TECHBRIEF

LTPP Data Analysis:

Frequently Asked Questions
About Joint Faulting With
Answers From LTPP
PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-97-101
FHWA Contact: Cheryl Richter, HNR-30, (703) 285-2183

The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program is a 20-year

study of inservice pavements across
North America. Its goal is to extend
the life of highway pavements
through various designs of new and
rehabilitated pavement structures,
using different materials and under
different loads, environments, subgrade soil, and maintenance practices.
LTPP was established under the
Strategic Highway Research Program,
and is now managed by the Federal
Highway Administration.

Background
Transverse joint faulting is considered an important type of deterioration of jointed concrete pavements (JCP) because it affects ride quality,
which is very important to the traveling public. If significant joint faulting occurs, there will be a major impact on the life-cycle costs of the
pavement in terms of rehabilitation and vehicle operating costs.
Objectives
This Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) data analysis was intended to examine, in a practical way, the LTPP data base and to identify the
site conditions and design features that significantly affect transverse
joint faulting. In other words, the emphasis was to identify what works
and what does not work to control the development of joint faulting.
Key Products of This Research
The following key products were developed as part of this research:
Answers to frequently asked questions regarding design features and site

conditions that lead to good (better than expected) and poor (worse
than expected) performance of jointed concrete pavements relative to joint
faulting.
Guidelines to assist highway agencies on what works and what does not

work in the design of transverse joints to control joint faulting.

O2@@@@@6K?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@6K
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
V@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X
?W2@@@@@@@XI'@@@@@@@@@@)X?
W&@@@@@@@@)XV'@@@@@@@@@@)X
?W&@@@@@@@@@@1?V'@@@@@@@@@@1
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@eN@@@@@@@@@@@L?
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?3@@@@@@@@@@@L
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?N@@@@@@@@@@@1
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5e?J@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Ye?7@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@0Y?e?3@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@(M?f?N@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@0Yh@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@(Mhe3@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@H?heV4@@@@@@@@@@5?
?@@@@@@5e?O2@@6K?fI4@@@@@@@@H?
?@@@@@@H?W2@@@@@@6K?g?W@@@@
?3@@@@@?W&@@@@@@@@@6K?fO&@@@@
?N@@@@@?7@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?O2@@@@@5
3@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H
N@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?
?3@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y?
?V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y
V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y?
?V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y
V4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y?
?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@0Y
?I4@@@@@@@@0M?
?I40M?

?@@?e@@eW2@@@?e?@@@@6X?
?W2@?@@@@@@?
?@@?
?@@?e@@e7@@@@?e?@@@@@)X
?O26K?
?@6XheW&@5?@@@@@@?
?O@Kg?O26X@H?
?@@?e@@e@@X?f?@@?I'@1?W2@@6?2@@@6K??O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6?2@6X?W2@6KO2@@@6X@@)X?eO2@6KO&@@He?@@?@@6?2@@@@@@@@@6KO2@@?@?2@6X??O2@6KO2@@@@@@6?2@@@@@@@@@?W2@@6X?@@@@6X
?@@?e@@e@@)Kf?@@??N@@W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)?&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)??@@@@@@@@@5?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@)?2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@W&@@@@)X@@@@@1
?@@?e@@e@@@@6Xe?@@?e@@@@@??@@@@?I'@@@@(M?@@@@(M?@@?@@?@@(Y@@@@@??@@@@??@@@@?e?@@?I'@@@@H?e?@@@@@@@(M?@@@@@V'@@@@e?@@?I'@@@@?I'@@@@(M?@@@@(?'@@?@@?@@@(MI'@@@@e@@
?@@?e@@e?I4@@1e?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@??N@@@@H??@@@@He@@?@5?@@H?@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@?e?@@??N@@@@f?@@@@?@@H??@@@@@?N@@@@@6X@@??N@@@@eN@@@@He@@@@H?N@@?@@?@@@e?N@@@@e@@
?@@Le@@f?W@@e?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@L?J@@@@L?J@@@@?e@@?@H?@@e@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@?e?@@L?J@@@@f?@@@@?@@L??@@@@@e@@?@@@@@@??J@@@@eJ@@@@?e@@@@eJ@@?@@?@@@1??J@@@@e@@
?3@)K?@@?O26?&@@L??@@W2@@@@@@?@@@@@)?&@@@@)?&@@@@?e@@?@e@@e@@@@@?@@@@@??@@@@?e?@@)?&@@@@f?@@@@?3@)K?@@@@@e@@@@?@@@@?O&@@@@?O&@@@@?e@@@@?O&@@?@@?@@@@?O&@@@@e@@
?V'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@0MI'@@@@@@@@@@(?4@@@@@@@@?e@@?@e3@e@@V'@@@@@@@??@@@@?e?3@@@@@@@@f?@@@@?V'@@@@@@@5e@@@@@@@@@@@@(?'@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@?@@?@V'@@@@(Y@@e@@
V4@@0MeI4@0M?e?@@@0Me?V4@0M?@@@@0Y??I4@@@@@@?e@@?@eV'e@@?V4@0MI4@??@0?@?e?V4@@0MI4@f?@0?@??V4@@@0?(Ye@@@@@0Y@@@@0Y?V4@@0MI4@?e@MI4@@@@@?@@?@?V4@@0Y?@@e@@
?@@?
?@
?@@?
?@
?@@@@@@?he?@6X
W2@?eW26Xe@@@@@@g?@@@
?@@@@@@?he?@@1
7@@?e7@@1e@@@@@@g?@@@
?@@@6Xg@@@?he@@@?g@@@?f?@6Xhf?@@@?@@?
?@@@@@@=O2@6X??O26X@@@?O26K?e?O@KO26Ke@@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@?O26K??@@@@6K?hfO@K?hf?@@@@1g@@@?he@@@?g@@@?f?@@)K?he?@@@?@@?
?@@@eV@@@@@)?2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6?2@6?2@@@@@@@@@@@6?2@@?eJ@@@@@L?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X@@@@@@@@6X@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@W2@@@@6?2@@@@6Xg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?e7@@@@@)X@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@V'@@@@@@@@@@@@(Y@@@V'@@?@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@V'@@@@@@@@@H??J@@@?@@@@@@(Y@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@X?@@@@@@@@@@(?'@@?@@@?@@@@@(Y@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@?V@@@@@@@@@@@@H?@@@?V@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@?V@@@?@@@@5e?7@@@@@@@@@@Y?@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@1?@@@@@@V'@@?e@@?@@@?@@@@@Y?@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@??@@@@@@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@?3@@@He?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@?N@@)?&@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?3@@@@@@@@@@@@@V'@@@@5?@@??3@@@@@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?3@@@?@@@?3@@@@@@@e@@@?e?@@@?I'@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@??3@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@g
?@@@e?V4@@@0MI4@@@@@?V4@@0Y?@@??V4@@@@@?@@?e@@@@e@@@@@@X@@@@@@@@@?@@@?V4@@?@@@?V4@@@@@@?7@@5?e?@@@eV4@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@?@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@?@0?4@@??V4@@@@@?@@@?@@0?4@@@0?4@@?@@@g
?B@@@@@@(M
?@@@H?
@@@@@0Y?
?@@@

Research and Development

Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296

Currently, faulting is not directly considered in the pavement design

process, but it is considered indirectly through joint design standards
that are set by policy. This approach is far from adequate as many pavements have required early rehabilitation due to excessive faulting; this
causes a significant impact on life-cycle costs.
Research Approach
Based on the recommendation of an expert panel consisting of State
highway agency engineers, all LTPP JCP sections were divided into

good performing, normal performing, and poor performing

sections with respect to faulting. A
section was considered to be
good performing if it did not
show more than 2 mm of faulting
after 20 years of service. A section
was considered to be poor performing if its faulting after 20
years of service exceeded 4 mm.
Figures 1 and 2 present plots of all
doweled and non-doweled jointed
plain concrete pavements (JPCP)
from GPS-3 and jointed reinforced
concrete pavements (JRCP) from
GPS-4 sections with respect to
faulting and age, and show the
designation of those sections by
their performance. Different statistical methods, such as hypothesis
analyses, survival analysis, and
the t-test, were applied to investigate what site conditions contribute most toward the development of faulting and which are the
most effective in the prevention of
faulting.
Key Findings
How much does faulting of

