-- between 20 and 50 percent of the cracks along the pavement

section are not effectively sealed.

Extensive-- more than 50 percent of the cracks along the pavement section
are not effectively sealed.

B-28
 Photo B-21. Crack Sealing Deficiency, Unsealed Cracks

Photo B-22. Crack Sealing Deficiency, Cracks not sealed properly

B-29
 APPENDIX C

Description of Distresses in
Jointed Reinforced Concrete or
Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JRC/JPC Pavements)

C-1
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Surface Deterioration

Description: Disintegration or loss of concrete from the surface of the pavement. Includes
scaling and abrasion. Scaling is the flaking away of the concrete surface.
Abrasion is similar to scaling in that a loss of fine, surface aggregate occurs.
Abrasion is usually a result of weathering and traffic wear and is normally
confined to the wheel track area.

Severity Level: Low-- Aggregate visible.

Medium-- Surface has an open texture and is moderately rough with

considerable loss of fine aggregate and some coarse aggregate
removed.

High-- Surface rough or pitted.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 20 percent of the surface area.

Frequent-- 20 to 50 percent of the surface area.

Extensive-- Equal to or greater than 50 percent of the surface area. This

level includes continuous distress in both wheel tracks.

C-2
Photo C-1. Surface Deterioration in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo C-2. Surface Deterioration in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity

C-3
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Popouts

Description: Cone shaped holes in the pavement surface with aggregates at the bottom and
unrelated to joint or crack spalling. Aggregate quality is related to this type
of distress. Popouts usually range from 25 to 100 mm (1 to 4 inches) in
diameter and from 13 to 50 mm (½ to 2 inches) in depth.

Severity Level: Severity levels are not considered.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 20 percent of the area is affected.

Frequent-- 20 to 50 percent of the area is affected.

Extensive-- More than 50 percent of the area is affected.

C-4
Photo C-3. Popout in a Concrete Pavement, Plan and Cross-sectional Views

Photo C-4. Popouts in a Jointed Concrete Pavement

C-5
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Patching

Description: Patching is either the placing of additional material on the surface of the
existing pavement or the replacement of existing pavement in isolated areas.

Deductions shall be made for all patches present in the pavement which are
made with asphalt concrete material and are the result of deterioration and/or
maintenance since the last construction project.

No deductions shall be made for existing patches which consist of sound

concrete. Where deterioration exists with a concrete repair, the deterioration
shall be rated as part of the pavement.

Multiple patches found along a transverse joint or crack which do not

interconnect shall be added together to represent the size of one patch.

Multiple patches found along a longitudinal joint or crack which do not

interconnect, but are within the same slab, shall be added together to
represent the size of one patch.

Severity Level: Low-- Patch size <0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.), and patches are not deteriorated.

Medium-- Patch size < 0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.), with deterioration present.

High-- Patch size > 0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.), regardless of deterioration.

Extent Level: Occasional-- <10 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- 10 to 20 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- >20 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

C-6
Photo C-5. Patching in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Low Severity

Photo C-6. Patching in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity

C-7
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Pumping

Description: Pumping is the ejection of fine soil particles through pavement cracks, joints,
or along pavement edges. Pumping can be identified by the presence of
surface staining and base or subgrade material near joints or cracks. Shoulder
disintegration at the pavement edge is often an indicator of pumping beneath
the slab.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon the rater's degree of certainty that pumping is
occurring as indicated by visual evidence.

L & M-- Some staining of the surface around cracks or joints is noted.
Rater is quite certain that pumping exists.

High-- Clear evidence that pumping exists. Excessive staining,

medium severity or greater, faulting, corner breaks or
punchouts. Rater is quite certain that pumping exists.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 10 of the joints and cracks exhibit pumping.

Frequent-- 10 to 25 percent of the joints and cracks exhibit pumping.

Extensive-- More than 25 percent of the joints and cracks exhibit

pumping.

C-8
Photo C-7. Pumping in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity

Photo C-8. Pumping in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Low Severity

C-9
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Faulting

Description: Faulting is the difference in elevation between abutting slabs at transverse

joints or cracks. Faulting is usually caused by a pumping action of
underlying fine grained materials, settlement of soft subgrade, or from curling
or warping of slabs due to temperature and moisture gradients.

