the omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements ... · in 1963 kirkham (10) concluded that...

ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY

Ministry of Transport

RRL REPORT LR 179 •

THE OMISSION OF EXPANSION JOINTS

FROM CONCRETE PAVEMENTS: SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE A N D RECOMMENDATIONS

by

J. M. Gregory

ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY CROWTHORNE, BERKSHIRE

1968

CONTENTS

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. American practice

2.1 American performance experience

2.2 British assessments of American experience

3. Continental practice

4. British experience

5. Advantages and disadvantages of omitting expansion joints

6. Conclusions

7. Recommendations

8. References

Page

1

1

2

3

3

4

8

10

(~)CROWN COPYRIGHT 1968 Extracts [rom the text may be reproduced

provided the source is acknowledged

Ownership of the Transport Research Laboratory was transferred from the Department of Transport to a subsidiary of the Transport Research Foundation on 1 st April 1996.

This report has been reproduced by permission of the Controller of HMSO. Extracts from the text may be reproduced, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

THE OMISSION OF EXPANSION JOINTS

FROM CONCRETE PAVEMENTS: S U M M A R Y

OF EXPERIENCE A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

ABSTRACT

The American and Continental practices and experiences in the design of concrete pavements without expansion joints have been studied.

Information on the performances of lengths of road from which expansion joints have been omitted in Great Britain is given.

The advantages and disadvantages of this type of design are discussed. Recommendations of the period when expansion joints may be

omitted are given.

I. INTRODUCTION

The general design philosophy in this country with regard to expansion joints in concrete pave-

ments has been that they should be included at spacings which have ranges from 9 to 73 m (30 to

240 ft) in normal circumstances. Their purpose was to provide gaps in the concrete to allow for

expansion of the slabs when the temperature rose above that at which the concrete was laid and

also to allow for contraction and warping.

Many highway authorities in the United States and on the Continent have constructed concrete

pavements with expansion joints only at structures. There is a considerable body of opinion in

this country which advocates that this procedure should be adopted here. This note briefly

reviews the information available and describes the performance of some concrete roads in the

United Kingdom from which expansion joints have been omitted.

2. AMERICAN PRACTICE

In 1927 it is reported (1) that the majority of States were using expansion joints at more or less

regular intervals but a considerable number of States did not consider them necessary.

The Portland Cement Association published a manual on pavement design (2) in 1946 which

stated that expansion joints could be omitted or used at long spacings in pavements Iaid in the

normal construction season and with materials of normal expansive properties.

A summary of concrete pavement standards in 1963 (37 showed that only six States specified

expansion joints. These States were Mississippi, New Jersey, Maryland, Alabama, West Virginia

and Pennsylvania; the spacings used were 19.5 m,~ 183 m, 183 m, 187 m and 75-187 m respec-

tively (63 ft 9 in, 78 ft 2 in, ~ 600 ft, 600 ft, 615 and 246-615 ft).

It can be concluded therefore that American practice has moved over the past 40 years towards the omission of expansion joints.

The climatic conditions of Britain do not compare very closely with those of any of the States

of the U.S.A. but the closest comparison is with Washington where blow-ups are known to have occurred.

2.1 American performance experience

In 1940 an investigation into joint spacing in concrete pavements was commenced with experi-

mental lengths laid in six States covering a wide range of climatic and subgrade conditions. Lengths

of unreinforced concrete without expansion joints and with closely spaced contraction joints were

included in these experiments. A summary of the results after 10 years (4) states that practically

every State had eliminated expansion joints in unreinforeed concrete pavements except at structures

and other special locations. It was claimed that this resulted in pavements which offered greater

resistance to pumping and faulting because of the better maintenance of aggregate interlock in the contraction joints.

Three of the States reported after 17 or 18 years. Kentucky (5) stated that expansion joints

were of little benefit and probably were detrimental unless installed in at least 400 ft intervals.

After 17 years it was concluded in Michigan (6) that the satisfactory performance of long sections

under full restraint indicated that expansion joints were unnecessary except at such places as

intersections. It was also stated that expansion joints might he considered detrimental if placed

at close intervals, because they permitted excessive joint movement by panel migration. Minnesota (7)

concluded that the elimination of expansion joints would not cause excessive compressive forces in the main portion of the pavement.

In these trials blow-ups were reported only in Michigan and Minnesota where the roads were

laid in the months of August to October. In three of the other four States the roads were laid in

June to mid August while in California the roads were constructed in September and October; no blow-ups were reported by these States.

Oregon engineers (8) concluded in 1945 that expansion joints in Western Oregon were unnecessary

and that they were a detriment to smooth riding qualities.

It was concluded in 1945 from experience in Indiana, where a serious problem of 'blow-ups'

and map cracking had been encountered (9) that the problem was due to certain coarse aggregates

and that pavements could be constructed sucessfully without expansion joints. Further experience

has however thrown doubts on this conclusion as to the major cause of blow-ups.

These are a few of the many references concerning concrete pavements from which expansion

joints have been omitted. It is apparent that the reasoning behind the decisions to omit expansion

joints is generally based on (lY the poor performance of joint designs with attendant problems in

joint sealing and maintenance of good riding quality and (2) the results of performance surveys and

experimental roads where expansion joints have been omitted.

2.2 British assessments of American experience

The translation of American practice to British practice cannot be straightforward as there

are differences in materials, techniques, climate and maintenance standards.

Visits have been made to the United States to assess the experience gained there in terms of

British conditions.

In 1963 Kirkham (10) concluded that for reinforced concrete construction although expansion

joints might be omitted when the concrete is placed in the hottest weather, there must be a risk of

blow-ups and spalling at joints if they are omitted at other times of placing.

The formation of blow-ups in concrete roads in five States and in the Ohio Turnpike was.

studied by Stott and Brook (11) in 1966. One State, Maryland, used expansion joints at 183 m (600 ft)

spacings and the other States and the Ohio Turnpike omitted these joints except at structures.

From the evidence obtained in this survey it was not possible to be specific on the effect of omitting

expansion joints. Experience indicated that blow-ups had occurred on concrete roads whether or

not expansion joints were used. The frequency appeared to increase with the age of the road and

generally a road was 3 to 9 years old before blow-ups began to occur.

Blake (12) has stated, on the basis of the American experience and the results so far obtained

from an experimental length in Great Britain (referred to later), that the risk of damage due to blow-

ups is small in this country on well built and well maintained concrete roads laid during the period

April to September. He also concludes that it would seem desirable to limit contraction joint

spacing to about 12 to 15 m (40 or 50 ft).

3. CONTINENTAL PRACTICE

In 1955 a visit was made to Denmark, West Germany and Holland (13) and it was observed that in

Denmark it was current practice to omit expansion joints except at bridges and at the extremities

of curves; the roads were of unreinforeed concrete with contraction joints at 5 to 6 m (16 - 20 ft).

No information is available concerning the performance of these roads, nor of current Danish

practice.

A study visit in 1964 to mid-European countries (14) reported that in France and Switzerland

. . . . motorways_and trunkroads were being built without expansion joints. Itlwas-also noted that in--

Austria if temperatures were over 20 ° at the time of Construction all expansion joints were omitted.

The German Federal specification at that time still required expansion joints to be used but their

spacing had been increased from 30m (98 ft) to 60m (196 ft). Mention was also made of three roads

built in Germany using the Swiss design without expansion joints.

The County Surveyors' Society visited North America and Europe in 1965 (15) and they

reported that in Belgium expansion joints were currently being used only at structures and at the

end of the work. The impression gained was that the omission of expansion joints had had no bad effects.

In September 1967 a more detailed visit of inspection was made to the Liege-Antwerp

Motorway constructed between 1957 and 1961. In large sections of this motorway plain concrete

has been used and expansion joints have been omitted. Slabs 7~ metres (23 feet) long have been

laid with dowelled contraction joints, or with a mixture of dowelled contraction and tied warping

joints. These sections, which carry heavy commercial traffic (3000 commercial vehicles per day)

are in excellent condition. There is no spalling at contraction joints, but there is evidence of

buckling at bridge structures, clearly due to expansion. At one bridge a serious blow-up had occurred and it was reported that similar blow ups had occurred at different bridges each summer for the last 3 years. At skew bridges transverse movements of the slabs had occurred between bridge deck slabs and - road slabs so that the central longitudinal joint was displaced as much as 5-7 cm (2-3 inches).

It was pointed out by the Belgian engineers that evidence of compression failure in the form

of severe spalling was present in sections where expansion joints had been used. This may how-

ever have reflected the inadequacy of the type of expansion joints used, in which the sealing groove was narrower than the filling material.

The view was formed during this inspection that the difficuhy at structures could have been

overcome by the inclusion of an active expansion joint at or near the structures.

4. BRITISH EXPERIENCE

Although the omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements has never been a recommended

policy in this country there are a number of examples of roads which have been built to this method

of design. Some of these sections have had expansion joints omitted purposely while in others it is likely that they were omitted by accident.

Experience with blow-ups in this country is limited. Three which occurred in 1949 were

investigated by the Road Research Laboratory (16). One occurred on a road without expansion

joints and was attributed to lack of expansion space aggravated by settlement. The failures in

the other two roads were thought to be due to ingress of grit into joints and inadequate maintenance.

In 1950 another blow-up occurred in the first of these three roads (17). All the blow ups

occurred in very hot weather and the roads had been in use from 14 to 18 years.

4

(I) Road in Hanchester

This road constructed in 1928 had an unusual cross-sect ion consist ing of a central slab 5m

(16 ft 9 in) wide, 29cm (111/2 in.) thick at the crown and from 25 to 28 cm (9¾ to 11 in) thick at the

edges and two side bays 2.5m (8 ft 1~ in) wide, with thicknesses ranging from 25 to 28 cm (9¾ to

11 in) at the interior edge and 20 to 28 cm (8 to 11 in) at the kerb. The lengths of bays ranged

from 9 to 41.5 m (30 to 136 ft), most of the bays being unreinforeed, and all the t ransverse joints

were of the plain butt type. The total length of the road was 1.5 km (4,800 ft) and it is not known

at what time of the year the road was constructed.

The road was inspected when it was 18 years old (18). The slabs of lengths ranging f rom9

to 23.5 m (30 to 80 ft) were all untracked ( I t is not known how many of these slabs were reinforced);

slabs of greater lengths contained cracks, bu t the overall performance of the road was considered

satisfactory.

This road is sti l l unsurfaced in 1967 and, according to the local highway authority, is sti l l

in a very satisfactory condition.

(2) A.24 Leatherhead By-pass Section 2B

This length of a Ministry of Transport experimental road was constructed in 1933 to determine

the extent to which the cost of increasing the richness of the concrete mix might be offset by

reducing the thickness of the slab.

The slabs were 15, 17.5 and 20 cm (6, 7 and 8 in) thick laid on approximately 2.5 em (1 in) of

sand on a chalk subgrade. Reinforcement was placed near the top of the slabs and consis ted of

3.Skg/m 2 (71b/sq. yd) square mesh which was increased to 5.7kg/m 2 (10~lb/sq.yd) over the middle

third of the road. Slabs were 9.5 m (31ft) wide including 0.3 m (1 ft) under the kerbs and there was

no longitudinal joint.

Contraction joints were spaced at 5.5m (18 ft) intervals and at an angle of 80 ° to the kerb

and were of the butt type, undowelled and with no sealing groove.

The length of the section was 0.3km (972 ft) and it was constructed in the early summer,

(May - June).

The section was inspected in July 1952 by a Panel of the Committee for Co-operative Research

with the Cement and Concrete Association. The finding of this panel as regards the omission of

expansion joints was that it Was not entirely satisfactory as there was indication of high pressures

at the contraction joints. This was more noticeable on the e a s t s i d e of the road which was more

exposed to the sun.

(3) Roads in Liverpool

Brook (19) in 1957 surveyed 21 concrete roads in Liverpool which had no expansion joints.

Six of these roads, whose ages in 1957 ranged from 19 to 26 years, were unsurfaeed. The roads

were all 22.5 cm (9 in) thick with square mesh reinforcement in two layers and the construction

joint spacings varied from 12 to 18 m (40 to 60 ft); these joints were thought to act as contraction joints.

The lengths of 5 of the roads were between 0.55 and 0.6Km (600 and 660 yds) and the

remaining road was 1.5Km (1700 yd) long. Brook concluded that the omission of the expansion joints had not been detrimental to the behaviour of the roads.

(4) M.I. St. Albans By-pass

A length of 0.85 Km (2,760 ft) of the northbound carriageway of M.1, south of the bifurcation

at Beechtree was laid without expansion joints. Slabs were 36.5 m (120 ft) long, 27.5 cm (11 in) thick and reinforced with oblong mesh weighing 5.4 Kg/m 2 (10 lb/sq.yd.).