transverse joints affect the

ride quality of JCP?
LTPP data show that faulting of
transverse

joints

dramatically

affects ride quality. Sections with

two faulting frequency curves for

being exposed to near-saturated

JPCP sectionsdoweled and nondoweled. It shows that more than

conditions. The Cd varies from 0.7

for poor drainage to 1.3 for excel-

90 percent of the doweled sections

lent drainage. Figure 4 illustrates

do not exhibit faulting greater than

the effect of drainage on non-dow-

2 mm. This shows that doweled

eled JPCP sections. Good drainage

sections exhibited good perfor-

reduces faulting for all types of

mance with respect to faulting. On

pavements and designs, but espe-

the other hand, faulting for 40 per-

cially for non-doweled sections.

cent of the non-doweled sections

The mean ESAL's carried and the

exceeded 2 mm, and almost 20

mean age of all the well-drained

percent of the sections exceeded 4

non-doweled JPCP are 7.0 million

mm. The mean Equivalent Single-

and 14 years, respectively. Similar

Axle Loads (ESALs) carried and the

values were also obtained for the

mean age of all the doweled and

non-drained, non-doweled JPCP

non-doweled pavement sections

(5 million ESALs and 15 years).

were approximately the same

(6 million ESALs and 14 years,
respectively).
Does dowel bar diameter affect

faulting?

Does

joint

spacing

affect

faulting?
Yes,

somewhat.

Joint

spacing

affects the amount of horizontal

movement at pavement joints and,

Very much so. A plot of the mean

therefore, load transfer efficiency at

joint

doweled

the joints. Several previous studies

JPCP/JRCP vs. dowel diameter

demonstrated the importance of

clearly shows that the larger dowel

reducing joint spacing for improv-

bars reduce faulting. This phenomenon has been modeled mechanis-

ing JPCP performance in general

and faulting in particular.(1) Com-

tically and is related to the bearing

parison of average joint spacing for

stress between the dowel and con-

good JRCP sections, approximately

crete. The steel/concrete bearing

13 m, and poor/normal JRCP sec-

stress for a 25-mm-diameter dowel

tions, approximately 18 m, from the

is more than 2.5 times that of a

LTPP data base shows that the joint

38-mm-diameter dowel bar.

spacing of good sections is signifi-

Does

faulting

for

subdrainage

affect

faulting?

higher faulting, on average, have a

cantly shorter.
Does

widening

of

portland

cement concrete (PCC) slabs

higher IRI. Therefore, good design

Subdrainage has been cited many

practice must prevent significant

times as an important design fea-

faulting development to maintain

ture. The overall subdrainage con-

Yes, dramatically. Widened (by 0.6

good ride quality for the public.

dition was characterized using the

m) PCC slabs (as opposed to con-

drainage coefficient (Cd), which is

based on the 1986 American

ventional width slabs) improve

Are dowels really effective in

Association of State Highway and

pavements by reducing the critical

deflections at the corner of the

to be the most effective design fea-

Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

drainage coefficient.(2) This factor

ture for controlling joint faulting.

is a reflection of the pavements

critical corner further away from

Figure 1 (non-doweled) shows

ability to drain excessive moisture

the wheel path, thereby reducing

much more early faulting than fig-

from within the structure, as well

the frequency of traffic encroach-

ure 2 (doweled). Figure 3 presents

as the pavements potential for

ment to the pavement edge. A pre-

controlling faulting?
The presence of dowels was found

reduce faulting?

