6. THICKNESS DESIGN
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
Introduction
A brief overview of concrete pavement thickness design is presented in this chapter. The major
emphasis is on the AASHTO 1986/1993 method and on the AASHTO 1998 Supplement method.
Other procedures discussed include the PCA method, several mechanistic-empirical methods,
and the use of design catalogs in Europe and the United States. It is not possible to present here
sufficient detail to adequately guide the reader in designing pavements according to these
methods; the publications containing the thickness design procedures should be consulted for that
purpose.
Key Concrete Pavement Thickness Design Parameters
Traffic over Design Period
The number of heavy (truck) axle loads anticipated over the design life must be estimated on the
basis of current truck traffic weights and volumes along with growth projections. In the
AASHTO methodology, the anticipated spectrum of truck axle loads over the design period is
expressed in terms of an equivalent number of 18-kip single-axle loads (ESALs), computed using
load equivalency factors which relate the damage done by a given axle type and weight to the
damage done by this standard axle.
Subgrade
The modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of the foundation (natural soil and embankment) can
be measured by plate bearing tests, but is usually estimated from correlations with soil type, soil
strength measures such as CBR, DCP, or by backcalculation from deflection testing on existing
pavements. More information on subgrade considerations are found in chapter 3.
Environment
Daily and seasonal variations in temperature and moisture influence the behavior of concrete
pavements in many ways, including:

Opening and closing of transverse joints in response to daily and seasonal variation in slab
temperature, resulting in fluctuations in joint load transfer capability. Chapter 7 provides
additional information on the role of temperature on joint design.

Upward and downward curling of the slab due to daily cycling of the temperature gradient
through the slab thickness.

Permanent upward curling of the slab which in some circumstances may occur during
construction, as a result of the dissipation of a large temperature gradient which existed in the
concrete while it hardened.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
45
6. THICKNESS DESIGN

Upward warping of the slab due to seasonal variation in the moisture gradient through the
slab thickness.

Erosion of base and foundation materials due to inadequate drainage of excess water in the
pavement structure, primarily from precipitation. See chapter 4, Drainage Design
Considerations, for more information.

Freeze-thaw weakening of subgrade soils.

Freeze-thaw damage to certain types of coarse aggregates in the concrete mix.