The slabs were laid in August 1959 and an inspection made in 1965 showed that the amount

of Cracking was no greater than for similar lengths laid under comparable conditions. There was

extensive spalling at. most contraction joints but as these were of a special type which had

exhibited spalling when used in lengths with expansion joints at normal spacings it cannot be

concluded that the omission of expansion joints has contributed to excessive spalling.

(5) B.6247 Padiharn By-pass

This road constructed in the mid-summer of 1963 contains instrumented sections of concrete

with and without expansion joints; this experimefit is referred to by Blake (12).

A length of 0.6 Km (2,060 ft) without expansion joints was laid between anchored slabs and

there is a length of 0.3 Km (920 ft) with expansion joints at 73 m (240 ft) intervals. In both lengths

contraction joints are spaced at 12 m (40 ft) intervals. The slab thickness is 25 cm (10 in) and

the slabs which are reinforced with mesh fabric weighting 4.35 Kg/m 2 (8.02 lb/sq.yd.) are laid on a 12.5 cm (6 in) crusher-run stone base.

Measurements of stress, temperatures, changes in joint width and slab movements are being

taken in two approximately 90 m (300 ft) lengths, one with expansion joints and one in the length

omitting expansion jQints. A third section without expansion joints is also instrumented to determine the effect of gradient and curvature.

The results to date are summarized by Blake (12) as follows:-

(i) The compressive stress/temperature relation for the sections without expansion joints is

approximately 27,50 mbar (40 lb/sq.in.)/°C rise above base temperature. There has been no

significant change in this relationship over the years but, the maximum temperature at which

zero stress occurred reduced from 23°C to about 16°C after two years.

(ii) The maximum stress recorded to date in the section without expansion joints is 62000 mbar.

(900 lb/sq.iu.) with a slab temperature of 30°C. No unique relationship has been found

between slab temperature and stress in thesec t ion with expansion joints, put me sLre~ ~

30°C is likely to be in the order of 21000 mbar (300 lb/sq.in.) .

(iii) A greater variation in contraction joint movement has occurred in the section with expansion :

joints than in the section without. Contraction joint movements are tending to become more

uniform with time in the section without expansion joints but, in the section with expansion

joints, movements are still concentrating at those contraction joints nearest to the expansion

joints and the expansion joints are closing.

(6) A.I Tuxford By-pass

This road contains lengths of 305 m (1,000.ft) and 1220 m (4,000 ft) between expansion joints.

Stresses are being measured in these lengths and in control sections of similar lengths which

include expansion joints.

Slab thickness is 22.5 cm (9 in) and the slabs are reinforced with 11 mm (7/16 in) diameter

bars at 15 em (6 in) eentres. In the length without expansion joints, contraction joints are at

24.5 m (80 ft) intervals while in the control sections the contraction joint spacing is the same and

expansion joints are at 73 m (240 ft) spacings.

One 305 m (1,000 ft) length without expansion joints was constructed in the autumn of 1066

and concreting of the remainder Of the experimental lengths was carried out in the Spring of 1967.

Measurements of stress so far made were of the order 13000-20000 mbar (200-300 lb/sq.in.)

at the centre of the 305 m (1000 ft) length without expansion joints. TO date no stress measure-

ments have been made in the other lengths.

(7) A.27 Sompting By-pass

0.9 Km (1000 yd) of a second carriageway to this road was commenced in December 1962 and

completed in the following April after a delay due tO bad weather.

No expansion joints were used in this length and dowelled contraction joints were spaced at

9 m (30 ft) intervals. The ~25 cm (10 in) thick slab was laid on a 15 cm (6 in) sub-base of lean

concrete and reinforced with twisted square bar mesh weighing 3.56 Kg/m 2 (6.54 lb/sq.yd).

At the end of May i963 three failures occurred, of which two were blow-ups at contraction

joints. Both blow-ups occurred when temperatures were above 21°C '(70°F) a n d at changes in the

curvature of the road. In both instances there was separation of the top course and examination

revealed poor quality concrete in the bottom course.

Reinstatements were made with conventional dowelled expansion joints.

5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF OMITTING EXPANSION JOINTS

5. I Advantages

The advantages likely to accrue when expansion joints are omitted have been stated by

Springenschmid (20) after analysing American and German experimental data. These advantages

a r e

(a) Under certain conditions a prestress develops in the longitudinal direction of the slabs,

so that the bending tensile stresses are reduced.

(b) The joints cannot open so widely, thus ensuring better transmission of vertical loads by

aggregate interlock at the (undowelled) joints.

(c) The joint-sealing compound undergoes less deformation.

(d) Cracks which form cannot become wider because there is no room for this.

A further advantage is in the reduction of cost of the pavemerrt as a contraction joint is

about 10-15 per cent cheaper to provide and install than an expansion joint (on British costs).

There may be also slightly increased speed of construction and labour efficiency when

expansion joints are omitted as this will reduce the types of transverse joint to be installed and

thus avoid confusiorL

5.2 Disadvantages

When expansion joints are omitted it is possible that under certain conditions compression

failures (or blow-ups) and spalling of joints may occur.

Theoretical considerations of the risks of blow-ups can be made which involve assumptions

of eccentricity, loss of stress due to creep, maximum safe stress at increasing ages, and tempera-

ture ranges. These show that the risk is present in any road without expansion space but for roads

constructed in the winter the risk will be present at earlier ages than when construction is in "the

summer.

The accumulated American evidence suggests that both blow-ups and excessive joint spalling

can occur in concrete roads both with and without expansion joints.

With regard to spaUing at contraction joints Kirkham (I0) noted that the amount of spalling

could be related to the amount of expansion space provided, to the width of the sawn slot and to

the proper maintenance of the seal.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence relating to the omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements

indicates that while some concrete pavements which have been constructed in this country without

expansion joints have performed successfully, troubles with blow-ups and spalling have been

experienced in other roads of this type.

t

Many States in the U.S.A., and some continental countries do not use expansion joints. The

risks involved if this design practice is adopted in Great Britain are not likely to be great although

they cannot be said not to exist. The risks of failure appear to be least for roads constructed in

the summer. There is no positive information as to how such roads would perform over long periods

when constructed in the winter period, but the risk of failure would be greater particularly for roads

constructed in the late autumn and winter.

The danger of buckling or blow-ups is likely to be greatest near to fixed structures such as

bridges. This danger could be removed by the provision of some suitable means of providing for

expansion at these points. This is regarded as essential'by many engineers to prevent expansion

stresses being transmitted to the structures.

o 7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Over the period 1950-60 average daily temperatures were recorded at the bottom of a 15cm

(6in) slab located in the South of England. These measurements showed that the mean between

maximum summer and minimum winter temperatures occurred in the last week of April and the

second week in October. These times did not vary significantly from year to year.

Similar temperature measurements were recorded in a 22.5cm (gin) slab located alongside

the experimental Sections on A.1 at Grantham (Lines.). For the period 1962-66 and considering

mean slab temperatures the mean between maximum summer and minimum winter temperatures

occurred at times as shown in Table 1.

TABLE I

Year

1962" 1963 1964

1965. 1966

Times of occurrence of mean temperatures

April 22 April 19 April 7 March 27 April 22

October 18 October 22 October 18 October 1.5 October 20

On the basis of this information it is proposed that the construction period over which

expansion joints may be omitted should ]~e the six months between April 21 and October 21. "

' ?

Where expansion joints are omitted it is recommended that fixed structures should be isolated

from the carriageway by the inclusion of a short length of flexible construction or other suitable means,

8. REFERENCES

1. BRUCE A. G. and R. D. BROWN The trend of highway design. Public Roads 8 No 1. 1927 pp 7-14.

2. PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Concrete pavement design for roads and streets carrying

all classes of traffic. Chicago 1946. (Portland Cement Association)

3. PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION. A charted summary of concrete road pavement standards

used by State highway departments, 1963 Chicago, 1963 (Portland Cement Association).

4. HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD. Joint spacing in concrete pavements: 10-year reports on six

experimental projects. Research Report 17-B, Washington, D.C., 1956 (National Research Council).

. EVANS, M and W. B. DRAKE. 17-year report on the Owensboro-Hartford Road. Cooperative

investigation of joint spacing in concrete pavements. Proc. Highw. Res. Bd., Wash., 1959, 38, 226-40.

6. FINNEY, E. A. and LEROY, T. O. Final report on Design Project Michigan Test Road. Proc. Highw. Res. Bd., Wash., 1959, 38, 241-88.

7. VELZ, P. G. and E. C. CARSBERG. Investigational pavement in Minnesota: 18 year report.

Highway Research Board Bulletin 274, 70-91 (National Research Council) Washington D.C. 1960.

8. ANON. Expansion joints unnecessary in pavements. Engg. News-Record. 1945 134, I00

9". WOODS, K. B., H. S. SWEET and T. E. SHELBURNE. Pavement blowups correlated with

source of coarse aggregate. Proc. Highw. Res. Bd., Wash., 1945, 25, 147-68.

10. KIRKHAM R. H. H. Impressions of concrete pavement design in the U.S.A. Department of

Scientific and Industrial Research, Road Research Laboratory Note No. LN/434/RHHK. Harmondsworth, 1963. (Unpublished)

11. STOTT J. P. and K. M. BROOK, Report on a visit to the U.S.A. to study blow-ups in concrete

roads. Ministry of Transport, Road Research Laboratory, Technical Note No. 119. Hurmondsworth 1966. (Unpublished)

I0

12. BLAKE L. S. Recent research and development on concrete roads. The Concrete Society,

One-day Meeting on Concrete Roads. London, 1967 (The Concrete Society).

13. SHARP, D. R. and L. S. BLAKE. Concrete roads in Denmark, Western Germany and Holland-

Their layout~design and construction. Cement and Concrete Association, Research Report

No. 3. London; 1956, (Cement and Concrete Association).

i4. WALKER, B. J. and B. W. JOHNSON. Current Mid-European concrete road practice. J. Inst.

Highway Engrs., 1964, (November), 177-88.

15. MONCRIEFF,'J. C. Construction: Europe, I. Earthworks, drainage and carriageway construc-

tion. J. Inst. Highway Engrs., 1966, 13 (3), 97-103.

16. LOE, J. A. and O. D. LLEWELLYN. Inspections of compression failures in three concrete

roads. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Road Research Laboratory, Research Note No. RN/1288/JAL.ODLI; Harmondsworth, 1950. (Unpublished) •

17. LOE J. A. Buckling of concrete slabs in the Scunthorpe-Doncaster road. Department of

Scientific and Industrial Research, Road Research Laboratory, Research Note No. RN/1461/JAL, Harmondsworth, 1950 (Unpublished)

18. LOE, J. A. and O. D. LLEWELLYN. Summary of information obtained from inspections of

concrete roads. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Road Research Laboratory, Research Note No. ll03/JAL, ODL1, Harmondsworth, 1949. (Unpublished)

19. BROOK K.M. The behavionr of some surfaced and unsurfaced concrete roads with and without

expansion joints. Cement and Concrete Association, Technical Report TRA/315,

London, 1959. (Unpublished)

20. SPRINGENSCHMID, R. Joints in concrete roads. Cement and Concrete Association,

Library Translation No 125, London, 1966, (Unpublished) (Original articles in German

appeared in Strasse und Autobahn, 1963, (6/7), 220-5 and 265-9).

II

Printed at the Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England.

.

m

g .

I l l

Z m

m m

m m

m m

m m m m m m m

m

m m .

m m

m

m m m

ABSTRACT

The omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements: summary of experience and recommendations: J.M. Gregory: Ministry of Transport, RRL Report LR 179: Crowthome, 1968 (Road Research Laboratory). The American and Con- tinental practices and experiences in the design of concrete pavements without expansion joints have been studied.


The advantages and disadvantages of this type of design are discussed. Recommendations of the period when expansion joints may be omitted are given.

~ l l l l l l m l l l l l l l l l l U l l l l l l l IIIIIIIIIIINIIIIllI-IllPi| I I Iml | l | l lmnl l l lmml lml l | lml l l | | l l l l lml l lml l l l l l l l l l l

ABSTRACT Ill mm m m m

m

m

m

m m m m I n

m

m m

m

m m

m

I l l

The omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements: summary of experience and recommendations: J.H. Gregory: Ministry of Transport, RRL Report LB 179: Crowthorne, 1968 (Road Research Laboratory). The American and Con- tinental practices and experiences in the design of concrete pavements without expansion joints have been studied.


1


~ ~ u ~ ~ u ~ ~ J ~ i ~ u ~ ~ | ~ ~ j ~ I l l l U l l I I I l l

ABSTRACT

The omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements: summary of experience and recommendations: J.M. Gregory: Ministry of Transport, RRL Report LR 179: Crowthorne, 1968 (Road Research Laboratory). The American and Con- tinental practices and experiences in the design of concrete pavements without expansion joints have been studied.

Information on the performances of lengths of road from which expansion joints have been omitted ih Great Britain is given.

L


the omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements ... · in 1963 kirkham (10) concluded that...

Documents