faulting performance of concrete

slab. It is achieved by moving the

vious limited field study showed

very limited data) that skewed

that a widened slab reduced the

joints have approximately 50 per-

amount of faulting by approximately 50 percent.(1) The LTPP

cent lower faulting than nonskewed joints.(1) This can be

data base contains information on

explained by the reduction of

only a few JPCP sections with

impact of the wheel load from

widened slabs. The mean faulting

vehicles crossing the joint. The

for non-doweled sections both

LTPP data base supports these

with and without widened slabs

findings. Whereas only half of the

shows about 50 percent less fault-

sections with non-skewed joints

ing with a widened slab. There was

have shown good performance,

no difference in faulting between

the fraction of the good perform-

doweled widened slab sections

ing sections with skewed joints is

and doweled conventional slab

about two-thirds of the total num-

width JPCP.

ber of the sections with skewed

Does

base

type

affect

faulting?

joints. However, LTPP results also

show that perpendicular doweled
joints with reasonable subdrainage

Yes. Adequate stabilization of the

will not fault; thus, it is not neces-

pavement base reduces its erodi-

sary to skew a doweled joint.

bility (note there must be an adequate amount of stabilizer to control erodibility). This leads to lower
erodibility and, therefore, lower
faulting. From distribution plots of
good

and

poor/normal

faulted

sections for stabilized and non-stabilized bases for LTPP non-doweled JPCP sections, it can be
observed that although sections
with a stabilized base account for
60 percent of all good JPCP sections, they represent less than 40
percent of poor/normal sections.
A similar trend is observed for
JRCP pavements, although the
effect is not as pronounced as for
JPCP pavements.
Does joint orientation affect

faulting?
Although the practice of skewed
joints has been standard for many
years, there exists little evidence of
its benefits. A previous side-byside comparison of pavement sections with non-doweled skewed
and non-skewed joints conducted
in a Federal Highway Administration
study demonstrated (albeit with

Design Guidelines
Non-Doweled JPCP: Specific
guidelines to minimize faulting
include good subdrainage (Cd >1),
adequately
stabilized
base
(designed to resist erosion),
widened slabs in the outer lane,
relatively short joint spacing, and
skewed joints.
Doweled JPCP/JRCP: In general,
doweled JPCP and JRCP were
found to have very low amounts
of joint faulting. However, the
diameter of the dowel bar was
found to significantly affect faulting. Pavements having 38-mmdiameter dowels had very little
faulting, regardless of other
design features. Other design features significantly affected joint
faulting, including subdrainage,
stabilized base, and shorter joint
spacings. Results showed that
doweled joints do not need to be
skewed to control faulting.
Engineering Design Against
Faulting: This LTPP data analysis
has shown that several design features must be considered simulta-

neously in controlling faulting to

achieve an economical life-cycle
design. These design features
should be selected to fit the given
site conditions (traffic, climate,
and subgrade), as is done for slab
thickness design, not just set by a
general policy. A more customized, comprehensive engineering design of transverse
joints will lead to a much more
reliable and cost-effective pavement design and will avoid early
failures from excessive faulting.
Future LTPP analyses will lead to
mechanistic-based models that
will produce the required analytical procedures for design.
References
1. Yu, T.H., M.I. Darter, K.D. Smith,
J. Jiang, and L. Khazanovich.
Performance of Concrete Pavements:
Volume III - Improving Concrete
Pavement Performance, Report No.
FHWA-RD-95-111, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC, 1996.
2. AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures, American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington,
DC, 1993.

FIGURE 1
Transverse joint faulting for non-doweled
JPCP

FIGURE 2
Transverse joint faulting for doweled JPCP
and JRCP

FIGURE 3
Cumulative frequency curves for JPCP
sections

FIGURE 4
Cumulative frequency curves for JPCP nondoweled sections

Researcher: This study was performed by ERES Consultants, Inc., 505 West University Avenue, Champaign, IL
61820-3915. Contract No. DTFH61-96-C-0003.
Distribution: This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution.
Availability: The publication from which this TechBrief was developedCommon Characteristics of Good and
Poorly Performing PCC Pavementswill be published in 1988.
Key Words: Pavement performance, faulting, dowel, drainage, joint spacing.
Notice: This TechBrief is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The TechBrief provides a synopsis of the studys findings. It does not establish policies or
regulations, nor does it imply FHWA endorsement of the conclusions or recommendations. The U.S. Government
assumes no liability for the contents or their use.

AUGUST 1997

FHWA-RD-97-101