TECH SPEC

N u m b er 4

Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement

for Roads and Parking Lots
History no damage from petroleum products or indentations from
The concept of in- high temperatures. Once installed, there is no waiting
terlocking concrete time for curing. The pavement is immediately ready for
pavement dates back traffic. Cracking and degradation of the surface is mini-
to the roads of the mized because of the numerous joints (and sand in them)
Roman Empire. See which act as a means for load transfer without damaging
Figure 1. They were the pavement surface. Like flexible asphalt pavement, an
c o n st ruc te d w i t h aggregate base accommodates minor settlement without
tightly-fitted stone surface cracking. An aggregate base facilitates fast con-
paving units set on a struction, as well as access to underground utilities. Me-
compacted aggregate chanical installation of concrete pavers can further shorten
base. The modern construction time and costs. Pavement reinstatement is
version, concrete pav- enhanced by reusable paving units, thereby minimizing
ers, is manufactured costs and reducing waste.
with close tolerances
to help ensure inter- Figure 1. The Roman Appian Way: The Principle of Interlock
lock. Concrete pavers early interlocking pavement Interlock is the inability of a paver to move independently
were developed in from its neighbors. It is critical to the structural perfor-
the Netherlands in mance of interlocking concrete pavement. When consid-
the late 1940s as a replacement for clay brick streets. ering design and construction, three types of interlock
A strong, millennia-old tradition of segmental paving in must be achieved: vertical, rotational, and horizontal
Europe enabled interlocking concrete pavement to spread interlock. These are illustrated in Figure 2. Vertical interlock
quickly. It is now established as a conventional means of is achieved by the shear transfer of loads to surrounding
paving there with some four billion ft2 (400 million m2) units through sand in the joints. Rotational interlock is
installed annually. Concrete pavers came to North America maintained by the pavers being of sufficient thickness,
in the 1970s. They have been used successfully in numer- meeting recommended plan and aspect ratios, placed
ous residential, commercial, municipal, port and airport closely together, and restrained by a curb from lateral
applications. This Tech Spec covers the structural design forces of vehicle tires. Rotational interlock can be further
of interlocking concrete pavement over an aggregate base enhanced if there is a slight crown to the pavement cross
as well as asphalt and cement stabilized bases, asphalt section. Besides facilitating drainage, the crown enables
concrete and Portland cement concrete bases. the pavement surface to stiffen and further lock up as the
pavement undergoes vehicle loading due to traffic.
Advantages Horizontal interlock is primarily achieved through the
The paving system offers the advantages of concrete use of laying patterns that disperse forces from braking,
materials and flexible asphalt pavement. As high-strength turning and accelerating vehicles. Herringbone patterns are
concrete, the units have high resistance to freeze-thaw the most effective laying patterns for maintaining interlock
cycles and deicing salts, high abrasion and skid resistance, (see Figure 3). Testing has shown that these patterns of-

© 1995 ICPI Tech Spec No. 4 Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute • All rights reserved—Revised November 2010
 Load Load
Load

Load Load
Load Horizontal Horizontal
Horizontal Displaced Displaced Displacement Displacement
Displacement Bedding Sand Bedding Sand

No Horizontal Interlock No Vertical Interlock No Rotational Interlock

Load Load
Load

Horizontal Interlock Vertical Interlock Rotational Interlock

Figure 2. Types of interlock: horizontal, vertical, rotational

fer greater structural capacity and resistance to lateral frost heaving. Figure 4 illustrates typical schematic cross
movement than other laying patterns (Shackel 1979 and sections for interlocking concrete pavement designed as a
1980). Therefore, herringbone patterns are recommended flexible system. Both the base and subbase are compacted
in areas subject to vehicular traffic. See Figure 3. Stable aggregate. Some road agencies may use open-graded
edge restraints such as curbs are essential. They provide drainage bases as well. Many pavements for city and resi-
better horizontal interlock among the units while they dential uses do not require an aggregate subbase except
are subject to repeated lateral loads from vehicle tires. for very heavy use or over a weak soil subgrade. In these
ICPI Tech Spec 3, Edge Restraints for Interlocking Concrete situations it may be more economical to use asphalt or
Pavements offers guidance on the selection and detailing cement-stabilized base layers. They are often placed over
of edge restraints for a range of applications. a subbase layer of unbound compacted aggregate.
Construction is covered in ICPI Tech Spec 2, Construction
Typical Pavement Design and Construction of Interlocking Concrete Pavement. The steps for prepar-
Flexible pavement design uses untreated aggregate, ce- ing the soil subgrade and base materials are similar to
ment- or asphalt-treated aggregates or asphalt under the those required for flexible asphalt pavements. After the
concrete pavers and bedding layer. Flexible pavements base surface is built to specified elevations and surface
distribute the loads to the subgrade by spreading them tolerances, bedding sand is screeded in an even layer,
through consecutively weaker layers to the compacted soil typically 1 in. (25 mm) thick. The units are placed, manually
subgrade. Such pavements are often preferred in colder or mechanically, on the even bedding sand constrained by
climates because they can offer greater protection against stationary edge restraints.

45° Herringbone 90° Herringbone

Figure 3. Laying patterns for vehicular traffic

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 2

 Design Methodology
Concrete Pavers Joint Sand
Structural design of interlocking concrete pavements fol-
lows the American Society of Civil Engineers Transporta-
Edge
Bedding tion & Development Institute standard (ASCE/T&DI 58-10),
Sand
Restraint/ Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for
Curb Compacted Unbound Municipal Streets and Roadways (ASCE 2010). This standard
Aggregate Base
applies to paved areas subject to applicable permitted
axle loads and trafficked up to 10 million (18,000 lb or
Compacted Unbound
Aggregate Sub-Base 80 kN) equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) with a vehicle
speed of up to 45 mph (70 km/h). The standard provides
preparatory information required for design, key design
Compacted Subgrade Soil
elements, design tables for pavement equivalent structural
(A) Unbound Base/Subbase design, construction considerations, applicable standards,
Concrete Pavers Joint Sand definitions and best practices. Readers are encouraged to
purchase and review this guideline standard.
The ASCE standard relies on the flexible pavement design
Bedding
Edge
Sand
method described in the 1993 Guide for Design of Pave-
Restraint/
Curb ment Structures published by the American Association
Compacted Cement or
Asphalt Treated Base of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO
1993). Future versions of the ASCE standard may include
Compacted Unbound the mechanistic-empirical design methodology as described
Aggregate Sub-Base in the 2004 Guide for Mechanistic Empirical Design of New
and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures (AASHTO 2004). The
Compacted Subgrade Soil level of detailed information required to use this procedure
(B) Cement or Asphalt Treated Base is unavailable for most non-highway applications.
The design process is characterized by the flowchart
Figure 4. Typical schematic cross sections shown in Figure 5. The following provides information on
the key input variables noted in the flowchart.
The pavers are vibrated with a high frequency plate Design Traffic—When pavement is trafficked, it receives
compactor. This action forces sand into the bottom of the wear or damage usually evidenced as the depth of rutting
joints of the pavers and begins compaction of the bedding in flexible asphalt pavements and the extent of cracking
sand. Sand is then spread and swept into the joints, and in rigid concrete pavements. For interlocking concrete
the process repeated until the joints are filled. Complete pavements, damage is typically measured by the depth
compaction of the sand and slight settlement of the pavers of rutting since it behaves as a flexible pavement similar
tightens them. During compaction, the pavement is trans- to asphalt. Cracked paving units are rarely evidence of a
formed from a loose collection of pavers to an interlocking pavement damaged by traffic loads and therefore are not
system capable of spreading vertical loads horizontally. typically used as a means to estimate damage or wear of
This occurs through shear forces in the joints. an interlocking concrete pavement.
As with all pavements, the amount of damage from
Structural Design Procedure traffic depends on the weight of the vehicles and the
The load distribution and failure modes of flexible asphalt number of expected passes over a given period of time.
and interlocking concrete pavement are very similar: per- The period of time, or design life, is 20 to 40 years. Design
manent deformation from repetitive loads. Since failure life is the period of time a pavement will last before dam-
modes are similar, flexible pavement design procedures age requires major rehabilitation, often complete removal
are used. The structural design procedures are for roads and replacement. The designer or transportation agency
and parking lots. Base design for crosswalks should con- selects a design life in years which is influenced by the
sider using stablized aggregate or cast-in-place concrete available budget to construct or rehabilitate a pavement.
with sand-set paving units, or bitumen-set paving units Predicting traffic over the life of the pavement is an
over concrete. Stiffer bases will compensate for stress estimate of various vehicle loads, axle and wheel configu-
concentration on the subgrade and base where the pavers rations, and the number of loads (repetitions). The actual
meet adjoining pavement materials. Design for heavy duty amount of traffic loads can often exceed the predicted
pavements such as port and airport pavements is covered loads. Therefore, engineering judgment is required in esti-
in ICPI manuals entitled, Port and Industrial Pavement mating expected sources of traffic and loads well into the
Design for Concrete Pavers and Airfield Pavement Design future. When future traffic loads are difficult to predict,
with Concrete Pavers. an engineer will often design a pavement for higher loads

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 3

Figure 5. Design Process Flow Chart – *Indicates outside scope of the standard

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 4

to ensure that the risk of excessive pavement damage is doubling the axle load increases the damage 16 times.
low over the service life of the pavement. The California Department of Transportation or Caltrans
Compared to cars, trucks and busses do the most damage uses Traffic Index or TI rather than ESALs. Converting ESALs
to pavements because their wheel loads are much higher to TI is accomplished by using the formula below. Table 1
than cars. One pass of a fully loaded truck will exert more illustrates the relationships between ESALs and TIs. Table
damage to pavement than several thousand cars passing 2 provides AASHTO road classifications and typical lifetime
over it. Since there is a range of expected loads (usually ESALs and TIs.
expressed as axle loads) over a pavement during its life,
AASHTO developed a means to normalize or equalize all
axle loads of them into a single axle load exerted repeat-
edly over the life of the pavement.
The 1993 AASHTO Guide characterizes traffic loads as For the ASCE standard, ESAL levels are provided for 10
the number of 80 kN or 18,000 lbs equivalent single axle
loads or ESALs. The 18,000 lbs (80 kN) load emerged from
AASHTO (then called AASHO) road tests conducted in the Table 1. Relationship of ESALs to
1950s and have remained as a convenient means to quantify Caltrans TIs
a range of different vehicle axle loads. The AASHTO tests ESAL TI
demonstrated that loads and resulting damage to pave-
5x104 6
ment is not linear but exponential as loads increase. The
tests showed that for every incremental increase in axle
1x105 6.8
load, damage to the pavement increased by roughly the
fourth power. This exponential load-damage relationship 3x105 7.2
resulted in determining ESALs by taking the weight of each
axle and dividing each by a ‘standard’ ESAL of 18,000 lbs 5x105 8.3
or 80 kN. Then the quotient is raised to the fourth power.
7x105 8.6
For example, a five axle tractor-trailer truck has two rear
axles on the trailer each exerting 18,000 lbs or 80 kN; two 1x106 9
on the back of the truck at 15,800 lbs or 70 kN; and one in
the front (steering) at 11,000 lbs or 50 kN. AASHTO uses 3x106 10.3
the following relationships called load equivalency factors
or LEFs for each axle to estimate ESALs. These express the 5x106 10.9
exponential relationship between damage and loads. LEF
7x106 11.3
and ESALs for this truck are as follows:
1x107 11.8
Trailer: LEF = (80/80)4 = 1 (x 2 axles) = 2 ESALs
Truck rear: LEF= (70/80)4 = 0.6 (x 2 axles) = 1.2 ESALs 2x107 12.8
Truck front: LEF = (50/80) = 0.15 ESALs
4
3x107 13.5
When added together, all LEFs = 3.35 ESALs. So for every
pass across a pavement, this truck exerts 3.35 80 kN
(18,000 lbs) ESALs. typical levels of municipal traffic up to a maximum of 10
To put automobile axle loads into perspective, the axle million ESALs. The designer needs to select the appropriate
loads of one passenger car placed into the formula yields traffic level and design life. The typical initial design life
about 0.0002 ESALs. Therefore, pavement design primar- for municipal pavements is on the order of 20 to 40 years.
ily considers trucks and busses because they exert the Subgrade Characterization—The next step is for the
highest loads and most damage. In contrast, thousands of designer to characterize the subgrade soil and drainage
cars are required to apply the same loading and damage for the purpose of selecting a subgrade strength. Typi-
as one passage of a truck. cally the resilient modulus or Mr (AASHTO T-274) is used
The more axles on trucks the better, since tandem axles to describe the strength of the subgrade soil. This can be
spread loads over a wider area and render lower damage determined directly from laboratory testing. Other means
for each pass of the vehicle over a pavement. Another to characterize soil strength include California Bearing Ratio
way to illustrate this is one single axle load of 36,000 lbs or CBR (ASTM D1883) and R-value (ASTM D2844) tests. The
(160 kN) exerts the same damage as 16 passes of a single relationship of Mr, CBR and R-value of subgrade soils are
axle load of 18,000 lbs (80 kN) or (36/18)4 = 16. Therefore, illustrated in Figure 6 which also includes strength ranges

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 5

Table 2. AASHTO Lifetime ESALs (Caltrans TI) D2487). Soil categories in
ESAL (TI) Table 3 are from the stan-
Commercial/ dard and are provided to
Road Class Arterial Major Minor the user for guidance only.
Multi-Family
or Major Streets Collectors Collectors Actual laboratory char-
Locals
acterization of subgrade
7,500,000 2,800,000 1,300,000 430,000
Urban properties for each project
(11.4) (10.2) (9.3) (8.1)
is recommended. Design-
3,600,000 1,500,000 550,000 280,000
Rural ers are cautioned against
(10.5) (9.4) (8.4) (7.7)
making generalizations.
Once the general sub-
for soils classified using the Unified (ASTM D2487), and grade type has been selected, then the drainage quality of
AASHTO methods. the subgrade and pavement structure is characterized (See
The ASCE standard utilizes eight categories of subgrade Table 4). Depending on the type of subgrade, the strength
quality ranging from good quality gravels and rock with of the pavement may be reduced if there is excess water
excellent drainage to poor quality clay materials that are in the subgrade. The standard includes an adjustment to
semi-impervious to water. Subgrade types are classified the resilient modulus of the subgrade based on the overall
according to the Unified Soils Classification method (ASTM quality of the pavement drainage, as shown in Table 5.

Subgrade Soil Poor Medium Good Excellent

Category

Mr (ksi) 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 15 20 30 40 50 60

1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 40 60 80 100
CBR (%)

Figure 6. Typical Resilient

1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 30 40 60 80 100 Modulus Correlations to
R-Value
Empirical Soil Properties
A-1-b A-1-a and Classification
A-2-7 A-2-6 A-2-5 A-2-4 Categories. From Guide
A-3 for Mechanistic-Empirical
AASHTO Soil A-4
Classification Design of New and
A-5
(M-145) Rehabilitated Pavement
A-6
A-7-6 A-7-5 Structures, Appendix CC-1:
“Correlation of CBR Values
CH with Soil Index Properties,”
MH National Cooperative
CL
ML
Highway Research
SW Program, Transportation
SP
Research Board, National
Unified Soil SW -SC
Classification SW - SM Research Council, authored
(ASTM 02487) SP - SC by ARA, Inc., Champaign,
SP - SM
Illinois, March 2001. Chart
SC
SM is modified from the
GW National Asphalt Pavement
GP
GW - GC Association Information
GW - GM Series 117, “Guidelines
GP - GC
for Use of HMA Overlays
GP - GM
GC to Rehabilitate PCC
GM Pavements,” 1994.

