Making Best Use of Long Life Pavements in Europe Phase 3 - A Guide To The Use of Long-Life Rigid Pavements

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/331224543
Making Best Use of Long-Life Pavements in Europe Phase 3: A Guide to the

use of Long-Life Rigid Pavements
Preprint · February 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 498
8 authors, including:
Mirosław Graczyk László Gáspár

Instytut Badawczy Dróg i Mostów KTI
40 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS 313 PUBLICATIONS 219 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Michael P. Wistuba Karel Pospisil

Technische Universität Braunschweig Brno University of Technology
157 PUBLICATIONS 1,175 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Rubber bitumen View project
DIRECT_MAT project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by László Gáspár on 18 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Filename Phase 3 Report v12.doc
Date printed 24/04/2009 18:33
Making Best Use of Long-Life Pavements

in Europe
Phase 3:
A Guide to the use of Long-Life Rigid Pavements
BRRC
ELLPAG (European Long-Life Pavements Group)

A Working Group of FEHRL
(Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories)
FEHRL Report 2006/x i
ELLPAG Phase 3 Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................iii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1
2. Traffic Assessment ................................................................................................4
3. Design and construction .......................................................................................7
3.1 Types of rigid pavements ......................................................................................7
3.2 Design concepts ...................................................................................................8
3.3 Design parameters................................................................................................9
3.4 Construction practice ..........................................................................................13
4. Assessment and Upgrading ................................................................................16
4.1 Assessment ........................................................................................................16
4.2 Upgrading ..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5. Maintenance ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Pavement categories .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Failures ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3 Maintenance strategies ..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.4 Condition criteria for assessing the requirement for maintenance .................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
6. Economics............................................................................................................40
7. Research needs....................................................................................................41
8. Recommendations ...............................................................................................42
9. Summary...............................................................................................................46
10. References............................................................................................................47
Appendix A: National ReportS ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A1. Austria............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A2. Belgium .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A3. Czech Republic.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A4. France ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A5. Germany......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A6. Greece............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A7. Hungary.......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A8. The Netherlands ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A9. Poland ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A10. Switzerland .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A11. United Kingdom........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
FEHRL
FEHRL Report 2006/x ii
Appendix B: Glossary .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX C: Membership of ELLPAG ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX D: Timeline for the ELLPAG project ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
FEHRL
FEHRL Report 2006/x iii
Executive Summary
During 1998/99, the Western European Road Directors (WERD), now called the
Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR), asked its members for topics of
interest affecting the European road network, with the aims of identifying any knowledge
gaps and initiating research. Long-life pavements (LLPs) was one of the topics suggested
by the UK Highways Agency and was later endorsed by WERD as an appropriate area for
a co-operative approach.
The European Long-Life Pavement Group (ELLPAG) was subsequently established in
1999 as a FEHRL and CEDR Working Group to act as the focal point for determining the
way forward. Members of the Group comprise representatives of research institutes
(FEHRL members) and the UK Highways Agency, representing CEDR.
The original objectives of ELLPAG can be stated chronologically as short-term, medium
term and long-term objectives.
• The short-term objective of the Group was to produce, within 12 months of starting
the formal project, a State-of-the-art Review of current European knowledge on the design
and maintenance of long-life fully-flexible pavements.
• The medium-term objectives are to produce similar state-of-the-art reviews for the
other common pavement types.
• The long-term objective is to produce a user-friendly comprehensive Best Practice
Guidance note on long-life pavement design and maintenance for all the common types of
pavement construction used in Europe.
In 2002, a proposal for a first phase of work undertaken by ELLPAG was approved by
FEHRL and CEDR. Funding was secured from each of the core member’s national road
administrations to participate in this work. Phase 1 was completed in 2004 with the
publication of ‘A guide to the use of long-life flexible pavements in Europe’. The second
phase was completed and published in 2008. This document covers the third phase of
the work and provides guidance on the use of long-life rigid pavements in Europe.
As for the first and second phases, the work in this report has been sub-divided into six
main areas which correspond to the main chapters of this Report: Traffic Assessment,
Design and Construction, Assessment and Upgrading, Maintenance, Economics and
Research Recommendations. The methodology for creating this report mainly involved
each core ELLPAG member providing a National Report covering each of the above
subject areas. These National Reports have then been combined and summarised to
provide the essence of each of the six chapters.
FEHRL
FEHRL Report 2006/x 1
1. Introduction
During 1998/99, the Western European Road Directors (WERD), now called the
Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR), asked its members for topics of
interest affecting the European road network, with the aims of identifying any knowledge
gaps and initiating research. Long-life pavements (LLPs) was one of the topics suggested
by the UK Highways Agency and was later endorsed by WERD as an appropriate area for
a co-operative approach.
The European Long-Life Pavement Group (ELLPAG) was subsequently established as a
FEHRL Working Group to act as the focal point for determining the way forward. Members
of the Group comprise representatives of research institutes (FEHRL members) and the
UK Highways Agency, representing CEDR.
Two levels of membership of the Group have been created. Core members are directly
involved in the work of the Group and their representatives attend regular meetings as
required. All core members are from either the FEHRL or CEDR organisations. Associate
or affiliate members are kept informed of the work of the Group and contribute through
supplying information as requested and commenting on draft outputs; these members do
not need to be part of either FEHRL or CEDR.
The original objectives of ELLPAG can be stated chronologically as short-term, medium
term and long-term objectives.
• The short-term objective of the Group is to produce State-of-the-art Review
of current European knowledge on the design and maintenance of long-life
fully-flexible pavements (Phase 1) and semi-rigid pavements (Phase 2).
These reports have been completed.
• The medium-term objectives are to produce similar state-of-the-art reviews
for the other common pavement types.
• The long-term objective is to produce a user-friendly comprehensive Best
Practice Guidance note on long-life pavement design and maintenance for
all the common types of pavement construction used in Europe.
Since then, the Group has progressed to the third phase of the work as shown in Figure
1.1 and is considering rigid pavements. This report is a state-of-the-art review of rigid
long-life pavements.
The Phase 1 Report used the following definition of a long-life pavement. “A long-life
pavement is a type of pavement where no significant deterioration will develop in the
foundations or the road base layers provided that correct surface maintenance is carried
out.” However, during Phase 2 it was recognised that an improved definition was required
that was also appropriate to both semi-rigid and rigid pavements. The revised definition,
that encompasses all pavement types, is as follows.
A well designed and well constructed pavement where the structural elements last
indefinitely provided that the designed maximum individual load and environmental
conditions are not exceeded and that appropriate and timely surface maintenance
is carried out.
FEHRL
Phase 1:
Review of Fully
Flexible LLPs
Identify Knowledge Gaps

Phase 2:
Review of Semi-
Research
Rigid LLPs
TIME
Phase 3:
Review of Rigid
LLPs
Phase 4:
Production of Best
Practice Guide
Figure 1.1. Plan for the flow of the work of ELLPAG
Rigid pavements comprise a concrete layer, the main structural element, laid onto a
bound or unbound sub-base layer. In some countries, a thin asphalt layer is used as a
surfacing layer or as an intermediate layer between the concrete and the sub-base.
Concrete, as a construction material, is relatively strong, durable and stable. The high
stiffness of concrete provides a good distribution of traffic loading leading to low stresses
in the underlying materials. It can be made with a wide range of materials, including
recycled and secondary aggregates and binders, which makes best use of available
materials and contributes to sustainable construction. Concrete is not damaged by vehicle
fire, does not emit harmful fumes, and has a high fire safety factor.
Concrete, however, is subjected to volume changes, i.e. expansion and contraction, due
to shrinkage and temperature variations. The movements in concrete pavements are
either accommodated by providing sufficient space, in the form of joints, or relieved by
cracks, which are usually held tightly closed by the steel reinforcement.
Rigid pavements have been generally used on roads which are likely to be heavily
trafficked, where delays to the travelling public from maintenance are needed to be kept to
a minimum. The amount of rigid pavement on the national road network varies for the
individual European countries. A relatively large amount of rigid pavements, considering
the length of the total national network, is found in Austria and Belgium with 36 and 35%,
respectively, followed by Germany at 25%. France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain,
Switzerland and the UK have values less than 10%. The limited use of rigid pavements in
FEHRL
Europe is mainly associated with the relatively high initial costs. However, a long-life rigid
pavement with an improved long-term performance can significantly lower the whole life
cost.
The work undertaken during Phase 3 has been sub-divided into five main areas which
correspond to the main chapters of this report: Traffic Assessment, Design and
Construction, Assessment and Upgrading, Maintenance, Economics and Research
Recommendations. The methodology combined reviews of existing documentation and
contributions for each area from the core member participants. Table 1.1 lists the core
ELLPAG members who contributed to the tasks carried out in this Phase. A more detailed
list of the organisations involved in the core group of ELLPAG is given in Appendix B.
Table 1.1 Phase 3 core ELLPAG member participants
Organisation Participant member
BRRC – Belgium Michel Gorski / Carl Van Geem
CDV – Czech Republic Josef Stryk / Karel Pospisil
CEDEX – Spain Angel Mateos / Jose Baena
DWW (now DVS)– The Netherlands Arthur van Dommelen / Arjan Venmans
ISTU – Austria Michael Wistuba / Johann Litzka
KTI – Hungary Laszlo Gaspar / Robert Karoly
LCPC – France Gilles Laurent / Francois de Larrard / Ferhat Mammoum
LAVOC – Switzerland Nicolas Bueche / Mehdi Ould-Henia
NTUA – Greece Andreas Loizos
IBDiM – Poland Mirosław Graczyk
TRL – United Kingdom Brian Ferne (Chairman) / Vijay Ramdas / David Gershkoff, Khaled
Hassan & Guy Watts (Secretariat)
FEHRL
2. Traffic loading
The estimation of traffic loading for the design and maintenance of pavements is usually
carried out using a load equivalence relationship of the form given in Equation 2.1; where
L = load equivalence, P = axle load, Pr = reference axle load and n is an exponent relating
the factors which contribute to wear. The value of the exponent n (wear factor) varies
widely between different national design guidelines; in some instances the value of the
wear factor cannot readily be identified as is embodied in a design chart or equation.
n
P
L (2.1)
Pr
For the computation of design loading, traffic wear (or aggressivity) factors are often used.
The load equivalence concept is used to compute average traffic wear. Equation 2.2
illustrates this type of approach where T = design traffic, N = number of loads and
C = wear factor; other factors can be used in this calculation such as lateral wander of
traffic.
T N C (2.2)
A discussion was made in the Phase 1 Report (FEHRL, 2004) of the maximum level of
design traffic for each national design method declared in the ELLPAG questionnaire
responses. There was a wide variation in the maximum traffic design in each country
whereas the designs that were given from each country for these loadings were often
similar. However, much of the variation originated from differences in the reference
standard axle, the exponent of the load equivalence relationship and the legal maximum
axle load in each country.
The range of values for the exponent n of Equation 2.1 for fully-flexible and semi-rigid
pavements for the various member countries is given in the Phase 2 Report (FEHRL,
2009). However, there was only little information in the responses from member countries
for values of the exponent used for long life rigid pavements in Europe.
In the Phase 2 Report (FEHRL, 2009) it is considered that a difference in the exponents of
the load equivalence relationships and average ‘aggressivity’ of vehicles can be related to
the different anticipated deterioration modes in asphalt and hydraulically bound materials.
The onset of deterioration in asphalt, such as deformation or fatigue, is assumed to be
progressive and related to the axle loads on the structure. However, the main mode of
deterioration in rigid pavements is failure caused when high axle loading generates stress
levels that exceed the strength of the concrete. Provided that the stress levels are low, this
type of failure is rare. However if these stress levels are high the fracture within the
material can occur and a sudden onset of deterioration can be seen. Consequently, the
onset of deterioration in hydraulically bound layers is likely to be more sensitive to axle
loads than asphalt layers, hence the use of greater values for the exponent. Some
national design methods consider the different effects of traffic on asphalt and
hydraulically bound layers and others make no difference between the types of pavement
construction.
In France, an exponent of 5 is used for traffic assessment on fully-flexible pavements
whereas a larger exponent value of 12 is used for other pavement types including rigid
pavements.
FEHRL
In Austria, the damaging impact on the pavement is currently assessed by a direct

