Case Study

Design, Construction, and Performance of Continuously

Reinforced Concrete Pavement Reinforced with GFRP Bars:
Case Study
Brahim Benmokrane1; Abdoulaye Sanni Bakouregui2; Hamdy M. Mohamed3; Denis Thébeau4;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and Omar I. Abdelkarim5

Abstract: The application of deicing salt on roads during the winter is one of the main reasons for steel corrosion in reinforced-concrete
pavements in cold-weather regions such as Canada and the Northern United States. Steel corrosion creates internal stresses in the concrete
that cause the concrete to burst. This reduces the service life of pavements and increases maintenance costs. This study presents a long-
term field test of a continuously reinforced-concrete pavement (CRCP) reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars lo-
cated on Highway 40 West (Montreal, Quebec). The design procedures, construction details, performance, and monitoring results for
a 306-m-long section of GFRP-CRCP are presented. Three different types of fiber-optic sensors were used to monitor the pavement be-
havior and to evaluate the long-term performance of this type of CRCP. The field inspection ran for 6 years after the time of construction,
and the data covering 30 months were analyzed. The concrete crack width, concrete crack spacing and rate, concrete temperature, concrete
strain, and GFRP-bar strain behavior were recorded and investigated. The GFRP-CRCP and a 94-m-long stretch of steel-CRCP on that
highway were compared in terms of crack width, spacing, and rate. Site inspection showed that neither type of pavement exceeded the
crack-width limit of 1.0 mm set by the available design standard for pavement structures. The crack rate of the CRCP reinforced with
GFRP bars was generally lower than that with steel bars. Moreover, the field test results after 6 years under actual service conditions
revealed that GFRP-CRCP provides very competitive performance in comparison to steel-CRCP. Lastly, design equations were devel-
oped and proposed to determine the longitudinal-reinforcement ratio for the GFRP-CRCP based on the available design standard.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001064. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Continuously reinforced-concrete pavement; Concrete pavement; GFRP bars; Long-term study; Field test.

Introduction
A nation’s roadway network plays a vital role in its socioeconomic
development, ensuring safe transportation for people and goods.
The two main types of roadway pavements are rigid (concrete)
and flexible (asphalt). A rigid pavement usually consists of a con-
crete liner, a crushed-aggregate base, and a subbase. A continu-
ously reinforced-concrete pavement (CRCP) is a rigid pavement
1 Although CRCP yields a longer life span than jointed plain-
Professor of Civil Engineering and Tier-1 Canada Research Chair in
Advanced Composite Materials for Civil Structures, and Senior NSERC In-
dustrial Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
J1K 2R1 (corresponding author). Email: Brahim.Benmokrane@
USherbrooke.ca
2
Ph.D. Student, Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K
2R1. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5884-9312. Email: abdoulaye
.sanni.bakouregui@usherbrooke.ca
3
Research Associate/Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1. E-mail: Hamdy
.Mohamed@usherbrooke.ca
4
Professional Engineer, Ministry of Transportation of Quebec, Mon-
treal, QC, Canada H2Z 1W7. Email: denis.thebeau@transports.gouv.qc.ca
5
Mitacs Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sher-
brooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0003-2464-4153. Email: Abdelkarim.Omar@usherbrooke.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 23, 2019; approved
on May 20, 2020; published online on July 30, 2020. Discussion period
open until December 30, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites
for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
that is usually used for high-traffic and heavily loaded roadways.
CRCP is constructed without any transverse contraction joints,
but with longitudinal reinforcement distributed along the pavement
rather than only at the joints, as in jointed plain-concrete pavements.
Therefore, CRCP controls the transverse crack widths caused by con-
crete volumetric changes. CRCP was used for the first time on Co-
lumbia Pike in Arlington, Virginia, about 100 years ago (Roesler
et al. 2016). It was built for the first time in Canada in 2000 in the
Province of Quebec (Thébeau and Davidson 2006).
concrete pavements by maintaining its smoothness for at least
20–30 years (Roesler et al. 2016), steel corrosion remains a
major problem, which reduces its service life and increases mainte-
nance costs (Kim et al. 2000; Choi and Chen 2005). Several studies
have examined the relationship between surface cracks and steel
corrosion (e.g., Vidal et al. 2004; Micheal et al. 2014). Others
have presented analytical models to evaluate steel corrosion
based on measuring the widths of surface cracks (Bossio et al.
2017). The main reason for steel corrosion in CRCP pavements
is the application of deicing salt after snowfalls during the winter
season. For example, more than 800,000 tons of deicing salt are
used each year on the roadway network in the Province of Quebec,
which makes corrosion of steel reinforcement a serious problem
(Perreault et al. 2012). Steel corrosion creates internal stresses in
the concrete, which damages the concrete surrounding the steel re-
inforcement, leading to punchout. This shortens the CRCP’s life
and increases maintenance costs. CRCP might yield better perfor-
mance and achieve a much longer service life with minimal main-
tenance if steel corrosion could be prevented.

© ASCE 05020004-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004

 There are, however, other issues affecting CRCP life span:
premature deterioration due to concrete shrinkage, fatigue, and
the demands of traffic on the roadway. In addition, studies have
shown that the concrete crack width increases linearly with de-
creasing average pavement temperature (McCullough and Treybig
1966). Therefore, cracks are wider during the winter, which allows
deicing salts to penetrate the CRCP.
Several studies have been conducted on steel-CRCP (e.g.,
Choi and Chen 2005; Kohler and Roesler 2005; Ha et al. 2012;
Jung et al. 2012). The main factors affecting the behavior and effi-
ciency of the CRCP pavement with steel reinforcement are aggre-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
gate interlocking, frictional resistance between the subgrade and
the concrete layer, thickness of the concrete layer, concrete and
rebar characteristics, pavement foundation type, and traffic loads
(Choi et al. 2011; Choi and Chen 2015). The thermal stresses
that occur in the concrete depend on the thermal properties of the
concrete, concrete curing, environmental conditions, and the di-
mensions and geometry of the structure (McCullough and Treybig
1966; Zollinger et al. 1994; Kim et al. 2000; Huang 2003; Choi
et al. 2011; Zhang and Liu 2012). An increase in temperature
causes the concrete to expand, whereas a decrease in temperature
causes the concrete to shrink. In the case of CRCP, transverse cracks
are mostly caused by the combination of cyclic stresses of heavy traf-
fic and stresses due to thermal gradient, moisture gradient, and drying
shrinkage in confinement conditions (Huang 2003; Al-Qadi and
Elseifi 2006). The confinement was created by anchoring the slab
ends, the steel or GFRP reinforcement, and the friction between
the base of the pavement and the foundation soil.
The fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite provides an excel-
lent alternative to steel because of its noncorroding characteristics
along with its very high strength-to-weight ratio (ACI 2015).
Recently, glass-FRP (GFRP) bars have been used in several infra-
structure field applications such as bridges, overpasses, water tanks,
and parking garages (Benmokrane et al. 2006, 2007; Mohamed and
Benmokrane 2014; Ahmed et al. 2014, 2017). Very few studies—
and they have been limited—have been conducted on GFRP-CRCP
(Choi and Chen 2003, 2005 2015; Walton and Bradberry 2005; Eisa
et al. 2006; Thebeau et al. 2008; Liu and Lin 2012). So far, shrink-
age and the thermal properties of the concrete and FRP bars have
been found to be the most influential factors affecting the behavior
of GFRP-CRCP. Thébeau and Davidson (2006) presented the de-
sign, construction, and performance of the first CRCPs reinforced
with steel bars constructed in Quebec in the 2000s by the Ministry
of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ). They suggested using GFRP
bars instead of steel bars for future CRCP to avoid steel corrosion
due to the harsh environmental conditions in Quebec. Eisa et al.
(2006) studied the stress levels and displacements of GFRP-CRCP
using finite-element parametric analyses. They revealed that using
GFRP bars reduced the stress in reinforcing bars, but increased
CRCP displacement. In addition, the crack pattern was affected
by the area of reinforcement. Based on the properties of the tested
GFRP and steel bars, Liu and Lin (2012) concluded the applicabil-
ity of using GFRP bars instead of steel bars in CRCP in terms of
crack width, crack spacing, and bar stress. Choi and Chen (2003,
2005) numerically investigated the behavior of GFRP-CRCP com-