Corrosion of dowel bars and/or steel reinforcement, especially in coastal environments and in
areas where deicing salts are used in winter.
Although the effects of climate on concrete pavement behavior and performance have been
recognized since the time of the earliest concrete pavement design experiments (Westergaard
1925; Teller and Sutherland 1943; Kelley 1939), concrete pavement thickness design practice
traditionally has not explicitly considered most of these climatic effects. Several recent field and
analytical studies (for example, Poblete et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1990; Crovetti 1994; Darter et al.
1995; Smith et al. 1998; Yu et al. 1998) have contributed greatly to better understanding and
quantifying these effects so that they may be more adequately considered in thickness design.
Concrete Strength and Elastic Modulus
Concrete flexural strength is usually characterized by the 28-day modulus of rupture (MR) from
third-point loading tests of beams, or may be estimated from compressive strengths. The
corresponding elastic modulus (E) can also be measured but is usually estimated from strength
data.
Base
The estimated elastic modulus of the base, its erodibility, and its drainability are factors
considered in characterizing the support to the concrete slab and the quality of subsurface
drainage.
Performance Criteria
All pavement thickness design procedures incorporate performance criteria that define the end of
the performance life of the pavement. In the AASHTO methodology, the performance criterion
is the loss of serviceability (riding comfort) which occurs as a result of accumulated damage
caused by traffic load applications. The PCA procedure uses both fatigue cracking and erosion
criteria.
Design Reliability
The reliability level or, generally speaking, the safety factor, for which a pavement is designed
reflects the degree of risk of premature failure which the agency is willing to accept. Facilities
of higher functional classes and higher traffic volumes warrant higher safety factors in
46
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
design. In the AASHTO methodology, this margin of safety is provided by applying a reliability
adjustment to the traffic (ESAL) input. The magnitude of the adjustment is a function of the
overall standard deviation associated with the AASHTO model, which reflects (a) error
associated with estimation of each of the inputs (ESALs, subgrade k, concrete strength,
serviceability, etc.), (b) error associated with the quality of fit of the model to the data on which it
is based, and ( c) replication error (differences in performance of seemingly identical pavement
sections under identical conditions). When reliability adjustments are made to the traffic input in
this manner, average values should be used for the material inputs (k-value, concrete modulus of
rupture, concrete modulus of elasticity); that is, no other safety factors should be applied to any
of these inputs.
Before the introduction of reliability concepts in pavement thickness design procedures, the
traditional approach to introducing a margin of safety into concrete pavement thickness design
was to apply a safety factor to the concrete modulus of rupture (i.e., reduce the modulus of
rupture by a certain amount to add some conservatism to the design).
AASHTO Method
Background
The original empirical model for the performance of the JPCP and JRCP sections in the main
loops of the AASHO Road Test (HRB 1962) predicts the log of the number of axle load
applications (log W) as a function of the slab thickness, axle type (single or tandem) and weight,
and terminal serviceability. This original model applies only to the designs, traffic conditions,
climate, subgrade, and materials of the AASHO Road Test.
Soon after the development of the original model, it was modified based on an analysis of the
Road Test data (Langsner et al. 1962) which showed that for a given terminal serviceability, a
strong linear relationship existed between the axle load applications predicted by the purely
empirical model (log W) and the ratio of the flexural strength to corner stress computed from
Spangler’s corner stress equation. The corner stresses (computed from measured strains) of the
doweled AASHO Road Test pavements were shown to be strongly linearly correlated to the
stresses predicted by Spangler’s equation (Hudson and Scrivner 1962). This extension of the
original empirical model made possible the estimation of allowable axle load applications to a
given terminal serviceability level, for conditions of concrete strength, subgrade k value, and
concrete elastic modulus different than those at the AASHO Road Test (AASHO 1961). The
conversion of mixed axle loads to equivalent 80-kN (18-kip) single-axle loads (ESALs) through
the use of load equivalency factors was also incorporated into the design procedure at this time.
An important aspect of the extended AASHO model is that the loss of serviceability that
corresponds to a predicted number of axle load applications does not include any
contribution of faulting to pavement roughness, because although the doweled pavements at
the AASHO Road Test experienced substantial loss of support, they did not fault. The design
loss of serviceability is presumed to be entirely due to slab cracking. The designer should also be
aware that it is an extrapolation of the original AASHTO model to apply it to the prediction of
performance of undoweled jointed pavements, jointed pavements with stabilized bases, jointed
pavements with joint spacings other than those at the AASHO Road Test (4.6 m [15 ft] for JPCP
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
47
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
and 12.2 m [40 ft] for JRCP), CRCP, or concrete pavements of any type in climates that may
produce significantly greater curling and warping stresses than those experienced by the AASHO
Road Test sections.
In 1972, the AASHTO model was again extended by the replacement of the constant 3.2 in
Spangler’s corner stress equation with the J factor, with values for J greater and less than 3.2
suggested for corner support conditions worse and better, respectively, than those of the Road
Test pavements (doweled joints, no tied concrete shoulders) (AASHTO 1972). In 1981, a safety
factor, in the form of a reduction in the concrete modulus of rupture, was incorporated into the
design procedure (AASHTO 1981).
1986/1993 AASHTO Guide
The 1986 AASHTO Guide incorporates many revisions to the procedures for both concrete and
asphalt pavements, although the basic design models for both remained the same as in previous
versions (AASHTO 1986). The principal revisions to the concrete thickness design procedure
made in the 1986 Guide are the following:

Addition of a drainage adjustment factor (Cd), a multiplier of the slab thickness which
presumably is less than 1.0 for drainage conditions worse than those at the AASHO Road
Test, and greater than 1.0 for better drainage conditions.

A new procedure for determination of the design k value, as a function of the subgrade
resilient modulus, depth to a rigid layer, base thickness and elastic modulus, erodibility of the
base material, and seasonal variation in soil support. This procedure for determining the k
value is discussed in more detail in chapter 3 of this Technical Digest.

Presentation of new J factor values as a function of pavement type (jointed or CRCP), load
transfer (doweled or aggregate interlock), and shoulder type (asphalt or tied concrete).

A reliability adjustment applied to the design ESAL input instead of the use of a factor of
safety on the modulus of rupture.
The thickness design procedures for concrete and asphalt pavements were presented in Part II of
the 1986 Guide. Part III of the Guide presented techniques and procedures for rehabilitation with
and without overlays. The overlay design procedures were extensively revised in the 1993
edition of the Guide (AASHTO 1993). The design procedures given in Part II for new
pavements were unchanged.
1998 Supplement to AASHTO Guide
The revised AASHTO design model for concrete pavements presented in the 1998 Supplement
to the AASHTO Guide (AASHTO 1998) was developed under NCHRP 1-30 (Darter et al. 1995),
and field-validated by analysis of the GPS-3, GPS-4, and GPS-5 (JPCP, JRCP, and CRCP)
sections in the LTPP study (Hall et al. 1997).
The purpose of the NCHRP 1-30 study was to evaluate and improve the AASHTO Guide’s
characterization of subgrade and base support. The original AASHO empirical model was
calibrated to the springtime gross k value measured in plate load tests on the granular base, while
48
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
the 1986 Guide’s method for determining the design k value was based on a seasonally adjusted
annual average k value for the so-called “composite” (subgrade plus base) k value. A key
recommendation of the 1-30 study was that for purposes of concrete pavement design in the
existing AASHTO mechanistic-empirical methodology, both the AASHO Road Test subgrade
and the subgrade of the project under design should be characterized by the seasonally adjusted
annual average static elastic k value (Darter et al. 1995).
It was recommended that both the beneficial and detrimental effects of a granular or treated
base on concrete pavement performance should be considered not in the k value but in the
computation of slab stress in response to load as well as temperature and moisture
gradients (Darter et al. 1995). By the same process by which the original AASHO Road Test
empirical model was extended in 1961, a new design model was derived to (a) be consistent with
the recommended characterization of the design k value, and (b) consider the effects of base
modulus, base thickness, slab/base friction, joint spacing, edge support, temperature and moisture
gradients, and traffic loading on stress in the slab. The stress analyses were conducted using a
three-dimensional finite element model (Kuo 1994; Darter et al. 1995), which was validated by
comparison with stresses (computed from measured strains) in pavements at the AASHO Road
Test, the Arlington Road Test (Teller and Sutherland 1943), and slab deflections measured in
tests conducted by PCA (Childs 1964). Regression equations were then developed to relate the
computed stresses to the design factors. The 3-D finite element model was also used to develop
a design check for corner loading for undoweled jointed pavements.
The interaction between subgrade k value and base stiffness as reflected in the 1998 AASHTO
model is illustrated in figure 7. For this example, when the subgrade is weak, an increase in base
stiffness increases the allowable ESALs considerably. However, when the subgrade is stiffer,
increasing the base stiffness achieves relatively smaller increases in the allowable ESALs.
Figure 7 also illustrates that, for this example, when the base is granular, the allowable ESALs
are insensitive to the subgrade stiffness, but when the base is treated, an increase in subgrade
stiffness decreases the allowable ESALs.
The interaction of slab thickness, joint spacing, and temperature gradient on the slab stress is
illustrated in figures 8 through 11. Figure 8 shows the required slab thickness for 25 million
ESALs and a fixed 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing, and other given design inputs, for six locations
across the United States with a range of design temperature differentials. Figure 9 shows the
allowable joint spacing for a 254-mm (10-in) slab, for the same six locations and design inputs.
Similarly, figure 10 shows the required slab thickness for 100 million ESALs and a fixed joint
spacing of 4.6-m (15-ft), while figure 11 shows the allowable joint spacing for a 330-mm (13.0in) slab given the same six locations and design inputs.
The recommended range of joint spacing is between 3.7 and 6.1 m (12 and 20 ft). However,
according to the 1998 AASHTO model, achieving joint spacings in this range is not always
possible (see figures 9 and 11). For these situations, adjustments to the slab thickness may be
needed.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
49
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
.
Lean concrete base (E = 1 Mpsi, friction = 35)
Asphalt-treated base (E = 500 ksi, friction = 6)
400
Subgrade k-value (psi/in)
Granular base (E = 25 ksi, friction = 1.5)
200
100
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Allowable ESALs (millions)
Figure 7. Effect of subgrade k value and base stiffness on allowable ESALs.
Required Slab Thickness (in)
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
Miami, FL
Las Vegas, NV
Raleigh, NC
Baltimore, MD
Chicago, IL
Albany, NY
Figure 8. Required slab thickness (in) for 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing, granular
base, subgrade k = 27 MPa/m (100 psi/in), R = 90%, and 25 million ESALs.
50
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
Allowable Joint Spacing (ft)
10
Miami, FL
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
12 ft min
recommended
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20 ft max
recommended
Las Vegas, NV
Raleigh, NC
Baltimore, MD
Chicago, IL
Albany, NY
Figure 9. Allowable joint spacing (ft) for 254-mm (10-in) slab thickness, granular