analytical approach, using fatigue equations, from the destructive effect of the passage of
different axle loads and axle configurations (relevant stresses and strains). In the
framework of a comprehensive sensitivity analysis (Litzka et al, 1996) the key components
of the damaging impact of single and twin tyres and different axle configurations on both
asphalt and concrete pavements were examined. A detailed data on the distribution of
axle loads and vehicle types found on Austria’s federal road network was used as a basis
for the computation of mean equivalence factors (based on a 100kN standard axle) for
different vehicle types and characteristic collectives of heavy vehicles, that are listed in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Equivalence factors for heavy traffic used in Austria (after RVS 03.08.63, 2008)
Mean equivalence factors for different heavy vehicles in Austria
lorry, single 0,70

lorry plus trailer, articulated lorry 1,20
bus, coach 0,60
bus, public transport 0,80
articulated bus, public transport 1,40
Mean equivalence factors of heavy vehicle fleet (AADTCV) for
different road categories in Austria
motorways 1,00
other roads 0,90
In the UK, sets of wear factors have been produced for use with either maintenance (W M)
or a new design (W N) situation; these are dependent on the class and category of
commercial vehicle but independent of the type of pavement construction. New design
situations include new road and pavement construction projects and road widening
schemes. The wear factors for a new design case are higher than for a maintenance case
in order to allow for the additional risk that arises from the additional uncertainty with traffic
predications for new roads. The standard axle in the UK is less than used in Austria and is
taken as 80kN. The background to the research in deriving the wear factors for use in the
UK is given in described by Atkinson et al. (2006).
The (UK) wear factors given in the HD24 (DMRB 7.2.1) are related to the class and
category of commercial vehicle and are reproduced in Table 2.2.
FEHRL
Table 2.2 Wear factors for commercial vehicles classes and categories in the UK
(reproduced from HD 24 (DMRB 7.2.1))
Commercial vehicle Wear factor
Class Category Maintenance (W M) New design (W N)
Buses and coaches PSV 2.6 3.9
2-axle rigid 0.4 0.6
OGV1
3 and 4-axle articulated 1.7 2.5
OGV2
5-axle articulated 2.9 4.4
6-axle articulated 3.7 5.6
OGV1 + PSV 0.6 1.0
OGV2 3.0 4.4
FEHRL
3. Design and construction

This section details the various designs and constructions which have been collated from
a review of the information provided by the ELLPAG member countries where this type of
construction is commonly used.
3.1 Types of rigid pavements

The most common types of rigid pavements used in Europe include jointed un-reinforced
concrete slabs (URC) and continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP). Schematic
diagrams for URC from Austria (Wistuba et al., 2004) and CRCP from the UK (BCA, 1994)
are shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1. Schematic diagrams for URC (left) and CRCP (right)
A URC pavement, which contains no reinforcement, is considered an economic

construction and is the most frequently constructed type of rigid pavement in the member
countries. The movements of the slabs arising from internal thermally induced stresses
are accommodated at transverse joints, usually spaced at 4-6m intervals.
Another type of the jointed pavement is the jointed reinforced concrete (JRC), which has
been mainly used in the UK. JRC is slightly more expensive to construct due to the
additional steel reinforcement, but offers improved performance and reduced maintenance
costs from an increased joint spacing of up to 25m. JRC pavements generally remain in
FEHRL
an un-cracked condition and any induced transverse cracks are kept tightly closed by the
reinforcement.
Jointed rigid pavements suffer from progressive defects occurring at the joints resulting in
increased maintenance costs to joints and slabs. The stresses, from thermal changes and
traffic, are mainly induced at slab corners and edges. Therefore, the use of dowel bars is
essential to distribute loads between slabs. The use of transverse joints can lead to
construction and maintenance difficulties from dowels not functioning properly, causing
joint associated distresses that influence the performance of the pavement.
To overcome the problems associated with transverse joints a CRCP was developed.
CRCP contains continuous longitudinal reinforcement with no internal expansion or
contraction joints. The thermal stresses within the pavement are relieved by transverse
cracks, which are held tightly closed by the reinforcement to give good aggregate interlock
and maintain the structural integrity of the pavement. A CRCP is considered to be
especially suited to areas with poor ground conditions or on heavily trafficked roads where
disruption to traffic for maintenance purposes should be a minimum. The initial
construction cost of a CRCP is higher than that of a jointed concrete pavement, however,
a reduced slab thickness and improved long-term performance can contribute significantly
to a low whole life cost. CRCP is the currently preferred type of rigid pavement in Belgium,
France, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK.
The concept of a continuously reinforced concrete has been used as a continuously
reinforced concrete base (CRCB) with a thick asphalt surfacing of 10cm. Due to the
relatively thick asphalt layer, which contributes to the structural capacity of the pavements,
CRCB is classified by the ELLPAG members as a semi-rigid pavement.
3.2 Design concepts

Any pavement should be designed to carry a predetermined amount of traffic safely and
with the minimum amount of maintenance. The principal parameters which will influence
the design life are the amount of traffic to be carried, the type of foundation, the concrete
thickness, the concrete strength and, in reinforced pavements, the amount of steel
reinforcement. The concrete layer is designed to spread the applied traffic loads and to
substantially reduce the stresses imposed on the foundation, and the foundation is
designed to distribute the traffic loads to the underlying subgrade without distress to it or
within the overlaying layers. The steel reinforcement is not contributing to the structural
design of pavement but to control the crack spacing and width. A tied shoulder or an
extended edge is sometime considered into the design to reduce the edge stresses of the
concrete slab.
European designs for rigid pavements rely heavily on empirical data from the observed
performance of experimental roads taken at a number of full-scale sites, and from the
determination of deflections and stresses in the pavement, supplemented by results from
laboratory tests on specimens taken from the pavement. The interpretation of data has
lead to the development of analytically-generated designs, which are based on realistic
traffic predictions and the characterisation of parameters contributing to the structural
performance of the pavement. These include the type of pavement, the material and
structural properties of the pavement layers and the combined effects of traffic and
temperature loading.
FEHRL
There are a variety of approaches to rigid pavement design currently used by the ELLPAG
members. For example, the UK has developed a suite of thickness curves for different
foundation types, concrete strengths and for different cumulative traffic loadings. The
Netherlands and France have developed analytical design tools for the calculation of the
pavement thickness in relation to the fatigue at the base of the pavement, concrete
strength and stiffness, crack width and spacing, and the amount of steel reinforcement.
Other member countries specify a range of concrete thicknesses in relation to the traffic
loading.
3.3 Design parameters

Irrespective of the design method applied, the following features are common to all the
ELLPAG members which are discussed in the following sections.
3.3.1 Traffic
The traffic parameters in the national road guidelines relating to the design of rigid
pavements are maximum axle load, standard design axle load, the design period and the
maximum cumulative traffic loading. The maximum axle load for the different countries
ranges between 105 and 130 kN, with the highest value being specified in Belgium,
France and Spain. The range of standard axles used to calculate cumulative traffic loading
is from 80 to 130 kN, with the highest value for France and the lowest for the UK. The
Netherlands adopts a different approach by designing to a spectrum of axle loads, where
50% are greater than 60 kN, 10% are greater than 100 kN and 0.1% are greater than 200
kN. The majority of the countries design concrete roads for a thirty to forty year life.
A comparison of the design criteria, Table 3.1, shows that most countries design on a
cumulative number of standard axles, although the equivalent standard axle load (ESAL)
varies between countries. Belgium uses other design criteria of an annual daily traffic
(ADT) flow. Design criteria in million standard axles (msa) with maximum national values
of 80 and 400msa are used in Austria and the UK, respectively. The increased maximum
cumulative traffic for design in the UK takes into account the potential damaging effect
from increased heavy good vehicles (HGV) axle loads.
Despite the similarity of traffic loading specification in many countries, it is not easy to
make a direct comparison between them because the variations of ESAL and the
maximum traffic loading within the design period of the pavements.
FEHRL
Table 3.1. National traffic loading specifications
Country Standard axle (kN) Design period Design criteria for maximum traffic
(year)
Austria 100 30 Cumulative standard axles >80msa
Belgium 127 40 ADT of 18,000
France 130 30 Number of HGV
Netherlands 100 30-40 Spectrum of axle loads
UK 80 40 Cumulative standard axles 400msa
3.3.2 Concrete strength

Concrete is mainly classified based on its strength properties as compressive, flexural or
tensile strength. As the strength of concrete increases the stiffness increases, and hence
better distribution of the traffic loading to the foundations. Higher strength concrete also
exhibits greater fatigue life under repeated traffic loads. A summary of the concrete design
values for the different countries is given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Concrete design strength
Country Age of testing Concrete strength (MPa)

(days) Compressive Flexural Tensile (splitting)
Austria 28 35/40 5.5 -
Belgium 90 62.5 - -
Czech Republic 28 25 - 35 3.5 - 4.5 -
France 28 - - 2.7
Germany 28 30/37 - -
Netherlands 28 35/45 - -
Poland 28 - 4-6 -
Spain 28 - 3.5 - 4.5 -
Switzerland 28 30 5.5 -
UK 28 - 4.5 - 6 -
Belgium classifies concretes based on their strength at 90 days, whereas the remaining
countries use the 28 day strengths. The majority of the countries use flexural and/or
compressive strength values, whilst France specifies concrete based on the splitting
tensile strength. The design compressive strength varies from 25 to 62.5 MPa for the
different countries and the flexural strength from 3.5 to 6 MPa.
FEHRL
3.3.3 Foundation
In rigid pavements traffic induced stresses are spread over a large area of the subgrade.
Therefore, variation in the subgrade strength is likely to have little influence upon the
structural capacity of the pavement.
When the subgrade comprises very low strength material it is often necessary to improve
the bearing capacity to allow construction of the upper layers. This could be achieved by
the addition of an unbound granular layer, in the form of a capping layer, or by in-situ
stabilisation of the soil. In Austria, the minimum bearing modulus of the subgrade from the
static plate test is 35 MPa and in Switzerland a modulus of 22.5 to 45 MPa is required. In
Spain, for the heaviest traffic the subgrade must be stabilised with cement. Two of the
ELLPAG member countries use capping layers, in the Netherlands the natural soil is
improved with a 50 cm layer of sand, and in the UK a granular capping layer is required
where the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the natural subgrade is less than 5%. In
France, the subgrade strength must be more than 120 MPa when heavy traffic is to be
carried.
The sub-base is a platform layer upon which the concrete layer is constructed. The UK
specifies a hydraulically bound material only for use under rigid pavements. This is to
ensure a durable and strong sub-base to resist erosion from the ingress of surface water
through joints and cracks. In France, the sub-base is also a lean concrete, except when
heavy traffic is to be carried. However, owing to frequent erosion problems the recent
trend is to use 9 cm of bituminous material as the sub-base layer for a CRCP. Other
countries, such as Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands, use an intermediate bituminous
layer of 5 to 6 cm between the concrete and the sub-base.
Countries that allow a variety of sub-base materials are Austria, Belgium, Germany,
Poland and Switzerland. Belgium specifies a 20 cm lean concrete under the most heavily
trafficked roads, with 20 cm unbound sub-bases as an option for less heavily trafficked
pavements. In Spain the situation is similar but with 15 cm of lean concrete under the
most heavily trafficked roads and 20 to 40 cm of unbound granular sub-bases for less
heavily trafficked pavements. Austria, Germany, Poland and Switzerland specify either
bound or unbound sub-bases, with appropriate adjustments to the overlying concrete
thickness. In the Netherlands, an unbound sub-base comprising 25 cm thick of crushed
masonry or crushed concrete aggregate is specified.
3.3.4 Concrete thickness

The thickness of the concrete pavement is the major design output from rigid pavement
designs. A comparison of the thickness designs for URC pavements, based on a
prescribed set of parameters, is shown in Figure 3.2. The design parameters considered
are:
Traffic of 5,000 commercial vehicles per day (cv/d)/lane
Concrete strength (flexural 4 MPa, tensile 2.7 MPa, or compressive C32)
Foundation modulus =100MPa.
FEHRL
35
30
Slab thickness (cm)
25
20
15 29 29 31
27 28
25 26 26 26
22 23
10
0
nd
ic
UK
m
nd
ria
n
ce
nd
an
ar
bl
ai
iu
la
la
st
an
pu
ng
Sp
la
lg
m
er
Po
Au
Fr
er
Be
Re
er
Hu
i tz
th
G
Sw
Ne
ec
Cz
Figure 3.2. Concrete design thickness for URC pavements
Figure 3.2 shows that the thickness of URC designs ranged between 22cm and 31cm,
with Switzerland having the thinnest slab and the UK having the thickest slab, however,
the UK no longer constructs URC. In France, the Netherlands and Spain the use of rigid
pavement for high traffic loading is limited to CRCP. With the exception of the
Netherlands, Spain and the UK, the design thickness varies between 22 and 28 cm for the
other countries. The thickness values for Switzerland and Belgium were either 22cm or
23cm, whereas the thickness values for Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary,
Poland and Austria were between 25 and 28 cm.
The same design parameters, as above, were used to derive a CRCP thickness. The
results from the five ELLPAG member countries which use such designs show that the
CRCP thickness ranged between 20 cm in Belgium and France, and 25 cm in the
Netherlands, Spain and the UK. New designs for CRCP in France show that a CRCP
thickness has been reduced to 17cm when laid on a bituminous sub-base layer of 9cm.
3.3.5 Reinforcement
The main function of the reinforcement in CRCP is to control the formation of cracks and
to hold them tightly closed to ensure high load transfer across cracks and improve the
structural integrity of the pavement. The reinforcement adds to the initial construction cost
but the improved long-term performance and the reduction in pavement thickness make
CRCP cost-effective.
The amount and location of the longitudinal reinforcement greatly influence the width and
spacing of transverse cracks, and hence the performance of CRCP. A low percentage of
reinforcement is mainly associated with large crack spacing and wide crack openings. The
amount of longitudinal reinforcement usually ranges from 0.6 to 0.7% of the concrete
cross section; a reinforcement content of up to 0.85% has been used in Belgium. The
longitudinal reinforcement is generally located in the mid-depth of the concrete slab to
reduce the risk of reinforcement corrosion.
Transverse reinforcement is used, in the range of 0.05-0.1%, to enable locating and fixing
the longitudinal reinforcement as well as eliminating the longitudinal cracks. Transverse
reinforcements are more susceptible to corrosion as they, in many cases, coincide with
FEHRL
transverse cracks. In Belgium, the longitudinal reinforcement bars are located at third-
depth on transverse bars, skewed at 60 degrees. These arrangements result in fine crack
widths and almost no reinforcement corrosion after many years in service.
3.3.6 Joints
For URC, the ELLPAG countries use either transverse contraction joints, or a combination
of contraction and expansion joints. The maximum spacing specified between contraction
joints is 5 m, with the exception of the Czech Republic which specifies a maximum
spacing of 6 m. Expansion joints are specified for use in Austria, Hungary, Poland, Spain
and Switzerland, with Austria and Hungary only specifying their use at the ends of
concrete slabs adjacent to a bridge structure.
Dowel bars are usually used at transverse joints and tie bars at longitudinal joints. The
dimensions of the dowel bars for the different countries range between 2 and 2.5 cm
diameter, and the length either 50 or 60 cm. In developing a new design for long-life rigid
pavements the dowel bars for use in European countries will be required to comply to the
European Standard EN 13877-3 (2004) in terms of bar dimensions and the quality of the
steel.
3.3.7 Terminations
In CRCP most of the longitudinal movement takes place at the ends of the slab. To ensure
that stresses are not transmitted, by the expansion of the slab, to adjacent structures and
pavements, the ends of the CRCP are either restrained by ground beam anchorage
terminations, or accommodated within joints, such as wide flange beams. Both systems
are relatively expensive to construct. Ground anchor beams are regarded as being
maintenance free but are not recommended where the ground conditions are weak. A
wide-flange beam is not so dependent on the ground conditions but requires routine
maintenance to maintain the joint sealant in a satisfactory condition.
3.4 Construction practice

The high initial construction cost, lack of construction experience or political implications of
noise are the main concerns limiting the wider use of rigid pavements. A commitment has
been made by some governments to the use of a quiet surfacing system. Recent designs
seen as providing a quiet and long-life surfacing include an exposed aggregate surface
(EAS) finish and a low-noise thin surfacing system (TSS).
An EAS utilises a polish resistant aggregate in the surfacing which can be incorporated in
the concrete mixture either as a single layer construction or, as a thin surfacing on a two
layer construction. The advantage of the two layer construction comes from the option of
using available secondary or recycled materials for the lower concrete layer and thus
contributing to economic and sustainable construction. The use of a TSS is seen as not
only providing a quiet surfacing but also enhancing the durability by sealing the concrete
surface, preventing the ingress of surface water and de-icing salts to the underlying
FEHRL
concrete layer and foundation, and reducing the risk of freeze-thaw damage and
reinforcement corrosion.
The use of an intermediate asphalt layer between the bottom of the concrete layer and the
top of the sub-base has many advantages including that of providing a cushion to the
movements of the concrete layer and protecting the foundation from erosion. This
technique is specified in Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. In Germany, a non-woven
fabric material is placed between the sub-base and concrete slab to prevent bonding
between layers and provide a route for under slab drainage. Other countries, such as the
UK, specify only bound sub-bases that provide a durable and non-erodable platform.
3.4.1 Quality control

In Europe, CEN member countries are bound to comply with the functional requirements
of the finished concrete in a rigid pavement for quality control to ensure compliance with
the design requirements. These are based on a series of tests given in European
Standard EN 13877-2 (2004). Each test has a category number “0”, “1” or “2” related to
the number of cores to be tested. The categories for the various tests are given in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3. Functional tests and categories of quality control (EN 13877-2)
Functional test requirement Category (a)

0 1 2
Section 2.1 Strength of concrete N.R. 3 / 10,000m² 1 / 1,000m²
(b)
Section 2.2 Thickness of concrete pavement N.R. 3 / 10,000m² 1 / 1,000m²
(c)
Section 2.3 Density of concrete N.R. 3 / 10,000m² 1 / 1,000m²
Section 2.4 Freeze/thaw resistance N.R. 3 / 10,000m² 1 / 1,000m²
Section 2.5 Wear resistance of concrete pavement to N.R. N.R. 3 / 100,000m²
studded tyres
(d)
Section 2.6 Bond between two concrete layers N.R. 3 / 10,000m² 1 / 1,000m²
Section 2.7 Resistance against fuel and oil penetration N.R. 3 / 10,000m² 1 / 1,000m²
(a) N.R. = No requirement for functional testing.
2
2
(b) For paving areas up to 3,000m a minimum of 3 cores shall be taken. For each further area of 1,000m
an additional core shall be taken.
(c) A minimum of 3 cores shall be taken.
(d) A minimum of 9 cores shall be taken in order to obtain a statistically significant result.
Concrete strength, thickness and density are the commonly used tests to establish the
quality controls, but they could be carried out in different methods by ELLPAG members. For
example, most of the countries use cores from the finished hardened concrete for the
determination of compressive strength, whereas France determines the tensile strength
from moulded cylinders of material made at the time of construction.
Belgium, the Czech Republic and the UK use cores to determine the thickness of the
concrete. Austria and France use a levelling technique rather than cut cores. The Czech
Republic requires the number of cores given in Category1 whereas Belgium, France and the
UK require the higher number given in Category 2.
FEHRL
The density of concrete is generally obtained from cores. The Czech Republic requires the
number of cores tested to be Category 1, whereas France and the UK require the number of
samples to Category 2. Belgium uses the water absorption test method, which gives an
indication of the concrete density as well as its durability.
Of the remaining functional tests, the determination of Freeze/thaw resistance was cited,
by Belgium. The number of cores sampled is to that given in Category 2. There is also a
functional requirement for the position of the reinforcement in Belgium, which is not a
functional requirement given in EN 13877-2 (2004).
A questionnaire was prepared to gain information on the quality controls used by the
individual member countries of ELLPAG and the results are given in Table 3.4. It should
be noted that most countries operate certain rules/guidance relating to acceptance and
application of the different tests, but for simplicity and brevity of the Table these
rules/guidance are not recorded herein.
Table 3.4. Summary of the results of a questionnaire to identify QC for concrete
Functional test requirement Category (as defined in Table 3.3)

Austria Belgium Czech France Hungary Poland UK
Republic
Section 2.1: Strength Comp 1 2 1 0 2 0 2
Tensile 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Section 2.2: Thickness from cores 1 2 1 0 1 2 2
Section 2.2: Thickness Levelling 0 NA 0 2 0 0 0
by survey method Taut line 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0
Section 2.3: Density 0 0 1 2 2 2 2
Section 2.4: Freeze/thaw 0 2 0 0 0 2 0
Section 2.5: Wear 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0
Section 2.6: Bond 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Section 2.7: Fuel and oil 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Notes: NA Not applicable
FEHRL
4. Assessment and Upgrading
4.1 Assessment
The purpose of pavement condition assessment is to determine the structural properties
of a pavement, the extent of present defects and to identify the cause of damage. This
allows decisions to be made in order to:
check if the pavement is of a long-life type,
decide if the existing structure can be upgraded to a long-life pavement, or
find the most effective maintenance solution.
4.1.1 Techniques for pavement condition assessment

All methods to assess the structural pavement condition presented in the national reports
are primarily based on periodical visual inspection of the road surface and the observation
of damage phenomena. Assessment is often complemented by automated non-
destructive methods, such as measurements of skid resistance and evenness, static
deflection measurement (e.g. Benkelman Beam), dynamic deflection measurement by an
oscillating load (e.g. Dynaflect, Road Rater) or impact load deflection measurement (e.g.
Falling Weight Deflectometer) of bearing capacity and back-calculation of moduli. In
addition, some countries (e.g. Austria, Switzerland and The Netherlands) recommend
using destructive methods for structural assessment, comprising laboratory stiffness and
fatigue testing on pavement samples.
Work is going on in the UK to allow several non-destructive techniques to be applied for
pavement assessment: Falling Weight Deflectometer, Ground Penetrating Radar, Portable
Seismic Pavement Analyser and Non-Destructive Crack Depth.
Other measurements may be used for detailed investigation of damage, e.g. the
Faultimeter to measure movements of slabs, Falling Weight Deflectometer to measure
load transfer at cracks and joints, and coring.
Consequently, in some countries a systematic pavement management system is
established, where performance indicators, resulting from pavement condition assessment
and describing the extent of cracks, erosion of the road base, unevenness, skid
resistance, bearing capacity, etc., are used to judge the pavement condition and, within
the scope of the maintenance management at network level, to enable a systematic
ranking of necessary maintenance actions.
FEHRL
4.1.2 Procedure for pavement assessment

A specific procedure has been developed in the UK for the assessment of concrete
pavements such that suitable maintenance strategies may be proposed by the
maintenance agent and assessed by the client. This procedure, diagrammatically
presented in Figure 4.1, partly covers similar procedures in other European countries.
The UK assessment procedure, described in HD29 commences with the routine testing
undertaken annually on the National road network including TRAffic-speed Condition
Surveys (TRACS), evaluation of skid resistance by means of the Sideways Coefficient
Routine Investigation Machine (SCRIM), and Visual Condition Surveys (VCS). This initial
condition assessment determines the ride quality and the presence of cracks, and is used
to indicate if there is a possible requirement for maintenance on a section of the network.
When there is a possibility of maintenance being required, a suite of general tests are
used to undertake a more detailed investigation of the particular section. This suite of tests
may not be adequate to determine the cause of all problems and more specific tests may
be required to resolve the cause of certain problems. The tests undertaken should be
tailored to provide a sound justification for any maintenance work proposed.
When the testing is completed a report should be written indicating the cause(s) of the
problem(s) found. The report is then used to develop a number of maintenance scenarios
that would treat the cause(s), alleviate the problem(s) and restore the pavement to an
acceptable standard. This procedure has been produced by drawing together the various
tests for pavement assessment that are currently undertaken and putting them together to
form a comprehensive assessment procedure.
4.1.2.1 Routine assessment

Ideally all the data collected in the routine assessment of the national road network should
be undertaken by vehicles at traffic speed to avoid delays to the road user. However, at
the present time it is suggested that the current routine assessment performed at traffic
speed is backed up by a coarse manual visual condition survey of the amount of cracking
in the pavement when the high speed assessment is unable to monitor cracks of less than
2mm in width. This coarse manual visual condition survey may be required because of the
importance of detecting cracking in concrete pavements.
The data collected in the routine assessment should be analysed to determine if the
interrogation level for a particular parameter has been reached and the data should also
be compared to existing data in the database and the maintenance history, to allow a
trend analysis to be performed. These analyses will allow a decision to be made as to
whether certain sections of the network require more detailed investigation.
4.1.2.2 Detailed investigations

The detailed investigation should commence with a detailed Visual Condition Survey
(VCS) to indicate all the visible defects in the pavement. This survey can then be utilised
to determine other areas for detailed investigation. It is often beneficial to compare a good
area that has no defects with areas that are in poor condition. One must use engineering
judgement, with regard to the number and range of problems noted in the VCS, to
determine the frequency of testing required to provide enough data to make a sound
technical judgement of the cause(s) of any problem(s).
FEHRL
Figure 4.1: Investigation and assessment process (reproduced from HD30 (DMRB 7.3.3))
A ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey should be undertaken to determine the

thickness of the pavement layers, any voids under the concrete, the depth of
reinforcement where present and a comparative assessment of the moisture in the
pavement. This survey should be undertaken along the complete length of the section.
There have been advances in the speed at which this type of survey can be undertaken.
This may reduce, or eliminate, the requirement for traffic management when performing
GPR surveys.
Testing with the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) should be undertaken at mid-slab to
determine the stiffness of the pavement layers, and at the discontinuities, joints and
cracks, to determine the load transfer efficiency (LTE), the differential vertical movement
(DVM) and any loss of support to the slab. The mid-slab testing may not be required in the
future if the bearing capacity could be determined during the routine testing.
FEHRL
Small diameter cores should be taken to determine the thickness of the pavement layers.
These can be used for calibrating the GPR and for analysis of the FWD data. Larger
diameter cores should be taken for determining the strength and density of the concrete
slab, or cement bound sub-base, and for assessing the condition of the reinforcement.
Before reinstating the core holes, dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing should be
undertaken to determine the thickness and CBR of the unbound layers.
4.1.2.3 Specific investigations

During the detailed investigation it may be apparent that a different type of test is required
to assess a specific problem. Some examples of these are given below but this is not a
definitive list as there may be a need for other tests depending upon the problem
encountered.
Where moisture problems are identified, a closed circuit television inspection of the
drainage system may be required or testing of any water to determine the source.
Where joints are ‘locked up’ the alignment and/or slip resistance of the dowel bars
should be determined.
Surfacing problems such as delamination or weak material may require pull-off
tests on the surfacing.
Covermeter surveys may be required for accurately determining the depth of steel
or the alignment of dowel bars at specific locations.
If the mix constituents are in doubt an analysis of the hardened concrete may be
required.
Carbonation or chloride ion testing may be required where corrosion problems are
present.
A photographic record of the problem should be obtained.
Historical construction and performance survey of data should be obtained where
available.
Test pits.
4.1.3 Methods for determining residual life

The determination of the remaining life of the existing pavement requires information on (i)
the geometry and the structural properties of both the existing rigid pavement and the
sub-layers and (ii) the previous traffic loading.
At present, limited information is available on methods to assess residual life span or
residual economic value on the basis of the visual inspection and/or condition
measurements.
The Netherlands employ an empirical model for prediction of the residual life span of
jointed pavements with longitudinal cracks (internal DWW - document IR-N-98085, see
Dutch National Report). In the UK, an estimate of residual life is made for jointed concrete
pavements by plotting the number of failed bays at consecutive inspections of a pavement
against time and extrapolating this plot to determine when 30% or 50% of the bays will fail
for un-reinforced or reinforced pavements, respectively. Criteria for assessing if a bay has
FEHRL
failed and the process for determining the residual life are presented in TRRL Research
Report RR87 (Mayhew and Harding, 1987).
In Austria an analytical design procedure is available that has served as a base for the
standard design tables. This method may also be used for project level assessment using
data from FWD and possibly laboratory testing on samples cored or sawn from the
pavement, see the Austrian National Report and LItzka et al (1996).
Little or no use is made of the comparison between actual and design traffic loads for
prediction of residual life.
4.1.4 Summary of national assessment methods

A summary of the assessment methods used by ELLPAG Member countries for assessing
the condition of rigid pavements is presented in Table 4.1.
4.2 Upgrading
In the context of this report, the purpose of upgrading is to convert an existing rigid
pavement to a long-life rigid structure, able to withstand future traffic load without any
further damage developing in the structural layers. To reach this objective, strengthening
of concrete pavements is only a realistic option when the existing structure, although of
lighter design than required for a long-life behaviour, is in good structural condition.
Concrete pavements that show structural defects can only be treated to extend the service
life for a determinate period, or be totally reconstructed.
For a good structural condition of a concrete pavement, it is necessary that it is well
designed and built, without inherent flaws, but also that only a part of its bearing capacity
in terms of fatigue loading has been consumed. This implies that upgrading to a long-life
structure, in the sense as described above, should take place well within the structural life
span of the pavement. However, road authorities are used to planning structural
maintenance only after the first signs of structural damage become evident, which is
usually too late to allow upgrading to a long-life pavement.
Only if the possible benefits from a timely upgrading, utilising the existing asset and
reducing the need for future maintenance and the related traffic hindrance, can be shown
in a whole life economic analysis, this situation might change. Although such analyses are
still far from routine procedures in pavement engineering, they seem feasible provided that
good estimates of deterioration rates and life span of maintenance solutions can be given.
Because in the present situation road authorities in most cases choose to let the existing
pavement deteriorate structurally to a state where only a determinate service life
extension or reconstruction are the options, the state of the art descriptions given in the
national reports (Annex A) include much information about maintenance treatments to
extend the service life of jointed concrete pavements and about reconstruction treatments,
many of which result in a semi-rigid or flexible structure. The number of upgrading
treatments that result in a fully rigid long-life pavement is limited.
In this section a general summary will be given of the possible reconstruction and
upgrading treatments mentioned in the National Reports, but the consecutive more
detailed analysis will focus on the treatments that result in long-life rigid pavements.
FEHRL
Table 4.1: Assessment methods for rigid pavements
UK BE HU NL PL AT CH ES CZ DE FR GR
Type of assessment method

Specific method for rigid Y - - Y - - - Y - - Y NA
pavements
General method Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Data collected from visual inspection
Cracking Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Unevenness / step faulting Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Joint damage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Joint filling Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Surface deterioration Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Vertical movement of slabs Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Data collected from in - situ measurements

