4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
Drainage of pavement structures has long been recognized as an important factor influencing the
performance of concrete pavements. Early road-building practices emphasized the need to
remove excess water from beneath the pavement, and recent years have seen a renewed interest
in providing positive drainage to pavement structures.
Critical concrete pavement distresses related to and accelerated by excess moisture and poor
drainage conditions include pumping, faulting, and corner breaks (caused by erosion and loss of
support beneath the corners and/or edges of concrete pavement slabs). Other concrete pavement
distresses, such as transverse cracking, punchouts, D-cracking, and alkali-silica reactivity, are
also greatly influenced by the presence of excess moisture within the pavement system.
Types of Subsurface Drainage
A variety of subsurface drainage designs have been tried over the years with varying success, and
these are briefly described in the following sections. Although there are other conditions that
may require special drainage designs (such as the presence of a high water table), only the
subsurface drainage of surface infiltrated water (i.e., water that enters a pavement structure
through cracks or joints in a pavement surface) is considered here.
Daylighted Bases
“Daylighting” of a base beneath a pavement structure refers to the lateral extension of aggregate
base courses beyond the edge of the pavement and all the way to the ditchline. The expectation
is that the granular nature of the base will allow some lateral drainage of moisture from beneath
the pavement.
Experience on the effectiveness of daylighted bases (either dense- or open graded) has been
mixed. For example, the rigid pavement sections at the AASHO Road Test, which consisted of
daylighted dense-graded granular bases with a maximum 8 percent of nonplastic fines, were
noted for their poor drainage conditions and extensive pumping (HRB 1962). Similarly, the
results of a recent concrete pavement performance study suggested that daylighted dense-graded
bases become clogged with fines and are no longer able to drain (Yu et. al. 1998). However, it
was also shown that pavements with daylighted dense-graded bases perform better than
pavements with non-daylighted aggregate bases (Yu et al. 1998). Nevertheless, because of their
potential for contamination and inability to be maintained, daylighted dense-graded bases
as a drainage system by themselves are generally not recommended (FHWA 1992).
On the other hand, preliminary results from NCHRP study 1-34 appear to indicate that the
performance of pavements constructed with daylighted open-graded bases is similar to that of
pavements constructed with permeable bases with edge drains. However, this finding is
preliminary and needs further verification under a wider range of conditions.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
23
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Longitudinal Edge Drain System
Longitudinal edge drain systems consist of longitudinal pipes placed at the outer edge of the
pavement structure containing a dense-graded base course material. Historically, these have been
the most common subsurface drainage system used in highway pavement construction.
However, their effectiveness has been limited by the inability of surface infiltration water
to migrate through the dense base to the longitudinal edge drain. Furthermore, the use of a
granular material susceptible to saturation may have compromised the performance of many of
these designs.
More recently there has been interest in the use of longitudinal edge drains in conjunction with a
nonerodible base course. For example, California has adopted a drainage design that
incorporates longitudinal edge drains with a lean concrete base (LCB) or an asphalt concrete base
(ACB), as shown in figure 4 (Caltrans 1995). These bases resist the erosive action of water,
prevent moisture from infiltrating the granular materials below, and provide a drainage path to
the longitudinal edge drains. The longitudinal edge drains are placed in a treated permeable
material (TPM) in the shoulder to facilitate migration of the water to the edge drains (see figure
4). A granular subbase is also placed beneath the structures if they are constructed on a weak
subgrade or will be exposed to heavy traffic loadings (Caltrans 1995). Drainage designs similar
to that used by Caltrans and using an LCB have been constructed in some European countries for
several years (FHWA 1993).
Inner Shoulder
Traveled Way
Slope
Slope
PCC
Outer Shoulder
PCCP
Slope
PCCP
PCC
TPM
Tie Bars
Filter Fabric, High Side of
Tangents and Superelevations
Tie Bars
Base (LCB, ACB)
Plastic Pipe (Slotted), Low
Side of Tangents and
Superelevations
Filter
Fabric
Figure 4. California drainage design with nonerodible base course (Caltrans 1995).
Drainable Pavement System
The use of drainable pavement systems, which feature a permeable base course, has greatly
increased in the last 10 years. With the inclusion of the permeable base course, these designs
are intended to provide a positive means through which surface infiltration water can be
removed from beneath the pavement structure and outletted to the ditches. According to a
recent survey, 27 of 39 responding highway agencies had used permeable bases beneath concrete
24
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
pavements (Christopher and McGuffey 1997). However, there have been some reported
difficulties in the construction and performance of these systems. For example, the California
Department of Transportation found that many asphalt-treated permeable bases (ATPB) under
their JPCP designs were experiencing severe stripping after only a few years of service that was
detracting from the performance of the pavement (Wells 1993).
Because of some reported performance problems, many agencies are now approaching the use of
drainable pavement systems more cautiously. These systems are very sensitive to design,
construction, and maintenance practices, and local experience and performance should be
considered when contemplating the use of drainable pavement systems.
A drainable pavement system consists of the following elements:

Permeable Base. Permeable bases are constructed with very few fines such that they have a
very high level of permeability that allows the passage of water through the base course so
that it may then be collected by the edge drains and removed away from the pavement
structure. The permeability of these bases is generally greater than 300 m/day (1,000 ft/day)
and often exceeds 3,000 m/day (10,000 ft/day). However, the required permeability for a
given pavement structure will depend on many factors, including cross slope,
longitudinal gradient, and drainage layer thickness and width (Crovetti and Dempsey
1993). Consequently, depending on the conditions, bases with higher permeability
levels may not necessarily provide any drainage or performance advantages. A
minimum value of 300 m/day (1,000 ft/day) is generally recommended for most permeable
bases (FHWA 1992; Christopher and McGuffey 1997). Lower base permeabilities have been
used by agencies when the subgrade is permeable and is expected to provide a certain amount
of “vertical drainage” (Yu et al. 1998). A computer program called DRIP (Drainage
Requirements In Pavements) has recently been developed by the FHWA that can be used to
design a permeable base and other drainage features (Wyatt et al. 1998).
Permeable bases may be either treated or untreated, with the treated materials having the
ability to withstand construction traffic better than untreated materials. Both asphalt (asphalt
contents of 2 to 3 percent by weight) and cement (two to three bags of portland cement per
cubic yard) are used to modify the granular base material. Permeable bases are generally
placed between 100 and 150 mm (4 and 6 in) thick. Common permeable base installations
are illustrated in figure 5 (FHWA 1992).
Detailed information on the design and construction of permeable bases is found in reports by
the FHWA (1992), Baumgardner (1993), and Yu et al. (1998).

Separator Layer. A separator layer is generally required between the underlying subgrade and
the permeable base in order to prevent the upward migration of fines into the permeable base.
This intrusion of fines could clog the permeable base course, thereby rendering it ineffective
in allowing the passage of excess moisture.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
25
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Pre-Pave Installation
Permeable Base
Geotextile
Aggregate
Separator Layer
Concrete
Pavement
With Asphalt
Shoulder
Geotextile
Optional Post-Pave Installation
Geotextile
Pre-Pave Installation
Permeable Base
Geotextile
Aggregate
Separator Layer
Optional Post-Pave Installation
Geotextile
Geotextile
Concrete
Pavement
With Concrete
Shoulder
Figure 5. Typical permeable base cross sections (FHWA 1992).
Separator layers are either a dense-graded aggregate layer or a geotextile material, although
some treated base course materials have been used as well. Aggregate separator layers must
be sufficiently thick (up to 300 mm [12 in] for some soft soils) to effectively prevent
contamination, and must also be carefully designed to meet established filtration criteria (Yu
et al. 1998). The apparent opening size (AOS) of geotextile materials also must be carefully
designed to ensure adequate protection of the base. FHWA (1992) provides detailed
guidelines for the design of both aggregate and geotextile separator layers; Holtz,
Christopher, and Berg (1995) also provide a comprehensive treatment on the design and use
of geotextile separator layers.
26
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Generally, aggregate separator layers are preferred due to their added strength they provide to
the pavement structure (Baumgardner 1993). However, a recent laboratory evaluation of
aggregate and geotextile separator layers revealed that while both techniques were effective
in preventing pumping and subgrade infiltration for subgrade soils with a CBR above 4, the
geotextile material was more effective in preventing intrusion of fines than the aggregate
separator layer for subgrade soils with a CBR below 4 (Signore and Dempsey 1998). In
addition, it was noted that aggregate separator layers were effective in preventing intrusion of
fines when the separator material was dry and did not approach saturation; when the separator
material was saturated, the strength of the material was diminished and significant
intermixing of the dense- and open-graded layers occurred, resulting in poor performance
(Signore and Dempsey 1998).

Longitudinal Collector Pipes. These pipes are placed at the edge of the permeable base to
collect the surface infiltration water in the permeable base. The longitudinal drains carry the
water and either outlet it to the ditches via outlet pipes at regular intervals or deposit it into
storm water collection systems.
Most longitudinal edge drains are either flexible, corrugated polyethylene (CPE) pipe or
rigid, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The pipe size is controlled by the spacing of the outlets
and the longitudinal grade (minimum 1 percent recommended), but generally a minimum
100-mm (4-in) pipe is recommended (FHWA 1992). A geotextile should be placed around
the trench containing the edge drain, and the trench should be backfilled with permeable
material. Special design considerations (for instance, shorter outlet spacing) are needed if the
minimum longitudinal grade of 1 percent cannot be achieved.
Outlets for the collector pipes are generally rigid pipes and are placed at 76 to 152-m (250 to
500-ft) intervals (closer in very flat areas) (FHWA 1992). Headwalls and rodent screens are
recommended at the outlet faces to protect the pipes from damage. Figure 6 illustrates a
recommended headwall design (FHWA 1992).
In the design of a drainage system for a project, special design considerations should be given to
sag vertical curves, crest vertical curves, superelevation transitions, and cut-to-fill transitions in
order to maintain the ability of the pavement structure to drain water (Yu et al. 1998).
Design and Analysis of Drainage Systems
The design and analysis of pavement subsurface drainage systems consists of many different
components. Basic information required for any drainage design and analysis includes the
following (Moulton 1980):

Properties of the paving materials (e.g., gradation, permeability, porosity).

Geometrics of the roadway and pavement structure (e.g., transverse and longitudinal slopes,
cross section information).

Climatic data for the geographic area (e.g., precipitation, depth of frost penetration).
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
27
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Precast Concrete
Headwall In
Slope
Slotted
Headwall
Detail
2"
3"
Side View
3"
5" 12"
Top
View
3/4"
4"
3"
45 Deg.
36"
3"
5"
3"
Rodent
Shield
Front
View
8"
6"
12"
1"
6"
12"
1 in = 25.4 mm
Front
View
Openings: 1/4" - 3/8" square
Figure 6. Recommended headwall design (FHWA 1992).
Once this information has been collected, the anticipated water inflow into the pavement
structure—which represents the quantity of water that must be removed by the subsurface
drainage system—can be determined. This information is then used to perform drainage designs
for new pavements or to assess the suitability of existing systems.
Manual procedures for determining water inflow and designing subsurface drainage systems are
found in reports by Moulton (1980) and by the FHWA (1992). However, the use of these manual
procedures tends to be rather laborious as they involve the use of many charts, graphs, and tables.
As mentioned previously, a computer program called DRIP is now available that greatly
facilitates the conduct of detailed drainage designs and analysis (Wyatt et al. 1998). The program
not only determines pavement drainage times using the given material property, geometric, and
climatic data, but also performs permeable base, separator layer, and edge drain designs based on
the drainage requirements of the pavement system (Wyatt et al. 1998).
Consideration of Drainage in Slab Thickness Design
The 1986/1993 AASHTO rigid pavement design procedure includes a drainage coefficient (Cd)
intended to account for the effects of drainage on pavement performance (AASHTO 1993). This
coefficient, which is determined from table 5, considers the overall drainability of the pavement
and the percent time that the pavement is exposed to saturated conditions. The selection of lower
28
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Cd values serves to increase slab thickness, whereas the selection of higher Cd values serves to
decrease slab thickness. Thus, although this approach represents an attempt to consider drainage
directly in slab thickness design, it is questionable whether adjustments to slab thicknesses is the
appropriate way to account for prevailing drainage conditions.
Table 5. Recommended Cd values for 1986/1993 AASHTO rigid pavement design
(AASHTO 1993).
Quality of
Drainage
Percent of Time Pavement Structure is Exposed
to Moisture Levels Approaching Saturation
Less Than 1%
1 – 5%
5 – 25%
Greater than 25%
Excellent
1.25 – 1.20
1.20 – 1.15
1.15 – 1.10
1.10
Good
1.20 – 1.15
1.15 – 1.10
1.10 – 1.00
1.00
Fair
1.15 – 1.10
1.10 – 1.00
1.00 – 0.90
0.90
Poor
1.10 – 1.00
1.00 – 0.90
0.90 – 0.80
0.80
Very Poor
1.00 – 0.90
0.90 – 0.80
0.80 – 0.70
0.70
Quality of Drainage:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
V. Poor
=
=
=
=
=
Water Removed Within 2 Hours
Water Removed Within 1 Day
Water Removed Within 1 Week
Water Removed Within 1 Month
Water Will Not Drain
The 1998 AASHTO Supplement does not directly consider drainage in the slab thickness design
procedure. However, it does require a modified AASHTO drainage coefficient when conducting
the joint faulting check (AASHTO 1998).
Another way that drainage may be partially accounted for in these procedures is by reducing the
properties (elastic modulus or k-value) of the underlying base and subgrade materials to reflect
saturated conditions. Again, however, this leads to increases in slab thickness, a result that does
not address the drainage problem and may not provide the desired level of performance.
Determining Need for Subsurface Drainage
Although drainage is recognized as important to concrete pavement performance, determining
the need for subsurface drainage is a difficult problem. The need for drainage is based on a
variety of factors, but perhaps of particular importance is the availability of free moisture. The
availability of free moisture is generally characterized by the Thornthwaite Moisture Index
(TMI), an agricultural index that accounts for annual precipitation levels and evapo-transpiration
rates to assess the presence of free moisture throughout the year (on average). If the TMI > 0,
then excess moisture is available through the year, suggesting the need for positive drainage.
However, other factors should also be considered when evaluating the need for drainage,
including traffic levels, subgrade drainability, and proposed cross-sectional design and materials
properties. A detailed drainage analysis of a pavement system, such as that performed by the
DRIP computer program, can provide considerable insight into the need for pavement drainage.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
29
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The pavement design catalog recently completed under NCHRP project 1-32 provides guidance
on determining the need for pavement subsurface drainage (Darter et al. 1997). Table 2,
presented earlier in chapter 2, was developed from the design catalog recommendations and
indicates the need for pavement drainage based on traffic level, climatic region, subgrade
strength, and pavement type. That table suggests the use of different levels of pavement drainage
depending on those input factors. The levels of drainage are (Darter et al. 1997):

Level 1, sealed joints and cracks and appropriate geometric design. This approach attempts
to minimize the amount of water entering the structural section by keeping joints and cracks
sealed, and providing side ditches on both sides of the pavement section with flowlines well
below the lowest structural layer of the pavement. This approach is recommended for low
traffic roadways only (less than 3 million ESAL applications).

Level 2, erosion-resistant, moisture-insensitive materials. This approach includes Level 1
recommendations in conjunction with the use of materials that are not moisture sensitive and
will not erode or disintegrate in the presence of excess moisture, given the level of heavy
traffic loads over the design period. Higher traffic levels and more severe climates require
more erosion-resistant materials. PIARC’s recommendations for classifying materials
according to erodibility are summarized below (Ray and Christory 1989):
– Class A, extremely erosion resistant. Examples: dense-graded or permeable lean concrete
with 7 to 8 percent cement, dense-graded or permeable bituminous concrete with 6 percent
bitumen and stripping-resistant aggregate.
– Class B, erosion resistant. Example: plant-mixed cement-treated granular material with 5
percent cement, bituminous concrete with 4 percent bitumen and stripping-resistant
aggregate.
– Class C, erosion resistant under certain conditions. Examples: plant-mixed cement-treated
granular material with 3.5 percent cement, bitumen-treated granular material with 3
percent bitumen.
– Class D, fairly erodible. Examples: granular material treated on site with 2.5 percent
cement, fine soils treated on site, untreated granular materials.
– Class E, very erodible. Examples: untreated granular material contaminated by fines,
untreated fine soils.
Level 2 is recommended for most moderately trafficked roadways (3 to 6 million ESAL
applications).