base, subgrade k = 27 MPa/m (100 psi/in), R = 90%, and 25 million ESALs.
Required Slab Thickness (in)
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
Miami, FL
Las Vegas, NV
Raleigh, NC
Baltimore, MD
Chicago, IL
Albany, NY
Figure 10. Required slab thickness (in) for 4.6-m (15-ft) joint spacing, granular
base, subgrade k = 27 MPa/m (100 psi/in), R = 95%, and 100 million ESALs.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
51
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
Allowable Joint Spacing (ft)
8
Miami, FL
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
12 ft min
recommended
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20 ft max
recommended
Las Vegas, NV
Raleigh, NC
Baltimore, MD
Chicago, IL
Albany, NY
Figure 11. Allowable joint spacing (ft) for 330-mm (13-in) slab thickness, granular
base, subgrade k = 27 MPa/m (100 psi/in), R = 95%, and 100 million ESALs.
As in the earlier versions of the AASHTO rigid pavement design procedure, the computed slab
thickness is that which is required to support the anticipated ESALs to a selected terminal
serviceability level, assuming that the serviceability loss is due only to slab cracking. If faulting
were to develop on a pavement to such a degree that it contributed significantly to loss of
serviceability, the pavement will have been underdesigned; that is, it will reach terminal
serviceability sooner than predicted. The appropriate way to prevent this is not to increase
the slab thickness but rather to design the joint load transfer system so that faulting will
not develop to the degree that it contributes significantly to loss of serviceability (Kelleher
and Larson 1989). Faulting checks for undoweled and doweled joints are included in the 1998
AASHTO Supplement. The quality of drainage is a parameter in the prediction of faulting.
For the purpose of slab thickness design using the 1998 AASHTO Supplement procedure, a
hypothetical joint spacing of 9 m (30 ft) should be used for JRCP and 4.6 m (15 ft) for CRCP.
Other Concrete Pavement Design Methods
Portland Cement Association (PCA) Method
The PCA’s concrete pavement design procedure (PCA 1984; Packard and Tayabji 1985) for
roads and streets evaluates a candidate pavement design with respect to two potential failure
modes: fatigue and erosion. The procedure was developed using the results of finite element
analyses of stresses induced in concrete pavements by joint, edge, and corner loading. The
analyses take into consideration the degree of load transfer provided by dowels or aggregate
52
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
interlock and the degree of edge support provided by a concrete shoulder. However, curling and
warping of the concrete slabs are not considered in the stress analyses.
The PCA procedure, like the 1986/1993 AASHTO procedure, employs the “composite k”
concept in which the design k is a function of the subgrade soil k, base thickness, and base type
(granular or cement treated).
The fatigue analysis incorporates the assumption that approximately 6 percent of all truck loads
will pass sufficiently close to the slab edge to produce a significant tensile stress. The fatigue
model (log of allowable load repetitions versus stress/strength ratio) used in the current PCA
procedure is the same as that which was used in the PCA’s 1966 procedure (PCA 1966), except
for a change to eliminate a discontinuity in the high load repetition range. A factor of safety is
introduced in the fatigue analysis by reducing the concrete modulus of rupture by one standard
deviation. The erosion analysis quantifies the power (rate of work) with which a slab corner is
deflected by a wheel load, as a function of the slab thickness, foundation k-value, and estimated
pressure at the slab/foundation interface. An additional safety factor can be applied to the axle
load levels used in the fatigue and erosion analyses, to account for the more significant
consequences of error in traffic prediction for higher-volume facilities.
For each load level considered, the expected number of load repetitions over the design life is
expressed as a percentage of the allowable repetitions of that load level, with respect to both
fatigue and erosion. An adequate thickness is one for which the sum of the contributions of all
axle load levels to fatigue and erosion damage is less than 100 percent.
Other Methods
Other concrete pavement design methods range from empirical adaptations of the AASHTO
method, to calibration and mechanistic-empirical extension of the AASHTO method (Bendaña et
al. 1994), to methods that combine mechanistic stress calculation with an empirical fatigue
cracking model. Most notable among the mechanistic-empirical methods are the ZeroMaintenance design procedure (Darter 1977; Darter and Barenberg 1977) and the NCHRP 1-26
procedure (Barenberg and Thompson 1992; Salsilli et al. 1993).
Design Catalogs
A design catalog is not a thickness design procedure per se, but rather a format for presenting
recommended thicknesses and other design details. A design catalog for both asphalt and
concrete pavements in the United States was developed under NCHRP 1-32 (Darter et al. 1997).
The major design parameters which define the cells in the design catalog are presented in table 2
of chapter 2 of this Technical Digest. In addition to slab thicknesses, the NCHRP 1-32 catalog
provides guidance on shoulder, joint, reinforcement, joint sealant, drainage and materials design
for concrete pavements. Design catalogs have also been developed in several other countries,
including Belgium, Germany, and France (FHWA 1993; Larson et al. 1993).
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
53
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
References for Thickness Design