Y
Skid resistance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NA
Deflection at mid-slab FWD - FWD - FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD - NA
Vertical deflection differences FWD - FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD - NA
at joints/cracks
Thickness GPR GPR - - - - - GPR - - - NA
Joint movement DG FM - FM - - - - - CD - NA
Foundation assessment DCP - - - - - - DCP - - - NA
Data collected from coring
Thickness Y - - Y - Y Y Y Y - - NA
Compressive strength, Y - - - - Y - - Y - - NA
fatigue strength
Stiffness - - - - - Y - - - - - NA
Reinforcement location and Y - - - - - - - - - - NA

corrosion
FWD Falling Weight Defleflectomer

GPR Ground Penetrating Radar
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
FM Faultimeter
CD Concrete deflectograph
DG Demec stud/gauge (de-mountable mechanical strain gauge set between two metal studs mounted across a joint
NA Not applicable
FEHRL
4.2.1 Techniques for upgrading and reconstruction of rigid

pavements
The techniques for upgrading and reconstruction of jointed concrete pavements as
described in the National Reports can be subdivided in:
a. Treatments resulting in a fully rigid structure:
A bonded concrete overlay
An un-bonded concrete overlay
A full depth reconstruction, in CRCP
Rubblisation for use as foundation and for new rigid pavement
Recycling of concrete, or overlaid concrete pavement, and re-use as sub-base or
as aggregate for new pavement
b. Treatments resulting in a semi-rigid structure
An asphalt overlay
Crack and Seat with asphalt overlay (C&S) for jointed un-reinforced concrete,
undertaken by transverse cracking the pavement at 0.75-2m centres, rolling with a
pneumatic tyred roller and overlaying with at least 150mm of asphalt material
Saw Cut, Crack and Seat with asphalt overlay (SCC&S) for jointed reinforced
concrete, similar to C&S but a first operation is to saw cut transversely through the
reinforcement
Rubblisation for use as foundation and overlaying with a new pavement (either
semi-rigid or flexible)
Recycling of concrete, or overlaid concrete pavement, and re-use as sub-base for
new pavement (either semi-rigid or flexible)
Asphalt overlays of 50 to 180mm may be Saw Cut and Sealed (SC&S) to prevent
reflective cracking. Similarly thin concrete overlays (<50mm) may be Slot Sealed (SS),
similar to SC&S, except for slot being sawn straight through to underlying joint, and not
shaped.
Summarizing, the upgrading or reconstruction of a rigid pavement can consist of
overlaying the untreated or ‘cracked and seated’ pavement with a concrete or asphalt
layer, with or without a de-bonding layer between the existing pavement and the overlay,
or constructing a new pavement, recycling the old pavement or rubbIising it to serve as a
foundation layer.
Of the overlays, asphalt overlays are used the most frequent, because of less initial
construction costs than that of a rigid overlay. Furthermore, it requires less construction
time, and therefore may reduce user costs during construction. However, the service life is
usually limited due to the tendency for reflective cracking which will ultimately lead to
spalling and pumping (less dominant deterioration modes are permanent deformation,
low-temperature cracking and fatigue cracking). Therefore it may not be the most
economical solution for long-term rehabilitation.
FEHRL
Rubblisation is rarely used, i.e. only when the pavement has deteriorated to such an
extent that other treatment options are no longer viable.
Obviously some of these treatments/activities would only be used at a certain time in the
life of a pavement; e.g. reconstruction and rubbilsation would not be appropriate in the
early life of the pavement but only as it nears the end of its useful life. The different
activities described above, and the period throughout a pavement’s life when they might
be appropriate, are diagrammatically summarised in Figure 4.2.
Routine maintenance
Medium & long term repairs
Bonded concrete overlay

Structural Condition
Asphalt
O l /SC&S/SS
Crack and seat
Concrete overlay
Reconstruction
Rubblisation
Age or Traffic
Figure 4.2. Opportune time for maintenance treatments
4.2.2 Upgrading and reconstruction methods for rigid

pavements, resulting in long-life rigid pavements
Of the techniques mentioned above, only those that result in a long-life fully rigid structure
are relevant to the Phase 3 report. Asphalt concrete overlays, although in many cases
only aiming at the extension of the life of a deteriorated concrete pavement over a
determinate life span, can in principle be designed to result in a long-life semi- rigid or
flexible pavement. These are however dealt with in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.
The techniques for rigid pavements that are described in the National Reports and of
which the end result is a rigid pavement, are listed in Table 4.2. However, several of these
imply a total reconstruction of the pavement and therefore fall under the regime of new
design and construction as described in Chapter 2 of this report. These techniques are
distinguished by a footnote.
FEHRL
Table 4.2: Summary of techniques for upgrading and reconstruction of rigid pavements
UK BE HU NL PL AT CH ES CZ DE FR GR
Upgrading and re-construction techniques

Bonded concrete overlay Y Y - - Y Y - - - - NA
(with/without a thin surfacing)
Un-bonded concrete overlay Y Y - - Y - Y Y - - - NA
(with/without a thin surfacing)
1
CRCP overlay Y Y - - - - - - - - Y NA
2
Full depth reconstruction (rigid) Y - - Y Y - Y - - - NA
1
Partial reconstruction (rigid) Y Y - - Y Y Y Y - - Y NA
Recycling of concrete or overlaid

concrete pavement, re-use as sub- - - - - - Y - - Y - - NA
base or aggregate for new rigid
2
pavement
Design method for upgrading treatment
Empirical - - - - - - - - - Y? NA
Mechanistic / semi-empirical Y Y? Y? - Y? Y? Y? Y? Y? - Y? NA
Treatment of existing rigid pavement before overlaying

Crack & Seat Y - - - - - - - - - Y NA
(jointed un-reinforced pavements)
Saw cut, Crack & Seat Y - - - - - - - - - NA
(jointed reinforced pavements)
Joint repair Y - - - - - - - - - Y NA
1 Technique rarely used

2 Should be considered as a reconstruction and not a technique for upgrading the pavement
FEHRL
4.2.3 Considerations for selection of optimum technique

There are certain restrictions that may have to be considered when deciding on the
possible treatments mentioned in Table 4.2. Table 4.3 indicates the technical aspects that
need considering when choosing from these treatments.
Table 4.3: Considerations on upgrading and reconstruction techniques for rigid
pavements (end result is also rigid pavement)
Treatment Limitations on use
Concrete needs to be in a reasonable condition.

Bonded concrete overlay (with/without
Beware restrictions on headroom and dead load
a thin surfacing)
restraints.
For thin overlays (<50mm) on jointed concrete.
Thin concrete overlay< 50mm, with Joints should be relatively narrow (<30mm). Concrete
Slot Sealing (SS) needs to be in a reasonable condition. Beware
headroom restrictions and dead load restraints.
Headroom and dead load restraints. Some
Un-bonded concrete overlay refurbishment of concrete may be required. Concrete
(with/without a thin surfacing) needs to be in a reasonable condition. Headroom and
dead load restraints.
Full depth reconstruction (rigid) CRCP may require a thin surfacing (low noise).
For very heavily deteriorated pavements, where

In-situ Rubblisation for use as
concrete overlay no longer feasible. Technique may be
foundation for a new rigid pavement
limited by headroom and dead load restraints.
Recycling of concrete or overlaid con- For very heavily deteriorated pavements, where
crete pavement, re-use as sub-base concrete overlay is no longer feasible.
or aggregate for new rigid pavement. Requires new pavement to be constructed.
FEHRL
5. Maintenance
The ultimate purpose of road maintenance is to preserve or restore a road pavement to a
condition where users can travel in a safe and comfortable manner. The maintenance
requirements for determinate life rigid pavements are well understood, but there are no
general explicit maintenance strategies for long-life pavements at this time due to their
limited number. However, in some ELLPAG Member countries detailed maintenance
techniques have been developed, and as the number of LLPs increase firm guidelines
could be established for construction, and perhaps for identifying existing pavements that
exhibit the requirements and characteristics of long-life pavements.
Maintenance operations can be loosely separated into two categories, i.e. non-structural
maintenance normally associated with the upper layers and structural maintenance such
as rehabilitation or strengthening of the pavement. It must be recognised that the optimal
condition responsive maintenance applied to an ailing pavement is strongly dependant on
the ability to correctly diagnose the cause of the degradation observed. In doing so it is
particularly important to remember that although surface and structural deterioration may
occur independently, both can be initiated by degradation in the other; i.e. failure can be
induced in the surface as a result of structural deterioration and vice versa.
Guidance is presented in Appendices A2, A4 and A11 of this report regarding the use of
various damage indicators that can be used to assist in the formulation of maintenance
schedule and condition responsive operations.
Guidance and recommendations for appropriate maintenance operations to combat
degradation are presented in Appendices A1, A2, A3, A4, A8, A9 and A11 (Fine tuning of
technical repairs can be made by taking into consideration the category of road
particularly the traffic and the lane).
In summary, guidance for the specific maintenance of long-life pavements has yet to be
fully established. Indicators can be used to help identify problems and define appropriate
procedures. However, it is important not to become too focussed on these issues at the
expense of basic routine tasks. In other words, engineers should not lose sight of the fact
that long-life pavements, in common with determinate life pavements, are reliant on
certain routine maintenance tasks, such as ensuring the correct function of a drainage
system (see Appendices A2 and A11) and maintenance of sealants at the joints between
adjacent pavement sections to help prevent the ingress of water into the pavement.
FEHRL
5.1 Pavement categories

Rigid pavements can be grouped in the following categories, based on the construction
type:
Jointed unreinforced concrete slab

(URC) (with or without dowels) Without
Without
asphalt
surfacing
surfacing
Jointed reinforced concrete slab
(JRC)
Continuously reinforced concrete

pavement (CRCP) (CRCP)
concrete pavement WithWith
asphalt
surfacing
surfacing
Rigid pavements are being used around many road networks, with or without a surface
course, on various types of foundations, for rural roads to motorways, serving urban and
non-urban locations and carrying different traffic compositions and load spectra. Examples
of these are:
Jointed concrete non-doweled slabs without surfacing on low volume rural roads.
CRCP, with a surfacing, on high volume motorways.
A distressed road condition can be assessed by testing and visual inspections that may
provide individual indications of the road’s condition. A combination of one or more these
individual indicators can be conducted, in more or less sophisticated ways, to determine a
global performance indicator or index. Recommendations on the use of combined
indicators were reported be found in the final report of the COST Action 354 (Litzka et al,
2008).
For the different road categories, the condition indicators may be expressed in different
ways. However, importantly, for a given category of road and associated traffic flow, the
indicators will normally be assigned threshold values which when achieved will trigger the
appropriate level of maintenance activity. An interesting example of this is presented in
Appendix A4 (the French National Report) where cracking, pumping and faulting are the
distress indicators taken into account. This process has, as a matter of fact, a built-in
expertise based on past experience and diagnosis.
FEHRL
5.2 Failures
Properly designed and constructed rigid pavements require comparatively little
maintenance or repair. But defects can occur and these will not all have the same
influence on the rate of deterioration of the pavement. For example, some defects evident
at the time of construction may not deteriorate with time and the traffic loading is of little
consequence. However, other defects can lead to deterioration of the pavement and will
inevitable require maintenance to restore the pavement to a satisfactory condition.
Failures in concrete pavements are usually a result of problems associated with one or
more of the following:
Foundation
o Settlement
o Poor drainage
o Water penetration from the surface
o Frost heave
Joints
o Joint sealing failures
o Misaligned and locked dowel bars
o Stepping
o Spalling at arrises
o Compression failure
Slab-related (e.g. related to deterioration of the concrete)
o Cracking
Transverse
Longitudinal
Diagonal
Corner
o Punchouts and punchdowns (predominantly in CRCP)
o Surface spalling and scaling
o Vertical slab movement
Failures of remedial works to joints and the slab which have been carried out
incorrectly or with inappropriate materials.
Examples of joint and joint sealing problems are shown in Figures 5.1 to 5.3. Figure 5.1
illustrates the different types of joint sealant failure which can occur after a period of time
and Figures 5.2.to 5.3 illustrates problems which arise from joints failing to work in the
appropriate manner. Figure 5.4 illustrates a structural failure arising from joint corner
cracking.
Figure 5.5 illustrates dowel bars which have not been aligned correctly and may cause a
joint failure by not allowing the joint to function correctly.
The surface of concrete is generally robust, and deterioration of the concrete from pieces
of material or aggregate breaking away from the surface, either close to a joint or in the
main slab can be an indication of freeze/thaw damage, poor compaction of the material or
problems with the mixture. Once the surface starts to deteriorate, loose pieces of material
may come away and cause a hazard to passing traffic.
FEHRL
a) Adhesion b) Cohesion
Figure 5.1 Examples of joint sealant failure
Figure 5.2 Example of joint arris spalling Figure 5.3 Example of compression
failure (CPMM 2001) failure (CPMM 2001)
Figure 5.4 Joint corner cracking. (CPMM 2001)
FEHRL
Figure 5.5 Example of (two) misaligned dowel bars
Typically, cracks in concrete between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm wide have the potential to
generate a loss of aggregate interlock across the fracture. Wider cracks are associated
with a complete loss of aggregate interlock and a high potential for failure of the steel
reinforcement where installed.
Cracks in a jointed URC pavement cannot be sustained in most instances, and may
require the reinstatement of the bay.
Transverse cracks, up to 0.5mm wide, typically occur in reinforced rigid pavements but do
not detract from the performance of the pavement. In CRCPs widely separated transverse
cracks increase the probability of reduced aggregate interlock and resulting in increased
stresses within the pavement slab and the potential for rupture of the longitudinal
reinforcement.
Transverse cracks induced at a close spacing and connected by longitudinal cracking can
lead to a localised defect where a block of concrete may become loose. These are
commonly known as a “punchout” where pieces of material break away from the surface
or a “punchdown”, when pieces of material are pushed into the underlying layers. In both
cases pieces of material can be dislodged by passing traffic. Examples of major crack
defects arising from intersected crack patterns and loose blocks of material are shown in
Figure 5.6.
FEHRL
Example of an intersected crack pattern Example of a punch down

Figure 5.6 Examples of major crack defects in CRCP
Cracks that are neither transverse nor longitudinal are termed diagonal cracks and are
often associated with slab settlement. These typically occur at locations where there are
large differences in subbase or subgrade support, such as under bridges or over culverts.
In jointed pavements, diagonal cracking may be observed across the corner of a slab,
which is indicative of localised poor support under the concrete; in such cases a void may
form allowing the passage for water that will lead to further deterioration, unless
appropriate maintenance is applied. In a CRCP, diagonal cracking has been observed
coincident with skewed transverse reinforcement; this could lead to a pattern of bifurcate
cracks, but though undesirable it may not develop into a problem.
The development of a longitudinal crack is of greater concern than either transverse or
diagonal cracking as it may be indicative of structural failure of the slab. A longitudinal
crack may also result from the poor positioning, or the omission, of a longitudinal crack
inducer, or the failure of transverse joints to function properly
In general, the failure of a pavement can be attribute to a combination of one or more of
different causes, and with one factor influencing the others, resulting in either surface
deterioration or structural distress. The consequence or evidence of most types of failures
is observable at the pavement surface level. However, failures such as lack of bonding
between layers, water contamination and thickness abnormalities are generally detected
by non destructive techniques such as GPR, Deflectograph, and FWD etc. A selection of
problems in each of the above categories and suggested methods of treatment are
indicated in the following Sections.
5.3 Maintenance strategies

Maintenance activities can be scheduled but are also often undertaken to combat and
repair observed deterioration. If indicators are used, maintenance may be triggered by
appropriate thresholds. High level interventions, involving substantial maintenance
FEHRL
activities such as reconstruction may be applicable in preference to a series of low level

interventions if cost-benefits analyses indicate that to be a more economic solution.
Apart from routine joint sealing, the repairs undertaken to jointed pavements are often
different to those undertaken to CRCPs because of the different nature of the distress.
Due to the underlying progression of stages of increasing distress, the interventions which
restore functional (surface) performance will tend to be applied at pre-determined time
intervals. Only when an acceptable level of service cannot be achieved or sustained for an
acceptable time period, does it become necessary to resort to rehabilitation with the
objective of strengthening the existing structure. Usually, in such a case it is considered
that the existing structure has reached the end of its service life and maintenance is being
undertaken too often and is costing too much. As one can see in such a case, one is
definitely concerned with a fixed life structure.
Typical maintenance interventions can be identified depending on whether they provide
improvements at surface or structural level, and are applied in a local or generalised (total
surface) way. This will depend of course on the nature of the distress. The list which
follows summarizes the practices encountered in the national Reports.
5.3.1 Non-structural maintenance

Non-structural maintenance is usually undertaken to ensure that environmental and safety
problems do not occur and, to ensure that minor problems do not escalate and affect the
integrity of the pavement. Typical maintenance activities are listed below and have been
grouped into three main categories:
1. Requirements concerning noise and skid resistance restoration:

The requirements are maintained by:
milling or roughening the concrete surface (or shot blasting with water or steel
balls),
applying a thin asphalt overlay on concrete pavement.
2. Coping with material loss and protection against water ingress:

This is achieved by:
regular monitoring/replacement of joint sealants/fillers,
repairs of cracks,
rehabilitation of joint arises using concrete or synthetic material,
repair of deteriorated concrete surface using concrete or synthetic material,
crack stitching, particularly for longitudinal cracks,
ravelling in the slow lane is repaired by a single or twin layer of porous asphalt.
3. Correcting longitudinal unevenness:

This is undertaken by:
repairing any slabs and stepping, either by milling the joint or raising the slab
by injection of a special resin or cement mortar below the slab concerned,
thin bond repairs for shallow surface spalling and at joints,
overlay with a concrete or asphalt overlay.
FEHRL
5.3.2 Structural maintenance

Structural-maintenance includes repairing, reinforcing or replacing the existing pavement.
However, this Section is solely concerned with localised structural repairs to the in situ
road pavement and does not consider strengthening or long length replacement activities.
Localised distress can occur anywhere on the slab surface, but is frequently located in the
wheel paths. Inadequate compaction of concrete, especially under the reinforcement
where the longitudinal bars are lapped, is a primary cause of localised distress. This may
be the result of box cracking, where very closely spaced transverse cracks are intersected
by longitudinal cracks, or within an area intersected by bifurcated cracks resulting in a
punchout or a punchdown; a phenomenon mostly associated with a CRCP.
Inadequate steel content which can result in greater inter crack spacing and wider crack
widths or where the transverse crack spacing is too small or where bi-furcated cracks are
prevalent. The other is the amount of subbase support which is critical to the performance
of a CRCP, loss of support leads to a loss of load transfer and punchout distress. These.
remedial maintenance for punchouts may require reconstruction, as shown in Figure 5.7.
Structural repairs to jointed pavements mainly comprise:
Joint replacement
Bay replacement
Structural repairs to CRCP mainly comprise:
Full depth repairs at punch outs and punch downs
The UK CPMM (2001) suggests that some treatments are only medium term (MT) repairs,
expected to last 5 – 7 years whereas long-term (LT) repairs are expected to last longer
than 7 years.
Figure 5.7. Reconstruction after a punchout
In the UK there is a requirement that all concrete running surfaces should be covered with
a thin wearing course system (TWCS), this has to be considered when deciding upon
maintenance treatments.
FEHRL
When structural repairs are deemed to be uneconomic (usually decided by a whole life
costing exercise) rehabilitation or strengthening of the pavement is the preferred
maintenance options, as shown in Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.8 Reconstruction of the ring road Antwerp, using concrete, to provide a long
lasting low maintenance pavement
5.3.3 Summary of maintenance problems and treatments

This Section of the report presents a summary of common problems associated with
concrete pavements and suggests appropriate remedial treatments for a range of
structural problems; the expected duration of the repair i.e. MT or LT is also noted. It
should be remembered that the most effective remedial treatments may be dependent on
the initial cause of the problem.
For ease of reference the information is presented in three separate tables. Table 5.2 is
concerned with foundation related structural problems, Table 5.3 is concerned with
treatments for joint related structural problems, and Table 5.4 is concerned with slab
related structural problems.
FEHRL
Table 5.2. Treatments for foundation-related structural problems
Problem Treatment (lifetime)
Consolidation Under-slab grouting (MT) or slab replacement and treat foundation (LT)
Moisture Renew/improve surface water and subsoil drainage (LT)

Reseal joints, treat any problems incurred (MT)
Movement of ground Renew/improve surface water and subsoil drainage, reinstate failed area (LT)
Under slab grouting or slab replacement and treat foundation (MT)
Table 5.3. Treatments for joint-related structural problems
Problem Treatment
Sealant failure Clean out and reseal joint (MT)

Full depth joint repairs to restore acceptable movement (LT)
Restore sub-base support under joint(MT)
Spalling (shallow / Thin bond repair (LT)
partial depth) Remove detritus and seal joint (MT)
Widen sealant groove to 40mm max. (MT) or thin bond repair (LT)
Partial depth (MT) or full depth joint repair (LT)
Spalling (deep) Remove obstruction, repair any damage and reseal joint (MT)
Full depth joint repair and rectifying any foundation problems (LT)
Full depth joint repair (LT) or retrofitting dowel bars (MT)
Cracking at joint Rout out and apply joint sealant (MT)
(parallel to joint) Full depth joint repair (LT) or retrofitting dowel bars
Restore full slab support, under slab grouting and/or slab raising (MT) after
rectifying reason for weakening (LT)
Cracking at joint Full depth end slab or joint repair (LT)
(perpendicular to joint)
Dynamic movement Restore full slab support, under slab grouting and/or slab raising (MT), after
Full depth joint repair (LT) or retrofitting dowel bars
Mud pumping Renew/improve surface water and subsoil drainage (LT)
Restore full slab support, under slab grouting and/or slab raising (MT), after
Stepping Bump cut or replace slab(LT)
Loss of load transfer Full depth joint repair (LT) or retrofitting dowel bars
Locked joints Full depth joint repair (LT) or retrofitting dowel bars (MT)
FEHRL
Table 5.4. Treatments for slab-related structural problems
Problem Treatment
(1)
Transverse cracking See general rule below
Full depth repair with a joint installed (LT)
Full depth repair at crack (LT) , or leave joint locked and convert the crack to a
joint with full depth repair (LT)
Full depth repair (LT)
Rehabilitation/strengthening
(1)
Longitudinal cracking See general rule below
Treat expansion problem
Treat support problem
Rehabilitation/strengthening
(1)
Diagonal cracking See general rule below
Treat foundation problem
Corner cracking Transverse full depth repair (LT) or corner repair (MT)
Slab rocking Full depth bay end replacement (LT) or under slab grouting (MT)
Settlement Under slab grouting and/or slab raising (MT)

Slab reconstruction or overlaying (LT)
Cracks around Replace surround (MT) or relocate manhole/gully to verge and replace slab
manholes/gullies (LT)
Compression failures Install new doweled expansion joints and reconstruct failed slabs (LT)
Failure adjacent to Reinstate all unsound material, replace slab if less than half of remaining slab
temporary repair is sound (LT)
Punchouts/punchdowns* Full depth repair (LT)
* Tends to occur only in CRCP
(1) General rules for repairing cracks:

a) In un-reinforced slabs cracks are not tolerated and any that do appear must be carefully monitored.
Medium width cracks 0.5mm – 1.5mm, require a full depth repair or slab replacement if transverse or
may be stitched if longitudinal. Both of these treatments are considered long-term repairs. Wide
cracks (> 1.5mm) require a full depth repair or slab replacement.
b) In reinforced slabs medium width repairs require routing out and sealing (MT) whilst wide cracks
require a full depth repair, slab replacement or stitching (LT).
5.4 Condition criteria for assessing the

requirement for maintenance
By way of an example methodology for assessing the requirement for maintenance and
for the selection of the optimal solution, the procedure used in Belgium is described below.
FEHRL
5.4.1 Concept and the use of indicators

The condition of in–service road pavements in Belgium can be assessed using the
aggregated results of a series of indicator tests. The measured value of the parameter
(indicator) is correlated to an index value. Each index ranges from 0% (worst condition)
and 100% (perfect condition). Pre-defined threshold levels associated with indices are
used to trigger maintenance activities (CRR 2005). For a new construction the minimum
index value is 80%, whereas the criterion for the condition of an in-service road becoming
un-acceptable is 40%. It is customary to rank the index value as follows:
Class/condition Index value (%)

Very good 100-80
Good 80-60
Satisfactory 60-40
Bad 40-20
Very bad 20-0
The “need for intervention” level is nominally between the satisfactory and bad. However,
in practice, the unacceptable threshold of some of the indicators is set relatively higher or
lower depending on the category of road (e.g. motorways, secondary roads). Different
index values may be used to initiate different maintenance operations.
The indices describe the condition of the pavement for a given length of 100m. Indices, for
rigid pavements, exist for the following parameters.
Skid resistance
Unevenness
Slab stepping
Surface defects
Bearing capacity
Measurements of these parameters, expressed in engineering units, are converted into

the corresponding relative index scales. In practice some of these parameters, e.g.
unevenness, surface defects and bearing capacity, are themselves derived from more
than one indicator.
Unevenness. There are actually three indicators dedicated to short,

average and long wavelength, longitudinal deformation.
Surface defects. These are grouped into three categories: cracking,
deformation and material loss. Each category is represented by an index,
the assigned value of which describes the degree of deterioration (in terms
of the deterioration per cent per unit area of the surface). In addition the
index values are ranked in classes. A distress catalogue (VI, 2001) exists
which defines, describes, and documents each type of deterioration.
Probable causes of distress are provided, and suggestions for appropriate
maintenance operations to be undertaken; these may be either local or
generalised repairs.
FEHRL
Table 5.5 presents the relation between the degree of deterioration for
cement concrete pavements and the value of the index.
Bearing capacity. The bearing capacity is determined from deflection
measurements and an expression in the form of an index is related to the
total service life available and the residual service life left. It is to be noted
that the end of the service life (total bearing capacity exhausted) is reached
for a degree of deterioration of 50% regarding fatigue cracking. This level
triggers reinforcement.
A combined global index is also produced and is considered as an indicator connected to
safety. It is a weighted linear combination of the indicators for surface distresses and both
longitudinal and transverse profiles.
Table 5.5. Degree of deterioration of surface distress determined from visual inspection
Degree of deterioration for cement

concrete pavements (expressed as a INDEX (%)
percentage of the surface area)
1.3 80
7.7 60
20.0 40
35.3 20
50.0 0
5.4.2 Selection of maintenance operations

The optimal selection of appropriate maintenance operations or reinforcement solution is
achieved through a decision-making process where the road operators have to evaluate a
wide range of possibilities and criteria. Road operators can be assisted by a tool for multi-
criteria analysis (CRR, 1985).
The criteria taken into account in the decision process (and used by the Belgian system)
relate to:
intrinsic aspects linked to the corrective layers envisaged in the different possible
solutions,
environmental, safety and comfort issues,
traffic load and the type of users,
a limited set of corrective layer solutions, in particular those suitable for surface
treating cement concrete pavements.
The Belgian multi-criteria model (CRR, 2006)has to classify 22 alternative maintenance
operations or reinforcement optimised solutions, according to 13 different criteria.
The candidate alternatives are classified according to qualitative and quantitative
assessment of their advantages. Quantitative criteria can be expressed by an objective,
measurable value, such as: the costs of each alternative maintenance operation, the
FEHRL
roughness of the road surface for each of the proposed top layers, the noise generated by
traffic for each of the road surfaces. Qualitative criteria must be quantified by an expert
and are hence subject to a more subjective perception of one or more individuals.
Examples of such criteria are: surface types of adjacent sections, hindrance to traffic
during road works, expected maintenance costs in future. These criteria must be
evaluated by an expert for each of the alternatives.
The classification is achieved by a “multi-decider” process. The calculation of the ranking
uses a multi-criteria method based on the “multi-attribute utility theory” (MAUT). The best
ranking obtained, when taking into account all criteria, will be the optimal solution.
The contribution of each criterion to the overall score of the optimal solution can be
compared to the contribution that criterion to the overall score of all alternative solutions,
as illustrated in Figure 5.3 (alternatives on the horizontal axis, score on the vertical axis,
optimal solution with highest score, each colour represents another criterion and its
contribution to the score of each alternative).
Validation of the software system is obtained by running comparative tests on a certain
number of real or virtual (nevertheless plausible) cases and by comparison of the
computed results with the opinions of a team of experts.
Figure 5.3. Example of determining the optimal score using multi attribute utility theory
(as used in Belgium)
FEHRL
6. Economics
To be provided by LAVOC/EPFL with TRL
Cost benefit analysis is largely complete, e.g. base case scenarios are complete
determined from both English and French construction/maintenance information. Some
sensitivity analyses have been completed. Data requires to be consolidated in a readily
appreciable mode. Some further sensitivity analysis will be undertaken.
It was noted that the potential cost saving from the use of concrete pavements stemmed
from the quality of construction; e.g. properly constructed concrete pavements enjoyed a
long service life and that surface repairs at intervals was all that was required to maintain
them in good condition. However if the pavement was poorly constructed then the
maintenance requirements were substantially greater with associated higher costs; i.e. the
saving is accrued as a result of good practice, which may be achieved at a small cost,
resulting in a longer service life.
It was also noted that a large potential saving would be accrued from reduced user-
delays, as surface maintenance can be carried out at night.
FEHRL
7. Research needs
The primary objective of ELLPAG is to collate and generate knowledge on long-life
pavements. In many cases, these actions assist to satisfy many of the gaps in knowledge
that may be identified within a particular country; however, there are cases where
additional knowledge is required.
The contributors to the ELLPAG project individually identified a number of research needs
in the area of long-life rigid pavements. Some of these have been addressed by one or
more member countries, but several subject areas that merit further work have been
identified from the findings of this study. Many of these research needs are of common
interest to all European countries concerned with extending the durability of their national
road network and reducing operating costs.
Areas for further study can be placed in identifiable groups that can be summarised as
follows.
Pavement Structure
Design
Construction
Quality control
Performance
Maintenance
Economics
Recommendations for future research that address these needs are presented in the next
Section.
FEHRL
8. Recommendations
Pavement structure
Develop standard techniques for assisting in the identification of a rigid pavement with the
potential to be upgraded into a long-life pavement. This can be the basis for the decision
whether upgrading (strengthening) or reconstruction of the existing concrete pavement is
the appropriate measure at a given situation.
Develop an analytical model that considers the different deterioration mechanisms of rigid
pavement. In particular the model should be able to assess the likely degradation resulting
from increased traffic flow, e.g. the damaging effects of multi-axle heavy goods vehicles.
The model should be able to predict the long term performance of a long-life rigid
pavement and also help to design the upgrading (see also “Design”).
Design
In many countries current rigid pavement design is based on an empirical method
using historic performance data (e.g. as in the UK). Work is required to develop a
suitable analytical method of design for long-life rigid pavements.
The design should take into account material properties, utilise a versatile
approach to optimisation of slab thickness for the given design traffic for
unreinforced and continuously reinforced concrete pavements as well. In the latter
case also the amount and location of reinforcement should be determined. In
addition the design should be sufficiently versatile to relate these factors to
structural performance and cost efficiency to show the difference between
determinate life pavements and long life pavements. This would permit different
countries with differing resources to produce economic designs (that would
compare favourably with determinate life pavement designs).
The design tool VENCON 2.0, Van Leest et al (2005), (as currently used in The
Netherlands) relates concrete thickness and the amount/position of steel
reinforcement for continuously reinforced concrete pavements. This tool covers an
important area of design that could be included in a new analytical design.
Research is required to provide the following.
a. Validation of the design model implemented in VENCON 2.0: the tension
bar model for prediction of crack width and distance needs further
validation.
b. Optimisation of design of reinforcement: the tension bar model
implemented in VENCON 2.0 predicts that the amount of reinforcement
required decreases with decreasing concrete cover. Predictions of crack
width need to be corroborated by observations in test sections.
Also in other European countries analytical design tools for concrete pavement
design have been developed and are in use as various software packages. It is
recommended to start a common project on European level to evaluate and
compare these various tools in order to propose the development of common
European software (a similar attempt has been conducted within the European
AMADEUS-project for flexible pavements some years ago).
FEHRL
Construction
Effective solutions have already been presented for applying and removing the
wearing course.
Develop end performance specifications to be used for the construction of long-life
pavements. More understanding of the materials behaviour are required to allow
the development of such specifications. Because performance specifications,
rather than individual material properties, are central to defining the performance of
the final product, their use allows the wider and more efficient use of primary and
alternative materials. It could also be used for the prediction of the structural
residual life
Improve the construction quality of the complete pavement starting from the sub-
base and base layers. Most causes for the deterioration of concrete pavements
are coming from poor quality of the underlying construction and not from the
concrete layer quality itself. Investigation of the actual deterioration more in detail
is necessary in order to get hints for improvements, especially for long life
pavements.
Generate a guidance document for continuously reinforced concrete pavement
individual details in respect of the execution of construction work for a basic
renewal on maintaining the flow of traffic needs to be looked into.
Investigate in detail the use of asphalt interlayers in concrete roads (unreinforced
and continuously reinforced concrete pavements), as different applications are
used throughout Europe based on local experience.
Investigate especially the bonding (amount and durability) between and concrete
and asphalt layer and between concrete and other base layers (like cement
stabilised or unbound coarse layers) to decide to what extent it can be taken into
account for design purposes.
Optimisation of exposed aggregate concrete surfaces with respect to noise
reduction and skid resistance as well. Also share the experience with these
techniques between European countries.
Investigation on effective use of thin surface courses (long term bonding, bridging
joints or cutting at joints etc.) for new pavements and restoration.
Investigate the problem of skid resistance of concrete surfaces in tunnels
compared to adjacent sections outside.
Quality Control
Assess the importance of supervision, the use of good quality materials and
construction tolerances etc for the successful construction and performance of
LLPs.
Develop a quality control standard for the construction of long-life rigid pavements
Performance
Investigate the compatibility of rigid pavements with other pavement types.
Concrete pavement can be constructed as inlays or used in widening schemes
FEHRL
adjacent to other pavement construction types of rigid or flexible pavements.

Consideration should be taken to accommodate different horizontal (thermal and
shrinkage) and vertical (settlement and elastic respond under load) movements
between the different pavement types.
Ravelling and loss of skid resistance determine the maintenance frequency.
Therefore increased durability of the wearing course will result in lower
maintenance costs and fewer delays due to maintenance. Noise emission may be
further reduced
Develop a protocol for the assessment and specification of non-woven fabrics
used in the construction of highway pavements to control the presence of free
water within the pavement (particularly in the presence of HBMs).
Maintenance
Development of a generic maintenance strategy for long-life rigid pavements, with
particular regard for European countries. (Implementation documents taking into
account specific national requirements, resources and practices should be
developed by the individual countries.)
Economics
Develop a method for undertaking in depth assessments of the benefits of long-life
(rigid) pavements to existing highway networks. Establish a whole life cycle
method for cost comparisons of different pavement designs including long-life
pavements, to be used in Design & Construct contract specifications (these
methods will include all long-term damage in the assessment of pavement
suitability). This should take account of current economic models and up to date
information. The model should consider and compare the different types of long-
life pavements. The model should be sufficiently flexible to suit the requirements,
resources and practices of individual countries.
Experimentation to validate theoretical principles

Data on performance and life-time of continuously reinforced concrete pavements
is required to validate theories and calibrate new design procedures. It is
anticipated that pan-European co-ordinated research may be undertaken and that
countries will pool knowledge and experience. It is also hoped that full scale trials
on the road network in two or more countries to generate further experience of all
aspects of LLPs, in particular the financial and material savings that can be derived
from the use of LLPs.
The large number of variables that can influence pavement performance, as well
as the long time period before a real well-constructed pavement will exhibit
significant levels of the deterioration, makes the study of an in-service pavement a
long and drawn out process. However, Accelerated Pavement Testing (APT) has
proved to be one of the most useful strategies in order to understand and model
the performance of roadways. The controlled and accelerated process of damage
accumulation permits the early realisation of results for pavement deterioration
(months instead of years), and it can allow the control of many of the factors that
influence the problem. This capability helps the road engineering community to
understand the principles behind pavement mechanics. APT helps to fill the
FEHRL
knowledge gap between laboratory testing and the observed performance of in-
service pavements.
Nevertheless, accelerated testing of a long life pavement (LLP) presents several
advantages and disadvantages when compared to a study of a determinate-life
pavement.
The classical distress mechanisms considered by APT are mainly related
to the structural performance, but the type of deterioration to be expected is
quite different for an LLP
The number of axle loads applied during an APT test does not usually
exceed 1 million. Testing of determinate-life pavements overcomes this
drawback by increasing the load level, but it is not so clear that can be
done for LLP
The ability to exercise a degree of control on the variability of factors that
influence performance, help simplify the understanding the concept and
principals governing pavement deterioration
Ageing of a road pavement is difficult to simulate, and this is especially
important for LLP. More information is required.
Overcoming the drawbacks would enable a new and efficient way to understand
LLPs, evaluate new, improved, materials and thereby generate improved designs.
FEHRL
9. Summary
To be completed after the remainder of the report is complete.
FEHRL
10. References
Atkinson V M, Merrill D, and Thom N, (2006). Pavement Wear Factors. TRL Project
Report number PPR066. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham, UK.
British Cement Association (BCA), (1994). Concrete pavements for highways.
Publication document number 46.030. BCA, UK.
Centre de Recherches Routières (CRR). (Belgian Road Research Centre, BRRC)
Bruxelles. Wavre, Belgium.
CRR (1985). Code de bonne pratique pour le dimensionnement des chaussées à
revêtement en béton de ciment. Recommandations C.R.R. – R 57/85
CRR (2005). Code de bonne pratique pour l’exécution des revêtements en béton.
Recommandations C.R.R. – R 75/05.
CRR (2006). Aide multicritère au choix des revêtements routiers. Publication de
synthèse C.R.R. – F 42/06.
Vl (2001). Catalogus – Schade aan wegverhardingen, Ministerie van de Vlaamse
Gemeenschap, administratie Wegen en Verkeer, i.s.m. OCW.
(http://wegen.vlaanderen.be/documenten/publicaties/schade.php)
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The Stationary Office, Norwich.
HD24: Traffic Assessment (DMRB 7.2.1)
HD29: Structural assessment methods (DMRB 7.3.2)
HD30: Maintenance assessment procedure (DMRB 7.3.3)
Forum of National Highway Research Laboratories (FEHRL). Brussels, Belgium.
FEHRL (2004). A guide to the use of long-life fully-flexible pavements. ELLPAG
Phase 1 Report. FEHRL Report 2004/1.
FEHRL (2008). A guide to the use of long-life semi-rigid pavements. ELLPAG Phase
2 Report. FEHRL Report 2008/1.
Mayhew H C and Harding H M (1987). Thickness design of concrete roads. TRRL
Research Report RR87. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham, UK.
Litzka J, Leben B, La Torre F, Weninger-Vycudil A, et al (2008). The Way Forward for
Pavement Performance Indicators across Europe. COST Action 354. FSV,
Germany.
Litzka J, Molzer Ch, and Blab R (1996) Modifikation der Österreichischen Methode zur
Dimensionierung des Straßenoberbaus (Modification of the Austrian Method for
Pavement Design). Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten,
Straßenforschung, Heft 465, 1996
Wistuba M, Steigenberger J and Pichler R (2004). Joint-Design On Concrete
Motorways In Austria. Proceedings 9th International Symposium on Concrete
Roads, ISBN 975-8136-20-8, Istanbul, 2004.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN). Brussels, Belgium.
EN 13877-2 (2004). Concrete pavements. Functional requirements for concrete
pavements.
FEHRL
RVS 03.08.63 (2008). Bautechnische Details, Oberbaubemessung. Richtlinien und

Vorschriften für den Straßenbau, Österreichische Forschungsgemeinschaft Straße
und Verkehr. Guidelines and Specifications for Road Construction, Austrian
Research Association for Transportation Engineering, Vienna, Austria.
UK Concrete Pavement Maintenance Manual, (2001). The Concrete Society,
Crowthorne, Berkshire.
Van Leest A J, Stet M J A and Frénay J W, (2005). VENCON 2.0: A Fast and Reliable
Design Tool for Concrete Road Pavements (Jointed and Continuously Reinforced
Applications), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Concrete
Pavements, Colorado Springs, CO, 2005.
FEHRL
View publication stats

Making Best Use of Long Life Pavements in Europe Phase 3 - A Guide To The Use of Long-Life Rigid Pavements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Best Use of Long Life Pavements in Europe Phase 3 - A Guide To The Use of Long-Life Rigid Pavements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Making Best Use of Long-Life Pavements in Europe Phase 3: A Guide to the

Preprint · February 2019

Mirosław Graczyk László Gáspár

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Michael P. Wistuba Karel Pospisil

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rubber bitumen View project

DIRECT_MAT project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Making Best Use of Long-Life Pavements

ELLPAG (European Long-Life Pavements Group)

Appendix B: Glossary .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Identify Knowledge Gaps

Figure 1.1. Plan for the flow of the work of ELLPAG

Table 1.1 Phase 3 core ELLPAG member participants

Organisation Participant member

BRRC – Belgium Michel Gorski / Carl Van Geem

CDV – Czech Republic Josef Stryk / Karel Pospisil

CEDEX – Spain Angel Mateos / Jose Baena

ISTU – Austria Michael Wistuba / Johann Litzka

KTI – Hungary Laszlo Gaspar / Robert Karoly

LCPC – France Gilles Laurent / Francois de Larrard / Ferhat Mammoum

LAVOC – Switzerland Nicolas Bueche / Mehdi Ould-Henia

NTUA – Greece Andreas Loizos

IBDiM – Poland Mirosław Graczyk

In Austria, the damaging impact on the pavement is currently assessed by a direct

Mean equivalence factors for different heavy vehicles in Austria

lorry, single 0,70

3. Design and construction

3.1 Types of rigid pavements

A URC pavement, which contains no reinforcement, is considered an economic

3.2 Design concepts

3.3 Design parameters

Table 3.1. National traffic loading specifications

Austria 100 30 Cumulative standard axles >80msa

Belgium 127 40 ADT of 18,000

France 130 30 Number of HGV

Netherlands 100 30-40 Spectrum of axle loads

UK 80 40 Cumulative standard axles 400msa

3.3.2 Concrete strength

Table 3.2. Concrete design strength

Country Age of testing Concrete strength (MPa)

3.3.4 Concrete thickness

Figure 3.2. Concrete design thickness for URC pavements

3.4 Construction practice

3.4.1 Quality control

Functional test requirement Category (a)

Table 3.4. Summary of the results of a questionnaire to identify QC for concrete

Functional test requirement Category (as defined in Table 3.3)

Notes: NA Not applicable

4. Assessment and Upgrading

4.1.1 Techniques for pavement condition assessment

4.1.2 Procedure for pavement assessment

4.1.2.1 Routine assessment

4.1.2.2 Detailed investigations

A ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey should be undertaken to determine the

4.1.2.3 Specific investigations

4.1.3 Methods for determining residual life

4.1.4 Summary of national assessment methods

Table 4.1: Assessment methods for rigid pavements

Type of assessment method

Data collected from visual inspection