ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY

Ministry of Transport

RRL REPORT LR 179 •

THE OMISSION OF E X P A N S I O N J O I N T S

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

by

J. M. Gregory

ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY

CROWTHORNE, BERKSHIRE
1968
 CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 1

1. Introduction

2. American practice 1

2.1 American performance experience 2

2.2 British assessments of American experience 3

3. Continental practice 3

4. British experience 4

5. Advantages and disadvantages of omitting expansion joints 8

6. Conclusions

7. Recommendations

8. References 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 1st
April 1996.

This report h a s 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 E X P A N S I O N 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 dis-

cussed. 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
T h i s road constructed in 1928 had an unusual cross-section consisting 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 t o 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 transverse 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 r o m 9
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, b u t t h e overall performance of the road was considered
satisfactory.

This road is still unsurfaced in 1967 and, according to the local highway authority, is still
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 consisted 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 deter-
mine 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 t h e s e c t i o n 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
are

(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 Times of occurrence of mean temperatures

1962" April 22 October 18
1963 April 19 October 22
1964 April 7 October 18
1965. March 27 October 1.5
1966 April 22 October 20

On the basis of this information it is proposed that t h e 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. P O R T L A N D C E M E N T 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. Investigationalpavement in Minnesota: 18 year report.

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

8. A N O N . Expansion joints unnecessary in pavements. Engg. News-Record. 1945 134,

I00

9". WOODS, K. B., H. S. S W E E T and T. E. SHELBURNE. Pavement blowups correlatedwith

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. B L A K E 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. L O E 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. Summaryof 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 N o 125, London, 1966, (Unpublished) (Originalarticles 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
.
Ill

ABSTRACT
Z
m

m The omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements:

m

m
summary of experience and recommendations: J.M. Gregory:
m

m
Ministry of Transport, RRL Report LR 179: Crowthome,
m

m
1968 (Road Research Laboratory). The American and Con-
m
m
m
tinental practices and experiences in the design of concrete
m
m
m
pavements without expansion joints have been studied.
m

Information on the performances of lengths of road

m
m
. from which expansion joints have been omitted in Great
m
Britain is given.
m

The advantages and disadvantages of this type of

m design are discussed. Recommendations of the period when
m
m
expansion joints may be omitted are given.
m

~llllllmllllllllllUlllllll IIIIIIIIIIINIIIIllI-IllPi| IIIml|l|llmnllllmmllmll|lmlll||lllllmlllmlllllllllll

Ill
mm
m
m
m ABSTRACT
m

The omission of expansion joints from concrete pavements:

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

m
Information on the performances of lengths of road
m
from which expansion joints have been omitted in Great
m
Britain is given.
1

m
m The advantages and disadvantages of this type of
m design are discussed. Recommendations of the period when
Ill
expansion joints may be omitted are given.
~ ~ u ~ ~ u ~ ~ J ~ i ~ u ~ ~ | ~ ~ j ~ Ill lUll I I Ill

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 advantages and disadvantages of this type of

design are discussed. Recommendations of the period when
expansion joints may be omitted are given.