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHO). 1961. Interim
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHO). 1972. Interim
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHO). 1981. Interim
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Chapter III revised. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1986. 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). 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.
Barenberg, E. J. and M. R. Thompson. 1992. Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analysis
Procedures for Pavements. Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-26. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Childs, L. D. 1964. “Tests of Concrete Pavement Slabs on Cement-Treated Subbases.”
Highway Research Record 60. Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
Crovetti, J. A. 1994. Evaluation of Jointed Concrete Pavement Systems Incorporating OpenGraded Subbases. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Darter, M. I. 1977. Design of Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed Concrete Pavement, Volume 1—
Development of Design Procedures. FHWA-RD-77-111. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Darter, M. I. and E. J. Barenberg. 1977. Design of Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed Concrete
Pavement, Volume 2—Design Manual. FHWA-RD-77-112. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Darter, M. I., K. T. Hall, and C. M. Kuo. 1995. Support Under Concrete Pavements. NCHRP
Report 372. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
54
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
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). 1993. Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of European
Concrete Highways. FHWA-SA-93-012. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Hall, K. T., M. I. Darter, T. E. Hoerner, and L. Khazanovich. 1997. LTPP Data Analysis
Phase I: Validation of Guidelines for k-Value Selection and Concrete Pavement Performance
Prediction. FHWA-RD-96-168. 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.
Hudson, W. R. and F. H. Scrivner. 1962. “AASHO Road Test Principal Relationships –
Performance With Stress, Rigid Pavements.” The AASHO Road Test, Proceedings of a
Conference Held May 16-18, 1962, St. Louis, Missouri. Special Report 73. Highway Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Kelleher, K. and R. M. Larson. 1989. “The Design of Plain Doweled Jointed Concrete
Pavement.” Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and
Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Kelley, E. F. 1939. “Application of the Results of Research to the Structural Design of Concrete
Pavements.” Public Roads, Vol. 20, No. 5. Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, DC.
Kuo, C. M. 1994. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Model for Analysis of Concrete Pavement
Support. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Langsner, G., T. S. Huff, and W. J. Liddle. 1962. “Use of Road Test Findings by AASHO
Design Committee.” The AASHO Road Test, Proceedings of a Conference Held May 16-18,
1962, St. Louis, Missouri. Special Report 73. Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
Larson, R. M., S. Vanikar, and S. Foster. 1993. U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways
(U.S. TECH), Follow-Up Tour of Germany and Austria—Summary Report. FHWA-SA-93-080.
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Packard, R. G. and S. D. Tayabji. 1985. “New Thickness Design Procedure for Concrete
Highway and Street Pavements.” Proceedings, Third International Conference on Concrete
Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Poblete, M. A. Garcia, J. David, P. Ceza, and R. Espinosa. 1990. “Moisture Effects on the
Behavior of PCC Pavements.” Second International Workshop on the Design and Evaluation of
Concrete Pavements. Sigüenza, Spain.
Portland Cement Association (PCA). 1966. Thickness Design for Concrete Pavement.
IS010.03P. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
55
6. THICKNESS DESIGN
Portland Cement Association (PCA). 1984. Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street
Pavements. EB109.01P. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Salsilli, R. A., E. J. Barenberg, and M. I. Darter. 1993. “Calibrated Mechanistic Design
Procedure to Prevent Transverse Cracking of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements.” Proceedings,
Fifth International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Smith, K. D., D. G. Peshkin, M. I. Darter, A. L. Mueller, and S. H. Carpenter. 1990.
Performance of Jointed Concrete Pavements, Volume I—Evaluation of Concrete Pavement
Performance and Design Features. FHWA-RD-89-136. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC
Smith, K. D., M. J. Wade, D. G. Peshkin, L. Khazanovich, H. T. Yu, and M. I. Darter. 1998.
Performance of Concrete Pavements, Volume II—Evaluation of Inservice Concrete Pavements.
FHWA-RD-95-110. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Teller, L. W. and E. C. Sutherland. 1943. “The Structural Design of Concrete Pavements, Part 5,
An Experimental Study of the Westergaard Analysis of Stress Conditions in Concrete Pavements
of Uniform Thickness.” Public Roads, Vol. 23, No. 8. Bureau of Public Roads, Washington,
DC.
Westergaard, H. M. 1925. “Computation of Stresses in Concrete Roads.” Proceedings,
Highway Research Board. Highway Research Board, Washington, DC. Also published in 1926
as “Stresses in Concrete Pavements Computed by Theoretical Analysis.” Public Roads, Vol. 7,
No. 2. Bureau of Public Roads, 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.
56
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices