10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Introduction
The preceding chapters in this Technical Digest have focused on design and construction issues
associated with jointed plain concrete pavements. This chapter describes special considerations
for the design and construction of reinforced concrete pavements, i.e., pavements with steel
reinforcing (either welded wire fabric or deformed rebar) distributed throughout the slab.
Characteristics of these pavement types (either jointed reinforced concrete pavements [JRCP]
and continuously reinforced concrete pavements [CRCP]) are described in chapter 2.
Many of the recommendations presented in the preceding chapters are applicable to reinforced
concrete pavements. Several specific design issues and special design considerations for these
pavements are highlighted in this chapter. Where previously presented recommendations are
applicable to reinforced pavements, references to the appropriate chapters are made.
Subgrade Characterization
No special requirements are needed for the characterization of the subgrade for the design of
reinforced concrete pavements. Thus, the recommendations provided in chapter 3 are applicable.
Drainage and Base Type Considerations
Drainage design elements and base type considerations, presented for JPCP designs in chapters 4
and 5, respectively, are also applicable to reinforced concrete pavements. However, at least one
agency has reported that open-graded drainage layers constructed beneath new CRCP designs
appeared to accelerate the development of transverse crack deterioration and punchouts (Heckel
1997). Thus, the use of open-graded bases beneath CRCP should be carefully considered in light
of their potential to accelerate the development of distress. Strong, uniform support under CRCP
is more critical than permeability.
Slab Thickness Design
As described in chapter 6, the predominant practice in concrete pavement thickness design is to
not differentiate by concrete pavement type; that is, the JRCP or CRCP thickness required for a
given design situation is presumed to be the same as the JPCP thickness required (assuming an
adequate reinforcement design for JRCP or CRCP). Therefore, the slab thickness design
approaches described in chapter 6 for JPCP are also applicable to reinforced concrete pavements.
However, as noted in chapter 6, the designer should be aware that it is an extrapolation of the
AASHTO model (AASHTO 1993; AASHTO 1998) 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 Road Test (4.6 m [15 ft] for JPCP and 12.2 m [40 ft]
for JRCP), CRCP, or concrete pavements of any type in climates that may produce significantly
different curling and warping stresses than those experienced by the Road Test sections. For the
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
89
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
purpose of reinforced slab thickness design using the 1998 AASHTO procedure, a hypothetical
joint spacing of 9 m (30 ft) should be used for JRCP and 4.6 m (15 ft) for CRCP (AASHTO
1998).
Joint Design
Table 9, presented in chapter 7, summarizes the types of joints commonly used in concrete
pavement construction. These include transverse contraction joints, transverse construction
joints, transverse expansion joints, longitudinal contraction joints, longitudinal construction
joints, and terminal joints. While the information contained in chapter 7 on expansion joints and
on longitudinal joint design is applicable to reinforced pavements, this section presents specific
recommendations regarding the design of transverse contraction joints in JRCP and the design of
terminal joints in CRCP.
JRCP Transverse Contraction Joint Spacing
Because JRCP designs contain steel reinforcement distributed throughout the slab, they typically
incorporate longer joint spacings than JPCP designs. The slabs are expected to crack but the
steel reinforcement is relied upon to hold transverse cracks tightly together and prevent them
from deteriorating. However, the performance of many JRCP designs has been compromised by
excessive joint spacings (which result in large joint and crack movements) and insufficient steel
reinforcement contents (Smith et al. 1990; Smith et. al. 1998). Because of these problems, there
has been a movement toward the use of shorter joint spacings for JRCP designs. Maximum
joint spacing recommendations for JRCP range from 9.1 m (30 ft) (ACPA 1991; FHWA
1990a) to 13.7 m (45 ft) (Darter et al. 1997), but these recommendations should be tempered by
local experience. Because JRCP joints are doweled, skewed joints and/or variable joint spacings
are not considered necessary.
JRCP Contraction Joint Load Transfer
Because JRCP designs typically have longer joint spacings and larger joint openings, the use of
dowel bars at transverse contraction joints is always recommended. The recommended
dowel diameters, dowel lengths, dowel spacings, and dowel coatings are the same as those for
JPCP designs, although dowel alignment tolerances are more critical in JRCP due to the longer
joint spacings.
JRCP Contraction Joint Sealing and Reservoir Design
For JRCP designs, a properly designed joint-seal system is important because of the longer joint
spacings and larger anticipated joint openings. The guidelines for the design of the joint-seal
system, including the determination of the anticipated joint movements and the design reservoir
width, are the same as for JPCP, described in chapter 7.
CRCP Terminal Joints
90
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Terminal joints are placed at locations where the continuity of a CRCP slab is interrupted at
junctions with fixed structures or other pavements (McCullough 1993). These joints may consist
of either a wide-flange beam expansion joint system that accommodates movement or a lug
anchor system that restrains movement. Lug anchor systems have been most widely used, and
these typically consist of a series of three lugs placed 1.2 m (4 ft) deep and 4.6 m (15 ft) apart
(McCullough 1993). The use of lug anchors on soft or cohesionless soil should be avoided.
Wide-flange beam expansion joint systems have recently come into greater use. These beams
accommodate movement from the pavement while the steel flange protects the corners from
spalling and aids in load transfer (McCullough 1993). A sleeper slab is commonly placed
beneath the beam to provide additional support to the system.
FHWA (1990b) and McCullough (1993) provide more detailed information on the design of
CRCP terminal joints.
Reinforcement Design
Steel reinforcement distributed throughout JRCP and CRCP pavements consists of welded wire
fabric (WWF, sometimes referred to as wire mesh and consisting of both transverse and
longitudinal wires) or deformed bars that provide reinforcement in the longitudinal or transverse
directions. Longitudinal steel reinforcement is the primary steel design element that significantly
affects the performance of both JRCP and CRCP. In both designs, its function is to hold cracks
tightly together and prevent them from deteriorating under traffic and environmental loadings; an
additional requirement of longitudinal steel reinforcement in CRCP is to confine transverse
cracking to acceptable widths and spacings.
Transverse steel reinforcement may be placed in both of these pavement types to control any
longitudinal cracking that may develop. Its use is more common on JRCP designs since these
designs typically use welded wire fabric; most CRCP designs do not require transverse
reinforcing (Darter et al. 1997).
This section provides guidance on the design of longitudinal steel reinforcement for both JRCP
and CRCP. The use of transverse steel reinforcement and its design are also described.
JRCP Longitudinal Reinforcement Design
Types of Reinforcement
Steel reinforcement used in JRCP is generally smooth WWF, although a few agencies have used
deformed WWF or deformed reinforcing bars. In laboratory studies simulating loading across
transverse cracks, concrete slabs containing either deformed WWF or deformed bars were
effective in delaying the deterioration of transverse cracks by holding the cracks more tightly
than smooth reinforcement (Snyder 1994). Because of this, the use of deformed WWF or
deformed bars is strongly recommended for JRCP (Yu et al. 1998). WWF requires a
minimum spacing of 102 mm (4 in) between wires in order to facilitate concrete placement and
vibration (Yu et al. 1998). Recommended maximum spacings are 305 mm (12 in) for
longitudinal wires and 152 mm (6 in) for transverse wires (Yu et al. 1998).
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
91
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Steel Reinforcement Contents
The 1993 AASHTO Design Guide’s procedure for determining required longitudinal steel
contents in JRCP is not recommended. The procedure is based on the subgrade drag theory
and has been shown to be an oversimplification of the actual forces at work, resulting in
inadequate steel reinforcement contents (Heinrichs et al. 1989; Kunt and McCullough 1992;
Snyder 1994, Vandenbossche 1995). Kunt and McCullough (1992) point out that the AASHTO
procedure ignores critical temperature factors and material properties (thermal coefficient, drying
shrinkage), and also fails to address critical performance parameters (for example, crack widths,
joint opening, and steel stress). Both Snyder (1994) and Vandenbossche (1995) assert that the
AASHTO procedure fails to account for the fatigue effects caused by repeated heavy traffic
loadings.
The selection of longitudinal steel reinforcement contents should be based on past performance
and local experience. Longitudinal steel reinforcement contents for JRCP are generally
about 0.15 to 0.25 percent of the cross-sectional area of the slab. Numerous field studies on
JRCP performance (Darter et al. 1985; Smith et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1998; Khazanovich et al.
1998) have indicated that longitudinal steel contents greatly affect the performance of these
pavements, and that higher steel contents lead to improvements in overall performance.
Recommended minimum steel contents for various slab thicknesses are provided in table 13
(Darter et al. 1997).
Table 13. Recommended minimum longitudinal steel contents
for JRCP (Darter et al. 1997).
JRCP Slab
Thickness, in
Minimum Percent
Reinforcement
9.5 – 10.5
0.19
10.5 – 11.5
0.20
11.0 – 12.5
0.21
12.0 – 13.5
0.22
13.5 – 15.0
0.23
1 in = 25.4 mm
Depth of Reinforcement Placement
92
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
It is recommended that the steel reinforcement be placed with a minimum cover of 64 mm (2.5
in) (Yu et al. 1998). However, the reinforcement should be placed well above the mid-depth of
the slab in order to effectively hold the transverse cracks tightly together.
Alternative JRCP Designs
Several JRCP design variations have been employed that show very good performance. For
example, Japan constructs a conventionally reinforced JRCP that contains three additional 13mm (0.5-in) diameter deformed bars placed along the outside longitudinal edge of the pavement
(Iwama 1964; Nakamura and Iijama 1994). This additional bar effectively controls crack widths
and, consequently, crack deterioration (Nakamura and Iijama 1994). Also, the Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT) has constructed a “hinge joint” design that contains
doweled contraction joints at 13.7-m (45-ft) intervals and two hinge joints at the third points of
the 13.7-m (45-ft) slab (IDOT 1989; Yu et al. 1998). Deformed tie bars are placed across these
hinge joints, thus clustering the steel at key stress points in the pavement and providing an
effective longitudinal steel content of 0.26 to 0.29 percent (Yu et al. 1998). Laboratory study of
the “hinge joint” design showed no failure after nearly 8 million load cycles (Snyder 1994).
CRCP Longitudinal Reinforcement Design
Types and Size of Reinforcement
Only deformed steel bars should be used as reinforcement for CRCP. The bars should be Grade
60 steel and are generally 13-mm (0.5-in), 16-mm (0.62-mm), or 19-mm (0.75-in) in diameter.
Recommended spacing of the longitudinal steel is not less than 102 mm (4 in) or 2½ times the
maximum aggregate size (whichever is less), and not greater than 230 mm (9 in) (FHWA 1990b).
The use of epoxy coated reinforcing steel is generally not recommended, with the possible
exception of areas exposed to heavy applications of salt and deicing chemicals (FHWA 1990b).
A recent evaluation of CRCP steel corrosion in Belgium showed that corrosion was light to
minimal for twenty pavements ranging in age from 10 to 23 years and containing 0.67 to 0.85
percent longitudinal reinforcement and no epoxy coating (Verhoeven 1993). This suggests that a
properly designed CRCP that maintains tight crack widths does not require epoxy coating of the
steel.
If epoxy coating is used, the FHWA (1990b) suggests increasing the bond area by 15 percent,
which implies a concomitant increase in steel reinforcing content. Limited field data, however,
indicate that CRCP incorporating epoxy-coated steel does not exhibit irregular crack patterns,
suggesting that the increase in steel content may not be warranted (Tayabji et al. 1995).
A unique steel reinforcement material for CRCP currently being tested in France is called
Flexarm. Flexarm is manufactured as a flat ribbon (2 mm [0.08 in] thick by 40 mm [1.57 in]
wide), has a high yield stress (690 MPa [100,000 psi]), and is heat galvanized to prevent
corrosion. Early versions contained a regular pattern of alternating bumps and dimples imprinted
in the steel to enhance bonding (Peshkin et al. 1993), but more recent version are using a pattern
of small slots in the steel. The main advantages of Flexarm are that it reduces the length of the
CRCP “construction train” (because the steel can be rolled and fed out right in front of the paver)
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
93
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
and its flat shape provides the desired surface bond area with a lower steel content. Evaluation of
the long-term performance of this material is ongoing.
Steel Reinforcement Contents
The 1993 AASHTO Design Guide provides a procedure for determining longitudinal steel
contents for CRCP based on three criteria:

Limiting crack spacing to between 0.9 and 2.4 m (3 and 8 ft) to prevent spalling and
punchouts.

Limiting crack widths to 1 mm (0.04 in) to prevent spalling and water penetration.

Limiting steel stress to 75 percent of the ultimate steel tensile strength to prevent steel
fracture.
Steel contents based on each limiting criterion are developed and then the critical steel content of
the three is selected as the design value. A procedure similar to AASHTO’s is available from the
Concrete Steel Reinforcing Institute (CRSI) that is based on the same limiting criteria but uses
slightly different design equations (McCullough 1993). However, when applying these
procedures, consideration should be given to achieving smaller crack widths (0.6 mm [0.025 in]
or less) to ensure good performance.
These procedures can be used to estimate required steel contents in CRCP, but results should be
compared with field performance data and local experience. Generally, longitudinal steel
reinforcement contents in CRCP are between 0.6 to 0.8 percent of the cross-sectional area,
with numerous field studies on CRCP performance (LaCoursiere et al. 1978; FHWA 1993;
Tayabji et al. 1995) indicating that increased steel contents lead to an improvement in overall
performance. As a general guide, table 14 may be used to indicate minimum longitudinal
reinforcement contents for CRCP (adapted from Darter et al. 1997).
It should also be noted that thickness control during paving is particularly important for CRCP
because variations in the slab thickness produce variations in the steel content as a percentage of
the slab’s cross-sectional area.
Depth of Reinforcement Placement
The longitudinal steel reinforcement should be placed above mid-depth of the slab because it will
hold cracks more tightly together and reduce the occurrence of punchouts (Darter et al. 1997).
Additionally, the steel should be placed with a minimum cover of 64 to 76 mm (2.5 to 3 in) to
protect against corrosion due to the penetration of deicing chemicals (Yu et al. 1998).
Table 14. Minimum longitudinal reinforcement contents for CRCP
(adapted from Darter et al. 1997).
Corresponding
94
Nonfreeze Climate
Freeze Climate
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Design ESALs
(millions)
3–6
6 – 12
12 – 18
18 – 30
30 – 54
54 – 90
90 – 150
Base
Type
CRCP Slab
Thickness, in
Percent
Steel
Bar
Size
Percent
Steel
Bar
Size
Aggregate
7.5 – 9.0
0.60
No. 4, 5, or 6
0.70
No. 5, 6, or 7
Treated
7.25 – 8.75
0.60
No. 4, 5, or 6
0.70
No. 5, 6, or 7
Aggregate
9.0 – 10.75
0.65
No. 5, 6, or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Treated
8.75 – 10.25
0.65
No. 5, 6, or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Aggregate
10.25 – 11.5
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
9.5 – 11.0
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Aggregate
10.5 – 12.25
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Treated
10.25 – 12.0
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.75
No. 6 or 7
Aggregate
11.75 – 13.25
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Treated
11.25 –13.0
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.75
No. 6 or 7
Aggregate
12.75 – 14.5
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Treated
12.25 – 14.25
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.75
No. 6 or 7
Aggregate
13.75 – 15.75
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Treated
13.25 – 15.25
0.65
No. 6 or 7
0.70
No. 6 or 7
Treated
No. 4 bar = 0.5 in (13 mm) diameter
No. 5 bar = 0.62 in (16 mm) diameter
No. 6 bar = 0.75 in (19 mm) diameter
No. 7 bar = 0.88 in (22 mm) diameter
1 in = 25.4 mm
Transverse Reinforcement Design
As described earlier, transverse reinforcement may be placed in either JRCP or CRCP for control
of longitudinal cracking. It may also be used in CRCP to facilitate construction by supporting
longitudinal steel at the required depth and spacing.
Because WWF is commonly used for reinforcement in JRCP, transverse steel is generally
included in JRCP designs. Although transverse reinforcement is not required for CRCP designs
(FHWA 1990b; Darter et al. 1997), it is usually provided since CRCP is more commonly
constructed with reinforcement placed on chairs. Local experience and past performance should
be reviewed to determine the appropriateness of transverse reinforcement in CRCP.
Although it has limitations, transverse steel reinforcement contents may be estimated with the
procedure in the AASHTO design guide (AASHTO 1993). The modified design procedure
developed by Kunt and McCullough (1992) may also be used.
Shoulder Design Considerations
The same concepts described in chapter 8 on the design of shoulders apply to reinforced
pavements as well. In particular, however, it is generally recommended that transverse joints
in a concrete shoulder match the transverse joints in the traffic lane slab to which it is tied.
Jointed concrete shoulders (and jointed concrete ramps) can be problematic when tied to CRCP
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
95
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
traffic lanes because opening of the joints in the shoulder may cause adjacent shrinkage cracks in
the CRCP to open and deteriorate. States that construct CRCP try to avoid this problem by using
CRCP or AC ramps, and AC shoulders, with CRCP traffic lanes.
Also as described in chapter 8, the 1986/1993 AASHTO design procedure incorporates the
benefit of a concrete shoulder in reducing slab stress through the selection of the J factor. An
appropriate J factor must be selected from table 12 in chapter 8 for the specific pavement type
and load transfer conditions.
Construction Considerations
In general, the construction considerations described in chapter 9 also apply to reinforced
concrete pavements. Two additional areas of concern for reinforced pavements are given below.
Transverse Construction Joints
Transverse construction joints are placed at the end of each day and where interruptions in
paving occur. Weather conditions should govern the length of delay which is considered
sufficient to warrant placing a construction joint. In hot, dry conditions, 30 minutes is a
reasonable limit on the allowable delay; in cooler, wetter conditions, up to an hour or more may
be reasonable.
Transverse construction joints are placed by staking a bulkhead and tiebars to terminate the fresh
concrete slab. When constructing CRCP, the longitudinal reinforcement must pass through the
transverse construction joint bulkhead so that it can be tied or welded to the steel in the concrete
which is placed the following day. Additional consolidation may be required when placing new
concrete adjacent to the previous day’s construction. If more than 5 days elapse between
concrete pours, the adjacent pavement temperature should be stabilized by placing insulation
material on it for a distance of 61 m (200 ft) from the free end at least 72 hours prior to placing
new concrete (FHWA 1990b). This procedure should reduce potentially high tensile stresses in
the longitudinal steel (FHWA 1990b).
Steel Reinforcement Placement
Steel reinforcement for JRCP is placed in welded wire fabric sheets or bar mats. The width of
the fabric sheets or bar mats should be such that the extreme longitudinal members are not less
than 50 mm (2 in) or more than 150 mm (6 in) from the edges of the slab (ACI 1991). When
JRCP is to be paved in two lifts, the reinforcement can be placed directly on the first lift, and the
second lift placed over the reinforcement. The time between placement of the first and second
lifts must be strictly controlled to prevent debonding of the layers. If the full slab thickness is to
be placed in a single lift, the reinforcement is placed on the freshly placed surface and vibrated or
pressed down to the proper depth. Adjacent reinforcing sheets or bars must be lapped and tied
(ACI 1991).
Steel reinforcement for CRCP is generally placed on chairs at the specified height, ahead of the
paver. Lap splices in CRCP longitudinal reinforcement must be carefully constructed to
maintain steel continuity and to prevent cracking of the concrete. Furthermore, these laps should
96
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
be staggered across the pavement to reduce localized strain in the slab or nearby construction
joint (CRSI 1983). Inadequate laps and poor consolidation near construction joints are the most
common construction-related deficiencies for CRCP.
References for Special Design Considerations for Reinforced Concrete
Pavements
American Concrete Institute (ACI). 1991. “Guide for Construction of Concrete Pavements and
Concrete Bases.” Manual of Concrete Practice. ACI 325.9R-91. American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, MI.
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). 1991. Design and Construction of Joints
for Concrete Highways. TB–010.0 D. American Concrete Pavement Association, Arlington
Heights, IL.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway 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 Officials, Washington, DC.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI). 1983. Construction of Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Pavements. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Schaumburg, IL.
Darter, M. I., J. M. Becker, M. B. Snyder, and R. E. Smith. 1985. Portland Cement Concrete
Pavement Evaluation System—COPES. NCHRP Report 277. Transportation Research Board,
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). 1990a. Concrete Pavement Joints. FHWA
Technical Advisory T 5040.30. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990b. Continuously Reinforced Concrete
Pavement. FHWA Technical Advisory T 5080.14. 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.
Heckel, L. 1997. “Open-Graded Drainage Layers: Performance Problems Under Continuously
Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
97
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Concrete Pavement Design and Materials for High Performance. Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Heinrichs, K. W., M. J. Liu, M. I. Darter, S. H. Carpenter, and A. M. Ioannides. 1989. Rigid
Pavement Analysis and Design. FHWA-RD-88-068. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). 1989. Mechanistic Pavement Design.
Supplement to Section 7 of the Illinois Department of Transportation Design Manual. Illinois
Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL.
Iwama, S. 1964. Experimental Studies on the Structural Design of Concrete Pavement. Report
of Public Works Research Institute, Volume 117. Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, Japan.
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.
Kunt, M. M., and B. F. McCullough. 1992. Improved Design and Construction Procedures for
Concrete Pavements Based on Probabilistic Modeling Techniques. FHWA/TX-92+1169-5F.
Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX.
LaCoursiere, S. A., M. I. Darter, and S. A. Smiley. 1978. Performance of Continuously
Reinforced Concrete Pavements in Illinois. FHWA-IL-UI-172. Illinois Department of
Transportation, Springfield, IL.
McCullough, B. F. 1993. Design of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements for
Highways. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Schaumburg, IL.
Nakamura, T. and T. Iijama. 1994. “Evaluation of Performance and Structural Design Methods
of Cement Concrete Pavements in Japan.” Proceedings, Seventh International Symposium on
Concrete Roads. Vienna, Austria.
Peshkin, D. G., M. I. Darter, and J. Aunis. 1993. “The Construction and Performance of
Concrete Pavements Reinforced with Flexarm.” 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.
98
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Snyder, M. B. 1994. “Effects of Reinforcement Design and Foundation Stiffness on the
Deterioration of Transverse Cracks in Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” Proceedings,
Third International Workshop on the Design and Evaluation of Concrete Pavements. Krumbach,
Austria.
Tayabji, S. D., P. J. Stephanos, and D. G. Zollinger. 1995. “Nationwide Field Investigation of
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.” Transportation Research Record 1482.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Vandenbossche, J. M. 1995. An Analysis of the Longitudinal Reinforcement in a Jointed
Reinforced Concrete Pavement. M.S. Dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI.
Verhoeven, K. 1993. “Cracking and Corrosion of Continuously Reinforced Concrete
Pavements.” Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and
Rehabilitation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
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.
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices
99
10. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
100
Concrete Pavement Design Details and Construction Practices