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 6

Figure 1. Typical Resilient Modulus Correlations to Empirical Soil Properties and
Classification Categories.
(Modified from NAPA Information Series 117, "Guidelines for Use of
HMA Overlays to Rehabilitate PCC Pavements", 1994)
Table 3. General Soil Categories and Properties (ASCE 2010)

Category Unified Soil Drainage Susceptibility to

Brief Description
No. Classification Characteristics Frost Action
Rock, rock fill, shattered rock, boulders/
1 Boulders/cobbles Excellent None
cobbles
Well graded gravels and sands suitable
2 GW, SW Excellent Negligible
as granular borrow
3 GP, SP Poorly graded gravels and sands Excellent to fair Negligible to slight
Fair to Slight to
4 GM, SM Silty gravels and sands
semi-impervious moderate
Practically impervi-
5 GC, SC Clayey gravels and sands Negligible to slight
ous
6 ML, MI Silts and sandy silts Typically poor Severe
Low plasticity clays and compressible Practically
7 CL, MH Slight to severe
silts impervious
Semi-impervious to
8 CI, CH Medium to high plasticity clays Negligible to severe
impervious

Table 4. Pavement Drainage According to Soil Category

abrasion) and a maximum loss of 40% when tested in ac-
(ASCE 2010)
cordance with ASTM C 131 or CSA A23.2-17A (Los Angeles
Quality of Soil Category No. abrasion).
Time to Drain
Drainage from Table 3 The required plasticity index is a maximum of 6 and the
Good 1 day 1,2,3 maximum liquid limit of 25 when tested in accordance with
ASTM D4318 and AASHTO T-89 and T-90. For constructabil-
Fair 7 days 3,4
ity purposes, the minimum design unbound base thick-
Poor 1 month 4,5,6,7,8 ness is 4 in. (100 mm) for traffic less than 500,000 ESALs
and 6 in. (150 mm) for 500,000 or higher ESALs. Figure
Selection of Base Material—The next step in the de- 7 illustrates a typical cross section with an unstabilized,
sign process is selecting the type of base material for the dense-graded base.
pavement. The standard supports the use of bound and For bound or treated bases, asphalt-treated base (ATB)
unbound bases. and cement-treated base (CTB) materials and installation are
For unbound dense-graded bases, the aggregates are required to conform to provincial, state or local specifica-
required to be crushed, angular materials. Crushed ag- tions for a dense-graded, compacted, asphalt concrete. ATB
gregate bases used in highway construction are generally material is required to have a minimum Marshall stability
suitable for interlocking concrete
pavement, and unbound base ma- Table 5. Resilient Modulus (Mr), R-Values and CBRs for Subgrade Drainage
terials should meet the local state, Conditions (ASCE 2010)
provincial or municipal standards Drainage
governing base materials.
Good Fair Poor
Where local specifications are Category
Mr Mr Mr
unavailable, the base material is R CBR R CBR R CBR
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
required to meet the gradation
requirements according to ASTM 1 90 21 13 80 19 11 70 16 9
D 2940. Table 6 includes these re- 2 80 19 11 70 16 9 50 11 5
quirements. The minimum required
3 70 16 9 50 11 5 35 7 3
strength of the unbound base is a
CBR of 80% or equivalent bearing 4 50 11 5 35 7 3 30 6 2
strength as described by the test 5 40 8 4 30 6 2 25 4 2
methods in Section 3.6 of the stan-
dard. Unbound base materials are 6 30 6 2 25 4 2 18 3 1
required to have a maximum loss 7 27 5 2 20 3 1 15 2 1
of 60% when tested in accordance
8 25 4 2 20 3 1 15 2 1
with CSA A23.2-29A (Micro-Deval

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 7

Table 6. ASTM D 2940 Gradation for Unbound Aggregate Bases and Subbases

Design Range* Job Mix Tolerances

Sieve Size (Mass Percentages Passing) (Mass Percentages Passing)
(square openings)
Bases Subbases Bases Subbases

2 in. (50 mm) 100 100 -2 -3

11/2 in. (37.5 mm) 95 to 100 90 to 100 ±5 +5

3/4 in. (19 mm) 70 to 92 ±8
3/8 in. (9.5 mm) 50 to 70 ±8

No. 4 (4.75 mm) 35 to 55 30 to 60 ±8 ±10

No. 30 (0.600 mm) 12 to 25 ±5

No. 200 (0.075 mm) 0 to 8** 0 to 12** ±3 ±5

*Select the Job Mix Formula with due regard to the availability of materials and service requirements of project.
Test results outside the design range are not prohibited, provided they are within the job mix tolerances.
**Determine by wet sieving. Where local environmental conditions (temperature and availability of free moisture)
indicate that in order to prevent damage by frost action it is necessary to have lower percentages passing the
No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve than permitted in Table 6, appropriate lower percentages shall be specified. When
specified, the material having a diameter smaller than 0.020 mm shall not exceed 3% mass.

CURB PAVER

12 IN. (300 mm) WIDE GEOTEXTILE

ALONG PERIMETER. TURN UP
AGAINST CURB

BEDDING SAND

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

AGGREGATE BASE PER LOCAL STANDARDS
WITH 90 DEGREE FACE
DETAIL 'A'
CONCRETE PAVER
3 1/8 IN. (80 mm) MIN THICKNESS

12 IN. (300 mm) WIDE GEOTEXTILE

ALONG PERIMETER TURN UP
WALK / GRASS AGAINST CURB. SEE DETAIL 'A'

1 IN. (25 mm) BEDDING SAND

COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE

COMPACTED SOIL SUBGRADE

GEOTEXTILE AS REQUIRED

DRAIN SURROUNDED BY
OPEN-GRADED AGGREGATE
AND GEOTEXTILE AS REQUIRED

Figure 7: Typical cross section with an unstabilized, dense-graded base

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 8

of 1,800 lbf (8000 N) per ASTM D5 or AASHTO T-49. Use cal road agencies may also use open-graded subbases for
of the appropriate asphalt (performance grade) cement drainage. Where local specifications are unavailable, the
binder for local climate conditions is also recommended. subbase is required to meet the gradation requirements
For example, a state department of transportation Super- according to ASTM D2940 noted in Table 6. The required
pave intermediate binder course mix required for interstate minimum strength of the unbound subbase is a CBR of
or primary roads may be adequate. Cement-treated base 40% per ASTM D1883. The required plasticity index is a
material is required to have a minimum 7-day unconfined maximum of 10 and the maximum liquid limit of 25 accord-
compressive strength of 650 psi (4.5 MPa) per ASTM D4320 ing to ASTM D4318 and AASHTO T-90.
and D4219. For constructability purposes, the minimum Compaction Requirements—Compaction of the sub-
bound base thickness for design purposes is set at 4 in. grade soil during con­struction should be at least 95%
(100 mm). Figure 8 illustrates a typical cross section with Standard Proctor Density as tested using AASHTO T-99
treated bases or an asphalt base and drainage holes. or ASTM D 698 for cohesive (clay) soils and at least 95%
Asphalt bases should conform to typical provincial, state Modified Proctor density as tested using AASHTO T-180 or
or municipal material and construction specifications for ASTM D 1557 for cohesionless (sandy and gravelly) soils.
asphalt pavements. This layer does not require a surface The higher compaction standards described in T-180 or D
riding layer of fine aggregate and consists of coarser 1557 are preferred. The effective depth of compaction for
aggregates and asphalt cement. The asphalt base layer all cases should be at least the top 12 in. (300 mm). Soils
thicknesses noted in Table 11 vary between 2 in. (50 mm) having an Mr of 4,500 psi (31 MPa) or less (CBR of 3% or
and 8.5 in. (220 mm) depending on traffic, soil category less or R value of 8 or less) should be evaluated for replace-
and drainage conditions. ment with a higher bearing strength material, installation
Subbase Materials—Aggregates for subbase are of an aggregate subbase capping layer, improvement by
crushed, angular materials typically used in highway con- stabilization or use of geotextiles or geogrids. ATB and
struction are generally suitable for interlocking concrete CTB density testing should conform to provincial, state or
pavement. All bound or treated bases are constructed local requirements. In-place density testing of all of the soil
over 4 to 8 in. (100 to 200 mm) unbound dense-graded subgrade and pavement layers should be included in the
aggregate base as described above. Unbound subbase project construction specifications and documented with
materials are required to meet the local state, provincial written testing reports. Density tests on the site project
or municipal standards governing subbase materials. Lo- as part of construction quality control are critical to pave-

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE PAVER
3 1/8 IN. (80 mm) MIN. THICKNESS

1 IN. (25 mm) BEDDING SAND

WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER JOINTS

AND CTB – TURN UP AT CURB (NOT
USED ON ATB)
ASPHALT-TREATED BASE (ATB),
CEMENT-TREATED BASE (CTB),
ASPHALT OR CONCRETE BASE

COMPACTED AGGREGATE SUBBASE

COMPACTED SOIL SUBGRADE

2 IN. (50 MM) DIA. DRAIN HOLE–
LOCATE AT LOWEST ELEVATIONS
Figure 8. Drain detail in treated bases AND FILL WITH PEA GRAVEL

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 9

 Table 7. Recommended Bedding Sand Gradation

Gradation for Bedding Sand

ASTM C33 CSA A23.1 FA1
Sieve Size Percent Passing Sieve Size Percent Passing
3/8 in.(9.5 mm) 100 10.0 mm 100

No. 4 (4.75 mm) 95 to 100 5.0 mm 95 to 100

No. 8 (2.36 mm) 80 to 100 2.5 mm 80 to 100

No. 16 (1.18 mm) 50 to 85 1.25 mm 50 to 90

No. 30 (0.6 mm) 25 to 60 630 µm 25 to 65

No. 50 (0.3 mm) 5 to 30 315 µm 10 to 35

No. 100 (0.15 mm) 0 to 10 160 µm 2 to 10

No. 200 (0.075 mm) 0 to 1 80 µm 0 to 1

Note: Bedding sands should conform to ASTM C33 or CSA A23.1 FA1 gradations for concrete sand. For ASTM C33, ICPI recommends
the additional limitations on the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve as shown. For CSA A23.1 FA1, ICPI recommends reducing the maximum
passing the 80 μm sieve from 3% to 1%.

ment performance. Difficult to compact areas can include than 3/4 in. [20 mm] after compaction) may not produce
areas next to curbs, other pavements, and around utility the locking up action obtained by sand migration upward
structures. Such areas may require additional compaction into the joints during the initial compaction in construc-
or use of manual equipment to achieve specified densities. tion. The bedding layer should conform to the gradation
Structural Contribution of the Concrete Pavers and in ASTM C 33, as shown in Table 7. Do not use screenings
Bedding Sand Layer—Research using accelerated traffic or stone dust. The sand should be as hard as practically
studies and non-destructive structural testing in the United available and the particle shape should be sub-angular.
States and overseas has shown that the combined paver ICPI Tech Spec 17–Bedding Sand Selection for Interlocking
and sand layers stiffen while exposed to greater numbers Concrete Pavements in Vehicular Applications provides
of axle loads. The progressive stiffening that results in additional information on gradation and test criteria on
“lock up” generally occurs early in the life of the pave- selecting bedding sands for pavements subject to 1.5 mil-
ment, before 10,000 ESALs (Rada 1990). Once this number lion lifetime ESALs or higher.
of loads has been applied, Mr = 450,000 psi (3,100 MPa) Joint sand provides vertical interlock and shear transfer
for the combined 3 1/8 in. (80 mm) thick paver and 1 in. (25 of loads. It can be slightly finer than the bedding sand.
mm) of bedding sand. Pavement stiffening and stabilizing Gradation for joint material should comply with ASTM
can be accelerated by static proof-rolling with an 8–10 ton C144 or CSA A179 with a maximum 100% passing the No.
(8–10 T) rubber tired roller. 16 (1.18 mm) sieve and no more than 5% passing the No.
The above resilient modulus is similar to that of an 200 (0.075 mm) sieve. Bedding sand may be used for joint
equivalent thickness of asphalt. The 3 1/8 in. (80 mm) thick sand. Additional effort in filling the joints during compaction
pavers and 1 in. (25 mm) thick bedding sand together have may be required due to its coarser gradation.
an AASHTO layer coefficient at least equal to the same thick- Concrete Paver Selection—Concrete pavers are required
ness of asphalt, i.e., 0.44 per inch (25 mm). This renders to conform to the product requirements of ASTM C936
an AASHTO Structural Number or SN of 4.125 in. x 0.44 = Standard Specification for Solid Interlocking Paving Units in
1.82 for this pavement layer. The recommended Caltrans the United States and CSA A231.2 Precast Concrete Pavers
Gravel Equivalency (GE) for the concrete paver layer = 2 in Canada. For this ASCE standard, pavers must have an
and unlike asphalt the GE for concrete pavers does not aspect ratio (overall length/thickness) less than or equal
decrease with increasing TIs. The modulus or stiffness of to 3:1 and a minimum thickness of 3 1/8 in. (80 mm). A 45
the concrete paver layer will not substantially decrease or 90-degree herringbone laying pattern is recommended
as temperature increases nor will they become brittle in with sailor courses at the perimeter. No less than one-
cold climates. The surfacing can withstand loads without third of a cut paver should be exposed to tire traffic. The
distress and deterioration in temperature extremes. designer is advised that alternative laying patterns may be
Bedding and Joint Sand Selection—Bedding sand thick- considered as long as they are functionally and structur-
ness should be consistent throughout the pavement and ally equivalent. Other shapes than rectangular pavers can
not exceed 1 in. (25 mm) after compaction. A thicker sand be considered in the design with the responsibility of the
layer will not provide stability. Very thin sand layers (less design engineer to confirm that the structural capacity is

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 10

Table 8. Design Tables for Granular Base
GRANULAR BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80 % reliability)

ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000

Pavement
Caltrans Traffic Index 5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 225 350
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 1

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 100 150 175 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 375
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 325 450
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 100 150 175 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 375
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 2

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 325 450
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 125 200 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 300 450 600
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 325 450
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 3

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 125 200 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 300 450 600
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 200 325 450 625 750
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 100 125 200 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 300 450 600
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 4

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 200 325 450 625 750
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 125 175 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 200 275 375 500 700 825
Subbase

(Table continues on p. 12)

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 11

Table 8—Continued from p. 11

GRANULAR BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)

ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement
Caltrans Traffic Index 5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 100 125 175 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 375 550 700
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 5

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 125 175 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 200 275 375 500 700 825
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 150 200 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 275 325 450 600 775 925
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 125 175 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 200 275 375 500 700 825
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 6

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 150 200 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 275 325 450 600 775 925
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 150 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 175 275 375 475 600 750 950 1100
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 150 200 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 250 300 425 550 750 875
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 7

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 125 200 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 250 350 425 550 700 875 1050
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 125 175 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 225 350 450 550 700 825 1025 1200
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 100 150 200 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 275 325 450 600 775 925
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 8

Fair Unbound Dense-graded Base 100 125 200 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 250 350 425 550 700 875 1050
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Unbound Dense-graded Base 125 175 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 225 350 450 550 700 825 1025 1200
Subbase

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 12

Table 9. Design table for asphalt treated base
ASPHALT TREATED BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)
ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index
  5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 175
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 1

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 200
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 200
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 2

Fair Unbound Dense-graded

100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 3

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 300 450
Subbase

(Table continues on p. 14)

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 13
Table 9—Continued from p. 13
ASPHALT TREATED BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)
ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index 5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 4

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 300 450
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 375 525
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 200 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 375
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 5

Fair Unbound Dense-graded

100 100 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 375 525
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 175 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 475 625
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 375 525
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 6

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 175 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 475 625
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 150 300 425 625 800
Subbase

(Table continues on p. 15)

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 14
Table 9—Continued from p. 14
ASPHALT TREATED BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)
ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index 5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 250 425 575
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 7

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 125 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 150 250 375 575 725
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 125 200 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 250 375 525 725 900
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 175 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 475 625
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 8