30
Level 3, edge drains and erosion-resistant, moisture-insensitive materials. This approach
uses both Level 1 and Level 2 recommendations (including full consideration of base
material moisture sensitivity and erodibility) plus removal of excess moisture that enters the
pavement section and seeps to the longitudinal edge drain. Daylighted granular base or
subbase layers may facilitate the removal of water from the pavement structure. This
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
drainage level is recommended for most moderate to high trafficked roadways (6 to 18
million ESAL applications).

Level 4, full subdrainage system with permeable base. This approach includes both Level 1
and Level 2 recommendations (including full consideration of base material moisture
sensitivity and erodibility) plus a subdrainage system that will rapidly remove excess water
that enters the pavement section. For rigid pavements, this includes a permeable drainage
layer beneath the concrete slab, a granular separation layer between the permeable layer and
the subgrade, a geotextile fabric between the permeable layer and the granular separation
layer, longitudinal permeable trenches with edge drains, and outlets. This drainage level is
recommended as one drainage alternative for most high-trafficked roadways (> 18
million ESAL applications).
In light of this information, the following general recommendations on the use of subsurface
drainage are offered:

Concrete pavements designed for traffic levels less than 6 million ESALs generally do not
require positive drainage features, except for undoweled JPCP constructed on weak
subgrades in wet areas.

Concrete pavements designed for traffic levels greater than 6 million ESALs require a
positive subsurface drainage system. This may be either a drainable pavement system or a
moisture-insensitive base and longitudinal edge drain system. For traffic levels between 6
and 18 million ESALs, the permeable base system is considered an option only for those
concrete pavements constructed on medium/weak subgrades, whereas it is an option for every
climatic region and subgrade type for design ESALs greater than 18 million.
Local experience with the design, construction, and performance of each subsurface
drainage system should be relied upon in the ultimate selection of the appropriate drainage
system for inclusion on a new concrete pavement design. In addition, where an existing
subgrade has some degree of permeability, the vertical drainage provided by the subgrade should
be exploited by not placing a dense-graded material directly above the subgrade (Yu et al. 1998).
Maintenance of Drainage Installations
Many drainage systems have been limited in their success in removing moisture from the
pavement structure because of lack of maintenance. A recent study of pavement edge drain
systems showed a significant build-up of debris, vegetation, and rodent nests in both outlet pipes
and mainline collector pipes (Daleiden 1998). In addition, some construction damage of the
drainage pipes (e.g., crushed pipes preventing water flow) were noted during these inspections
(Daleiden 1998).
These observations highlight the need for both careful installation practices and regular
maintenance and flushing activities. A guide specification has been prepared to assist agencies in
the video inspection of drainage systems (for both new construction acceptance and for
maintenance evaluations) (Daleiden 1998). Drainage systems should be inspected at least once a
year, and may include the following key drainage maintenance activities (FHWA 1992;
Christopher and McGuffey 1997; Daleiden 1998):
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
31
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS





Installing and maintaining reference markers at outlet locations.
Clearing of debris and vegetation at outlets.
Inspection of the pipe using optic video equipment (as needed).
Flushing and rodding of the edge drain system using high pressure equipment (as needed).
Cleaning of ditches and re-establishment of depths and grades (as needed).
For drainable pavement systems in particular, if the highway agency is not willing to make
a commitment to maintaining the system, permeable bases should not be used because of the
potential for increased pavement damage due to the pavement system becoming permanently
saturated (FHWA 1992; Christopher and McGuffey 1997).
Surface Drainage Considerations
To reduce the potential for hydroplaning and to help ensure the effectiveness of the subsurface
drainage system within a pavement structure, certain pavement cross section characteristics and
surface drainage factors are required. These include items such as cross slopes, depth of ditches,
and longitudinal grade of ditches. Table 6 summarizes recommendations for these critical items
(Yu et al. 1998).
Table 6. Cross section and surface drainage recommendations (Yu et al. 1998).
Cross Section Feature
Recommendation
Pavement Surface Cross Slope
Shoulder Cross Slope
Width of Ditches
Depth of Ditches
Minimum 2 percent
Minimum 3 percent
0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft)
Minimum 1.2 m (4 ft) beneath
mainline pavement edge
(deeper if greater flows anticipated)
Longitudinal Grade of Ditchline
Minimum 1 percent
1 ft = 0.305 m
The importance of surface drainage was recently studied under an NCHRP research project
(Anderson et al. 1998). That study evaluated the significance of the thickness of water film
accumulating on the pavement surface and its effect on hydroplaning and on tire splash and
spray. An interactive computer program (PAVDRN) for predicting the depth of water flow on
pavement surfaces and a set of design guidelines (PTI 1998) were the major products of the
research.
In the development of the design guidelines, a variety of cross slopes, longitudinal grades, and
traveling speeds were considered (PTI 1998). Preliminary indications from the study are that
greater minimum cross slopes (perhaps even 2.5 percent) are needed on higher speed roadways to
prevent hydroplaning (by minimizing the water film thickness on highways); alternatively, some
other measures are needed to reduce the length of the surface drainage flow path (such as
32
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
crowned sections or the grooving of the pavement surface) (PTI 1998). However, it is noted that
the surface drainage recommendations first require field validation before they are implemented.
References for Drainage Design Considerations
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1998.
Supplement to the Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Anderson, D. A., R. S. Huebner, J. R. Reed, J. C. Warner, and J. J. Henry. 1998. Improved
Surface Drainage of Pavements. Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-29. NCHRP Web Document
16. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Baumgardner, R. H. 1993. “Overview of Pavement Drainage Systems.” Western States
Drainage PCC Pavement Workshop—Summary Report. FHWA–SA-94-045. Federal Highway
Administration, San Francisco, CA.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1995. Highway Design Manual. Fifth
Edition. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. [Also available on the
Internet: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm].
Christopher, B. R. and V. C. McGuffey. 1997. Pavement Subsurface Drainage Systems.
NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 239. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Crovetti, J. A. and B. J. Dempsey. 1993. “Hydraulic Requirements of Permeable Bases.”
Transportation Research Record 1425. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Daleiden, J. F. 1998. Video Inspection of Highway Edgedrain Systems. FHWA-SA-98-044.
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Darter, M. I., H. Von Quintus, Y. J. Jiang, E. B. Owusu-Antwi, and B. M. Killingsworth. 1997.
Catalog of Recommended Pavement Design Features. Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-32.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1992. Drainable Pavement Systems. FHWA-SA92-008. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1993. Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of European
Concrete Highways. FHWA-SA-93-012. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Highway Research Board (HRB). 1962. The AASHO Road Test, Report 5—Pavement Research.
Special Report 61E. Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
33
4. DRAINAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Holtz, R. D., B. R. Christopher, and R. R. Berg. 1995. Geosynthetic Design and Construction
Guidelines. FHWA-HI-95-038. Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Institute,
Washington, DC.
Khazanovich, L., M. I. Darter, R. Bartlett, and T. McPeak. 1998. Common Characteristics of
Good and Poorly Performing PCC Pavements. FHWA-RD-97-131. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Moulton, L. K. 1980. Highway Subdrainage Design. FHWA-TS-80-224. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI). 1998. Proposed Design Guidelines for Improving
Pavement Surface Drainage. NCHRP Project 1-29. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Ray, M. and J. P. Christory. 1989. “Combatting Concrete Pavement Slab Pumping State of the
Art and Recommendations.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Signore, J. M. and B. J. Dempsey. 1998. Accelerated Testing of Separation Layers for OpenGraded Drainage Layers. Final Report, Project C960014. Illinois Department of
Transportation, Springfield, IL.
Wells, G. K. Evaluate Stripping of Asphalt Treated Permeable Base. Minor Research Report
65332-638047-39303. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Wyatt, T., W. Barker, and J. Hall. 1998. Drainage Requirements in Pavements, User’s Manual
for Microcomputer Program. FHWA-SA-96-070. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Yu, H. T., K. D. Smith, M. I. Darter, J. Jiang, and L. Khazanovich. 1998. Performance of
Concrete Pavements, Volume III—Improving Concrete Pavement Performance. FHWA-RD-95111. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
34
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices