Design Approaches

Applicable design procedures for RCC pavement include the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Pavement ME Design, American Concrete Institute 330 and 325, RCC-Pave, American Concrete Pavement Association StreetPaveTM, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thickness design procedure, and AASHTO 1998. However, these procedures are limited to the consideration of fatigue cracking and are less focused on jointing scheme, subbase thickness, and subbase stiffness design for a given traffic level and flow. Slab bending stresses in these procedures are typically greatest along the longitudinal pavement edge. For those procedures that delineate edge stress with respect to load transfer efficiency across the longitudinal joint, some design benefit can perhaps be gained by accounting for load position relative to that joint since its stiffness is rather low. One of the only options for reduced design stresses is by minimizing loading of the longitudinal joints, which can be facilitated by knowing the expected loading patterns. Additionally, strategic placement of flow patterns and break lines will facilitate reduced saturation and infiltration of joint interfaces and potential weakening of subgrade support.

Another aspect of RCC pavement design pertains to the tightness or stiffness of the transverse cracks. Conventionally constructed RCC has not always included sawed joints, which has often resulted in some transverse cracks opening wider and moving more than others, manifesting poor load transfer characteristics that ultimately lead to localized joint failure. Sawcutting joints facilitates continuity between the design assumptions and the configuration of the constructed pavement section.