Fair Unbound Dense-graded

100 100 100 100 125 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 150 250 375 575 725
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Asphalt Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 125 200 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 250 375 525 725 900
Subbase

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 15

Table 10. Design table for cement treated base
CEMENT TREATED BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)
ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index
  5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 1

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 175 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 225
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 175 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 2

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 225
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 200 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 375
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 225
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 3

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 200 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 375
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 225 400 525
Subbase

(Table continues on p. 17)

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 16

Table 10—Continued from p. 16
CEMENT TREATED BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)
ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index
  5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 200 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 375
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 4

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 225 400 525
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 175 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 475 600
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 175 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 325 475
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 5

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 175 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 475 600
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 125 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 150 225 375 550 700
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 175 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 275 475 600
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 6

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 125 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 150 225 375 550 700
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 250 375 525 725 875
Subbase

(Table continues on p. 18)

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 17

Table 10—Continued from p. 17

CEMENT TREATED BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)

ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index
  5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 125 200 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 325 525 675
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 7

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 125 175 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 200 325 475 675 825
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 175 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 250 325 475 600 825 975
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Good Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 125 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 150 225 375 550 700
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Category 8

Fair Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 125 175 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 0 200 325 475 675 825
Subbase
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Cement Treated Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Poor Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 175 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Unbound Dense-graded 0 0 0 0 250 325 475 600 825 975
Subbase

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 18

Table 11. Design table for asphalt concrete base
ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)
ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index
  5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 1

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 70
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60
Unbound Dense-graded
Base 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 2

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 70

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 80 100
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 70
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 3

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 80 100

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 70 110 140
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 80 100
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 4

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 70 110 140

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 90 120 150
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base

(Table continues on p. 20)

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 19

Table 11—Continued from p. 19
ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE THICKNESSES (mm) (80% reliability)
ESALs (x 1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Pavement Caltrans Traffic Index
  5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 9.8 10.9 11.8
Drainage
Layer Type  
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 100 120
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 5

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 90 120 150

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 80 100 140 170
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 90 120 150
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 6

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 80 100 140 170

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 70 80 110 130 170 210
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 70 100 130 160
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 7

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 60 70 100 120 160 200

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 60 80 90 120 150 190 230
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Good Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 50 50 80 100 140 170
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Category 8

Fair Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 50 60 70 100 120 160 200

Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base
Pavers and Bedding 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Poor Asphalt Concrete Base 50 50 50 60 80 90 120 150 190 230
Unbound Dense-graded 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150
Base

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 20

at least equal to the AASHTO structural number layer coef- Other Design Considerations and
ficient (SN) of the 0.44 for the pavers and bedding sand Construction Details
layer used in the standard, either by testing or confirmation Guidance is also provided on proper detailing around utility
from the manufacturer. ICPI takes a conservative approach structures, including edge detailing with sailor and soldier
by not recognizing differences among paver shapes with courses. Particular emphasis is given to drainage details
respect to structural and functional performance. Certain for unbound aggregate and treated bases. This benefits
manufacturers may have materials and data that discuss pavement life and performance for all structural designs
the potential benefits of shapes that impact functional and and the details are unique to interlocking concrete pave-
structural performance in vehicular applications. ments as shown in Figures 7 and 8. For further details,
Subbase Thickness and Final Pavement Structural design considerations, best practices and maintenance
Design—The required subbase thickness is determined procedures designers are directed to the ICPI Tech Spec
based on the design reliability, design life, estimated traffic, series and detail drawings available at www.icpi.org. The
subgrade soil type, pavement structure drainage and base designer is also encouraged to address how interlocking
type selected. Subbase thicknesses are determined from concrete pavement can contribute to sustainability through
one of the four design tables. The design tables provide applying the Leadership in Energy and Environmental De-
structural design thicknesses primarily for unbound bases sign (LEED®) credit system. Additional information on LEED®
(granular base), ATB, and CTB. However, a thickness design credits can be found in ICPI Tech Spec 16–Achieving LEED®
table is also provided for asphalt concrete (AC) bases to Credits with Segmental Concrete Pavement.
reduce thick pavement structures associated with high traf-
fic/low subgrade strength conditions. In the development Computerized Solutions
of the AC table, an AASHTO structural layer coefficient of The preceding design example and most interlocking con-
0.44 has been assumed for AC. For AC layer coefficients crete pavement for parking lots and roads can be designed
other than 0.44, the designer is advised to consult the with “Interlocking Concrete Pavement Structural Design
1993 AASHTO Guide. Tables 8 through 11 show the design Program” that uses Excel-based software. The software is
tables for unbound granular base, ATB, CTB and AC for based on the ASCE 58-10 design standard and generates
80% reliability factor using the 1993 AASHTO Guide. This thickness solutions for unbound aggregate base, asphalt-
reliability factor is slightly higher than the 75% in the ASCE and cement-treated, and asphalt concrete bases.
Standard and tables and in some cases can result in slightly ICPI Lockpave software is another a computer program
thicker subbases, specifically in weak soils. for calculating pavement base thicknesses for parking lot,
street, industrial, and port applications. User designated
Design Example inputs include traffic loads, soils, drainage, environmental
Design examples are given with good soil conditions (sub- conditions and a variety of ways for characterizing the
grade category 4) and, fair drainage, with lifetime traffic of strength of pavement materials. Parking lot and street pave-
5,000,000 ESALs. Designs developed for these conditions ment thickness can be calculated using the 1993 AASHTO
are shown in Table 12. flexible pavement design procedure (an empirical design
method) or a mechanistic, layered elastic analysis that
computes projected stresses and strains in the pavement
Table 12. Material thickness (mm) results for design
example structure modified by empirical factors.
Outputs include pavement thickness using different
Unbound combinations of unbound and bound bases/subbases.
ATB CTB AC
Base
Base thicknesses can be calculated for new construction
Pavers and and for rehabilitated asphalt streets using an overlay of
105 105 105 105
Bedding
concrete pavers. After a pavement structure has been
ATB n/a 100 n/a n/a designed, the user can project life-cycle costs by defining
initial and lifetime (maintenance and rehabilitation) cost
CTB n/a n/a 100 n/a estimates. Design options with initial and maintenance
costs plus discount rates can be examined for selection
AC n/a n/a n/a 110
of an optimal design from a budget standpoint. Sensitivity
analysis can be conducted on key cost variables on various
Unbound Base 150 150 150 150
base designs. For further information on both software
Unbound Subbase 625 300 400 n/a programs, contact ICPI members, ICPI offices or visit the
web site www.icpi.org.

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 21

Geosynthetics soils. Geogrids are sometimes used in very soft, wet and
Geotextiles, geogrids and cellular confinement systems slowly draining soils. Cellular confinement systems filled
are seeing increased use in pavements. Geotextile se- with base materials and placed over the compacted soil
lection and use should follow the guidance provided in subgrade have been used to reduce base thicknesses.
AASHTO M288. Geotextiles are placed over the top of the Manufacturer’s literature should be consulted for guidance
compacted soil subgrade and separate the soil from the on reduction of base thickness given anticipated traffic
base materials. These are recommended over silt and clay and soil conditions.