Note: If transverse cracks are faulted, write the letter "C" on the rating
form. If both cracks and joints are faulted, write the letter "B".
Otherwise, faulting indicates only joints.

Severity Level: Low-- Less than 6 mm (1/4 inch) fault.

Medium— 6 mm to 13 mm (1/4 to ½ inch) fault.

High-- Greater than 13 mm (½ inch) fault.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Faulting occurs along less than 20 percent of the joints and
cracks.

Frequent-- Faulting occurs along 20 to 50 percent of the joints and

cracks.

Extensive-- More than 50 percent of the joints and cracks are faulted.

C-10
Photo C-9. Sketch showing Faulting in Jointed Concrete Pavement

Photo C-10. Faulting in Jointed Concrete Pavement

C-11
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Settlement

Description: Settlement is a dip or depression in the longitudinal profile of the pavement

surface. Settlement should be considered a distress when it causes a
noticeable effect upon riding quality.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon the effect of the settlement or waves upon ride quality
and vehicle control when traveling along the roadway at 60 km/hour (40
MPH, step 1 of the monitoring procedure).

Low-- Noticeable effect upon ride, driver able to maintain vehicle

control easily.

Medium-- Some discomfort to passengers, driver able to maintain

control with slight corrective action.

High-- Definite effect upon ride quality. Noticeable profile dips in

settlement areas greater than 150 mm (6 inches). Waves
cause rocking of vehicle similar to motion created at
moderately faulted jointed crack pavements.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 2 settlement/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

Frequent-- 2 to 4 settlement areas/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

Extensive-- More than 4 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway.

C-12
Photo C-11. Settlements in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity

C-13
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Transverse Joint Spalling

Description: Joint spalling is the break up or disintegration of the concrete at longitudinal

or transverse pavement joints. A spall normally does not extend vertically
through the slab but rather intersects the joint at an angle. Often joint
spalling is the result of durability ("D") cracking of the pavement. The rater
is asked to indicate on the rating form if the joint spalling is a result of "D"
cracking. Durability ("D") cracking is a series of fine crescent-shaped cracks
in the concrete surface which usually runs parallel to a joint or major crack
and curve across slab corners. Cracking pattern is normally concave in
relation to slab corners or joints. D-cracking can eventually lead to
disintegration and spalling of the concrete near the joints or corners of the
slab.

Severity Level: Low-- Spalls less than 100 mm (4 inches) wide, measured to the
center of the joint, with loss of material, or spalls with no loss
of material and no patching.

Medium-- spalls 100 mm to 225 mm (4 to 9 inches) wide, measured to

the center of the joint, with loss of material.

High-- Spalls greater than 225 mm (9 inches) wide, measured to the

center of the joint, with loss of material.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 25 percent of the transverse joints are spalled.

Frequent-- 25 to 75 percent of the transverse joints are spalled.

Extensive-- More than 75 percent of the transverse joints are spalled.

C-14
Photo C-12. Transverse Joint Spalling in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Low Severity

Photo C-13. Transverse Joint Spalling in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity

C-15
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Joint Sealant Damage

Description: Joint sealant damage is any deterioration of the sealant which permits water
or incompressibles to enter the joint. Damage includes disintegration,
removal, pull out, hardening or debonding of the joint material from the
adjoining slab edge.

Severity Level: Severity levels are not considered for this distress.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 20 percent of the joints are not effectively sealed.

Frequent-- 20 and 50 percent of the joints are not effectively sealed.

Extensive-- Greater than 50 percent of the joints are not effectively sealed.

C-16
Photo C-14. Joint Sealant Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement

Photo C-15. Joint Sealant Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement

C-17
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Pressure Damage

Description: Pressure damage may be spalling, crushing, or upheaval at transverse joints

or cracks resulting from expansion of the concrete layer. Pressure induced
spalling is differentiated from other joint spalling by the shape of the spalled
area. Pressure spalls are usually 150 to 300 mm (6 to 12 inches) long
measured from the crack or joint and up to 300 mm (12 inches) wide.

