Development of a Mechanistic-Empirical Structural Design Procedure for Continuously

Reinforced Concrete Pavements

Olga Selezneva,1 Chetana Rao1, Michael Darter,1 Dan Zollinger,2 Lev Khazanovich3
1

ERES Consultants, A Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc.

9030 Red Branch Road, Suite 210
Columbia, MD 21045-2116
Tel. 410 997-6181
Fax 410 997-6413
oselezneva@eresnet.com
mdarter@eresnet.com
crao@eresnet.com
2

Texas A&M University,

CE/TTI Building, Room 503E,
College Station, TX 77843 -3136
d-zollinger@tamu.edu
3

Lev Khazanovich, Ph.D.

Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Phone: 612-624-4764
Fax: 612-626-7750
Email: khaza001@umn.edu
Submitted November 15, 2004
For A2B02, Rigid Pavement Design

Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting

January 2004
Washington, D.C.

Word count including title page, figures, and tables: 6,320

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

Development of Mechanistic-Empirical Structural Design Procedures for Continuously

Reinforced Concrete Pavements
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the concepts and approach used to develop a mechanistic-empirical structural
design procedure for continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP). The paper addresses
the key aspects of the CRCP design procedure including: design overview, design inputs,
structural response model, incremental damage analysis, and prediction of CRCP deterioration.
The mechanism of punchout development is the foundation of the structural design procedure.
Punchout development is modeled using mechanistic principles and damage accumulation over
the design life. The incremental damage is used to account for changes in many factors
throughout the entire design period, including material properties (PCC strength and modulus,
erosion of base), seasonal climatic conditions, traffic loadings, crack load transfer, subgrade
support, and others. Each analysis increment represents a specific combination of the preceding
factors over a selected period of time. Finally, accumulated damage is correlated with CRCP
punchouts using extensive field data and the sensitivity analysis is provided to show the
reasonableness of the procedure.

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

INTRODUCTION
This paper focuses on the key structural design concepts and procedures and some sensitivity
results used to develop a mechanistic-empirical design procedure for continuously reinforced
concrete pavements (CRCP) as a part of the Design Guide project under the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 1-37A. The attributes that identify CRCP is
continuous longitudinal steel reinforcement, absence of intermediate transverse contraction joints
and a well defined pattern of transverse cracks that develops within 2 years from construction.
The major structural distress associated with CRCP is edge punchout (1-7). Punchout is defined
by a settled area within a concrete slab enclosed by two closely spaced transverse cracks, a short
longitudinal crack, and the edge of the pavement. Fully formed punchouts result in the loss of
ride quality and presents serious hazards that could lead to fatal road accidents. The direct
consideration of punchouts in the design procedure would provide an effective way to reduce
number of punchouts.
MECHANISM OF PUNCHOUT DEVELOPMENT
Based on the analysis of the field data from the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) GPS5 experiment (1) and a literature review (2-12), the mechanism of CRCP structural deterioration
leading to edge punchout can be described as follows. Within 2 years after construction, CRCP
develops a stable pattern of transverse cracks, typically spaced 0.6 to 1.8 m (2 to 6 ft) apart.
These cracks develop as a result of a stress-relieve process caused by volumetric changes in
concrete due to drying shrinkage and seasonal thermal strains. The transverse crack spacing
pattern is independent of traffic loading characteristics. For newly constructed CRCP, transverse
cracks are closed tight due to reinforcing steel restraint and have high load transfer efficiency
(LTE) due to effective aggregate interlock. As a result of repetitive application of heavy truck
loads, changes in crack openings due to temperature and moisture fluctuations in concrete, and in
some cases loss of support along the pavement edge, the aggregate interlock begins to wear out
and some transverse cracks show spalling. The lane/shoulder joint and widened or spalled
cracks permit deicing salts and water under the slab. The presence of water under the slab may
cause base erosion, pumping, and, eventually, loss of support under the slab edge. Widened
transverse cracks allow water and chlorides into the steel, which may contribute to the corrosion
of exposed steel reinforcement.
Aggregate interlock wear out results in a poor load transfer across the transverse cracks,
leading to segmentation of the CRCP slab by deteriorated transverse cracks. As a result, under
traffic loading, only a narrow strip of concrete between two closely spaced transverse cracks
carries the entire axle load. Narrow concrete segments (0.3 to 0.6 m [1 to 2 feet] wide) with poor
aggregate interlock along the transverse crack develop high longitudinal top tensile stresses
under the heavy axle loads. Stresses are further magnified in the presence of negative
temperature gradients through slab thickness (causing slab curling) and loss of support along
pavement edge.
As a narrow concrete segment with poor aggregate interlock along the transverse cracks
continues to be exposed to repetitive heavy truck loading, fatigue damage accumulates in the
concrete, leading to a longitudinal fatigue crack at about 1.2 m (4 ft) from a pavement/shoulder
joint (1). Further axle load applications cause the portion of the concrete slab bounded by the
two closely spaced transverse cracks, short longitudinal crack, and the pavement edge to break

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

off and settle down. This action results in an edge punchout. The mechanism of punchout
development is shown schematically in Figure 1 with important stages of pavement deterioration
indicated in Figure 1 by the numbers 1 through 5.
Analysis of the LTPP GPS-5 field data (1) indicates that punchout on narrow CRCP
segments develops after a longitudinal crack is formed on a narrow CRCP segment. Thus,
modeling of the punchout development in CRCP could be related to the prediction of
longitudinal fatigue cracking on narrow CRCP segments.
OVERVIEW OF CRCP STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROCEDURE
The design procedure presented in this paper was developed to satisfy a structural performance
criterion expressed as number of punchouts per mile. Structural design of CRCP involves the
selection of the design features so that the pavement will meet performance criteria at an
acceptable level of reliability. The overall design process for CRCP involves the following
steps. An initial trial design is selected first by specifying the required inputs shown in Table 1.
Then the design software computes transverse crack spacing, deterioration of the load transfer
efficiency across the transverse cracks, tensile stresses due to CRCP segment bending,
accumulated fatigue damage and the number of punchouts at end of each month over the design
period. The punchout versus time curve is plotted and the data are summarized in tables. The
predicted punchouts are compared to the critical punchout levels selected by the designer at the
desired level of reliability, and the trial design is deemed either acceptable or unacceptable,
depending on the magnitude of distress. If the trial design does not meet the design criterion, it
is modified and reanalyzed. This process continues until the design does meet the structural
performance criterion. The design is then considered feasible from a structural viewpoint and
then it is tested further to determine if it meets functional (smoothness) criterion and further used
in life cycle cost analysis. The following sections provide some details about the models
incorporated in the CRCP structural design procedure.
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE MODEL
The incremental design procedure requires hundreds of thousands of stress calculations to
compute damage monthly over a long design period of many years. To reduce computer time,
rapid solution models (neural networks) based on a finite element (FE) structural model were
developed to compute critical stresses (30).
The layout of the basic finite element model used to develop rapid solution models is
shown in Figure 2. Five segments were modeled in the direction of traffic and two lanes were
modeled in transverse direction. The width of the segment that is likely to develop a punchout
(middle segment) was set to 24-in, as the most frequently observed width of the segment that
developed punchout distress in the LTPP GPS-5 experiment (1). The width of the surrounding
segments in transverse direction was chosen to be equal to mean crack spacing. The width of the
segments was assumed to be equal to 24-in, as the most frequently observed width of the
segment that developed punchout distress in the LTPP GPS-5 experiment (1). The effect of
variation in segment width on punchout development was accounted indirectly through its effect
on crack load transfer efficiency. The location of the critical response point (that is likely to
exhibit high tensile stresses under bending) was determined to be on the top slab surface, at 48-in
from pavement edge and aligned with the transverse crack face (1).

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

In addition to CRCP segments, base layer, subgrade, longitudinal joint and transverse
cracks were included in the finite element model. The main features of the structural response
model are discussed in detail in the following sections.
Modeling of Constructed Layers
The constructed layers PCC slab and base layer were modeled using 4-node medium-thick
plate elements with 12 degrees of freedom. Different length and width of the plate elements
were used based on the location of the plate element in the finite element mesh, as shown in
Figure 2. A method of equivalent thickness was used to compute PCC stresses in the twolayered slab (concrete slab and base layer) by evaluating the corresponding stresses in the
equivalent homogeneous plate. The equivalent slab has the same modulus of elasticity and
Poissons ratio as the PCC layer. The thickness of the equivalent slab is defined by the following
equation (30):
E
3
3
heff = 3 hPCC
+ base hbase
(1)
E PCC
Where:
= Equivalent slab thickness
heff
EPCC = PCC modulus of elasticity
Ebase = Base modulus of elasticity
hPCC = PCC thickness
hbase = Base thickness
Modeling of Transverse Cracks and Longitudinal Joint
Shear spring elements were used to model discontinuities at the transverse cracks and the
longitudinal joint. Transverse crack and longitudinal joint properties were characterized by
vertical shear spring stiffness. Shear spring stiffness per unit of transverse crack length can be
estimated from Equation (2) based on reference (31).
1

0.01

LTE

AGG = k l

0.012

1
0.849

Where:
AGG = Vertical shear spring stiffness, lb/in/in
LTE = Load transfer efficiency, %
k
= Coefficient of subgrade reaction, pci

= Radius of relative stiffness, inch

Using values of shear spring stiffness per unit of transverse crack length, stiffness of
shear spring elements at each node was determined internally by ISLAB2000 finite element
package based on the length of the plate elements (parameter b in Figure 2) located along the

(2)

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

transverse crack. Equation (2) shows that joint and crack stiffness properties are related to the
crack and joint load transfer efficiency (LTE). Load transfer efficiency across the transverse
cracks was modeled using equation originally developed by Darter et al. Ioannides (32) and
modified in this study to include load transfer provided by aggregate interlock, steel
reinforcement, and base support, as following:

LTETOT i

LTE Base
1
= 100 * 1 1

1
100

a

1
1 + log 0.214 0.183 l log( J c i ) (500 Pb - 3) / 1.18

(3)

Where:
LTETOT i = Total crack LTE due for time increment i, %.
i
= Radius of relative stiffness computed for time increment i, mm (in).
a
= Radius for a loaded area, mm (in).
Pb
= Percent of longitudinal reinforcement expressed as a fraction
LTEBASE = Load transfer efficiency contributed by the base layer (20% for aggregate base; 30%
for ATB or CTB; 40% for LCB).
Jc i
= Non-dimensional aggregate interlock factor for time increment i.
Non-dimensional aggregate interlock factor Jc i (33) is computed for each time increment i based
on current value of shear capacity s using the following equation:

Log ( J ci ) = ae

J b
s
c

+ de

s e
i
f

+ ge

J b
s
c

s e
i
f

(4)

Where:
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Js
si

= -2.2
= -11.26
= 7.56
= -28.85
= 0.35
= 0.38
= 49.8
= Lane-shoulder joint stiffness across (4 for tied PCC 0.04 for all other shoulder types).
= Dimensionless shear capacity for time increment i

The dimensionless shear capacity of the transverse cracks si for any given instance in pavement
life i can be characterized using the following equation (33):
si = s0i - Si-1
Where:
s0i = Initial crack shear capacity based on crack width and slab thickness for time increment
i(6)
Si-1= Loss in shear capacity accumulated from all previous time increments

(5)

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

Crack shear capacity deterioration potential increases once the crack width-to-PCC thickness
ratio approaches 0.0037 value (crack width and PCC thickness are expressed in the same units).
The loss of shear capacity s i at the end of a time increment is determined using the following
equations (35):

n ji ij
cwi
0.005
ESRi
6
si =
< 3.7
if
5.7

hPCC
j
cwi 10 ref i
1 + 1 h
PCC

(6)

n ji ij
0.068
cwi
ESRi
6
si =
> 3.7
if
1.98
hPCC
j
cwi

10 ref i
3
1 + 6 h

PCC

Where:
cwi
h PCC
nji
ij
ref i
ESR

= Crack width for time increment i, mm (mils).

= Slab thickness, m (in).
= Number of axle load applications for load level j
= Shear stress on the transverse crack at the corner due to load j, kPa (psi).
= Reference shear stress derived from the PCA test results, kPa (psi) (33).
= Equivalent shear ratio to adjust traffic load applications for lateral traffic wander (35).

Average crack width cwi at the depth of the steel for time increment i is predicted based on
closed-form equation accounting for bond slip effect (34):

cwi = L ( shr + PCC T ) L

c2
EPCC

L U m Pb

2h L

1 s + f
+
C

0
c d

hPCC 2
1i b

Where:
L
= Crack spacing, mm
shr
= Unrestrained concrete drying shrinkage at the steel depth
PCC = Concrete CTE, C-1 (F-1)
T
= Drop in PCC temperature at the depth of the steel for time increment i C (F)
c1
= First bond stress coefficient
c2
= Second Bond stress coefficient
EPCC = Concrete modulus of elasticity, kPa (psi)
Pb
= Percent of longitudinal reinforcement expressed as a fraction
db
= Reinforcing steel bar diameter, mm (in)
= Peak bond stress, kPa (psi)
Um
hPCC = PCC slab thickness, mm (in)
= Depth to steel, mm (in)
hs
f
= Subbase friction coefficient from test data or using AASHTO recommendations.
C
= Bradburys correction factor for slab size

(7)

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

= Westergaard nominal environmental stress factor, kPa (psi)

Modeling of Subgrade and Edge Support

The subgrade was modeled as a series of independent compression springs with stiffness value
determined based on the coefficient of subgrade reaction (k-value). Stiffness of individual
subgrade spring elements is determined internally by ISLAB2000 by integration of the shape
functions over the area of plate elements supported by the subgrade springs.
Two types of loss of support were considered in the modeling process: temporary loss of
support due to PCC slab curling and permanent loss of support due to erosion. If tension is
detected in a subgrade spring, unsupported conditions are assumed for the plate-element nodes
connected to these springs to simulate temporary loss of support under the slab due to slab
curling.
To account for permanent loss of support along the pavement edge due to the erosion
process, permanent void under the analysis segment was modeled by specifying areas under the
slab where the subgrade k-value is zero. The void was assumed to occupy the entire width (in
the direction of traffic) of the analysis segment. Extend of the void from the shoulder in the
direction of traffic was predicted using the following equation (35):
EE = AGE *(-7.4 + 0.342P200 + 1.557BEROD + 0.234PRECIP)/12

(8)

Where:
EE
= Erosion extent from pavement edge, inch
AGE = Pavement age, month
P200 = Percent subgrade passing the No. 200 sieve, %.
PRECIP = Mean annual precipitation, inch.
BEROD = Base erodibility index (33) (1 for LCB; 2 for CTB with 5% cement; 3 for ATB and
CTB with cement <5%; 4 for GB with 2.5 % cement; 5 for untreated GB).
Modeling of Traffic Loading
Traffic loading was modeled by applying static loads at the nodes of the plate elements covered
by tire footprint areas. Loads were computed at each node of a plate element covered
(completely or partially) by a tire footprint in proportion to the covered area of plate element.
Load computations were performed internally by the ISLAB2000 program for specified axle
types (single, tandem, tridem) and axle weights presented by axle load spectra.
Modeling of PCC Slab Curling
Curling stress analysis of the CRCP segment due to transient hourly temperature changes and
built-in (construction) temperature gradient was conducted using the equivalent linear
temperature distribution approach. This concept allows replacement of the curling analysis of a
two-layered system by the analysis of curling of an equivalent single-layer slab with a thickness
defined by Equation (1). Several assumptions were made: (1) no horizontal restraint exists
between the slab and base layers (sliding without separation), (2) the temperature distribution
through the slab thickness could be descried by temperatures at 11 points equally spaced

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

throughout the PCC layer thickness. a quadratic function, (3) a constant temperature is assumed
throughout the lower base layer. Using these assumptions, the following equivalent linear
temperature differential was used in the thermal stress analysis (Khazanovich 1994). using
ISLAB2000 (30):
DTeff =

2
hPCC
* (Ttop Tbot )
he2

(9)

Where:
DTeff = difference between temperatures at the top and bottom surfaces of the effective slab.
hPCC = PCC thickness.
= Effective thickness computed.
heff
Ttop and Tbot = temperatures at the PCC top and bottom surfaces, respectively.
Modeling of Transverse Cracking
The following expression based on Reis et al (34) was used to predict the mean transverse crack
spacing:

L=

{ f t f }
f UmP
+
2 c1d b

(10)

Where:
L
= Mean crack spacing, mm (inch)
= Tensile strength of the concrete, kPa (psi)
ft
f
= Maximum stress in concrete at steel level, kPa (psi)
f
= Friction coefficient
= Peak bond stress, kPa (psi)
Um
P
= Percent of longitudinal reinforcement, percent
= Reinforcing steel bar diameter, mm (inch)
db
= Bond-slip coefficient
c1
FATIGUE DAMAGE MODEL

Theoretical simulations of CRCP bending stresses under traffic and environmental loading
indicated that the resulting stress levels are well below the flexural strength values typical for
CRCP. Also, LTPP distress data suggest that CRCP sections were exposed to traffic for several
years before the longitudinal cracks developed on the narrow segments. Using these
observations, modeling of the longitudinal cracking on narrow CRCP segments was based on the
fatigue damage accumulation principle.
Miner's (13) hypothesis was used as the basis for fatigue damage prediction. The
hypothesis states that the structural fatigue damage is cumulative and that a structure's fatigue
life is finite and is defined by the allowable number of load applications prior to failure as
follows:

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

D =

10

nij

ij

(11)

Where:
D
= Cumulative fatigue damage.
nj
= Actual number of load applications of j-th load magnitude during time increment i.
Nj
= Allowable number of load applications to failure of j-th load magnitude during time
increment i.
Previous investigations of jointed concrete pavements (14 28) indicated that the
allowable number of load applications to failure could be modeled as a function of concrete
flexural strength and bending stress resulting from traffic loading. An equation developed under
the NCHRP1-26 project (29) was used as the basis for prediction of the allowable number of
load applications to failure (Nj) for each load level j:

N j = 10

MR

a
j

(12)

Where:

Nj
MR
j
a, b

= Allowable number of load applications of j-th magnitude, unitless

= Concrete modulus of rupture (psi).
= Bending stress due to loads of j-th magnitude, psi.
= Calibration constants.

Incremental Approach to Fatigue Damage Accumulation

Sensitivity analyses (7) have indicated that the magnitude of bending stresses on narrow CRCP
segments could be affected by progressive and cyclical changes in pavement and site
characteristics. To account for critical bending stress changes at various stages of pavement
design life, the analysis period was divided into short time increments. Table 2 provides a
summary of the design factors and the increments considered in the damage accumulation
procedure. Total fatigue damage is computed as a summation of fatigue damages from each
analysis increment.
PUNCHOUT PREDICTION MODEL

The CRCP design procedure is largely based on mechanistic engineering principles that provide
a fundamental basis for the structural design of pavement structures. However, without
calibration, it was not possible to use the results of mechanistic calculations (e.g., fatigue
damage) to predict punchouts directly. Therefore, an empirical equation was developed to
correlate the accumulated fatigue damage parameter obtained from the mechanistic model with
the actual punchouts in the field. The empirical function correlating mechanistically predicted
fatigue damage with punchout development over time was developed based on the data from the
following sources:

LTPP GPS-5 Experiment (main CRCP data source)

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

11

Vandalia (IL) experimental CRCP sections

Illinois heavily trafficked CRCP sections on I-80 and I-90

A calibration database consisting of 74 sections and 220 distress data points was assembled.
Each section was analyzed and the damage was calculated from opening to traffic to the time of
the each distress survey using the algorithm shown in Figure 3. Using the predicted fatigue
damage and the observed number of punchouts per mile, a correlation function was developed,
as shown in Equation 13.
Life

a
c
i =1 1 + b Di

POi =

(13)

Where:
POi = Total predicted number of punchouts per mile at the end of ith monthly increment
Di
= Accumulated fatigue damage (due to slab bending in the transverse direction) at the end
of ith monthly increment
a, b, c = Calibration constants for punchout function
The following values of calibration constants were established using 220 calibration points with
R2 for Equation (13) equal to 67.9.
a = 105.26
b = 4.0
c = -0.38
The details of the calibration of a mechanistic empirical performance model for CRCP
punchouts are presented in the paper titled Calibration of a Mechanistic Empirical Performance
Model for CRCP Punchouts, accepted for presentation at the 83rd TRB Annual Meeting and
included on the 83rd Annual TRB Meeting CD-ROM.
Punchout Prediction Example

An example of the results obtained from CRCP structural design software module for one of the
LTPP sections (GPS-5 section 42-5020) is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 demonstrates how
deterioration of the crack load transfer efficiency and progressive increase in heavy truck volume
affects predicted number of punchouts per mile. Predicted punchout values from Figure 4 agree
favorably with observed field punchout data points from the LTPP manual crack map sheets that
show one punchout per 500 feet long LTPP section at 17.5 years from construction and 1
punchout and two patches at 19 years from construction.
Sensitivity Analysis

An extensive sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the reasonableness of the CRCP punchout
model. This was accomplished by selecting typical design situations for different functional road
types and truck traffic volumes. The designs were selected to show adequate performance over
the design period. The software was run and the punchouts were predicted over the design
period. Then individual inputs were varied and the change in all outputs was observed. The
effects of three key design inputs (portland cement concrete [PCC] thickness, percentage of

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

12

longitudinal reinforcement, and PCC coefficient of thermal expansion) on punchouts are

presented in this paper.
Figure 5 shows that as CRCP slab thickness increases, punchouts decrease. Similar
results have been obtained in several field experiments of CRCP, such as Vandalia experimental
sections in Illinois. This is largely due to reduced critical stress levels. Note that as thickness
increases over a certain level for each section, the benefit of using higher thickness diminishes.
Figure 6 shows that as longitudinal reinforcement increases, the number of punchouts
decreases dramatically. Similar results have been found in various field experiments. This is
due to two effects. First, better reinforcement results in closer crack spacing and, thus, smaller
crack openings. Second, the higher reinforcement content also holds cracks together much more
tightly, which is the key to maintaining good LTE over the life of the pavement. It was also
noted that, for the other sections with thicker slabs, the optimum steel content varies with section
thickness. Thus, thickness and reinforcement content both must be considered to optimize
design.
Figure 7 shows the effect of the thermal coefficient of expansion (CTE) on punchout
development. Higher CTE leads to the higher number of predicted punchouts. This result is due
to two mechanisms. First, higher CTE results in wider crack openings and subsequently
increased loss of LTE. Second, the higher temperature curling of the CRCP slab results in higher
bending stresses at the top of the slab and increased fatigue damage.
SUMMARY

The proposed CRCP structural design procedure is based on the prediction of several critical
conditions that take place in the field: the development of transverse cracks, loss of aggregate
interlock across transverse cracks, loss of edge support due to erosion, and fatigue damage
accumulation leading to formation of longitudinal cracking in concrete and punchout
development. The procedure identifies and directly considers the key design factors and site
conditions that affect CRCP structural performance:
Slab thickness
PCC material characteristics including: strength, coefficient of thermal expansion, and
ultimate shrinkage
Transverse crack spacing as a function of pavement design parameters
Reinforcement characteristics including: percent steel, bar diameter, and depth of steel
Transverse crack width and crack load transfer changes during service life
Slab supporting layers, including the possibility of erosion and loss of support along the
edge
Full spectrum of axle loading and traffic wander characteristics
Environmental differentials through the slab thickness due to temperature changes in the
concrete
The development of the mechanistic-empirical structural design procedure for CRCP
presented in this paper involved assembling existing technology into a working design
procedure. Some of the most interesting characteristics of CRCP models used as computational
engines for the design procedure are the following:

The finite element structural model can structurally model the key design features, traffic

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

13

loadings, climatic conditions, and subgrade support

The incremental damage approach makes the design procedure extremely flexible and
robust since material properties, traffic levels, seasonal climatic conditions, seasonal
changes in the slab support conditions and transverse crack load transfer can vary
throughout the life of the pavement
The direct consideration of punchouts in the design procedure provides a way to reduce
the number of punchouts through the appropriate design

The CRCP design procedure has limitations in terms of layer thickness used for
calibration 150 to 400 mm (6 to 15 in), only a single layer of reinforcement placed between
mid-depth and above is considered in the design procedures, impact of tied PCC shoulders and
early opening to traffic were not considered in the design procedures due to lack of sufficient
data required for model verification. As more data become available, future research studies
should be conducted to include the above effects in the CRCP structural design procedure. In
addition to the structural performance criterion, a functional performance criterion (expressed as
measure of smoothness) should be satisfied in the design procedure. The design procedures to
satisfy the smoothness design criterion are not discussed here due to paper size limitations.
REFERENCES

1. Selezneva O., M. Darter, D. Zollinger, and S. Shoukry, Characterization of Transverse

Cracking Spatial Variability Using LTPP Data for CRCP Design. Accepted for publication
in Transportation Research Record No., Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
2003.
2. Darter, M.I., S.A. LaCourseiere, and S.A. Smiley, Performance of Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Pavement in Illinois. Transportation Research Record No. 715, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 1979.
3. LaCourseiere, S.A., M.I. Darter, and S.A. Smiley, Structural Distress Mechanisms in
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, Transportation Engineering Series No. 20,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1978.
4. McCullough, B.F., and E.D. Moody, Development of Load Transfer Coefficients for Use
with the AASHTO Guide Based on Field Measurement, Proceedings, 5th International
Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, April 1993.
5. Zollinger, D.G., and E.J. Barenberg, Continuously Reinforced Pavements: Punchouts and
Other Distresses and Implications for Design, Project IHR - 518, Illinois Cooperative
Highway Research Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 1990.
6. Zollinger, D.G., N. Buch, D. Xin, and J. Soares, Performance of CRCP Volume 6 - CRCP
Design, Construction, and Performance, FHWA-RD-97-151, Report, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, February 1998.
7. Selezneva O.I., D. Zollinger, M. Darter, Mechanistic Analysis of Factors Leading to
Punchout Development for Improved CRCP Design Procedures, Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Concrete Pavements, Orlando, FL, September, 2001
8. McCullough, B.F., A.A. Ayyash, W.R. Hudson, and J.P. Randall, Design of Continuously
Reinforced Concrete Pavements for Highways, NCHRP 1-15, Center for Highway Research,
The University of Texas at Austin, August 1975.

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

14

9. Won, M., K. Hankins, and B.F. McCullough, Mechanistic Analysis of Continuously

Reinforced Concrete Pavements Considering Material Characteristics, Variability, and
Fatigue, Report No. 1169-2, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at
Austin, April 1990.
10. Zuk, W., Analysis of Special Problems in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements,
Highway Research Board, Bulletin 214, 1959.
11. Vetter, C.P. Stresses in Reinforced Concrete Due to Volume Changes, ASCE Proceedings,
Paper No. 1848, February 1932.
12. Palmer, R.P., Olsen, M., and Lytton, R.L., TTICRCP-A Mechanistic Model for the Prediction
of Stress, Strains, and Displacements in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements,
Research Report 371-2F, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, August
1987, 275 pp.
13. Miner, M.A., "Cumulative Damage in Fatigue, Transactions, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 67, pp. A159-A164, 1945
14. Hilsdorf, H.K., & Kesler, C.E., "Fatigue Strength of Concrete Under Varying Flexural
Stresses," Proceedings American Concrete Institute., VOL. 63,1966, pp. 1059-1976
15. Ballinger, C.A., "Cumulative Fatigue Damage Characteristics of Plain Concrete,
Transportation Research Record No. 370, Highway Research Board, 1972
16. Leeuwen, J. van and Siemes, A.J.M., "Miner's Rule with Respect to Plain Concrete," Heron,
Vol. 24, No1, 1979
17. Holmen, J.O., "Fatigue of Concrete by Constant and Variable Amplitude Loading," Bulletin
No. 79, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, The University of Trondheim, November
1979, Norway.
18. Siemes, A.J.M., Miner's Rule with Respect to Plain Concrete Variable Amplitude Tests,"
American Concrete Institute, SP-75, pp 343- 37Z 1982
19. Oh, H.B., Cumulative Damage Theory of Concrete under Variable- Amplitude Fatigue
Loadings," ACI Materials journal, V. 88, No. 1, January- February 1991.
20. Portland Cement Association, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street
Pavements," EB109-01P, 1984.
21. Zollinger, D.G., and Barenberg, E.J., "Proposed Mechanistic Based Design Procedure for
Jointed Concrete Pavements," Research Report FHWA/IL/UI 225, Illinois Cooperative
Highway Research Program, University of Illinois, May 1989.
22. Barenberg, E. J., and M. R. Thompson. Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analysis
Procedures for Pavements. NCHRP Project 1-26. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1992.
23. Treybig, H.J., McCullough, B.J., Smith, P. and Von Quintus, H., "Overlay Design and
Reflection Cracking Analysis for Rigid Pavements, Vol. I Development of New Design
Criteria," FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-77-76, 1977
24. Vesic, A.S. and Saxena, S.K., Analysis of Structural Behavior of Road Test Rigid
Pavements," Highway Research Record No. 291, Highway Research Board, National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1969, pp. 156-158.
25. Majidzadeh, K, Ilves, G.J., "Evaluation of Rigid Pavement Overlay Design Procedure,"
Resource International Inc., Worthington, Ohio, June 1983.
26. Barker, W.R., "Introduction to a Rigid Pavement Design Procedure," Proceedings 2nd.
International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design, April 14-16, 1981, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

15

27. Little, R.J., and Mckenzie, L.J., "Performance of Pavement Test Sections in the Rehabilitated
AASHO Test Road," Illinois Department of Transportation, Bureau of Materials and
Physical Research, Springfield, Illinois, June 1977.
28. McCall, J.T., "Probability of Fatigue Failure of Plain Concrete," Proceedings, Am. Concrete
Inst., Vol. 55, No. 13 August 1958, pp. 233-2,45
29. Salsilli, R.A., E.J. Barenberg, and M.I. Darter. Calibrated Mechanistic Design Procedure to
Prevent Transverse Cracking of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements. Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation. West LaFayette,
IN: Purdue University. 1993.
30. Khazanovich, L., O.I. Selezneva, H.T. Yu, M. I. Darter, Development of Rapid Solutions
for Prediction of Critical CRCP Stresses, Transportation Research Record 1778,
Washington, D.C., 2001
31. Crovetti, J.A. (1994). Evaluation of Jointed Concrete Pavement Systems Incorporating
Open-Graded Permeable Bases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
32. Ioannides, A.M. and M.I. Hammons, A Westergaard-Type Solution for the Edge Load
Transfer Problem, Transportation Research Record No. 1525, Transportation Research
Board, 1996, Washington, D.C., pp 28-34.
33. Jeong, Jin-Hoon and Dan G. Zollinger, "Characterization of Stiffness Factors Relative to the
Design of Continuously Reinforced and Jointed Pavement," Transportation Research Record
No. 1778, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 54-63.
34. Reis, Elmer E. Jr, John D. Mozer, Albert C. Bianchini, and Clyde E. Kesler, Causes and
Control of Cracking in Concrete Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Bars A Review of
Research, Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 479, College of Engineering, University
of Illinois.
35. Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Draft Final Report Submitted under
NCHRP 1-37A, ERES Division of ARA, Inc., August, 2003.
36. Darter, M., L. Khazanovich, M. Snyder, S. Rao, and J. Hallin (2001). Development and
Calibration of a Mechanistic Design Procedure for Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements,
Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Concrete Pavement, September 9-13,
Lake Buena Vista, FL, pp. 113-132.
37. Khazanovich, L. (1994). Structural Analysis of Multi-Layered Concrete Pavement
Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
38.
39.

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

16

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 CRCP design inputs. .....................................................................................................17

TABLE 2 Summary of input parameters and increments required for damage analysis. .............18
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Mechanism of punchout development.........................................................................19

FIGURE 2 Layout of the finite element model.
FIGURE 3 Punchout prediction algorithm for CRCP. ..................................................................21
FIGURE 4 Example of punchout prediction for Pennsylvania LTPP section 42-5020. ...............22
FIGURE 5 Predicted punchouts for various slab thickness for North Dakota LTPP section
38-5002. .........................................................................................................................................23
FIGURE 6 Predicted punchouts with various percent of longitudinal reinforcement for Illinois
LTPP section 17-5843....................................................................................................................24
FIGURE 7 Predicted punchouts with various PCC CTE for Mississippi LTPP section
28-5006. .........................................................................................................................................25

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

17

TABLE 1 CRCP design inputs

Parameter
PCC 28 day compressive strength
PCC elastic modulus
PCC 28 day tensile strength
PCC Modulus of Rupture
PCC slab thickness
PCC Unit weight
PCC Water/cement ratio
PCC coefficient of thermal expansion
PCC Poisson's ratio
Ultimate shrinkage
Depth to steel
Percent Steel as fraction
Steel Bar Diameter
Mean crack spacing
Shoulder joint stiffness
LTE base
Base/Subbase Erodibility index
Base thickness
Base Elastic modulus
Base/Subbase friction coefficient
Percent subgrade, subbase or base passing the no. 200 sieve
Mean annual precipitation
Axle load level for single, tandem, tridem axles
Number of Axle Load applications at each load level and time increment
Annual growth factor
Monthly adjustment coefficients
Hourly temperature adjustment coefficients
Mean wheelpath
Wheelpath Standard Deviation
PCC temperature at set time
Built-in temperature differential
Average annual ambient relative humidity
Average monthly ambient relative humidity
Average monthly ambient temperature values
Avearage nightly monthly temperature at steel depth
Night-time temperature differential
Subgrade k-value
Drying time (days from placement)

Symbol
fc28
EPCC i
ft i
MR i
hPCC

Units
psi
psi
psi
psi
inch

PCC
w/c
PCC
:PCC

Pb
db

lbf/in3
fraction
1/oF
unit less
unit less
inch
fraction
inch
inch

L
Js
LTEBase
EROD
hBase
EBase i

unit less
%
unit less
inch
psi

f
P200
PRECIP
Pj

unit less
%
inch/year
lb

nij
GFy
MFm
HFh

unit less
unit less
unit less
unit less

wp
wp
Tset
DTbuilt
rha annual
rha monthly
Tam
Tsteel m
DTnight mh
ki
ti

inch
inch
o
F
o
F
%
%
o
F
o
F
o
F
pci
days

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

18

TABLE 2 Summary of input parameters and increments required for damage analysis
Design Factors
PCC strength increase
PCC top, bottom, and mid-plane
temperature
Loss of support
Base and subgrade modulus
Transverse crack load transfer
Number of load applications
Single axle load
Tandem axle load
Tridem axle load

Increments
Monthly
Hourly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Annually, monthly, and hourly
2,000 lb
2,000 lb
3,000 lb

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

4 Longitudinal

2 Deteriorated

crack initiation

transverse crack

19

Tire footprint

Direction
of Traffic
Punchout 5
Pavement edge

1 Narrow Crack spacing

3 Loss of support

FIGURE 1 Mechanism of punchout development.

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

Passing lane (12 feet)

Meshed
6 x 6

Meshed
6 x 4

20

Meshed
6 x 2

2 feet

Meshed
6 x 4

Meshed
6 x 6

Mean crack
spacing (2-8 ft)

Surrounding CRCP segments

Traffic lane (12 feet)

Longitudinal
joint

Critical analysis
segment
Transverse
crack

Tire
footprints
Meshed
2 x 6

Meshed
2 x 4

Meshed
2 x 2

Meshed
2 x 4

Critical response point

Pavement edge

Finite Element Model Detail

Unloaded plate
element

Meshed
2 x 6

Traffic load
Loaded plate
element

b
b
Node
Subgrade
Spring element

FIGURE 2 Layout of the finite element model.

Transverse crack
Shear spring element

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

21

Site conditions
Pavement characteristics
Traffic characteristics

Process time-dependent input parameters:

Material parameters, environment, support

Prepare axle load spectra inputs

Mean transverse crack spacing

Standard deviation of crack spacing
Number of narrow segments

Analysis time increment i

Next time increment i+1

Crack width
Load transfer efficiency across cracks
New Dimensionless shear capacity
th

Select j axle load level in axle load spectra matrix

j = j+1

FE program

Max top tensile stress for punchout prediction

Shear stress for crack load transfer
deterioration

Allowable traffic repetition

Nij for current axle load group j

No

All axle
load groups
analyzed?

Loss in shear Capacity due

to current time increment

No

All analysis increments

completed?

Yes
Cumulative fatigue damage for time increment i
Yes
Probability of longitudinal cracking for time
increment i

Punchout prediction for time increment i

Total punchout prediction

End

FIGURE 3 Punchout prediction algorithm for CRCP.

Cumulative Trucks, mln

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

14

Slab thickness
% Steel
Base Type
Avg. crack spacing
Climatic zone
AADTT (base year)
Avg. ESAL/truck
Truck Growth

12
10
8
6
4

9.3 inch
0.6
GB
55 inch
WF
1,100
1.0
6.50%

Cumulative Truck Volume per Lane

2
0
30

Crack width, mil

22

Average Crack Width

25
20
15
10
5
0

Average Crack LTE

100

LTE, %

80
60
40
20
0

Punchout

Punchout per mile

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Pavement age, years

FIGURE 4 Example of punchout prediction for Pennsylvania LTPP section 42-5020.

19

20

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

23

7
LTPP Section
State
Slab thickness
% Steel
Base type
Climatic zone
ADTT (base year)
Avg. ESAL/truck
Truck Growth

6
5
4

7-in slab

38-5002
ND
8 inch
0.6
ATB
DF
480
0.7
5.0%

3
2
8-in slab (LTPP)
1
9-in slab
11-in slab

0
0

10

15

20

25

Age, years

FIGURE 5 Predicted punchouts for various slab thickness for North Dakota LTPP section 385002.

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

24

16
LTPP Section
State
Slab thickness
% Steel
Base type
Climatic zone
ADTT (base year)
Avg. ESAL/truck
Compound Growth

14
12
10

17-5843
IL
10.4 inch
0.68
CTB
WF
1,700
1.5
3.6%

0.5% steel

8
0.65% steel

6
4
2

0.68% steel (LTPP)

0.8% steel

0
0

10

15

20

25

Age, years

FIGURE 6 Predicted punchouts with various percent of longitudinal reinforcement for Illinois
LTPP section 17-5843.

Olga Selezneva, Chetana Rao, Michael Darter, Dan Zollinger

25

10
LTPP Section
State
Slab thickness
% Steel
Base type
Climatic zone
ADTT (base year)
Avg. ESAL/truck
Compound Growth

Punchouts per mile m

8
7
6

28-5006
MS
8.2 inch
0.59
CTB
WNF
500
1.1
8.0%

CTE =7 x 10-6 oF-1

5
CTE =5.5 x 10-6 oF-1 (LTPP)

4
3
2

CTE =4 x 10-6 oF-1

1
0
0

10

15

20

25

Age, years

FIGURE 7 Predicted punchouts with various PCC CTE for Mississippi LTPP section 28-5006.