Rigid Pavement Design with Interlocking Concrete Pavers

Rigid pavements consisting of Portland cement concrete results in closing and opening of the joints in the pave-
(PCC) slabs distribute loads to the compacted soil subgrade ment. As expansion and contraction are proportional to
through flexure, or bending action. In such pavements the the length of the slab, the movement range increases with
load spreading is primarily a function of the thickness of greater joint spacing. Movement is also proportional to
the slab and the flexural strength of the PCC. Base materi- the temperature range, so this also requires consideration
als are often placed under the slab to provide additional when designing the joints. Typically concrete can expand
structural support and drainage. or contract by about 1/16 in. (1.5 mm) for every 10 ft (3
When PCC slabs are used as a base under concrete pav- m) over an 80°F (27° C) temperature change. Pavement
ers, the structural contribution of the concrete pavers is temperatures generally fluctuate over a wider range than
often ignored by designers. The following sections provide air temperatures.
a design method that includes some structural contribution Thickness design for PCC pavements for low-speed roads
by concrete pavers and bedding materials over PCC slabs and parking lots is typically done according to the 1993
as well as over roller compacted concrete. This pavement AASHTO Guide or to local adaptations. Different equations
assembly requires consideration of the bedding materials, are used for the design of rigid pavements than those
prevention of bedding sand loss and avoiding discontinuities for flexible pavements. The thickness of PCC pavements
over slab joints. Detailing that addresses these aspects is determined to resist wheel loads imposed by the pre-
are also covered in the following sections. dicted traffic. Thickness depends on the soil conditions,
the type of subbase, the edge conditions, the reliability
Background to PCC Pavements requirements and the number of 18,000 lb (80 kN) ESAL
There are three main types of PCC pavement; jointed repetitions. Some design considerations follow and thick-
concrete pavements (JCP), jointed reinforced concrete ness design is covered in greater detail later.
pavements (JRCP) and continuously reinforced concrete
pavements (CRCP). Although other types are used, this Jointed Concrete Pavement
Tech Spec will only address these three PCC systems. The In a jointed concrete pavement (JCP) the joints are placed
differences among them are primarily in how environmen- at relatively close centers so that curing shrinkage does
tal effects are controlled such as moisture change and not lead to random cracking, and that joint widths are
temperature changes, including curing and environmental restricted to acceptable limits. The joints may have load
factors. These factors affect the reinforcement and joint- transfer devices such as steel dowel bars (doweled JCP),
ing arrangements with little change in the slab thickness. or the interlocking of the aggregate particles on each face
As concrete cures and dries, water in small pores within of the joint may be sufficient to transfer the loads from
the cement creates surface tension. This force pulls the one side of the joint to the other (plain JCP).
pore walls closer together causing the volume of the ce- The joint spacing is dependent upon the thickness of
ment paste to shrink. This action reduces the entire paving the concrete. A general rule of thumb is that the joint
slab size slightly. As the slabs are partially restrained by spacing should not exceed thirty times the slab thickness
friction from the underlying base or soil subgrade, tensile and should in no case exceed 20 ft (6 m). Individual panels
stresses develop that can result in shrinkage cracks. The should generally have a length of no more than 1.25 times
stress from shrinkage is proportional to the length of the the width. For doweled joints the joint spacings are typi-
section of pavement. To control the shrinkage it is therefore cally between 10 and 20 ft (3 and 6 m) with joint widths
necessary to provide joints at sufficiently close centers to potentially up to 1/8 in. (3 mm). For plain joints, the joint
keep the shrinkage stresses below the tensile strength spacings are typically 10 to 15 ft (3 to 4.5 m) with joint
of the concrete. Alternatively, reinforcement can be used widths of up to 1/16 in. (1.5 mm). This type of pavement is
to increase the tensile strength of the pavement so that the best solution as a base under interlocking concrete
greater joint spacing can be used. pavers.
As concrete pavements heat up the slabs expand, and
when they cool the concrete contracts. This movement

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 22

Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement grid pattern with joints meeting edges of the pavement at
Jointed reinforced concrete pavements are designed with no less than 60 degrees. Joints should not dead-end at
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement to accommodate another joint. They should be detailed to prevent ingress
the tensile stresses that arise during curing. This enables of moisture and infiltration of foreign mater.
greater joint spacing to be achieved, but results in wider There are three basic joint types that are formed during
joint opening. As such, aggregate interlock cannot be pouring or induced shortly afterwards. These are contrac-
relied upon and all joints require load transfer devices tion joints, expansion joints and isolation joints. Each are
such as dowels. The reinforcement is typically located at described below and how they should be detailed when
about mid-depth in the slab so it does not increase the under interlocking concrete pavement.
load capacity of the concrete section, As such, the same
thickness of slab is required as for jointed concrete pave- Contraction Joints
ments. Joint spacings are typically 15 to 60 ft (4.5 to 18 Contraction joints provide a release for tensile stress in the
m) with joint widths of up to 1/2 in. (13 mm). Intermediate pavement as the concrete contracts during curing. When
joints are usually included to enable construction activities they are induced in the interior of a pour of concrete they
and to control warping of the slabs. are often referred to as weakened plane joints as they
Warping occurs when there is a temperature difference cause a crack to occur in a defined position. In addition to
between the top and the bottom of the concrete that causes being formed during pouring, weakened plane joints may
it to curl. The intermediate joints are typically spaced at be induced by early sawing, or by inserting crack-inducing
10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m) and include tie bars to keep the two plastic strips. Their placement controls where the tensile
sides of the joint from moving relative to each other. Large failure will occur so that the resulting cracks are in pre-
joint spacings can be problematic under pavers as joint defined positions, preventing random cracking. They can
movement reflects to the surface resulting in bedding sand be oriented in the transverse and longitudinal directions
loss and localized settlement and loosening of the pavers. relative to the pavement. The spacing of the joints is de-
termined based upon the materials used, the thickness
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement of the slab and the local environmental conditions, as
Continuously reinforced concrete pavements are designed described above. Load transfer devices are used when the
with a greater amount of longitudinal reinforcement so joint opening is too wide to permit aggregate interlock.
that they can be constructed without transverse joints. The Contraction joints should be covered with minimum 12 in.
same thickness of slab is required as for jointed concrete (300 mm) wide woven geotextile strips to prevent bedding
pavements as the reinforcement does not increase the load sand loss under concrete pavers.
capacity of the pavement. There is a general acceptance
that transverse cracking will occur, however, the cracks Expansion Joints
are held tightly together by the longitudinal reinforce- Expansion joints perform in the same way as contraction
ment. The cracks are initially widely spaced, but with full joints but are also used to accommodate any longitudinal
curing, subsequent traffic and temperature changes, the or transverse expansion of the pavement that exceeds the
cracks may develop as closely spaced as 2 ft (0.6 m). Minor drying shrinkage. A compressible filler board absorbs any
opening and closing of these joints are generally consid- compressive stresses induced in the concrete by expan-
ered to accommodate the expansion and contraction of sion. Where possible, their use is minimized with their
the pavement. Reinforcement in the transverse direction most frequent location being at changes in the pavement
is generally similar to that in jointed reinforced concrete construction and at intersections or other fixed structures
pavements. Longitudinal joints are constructed in a similar in the pavement surface. In some cases the joint may also
fashion to jointed reinforced concrete pavements. They need to accommodate lateral movement. Expansion joints
may have tie bars or dowels depending on the pavement should generally be carried through the paver surfacing
width. Excessive spacing of longitudinal movement joints with the installation of edge restraints on either side.
may result in localized issues with the overlying pavers.
Isolation Joints
Joints Isolation joints are used in locations where movements in
As described above, the joints in a concrete pavement the pavement are to be isolated from an adjacent feature.
control cracking from curing shrinkage and to permit move- They may be used against a building, a utility structure
ment caused by moisture and temperature changes. The or other feature where vertical and horizontal movement
joints should be located so that they provide adequate load could impose unwanted load into that feature. They are
transfer across each from aggregate interlock or from load normally formed by including a compressible filler board
transfer devices. Joints are typically laid out in a rectangular without any load transfer devices. Isolation joints do not
generally experience significant movement and they should

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 23

Table 13. Approximate relationships among Mr*, CBR considered to be significant for design of interlocking
and k-value in pounds per cubic inch (MPa/m) concrete pavements over concrete.

Design Mr, psi Design CBR, Design k-value, Soil Subgrade Support
(MPa) % pci The AASHTO design method for rigid pavements uses the
3,000 (20.6) 1.3 155 (42) soil subgrade property known as the Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction or k-value. This value is determined using a plate
5,000 (34.4) 2.8 258 (70) load test that is different than those described above in
the flexible pavement section. The test is described in ASTM
7,000 (48.2) 4.8 361 (98)
D1194 or AASHTO T-235. It involves placing a 30 in. (0.76
10,000 (68.9) 8.4 515 (140) m) diameter rigid plate on the subgrade and measuring
the deflection of the soil as the load on the plate is gradu-
15,000 (103.4) 15.8 773 (210) ally increased. The k-value is determined as the pressure
divided by the deflection at during certain points in the
20,000 (137.8) 25 1,031 (280)
test. The test is rarely carried out and alternative means
25,000 (172.3) 35.3 1,289 (350) are generally used to establish the design value.
The design k-value is considered at the underside of the
30,000 (206.8) 47 1,546 (420)
concrete, and includes the effects of any subbase layers.
*Mr=2,555 x (CBR)0.64, Mr is in psi The AASHTO method also includes seasonal changes of
Mr=17.61 x (CBR)0.64, Mr is in MPa subgrade strength and the proximity of rock to the surface
to develop a composite k-value for design. This provides
a wide range of k-values although the designed thickness
be covered with a woven geotextile to prevent bedding has low sensitivity to this property. As such, the design
sand loss. charts in this Tech Spec are simplified to use an approximate
relationship between the design resilient modulus (Mr)
Roller Compacted Concrete Background
and the k-value. The design values are listed in Table 13.
Roller compacted concrete (RCC) behaves in a similar
The values stated assume no subbase is present and that
fashion to jointed concrete pavement and may be used as
the depth to a rigid rock layer exceeds 10 ft (3 m). Where
an alternative base under interlocking concrete pavement.
soils are known to be prone to pumping under concrete
Fresh RCC consists of a semi-dry concrete spread through
pavements, a minimum of 4 in. (100 mm) of compacted
a modified asphalt paving machine. PCC aggregates are
aggregate subbase material over the subgrade is recom-
used in the mix and the final strength is similar paving
mended prior to casting the concrete. This thickness is
quality concrete.
also recommended with soils with an Mr < 7,000 psi (48
Mix designs are prepared in the laboratory to determine
MPa) or CBR < 5%.
compressive strength and maximum density. Compres-
sive strengths of 3,000 to 5,000 psi (20 to 35 MPa) may Pavement Materials
be specified. Compaction is initially done by the paving Most states, provinces and municipalities have material and
machine and finally by rollers until the target density is construction standards for concrete pavements. However,
achieved. This is typically 98% of modified Proctor density. material requirements vary among jurisdictions, particularly
RCC may be placed without joints, or joints can be induced regarding material strengths. The design tables on the
on a regular grid. When joints are not planned, the roller following pages presenting the rigid pavement base layer
compacted concrete develops a network of narrow cracks thicknesses are based upon typical values encountered
during curing. The curing shrinkage is far less than for PCC in many standards.
pavements so the joints and cracks transfer loads by ag- There are two properties used in the AASHTO design
gregate interlock. Design thicknesses are similar to those method to characterize PCC pavements; flexural strength
for PCC pavements. and the elastic modulus. Typically pavement quality concrete
is specified with a flexural strength, although compressive
Traffic
strength is occasionally substituted. The flexural strength
The AASHTO equations for pavement design express ser-
should be determined using beam specimens loaded at
viceability loss as a measure of pavement damage. The
third points as described in ASTM C78 or AASHTO T-97. If
damaging effect of axles is different between the flexible
compressive strength is the only requirement available,
and the rigid pavement equations. This is reflected in the
the designer can use Table 14 to provide an approximate
AASHTO design method by having a different flexible ESAL
correlation. The elastic modulus of concrete is rarely speci-
values to rigid ESAL values, however the difference is not
fied and so typical relationships to flexural or compressive

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 24

strengths are required and are provided in Table 14. The Woven geotextiles are recommended to cover the
AASHTO design equation is based upon the average value joints and cracks in the PCC base to prevent bedding sand
of flexural strength, which will be slightly higher than the loss. Since they are manufactured from plastics such as
specified value. When PCC is used as a base under concrete polypropylene and polyester, the materials are stable and
pavers it is usually not necessary to include an air entrain- resistant to many chemicals encountered in the ground,
ing agent. The pavers provide protection against damage and also to the deteriorating effects of sunlight. Woven
from frost action. geotextiles are preferred for use directly under the bedding
Reinforcement is not considered in the AASHTO design sand as they maintain their integrity under loads exerting
equation for determining the PCC pavement thickness. abrasion on the concrete. The important property in geo-
However, the type of reinforcement is important in deter- textiles for preventing sand loss is the apparent opening
mining the required bar sizes and centers and the spacing size or AOS. Woven geotextiles with an apparent opening
of joints. Typically, reinforcing bars and tie bars are Grade size of 0.300 mm to 0.600 mm are generally suitable. As
60 deformed bars in size numbers #4, #5 or #6. However, noted earlier geotextiles are applied to joints in minimum
Grade 40 steel may be used. As jointed concrete pavement 12 in. (300 mm) wide strips.
is the preferred base condition, no additional guidelines
are provided for determining the size and spacing of re- Structural Design Procedure
inforcement. Dowel bars are typically Grade 60 in sizes The following structural design procedure is for roads and
ranging from 1/2 to 11/4 in. (13 to 32 mm). Table 15 sets out parking lots. PCC pavements are designed using a simplified
typical recommendations for dowel bars recommended by version of the method in the AASHTO 1993 Guide. These
the American Concrete Institute. All dowel spacings are 12 pavement sections were then analyzed using mechanistic
in. (300 mm) on center. analysis to determine the critical stresses. The pavements
Joint filler board is used in expansion joints and isola- were also analyzed considering a concrete paver surface to
tion joint to absorb any compression as the adjacent slabs distribute the loads to a larger area on top of the concrete.
move or expand. There are several different types including The pavements were reduced in thickness incrementally
foam and bitumen impregnated fiber board. The thickness until the same critical stresses were achieved in the con-
is selected dependent on the anticipated movement. Joint crete. The results of the analyses are presented in the
sealant is used to prevent the ingress of moisture and in- tables. All designs are minimum 3 1/8 (80 mm) thick con-
trusion of foreign matter into joints. It may not be required crete pavers in a herringbone pattern. Bedding materials
on all joints when the concrete is exposed at the surface are sand or sand-asphalt (bitumen-setting bed). ICPI Tech
of the pavement if the movement range is small and if the Spec 17–Bedding Sand Selection for Interlocking Concrete
lower layers are not moisture susceptible. When jointed Pavements in Vehicular Applications provides guidance on
concrete pavement is used under pavers the sealant may testing and selecting bedding sands.
be left off if the joints are covered by geotextile. Sealant
is recommended for joints with wider spacings.

Table 14. Approximate correlations among flexural

strength, compressive strength and elastic modulus Table 15. PCC slab thickness and dowel characteristics

Flexural Compressive Elastic Slab Thickness, Dowel Diameter, Dowel Length, in.
Strength, psi Strength, psi Modulus, psi in. (mm) in. (mm) (mm)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) 4 and 41/2 1/2 (13) 12 (300)
3,700,000 (100 and 115)
550 (3.8) 3,000 (20)
(25,517) 5 and 51/2 5/8 (16) 12 (300)
(130 and 140)
4,000,000
590 (4.1) 3,500 (24) 6 and 61/2
(27,586) 3/4 (19) 14 (350)
(150 and 165)
4,250,000
630 (4.3) 4,000 (28) 7 and 71/2 7/8
(29,310) (22) 14 (350)
(175 and 190)
4,500,000 8 and 81/2
670 (4.6) 4,500 (31) 1 (25) 14 (350)
(31,034) (200 and 215)
4,700,000 9 and 91/2
700 (4.8) 5,000 (35) 11/8 (32) 16 (400)
(32,414) (230 and 240)
10 and 101/2
11/2 (38) 16 (400)
(250 and 265)

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 25

Table 16. PCC base thicknesses under interlocking concrete pavement for a 3,000 psi (20 MPa) or 550 psi
(3.8 MPa) flexural strength cement base.
PCC Base Thickness – 3,000 psi (20 MPa) compressive or 550 psi (3.8 MPa) flexural strength
ESALs (x1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Caltrans Traffic Index 5.2 5.6 6 6.8 7.4 8.3 9 9.8 10.9 11.8
Subgrade Mr
psi (MPa)

30,000 (206) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 127 152

25,000 (172) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 140 165

20,000 (137) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 140 178

15,000 (103) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 191

10,000 (68) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 191

7,000 (48) 102 102 102 102 102 102 114 140 178 203

5,000 (34) 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 178 203

3,000 (21) 102 102 102 102 102 114 140 165 191 216

Table 17. PCC base thicknesses under interlocking concrete pavement for a 4,000 psi (27.5 MPa) or 630 psi (4.3
MPa) flexural strength concrete base

PCC Base Thickness – 4,000 psi (27.5 MPa) compressive or 630 psi (4.3 MPa) flexural strength
ESALs (x1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Caltrans Traffic Index 5.2 5.6 6 6.8 7.4 8.3 9 9.8 10.9 11.8
Subgrade Mr
psi (MPa)

30,000 (206) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 127 152

25,000 (172) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 127 152

20,000 (137) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 140 165

15,000 (103) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 178

10,000 (68) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 178

7,000 (48) 102 102 102 102 102 102 114 140 165 191

5,000 (34) 102 102 102 102 102 102 114 140 165 191

3,000 (21) 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 178 203

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 26

Table 18. PCC base thicknesses under interlocking concrete pavement for a 5,000 psi (34 MPa) or
750 psi (5 MPa) flexural strength concrete base

PCC Base Thickness - 5,000 psi (34 MPa) compressive or 750 psi (5 MPa) flexural strength
ESALs (x1,000) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000
Caltrans Traffic Index 5.2 5.6 6 6.8 7.4 8.3 9 9.8 10.9 11.8
Subgrade Mr
psi (MPa)

30,000 (206) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 127 140

25,000 (172) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 127 140

20,000 (137) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 127 152

15,000 (103) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 140 165

10,000 (68) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 140 165

7,000 (48) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 178

5,000 (34) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 127 152 178

3,000 (21) 102 102 102 102 102 102 114 140 165 191

Structural Design Tables 1. Estimate design load: 840,000 ESAL. Interpolate

Tables 16, 17, and 18 establish the PCC base thickness de- between 500,000 and conservatively select
sign solutions. Depending on the soil subgrade strength 1,000,000 when using Tables 16, 17 or 18.
(Mr) and ESALs. The recommended minimum thickness of 2. Characterize subgrade Mr: 4,500 psi (31 MPa)
PCC base is 4 in. (100 mm) at and below 1,000,000 ESALs, from previous example. Conservatively select
and 5 in. (125 mm) above 1,000,000 ESALs. 5,000 psi (35 MPa) on Tables 16, 17 or 18.
Use the following steps to determine a pavement thick- 3. Determine concrete strength: Consider 3,000
ness: psi (21 MPa) and 4,000 psi (27.5 MPa) options
1. Compute design ESALs or convert computed TIs on Tables 16 and 17.
to design ESALs or use the recommended de- 4. Determine base thickness requirements: the
fault values given in Table 1 as for flexible base thickness required for 3,000 psi (20 MPa)
design. concrete is 5 in. (125 mm) and for 4,000 psi (28
2. Characterize the soil subgrade strength from MPa) concrete is 41/2 in. (115 mm).
laboratory test data. If there is no laboratory The final cross section design is shown in Figure 9 on
or field test data, use Tables 3, 4 and 5 to esti- page 28 with 31/8 in. (80 mm) thick concrete pavers and
mate Mr. a 1 in. (25 mm) thick bedding sand layer over 41/2 in. (115
3. Select the appropriate table (16, 17 or 18) mm) of 4,000 psi (27.5 MPa) PCC base and 4 in. (100 mm)
depending on the compressive strength of the compacted aggregate subbase since the soil Mr < 7,000 psi
concrete base. (48.2 MPa) which is CBR < 5%. Additionally, the concrete
4. Determine the required PCC base thickness. slab is jointed at 10 ft (3 m) centers and dowels are 1/2 in.
Use Mr for design subgrade strength and de- (13 mm) diameter. The joints will be covered with a strip
sign ESALs in the selected tables. of woven geotextile, minimum 12 in. (300 mm) wide, to
prevent bedding sand loss.
Example Solution and Results
For a given site where the soils are ML, it is assumed that
an aggregate subbase will be used to provide a working
platform and to protect the pavement from pumping re-
lated distress.

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 27

 CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE PAVER
3 1/8 IN. (80 MM) MIN. THICKNESS

1 IN. (25 MM) BEDDING SAND

WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER JOINTS

4 1/2 IN. (115 MM) THICK 4,000 PSI (27.5 MPa)

CONCRETE BASE

MIN. 4 IN. (100 MM) THICK COMPACTED

AGGREGATE SUBBASE OVER SUBGRADE CBR <5%
COMPACTED SOIL SUBGRADE

2 IN. (50 MM) DIA. DRAIN HOLE

LOCATE AT LOWEST ELEVATIONS AND
FILL WITH PEA GRAVEL, MIN. 10 FT (3 M)
SPACING
NOTES:
1. DRAIN BEDDING SAND OF EXCESS MOISTURE THROUGH PAVEMENT AT LOWEST POINTS
AS SHOWN OR AT CATCH BASIN(S).
2. PROVIDE 1" (25 MM) HORIZONTAL DRAIN HOLES IN CATCH BASINS. BOTTOM OF HOLES TO BE
EVEN WITH SURFACE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. COVER HOLES WITH GEOTEXTILE.
3. DO NOT PROVIDE DRAIN HOLES TO SUBGRADE WHEN WATER TABLE IS LESS THAN 2 FT.
(0.6 M) FROM TOP OF SOIL SUBGRADE. PROVIDE DRAIN HOLES TO CATCH BASINS.

Figure 9. Interlocking concrete pavers on a concrete base design example solution.

References
AASHTO 1993. American Association of State Highway Figures 5 and 6, Tables 5, 6 and 7 are copyright © 2010
and Transportation Officials, Guide for Design of ASCE. Used with permission.
Pavement Structures, Washington, D.C., USA.
ASCE 2010. American Society of Civil Engineers, Struc-
tural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute
Municipal Streets and Roadways. ASCE/T&DI 58-10, 13921 Park Center Road, Suite 270
Reston, Virginia, USA. Herndon, VA 20171
Rada 1990. Rada, G.R., Smith, D.R., Miller, J.S., and Witc-
In Canada:
zak, M.W., “Structural Design of Concrete Block Tel: (703) 657-6900
P.O. Box 1150
Fax: (703) 657-6901
Pavements,” American Society of Civil Engineers Uxbridge, ON L9P 1N4
E-mail: ICPI@icpi.org
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 116, No. Canada
Web: www.icpi.org
5, September/October.
Shackel 1979.Shackel, B., “A Pilot Study of the Performance
WARNING: The content of ICPI Tech Spec Technical Bulletins is
of Block Paving Under Traffic Using a Heavy Vehicle
intended for use only as a guideline. It is NOT intended for use
Simulator,” Proceedings of a Symposium on Precast or reliance upon as an industry standard, certification or as a
Concrete Paving Block, Johannesburg, South Africa. specification. ICPI makes no promises, representations or war-
Shackel 1980. Shackel, B., “An Experimental Investigation ranties of any kind, expressed or implied, as to the content of
of the Roles of the Bedding and Joint Sand in the the Tech Spec Technical Bulletins and disclaims any liability for
damages resulting from the use of Tech Spec Technical Bulletins.
Performance of Interlocking Concrete Block Pave- Professional assistance should be sought with respect to the
ments,” Concrete/Beton, No. 19. design, specifications and construction of each project.
Shackel 1980. Shackel, B. “Loading and Accelerated
Trafficking Tests on Three Prototype Heavy-Duty
Industrial Block Pavements,” National Institute for
Transport and Road Research, CSIR, Pretoria, South
Africa, Technical Report 12.

ICPI Tech Spec 4  Page 28