Severity Level: Separate severity levels for pressure damage spalling are not defined. All
pressure damage spalling is considered severe since this distress may be a
predictor or more serious pressure distress (blow ups).

Extent Level: Extent is based upon the number of transverse joints which exhibit pressure
damage spalling.

Occasional-- Less than 1/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- Between 1 and 3/1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- More than 3/1.6 km (per mile).

C-18
Photo C-16. Pressure Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement

Photo C-17. Pressure Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement

C-19
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Transverse Cracking

Description: A crack or break at approximately right angles to the pavement centerline.

Some transverse cracks (hairline shrinkage cracks) are expected in reinforced
concrete pavements which have large transverse joint spacing. Additional
transverse cracking could be caused by repeated heavy traffic loading,
thermal and moisture gradients and subgrade settlement or consolidation.

Severity Level: Low-- Hairline or tight with little crack spalling.

Medium-- Crack opened or spalled at the surface to a width of 6 mm to

25 mm (1/4 inch to 1 inch) over a distance equal to at least
one-half the crack length.

High-- Crack opened or spalled at the surface to a width greater than

25 mm (1 inch) over a distance equal to at least one-half the
crack length.

Extent Level: Extent level is based upon average crack spacing (CS) between intermediate
transverse cracks as given by the following expression:

CS = L/(Z+1)

where:
CS = average crack spacing, m (ft),
Z = average number of transverse cracks per panel, and
L = transverse joint spacing, m (ft).

Average CS is based upon step 2 observations.

Occasional-- CS > 4.5 m (15 ft).

Frequent-- 3 m (10 ft) < CS < 4.5 m (15 ft).

Extensive-- CS < 3 m (10 ft).

C-20
Photo C-18. Transverse Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement,
Low Severity

Photo C-19. Transverse Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement,

High Severity

C-21
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Longitudinal Cracking

Description: A crack or break approximately parallel to the pavement centerline. This

type of cracking is usually associated with subgrade settlement or insufficient
bearing support.

Severity Level: Low-- Hairline or tight cracks with little crack spalling.

Medium-- Crack opened or spall at the surface to a width of 6 mm to 25

mm (1/4 inch to 1 inch) over a distance equal to at least one-
half the crack length.

High-- Crack opened or spalled at the surface to a width greater than

25 mm (1 inch) over a distance equal to at least one-half the
crack length.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 5 percent of the slabs have longitudinal cracking.

Frequent-- Between 5 and 20 percent of the slabs have longitudinal

cracking.

Extensive-- More than 20 percent of the slabs have longitudinal cracking.

C-22
Photo C-20. Longitudinal Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo C-21. Longitudinal Cracking in Jointed Concrete Pavement, Medium Severity

C-23
 JRC/JPC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Corner Breaks

Description: A corner break is a crack that intersects transverse joints or cracks and a
longitudinal edge diagonally. The leg size of the triangular break is usually
greater than 300 mm (12 inches). Corner breaks can be differentiated from
spalling by: (1) corner breaks extend vertically through the entire slab
whereas spalls are only partial depth cracks, and (2) the triangle formed by
a corner break is usually much larger than that of a spall.

Severity Level: Low-- Crack width less than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with no spalling or
settlement of the broken area.

Medium-- Crack width between 6 mm to 25 mm (1/4 inch to 1 inch)

with some spalling and minor settlement of the broken area.

High-- Crack width greater than 25 mm (1 inch) and/or much

spalling and settlement of the broken area. High severity may
also be identified by shattering of the broken area by
formation of smaller pieces within the corner break area.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 4 corner breaks/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- 4 and 10 corner breaks/1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- More than 10 corner breaks/1.6 km (per mile).

C-25
 Photo C-22. Corner Break in Jointed Concrete Pavement,
Medium Severity

Photo C-23. Corner Breaks in Jointed Concrete Pavement, High Severity

C-26
 APPENDIX D

Description of Distresses in
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements (CRCP)

D-1
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Surface Deterioration

Description: Disintegration or loss of concrete from the surface of the pavement. Includes
scaling and abrasion. Scaling is the flaking away of the concrete surface.
Abrasion is similar to scaling in that a loss of fine, surface aggregate occurs.
Abrasion is usually a result of weathering and traffic wear and is normally
confined to the wheel track area.

Severity Level: Low-- Aggregate visible.

Medium-- Surface has an open texture and is moderately rough with

considerable loss of fine aggregate and some coarse aggregate
removed.

High-- Surface rough or pitted.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 20 percent of the surface area.

Frequent-- 20 to 50 percent of the surface area.

Extensive-- Equal to or greater than 50 percent of the surface area. This

level includes continuous distress in both wheel tracks.

D-2
Photo D-1. Surface Deterioration in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo D-2. Surface Deterioration in CRC Pavement, High Severity

D-3
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Popouts

Description: Cone shaped holes in the pavement surface with aggregates at the bottom and
unrelated to joint or crack spalling. Aggregate quality is related to this type
of distress. Popouts usually range from 25 to 100 mm (1 to 4 inches) in
diameter and from 13 to 50 mm (½ to 2 inches) in depth.

Severity Level: Severity levels are not considered.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 20 percent of the area is affected.

Frequent-- 20 to 50 percent of the area is affected.

Extensive-- More than 50 percent of the area is affected.

D-4
Photo D-3. Popout in CRC Pavement, Plan and Cross-section Views

Photo D-4. Popouts in CRC Pavement

D-5
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Patching

Description: Patching is either the placing of additional material on the surface of the
existing pavement or the replacement of existing pavement in isolated areas.

Deductions shall be made for all patches present in the pavement which are
made with asphalt concrete material and are the result of deterioration and/or
maintenance since the last construction project.

No deductions shall be made for existing patches which consist of sound

concrete. Where deterioration exists with a concrete repair, the deterioration
shall be rated as part of the pavement.

Multiple patches found along a transverse joint or crack which do not

interconnect shall be added together to represent the size of one patch.

Multiple patches found along a longitudinal joint or crack which do not

interconnect, but are within the same slab, shall be added together to
represent the size of one patch.

Severity Level: Low-- Patch size <0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.), and patches are not deteriorated.

Medium-- Patch size <0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.)., with deterioration present.

High-- Patch size >0.1 m2 (1 sq. ft.), regardless of deterioration.

Extent Level: Occasional-- <10 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- 10 to 20 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- >20 patches/1.6 km (per mile).

D-6
Photo D-5. Patching in CRC Pavement, Low Severity

Photo D-6. Patching in CRC Pavement, High Severity

D-7
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Pumping

Description: Pumping is the ejection of fine soil particles through pavement cracks, joints,
or along pavement edges. Pumping can be identified by the presence of
surface staining and base or subgrade material near joints or cracks. Shoulder
disintegration at the pavement edge is often an indicator of pumping beneath
the slab.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon the rater's degree of certainty that pumping is
occurring as indicated by visual evidence.

L & M-- Some staining of the surface around cracks or joints is noted.
Rater is quite certain that pumping exists.

High-- Clear evidence that pumping exists. Excessive staining,

medium severity or greater, faulting, corner breaks or
punchouts. Rater is quite certain that pumping exists.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 10% of the joints and cracks exhibit pumping.

Frequent-- 10 to 25% of the joints and cracks exhibit pumping.

Extensive-- More than 25% of the joints and cracks exhibit pumping.

D-8
Photo D-7. Pumping in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo D-8. Pumping, High Severity

D-9
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Settlement and Waves

Description: Because CRC pavements have short transverse crack spacing, these
pavements can develop short waves or undulation as a result of poor support
conditions, frost heave, or permanent deformation of the subgrade.
Settlement is a dip or depression in the longitudinal profile of the pavement
surface.

Severity Level: Severity is based upon the effect of the settlement or waves upon ride quality
and vehicle control when traveling along the roadway at 60 km/hour (40
MPH, (step 1 of the monitoring procedure).

Low-- Noticeable effect upon ride, driver able to maintain vehicle

control easily.

Medium-- Some discomfort to passengers, driver able to maintain

control with slight corrective action.

High-- Definite effect upon ride quality. Noticeable profile dips in

settlement areas greater than 150 mm (6 inches). Waves
cause rocking of vehicle similar to motion created at
moderately faulted jointed crack pavements.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Less than 2 settlements/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway and/or
wave along less than 20 percent of the section length.

Frequent-- 2 to 4 settlement areas/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway and/or

waves along 20 to 50 percent of the section length.

Extensive-- more than 4 settlement areas/1.6 km (per mile) of roadway

and/or waves along more than 50 percent of the section
length.

D-10
Photo D-9. Settlement in CRC Pavement

D-11
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Transverse Crack Spacing

Description: A crack at approximately right angles to the pavement centerline. Transverse

cracking in CRC pavements is normal. The cracking is detrimental if the
spacing is less than or greater than that associated with good CRC
performance. Optimum CRC transverse crack spacing is about 1.5 m 2.4 m
(5 to 8 feet).

Severity Level: Low-- Average crack spacing greater than 1 m (3 feet).

Medium-- Average crack spacing less than 1 m (3 feet), with few

intersecting cracks. Intersecting cracks are transverse cracks
which do not cross the entire pavement width but intersect
other transverse cracks.

High-- Average crack spacing less than 1 m (3 feet), with many

intersecting cracks.

Extent Level: Extent is based upon the percentage of the section length having an
undesirable transverse crack pattern.

Occasional-- Less than 20 percent.

Frequent-- 20 to 50 percent.

Extensive-- Greater than 50 percent.

D-12
 Photo D-10. Transverse Cracks in CRC Pavement, Low Severity

Photo D-11. Transverse Cracks in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity

D-13
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Longitudinal Cracking

Description: A crack or break approximately parallel to the pavement centerline. This

type of cracking is usually associated with subgrade settlement or insufficient
bearing support.

Severity Level: Low-- Hairline or tight cracks with little crack spalling.

Medium-- Crack opened or spall at the surface to a width of 6 to 25 mm

(1/4 inch to 1 inch) over a distance equal to at least one-half
the crack length.

High-- Crack opened or spalled at the surface to a width greater than

25 mm (1 inch) over a distance equal to at least one-half the
crack length.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Longitudinal cracking occurs along less than 5 percent of the
section length.

Frequent-- Longitudinal cracking occurs along from 5 to 15 percent of

the section length.

Extensive-- Longitudinal cracking occurs along more than 15 percent of

the section length.

D-14
Photo D-12. Longitudinal Cracking in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo D-13. Longitudinal Cracking in CRC Pavement, High Severity

D-15
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Punchouts or Edge Breaks

Description: A punchout or edge break is a cracked rectangular area usually along the
outside pavement edge. A punchout requires formation of longitudinal crack
(usually within the outer wheel track) which connects transverse cracks of the
CRC pavement. The rectangular punchout area thus is defined by 2
transverse cracks, the longitudinal crack and the outside pavement edge. A
punchout results from concrete that is over stressed because of short
transverse crack spacing or poor support of the CRC pavement. Punchout
areas which have been repaired should be evaluated for patching distress.

Severity Level: This distress is rated only for Medium and High levels.

Medium-- Crack width greater than 6 mm (1/4 inch) with some spalling.
Punchout area may be depressed up to 13 mm (½ inch).

High-- Punchout area is depressed more than 13 mm (½ inch) and/or

is breaking up or shattering.

Extent Level: Occasional-- Fewer than 2 punchouts/1.6 m (per mile) of section length.

Frequent-- Between 2 and 5 punchouts/1.6 m (per mile) of section length.

Extensive-- More than 5 punchouts/1.6 m (per mile) of section length.

D-16
Photo D-14. Punchouts in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo D-15. Punchouts in CRC Pavement, High Severity

D-17
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Spalling

Description: Spalling in CRC pavements is the break up or disintegration of the concrete

at transverse cracks. A spall normally does not extend vertically through the
entire concrete layer but intersects the transverse crack at an angle. This
distress may be caused by the presence of high percentage of reinforcing steel
in the pavement.

Severity Level: Low-- < 25 mm (1"), missing pieces.

Medium-- Distressed area 25 to 100 mm (1 - 4 inch) wide with most of

the pieces missing.

High-- Distressed areas more than 100 mm (4 inch) wide with some
or most of the pieces missing.

Extent Level: Extent of this distress is based upon the percentage of transverse cracks
which have spalled.

Occasional-- Less than 20 percent of the cracks.

Frequent-- Between 20 and 50 percent of the cracks.

Extensive-- More than 50 percent of the cracks.

D-18
Photo D-16. Spalling in CRC Pavement, Medium Severity

Photo D-17. Spalling in CRC Pavement, High Severity

D-19
 CRC PAVEMENT

Distress Type: Pressure Damage

Description: Pressure damage may be spalling, crushing, or upheaval at transverse joints

or cracks resulting from expansion of the concrete layer. Pressure induced
spalling is differentiated from other joint spalling by the shape of the spalled
area. Pressure spalls are usually 150 to 300 mm (6 to 12 inches) long
measured from the crack or joint and up to 300 mm (12 inches) wide.

Severity Level: Separate severity levels for pressure damage spalling are not defined. All
pressure damage spalling is considered severe since this distress may be a
predictor of more serious pressure distress (blow ups).

Extent Level: Extent is based upon the number of transverse joints which exhibit pressure
damage spalling.

Occasional-- Less than 1 joint/1.6 km (per mile).

Frequent-- Between 1 and 3 joints/1.6 km (per mile).

Extensive-- More than 3 joints/1.6 km (per mile).

D-20
Photo D-18. An Example of Pressure Damage in Jointed Concrete Pavement. Pressure
Damage in CRCP
is similar to as shown above.

D-21
 APPENDIX E

Sources of Photographs used in Appendices A - D

E-1
Abbreviations Used in the Tables:

RII = Resource International, Inc.;

ODOT = Ohio Department of Transportation;

SHRP = SHRP-P-338 “Distress Identification manual

for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Project”,
Dated 1993;

Old Manual = ODOT’s previous PCR Manual, Dated February 1997.

E-2
 Table E-1. List of Sources of Photographs of Appendix A and B

Photo # Source Photo # Source

A-1 RII B-1 RII
A-2 ODOT B-2 ODOT
A-3 Old Manual B-3 Old Manual
A-4 ODOT B-4 ODOT
A-5 Old Manual B-5 ODOT
A-6 ODOT B-6 ODOT
A-7 SHRP B-7 ODOT
A-8 ODOT B-8 ODOT
A-9 RII B-9 ODOT
A-10 ODOT B-10 RII
A-11 ODOT B-11 ODOT
A-12 RII B-12 ODOT
A-13 Old Manual B-13 RII
A-14 RII B-14 RII
A-15 Old Manual B-15 ODOT
A-16 RII B-16 ODOT
A-17 RII B-17 RII
A-18 ODOT B-18 ODOT
A-19 ODOT B-19 ODOT
A-20 RII B-20 ODOT
A-21 ODOT B-21 RII
A-22 RII B-22 ODOT
A-23 RII
A-24 Old Manual

Table E-2. List of Sources of Photographs Appendix C and D

E-3
Photo # Source Photo # Source
C-1 RII D-1 RII
C-2 RII D-2 SHRP
C-3 RII D-3 RII
C-4 RII D-4 RII
C-5 ODOT D-5 ODOT
C-6 ODOT D-6 ODOT
C-7 ODOT D-7 ODOT
C-8 ODOT D-8 ODOT
C-9 RII D-9 Old Manual
C-10 ODOT D-10 RII
C-11 RII D-11 RII
C-12 RII D-12 RII
C-13 RII D-13 RII
C-14 RII D-14 Old Manual
C-15 RII D-15 Old Manual
C-16 ODOT D-16 RII
C-17 ODOT D-17 ODOT
C-18 RII D-18 ODOT
C-19 ODOT
C-20 RII
C-21 RII
C-22 Old Manual
C-23 ODOT

E-4