pared to that of steel-CRCP. They found that the relatively low
modulus of elasticity of the FRP bars compared to the steel was re-
sponsible for reducing stresses in the concrete section. Choi and
Chen (2015) presented field observations for the U.S.’s first
GFRP-CRCP test section in Martinsburg, West Virginia, for a
short term of 28 days. They also conducted finite-element analyses
to confirm the design. They reported that the crack width and spac-
ing of the GFRP-CRCP were larger than that of the steel-CRCP.
The finite element introduced a conservative prediction of crack
© ASCE 05020004-2
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004
width and spacing. The finite-element study presented by Walton
and Bradberry (2005) showed that GFRP-CRCP had performance
similar to or better than steel-CRCP.
Research Significance
One of the solutions to preventing corrosion of steel reinforcement
and to limiting concrete cracking in CRCP is replacing the steel
bars with GFRP bars. To the authors’ best knowledge, no long-term
field tests have yet been conducted on CRCP with GFRP bars
(GFRP-CRCP). This study presents a long-term field test on a
busy highway in the City of Montreal (Highway 40 West), which
is known to receive heavy snowfalls. The field test ran for 30
months, followed by visual inspections every 6 months for perfor-
mance assessment. The total period of investigation was approxi-
mately 6 years, from September 2013 to September 2019. The
field-test results in terms of concrete crack width, crack spacing
and rate, concrete temperature, concrete strains, and GFRP-bar
strains were monitored and analyzed. Based on these results, design
equations were developed and proposed to optimize the GFRP
longitudinal-reinforcement ratio for CRCP with GFRP bars.
CRCP Field Test
Project Description
The test section is part of the Highway 40 West rehabilitation
project between Île-aux-Tourtes Bridge and St-Charles Boulevard in
the municipalities of Senneville, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Baie-d’Urfé,
Beaconsfield, and Kirkland. The average number of vehicles per
day on this highway exceeds 125,000 with approximately 10%
consisting of heavy trucks. Furthermore, Highway 40 experiences
severe annual environmental conditions with temperatures varying
from −40°C to 35°C, an annual snowfall of more than 3.0 m, more
than 40 annual freezing-and-thawing cycles, and an annual precip-
itation of 1.0 m. The MTQ engineers provided the statistics of ve-
hicles and environmental conditions. The highway consists of three
3.7-m wide lanes [right lane (RL), center lane (CL), and left lane
(LL)]. The total length of the CRCP is 9.0 km, reinforced with gal-
vanized steel except for the investigated section, which was rein-
forced with GFRP bars. The investigated CRCP was 400-m long
and 315-mm thick, consisting of 94 m of steel-CRCP followed
by 306 m of GFRP-CRCP. The GFRP-CRCP was instrumented
with three different types of fiber-optic sensors to monitor and evaluate
the performance of the GFRP-CRCP during the investigation period.
CRCP Reinforcement, Configuration,
and Material Properties
The design of the investigated GFRP-CRCP was based on a prelim-
inary field examination presented by Benmokrane et al. (2008)
in collaboration with the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec
(MTQ). Benmokrane et al. (2008) tested 15 sections of GFRP-CRCP
22 m in length with different reinforcement ratios (from 0.77% to
1.57%), different bar sizes and spacings, one or two layers of rein-
forcement, and two slab thicknesses (280 and 350 mm). They used
the equations by Vetter (1993), AASHTO (1972), and United States
Department of Transportation (USDT 1996) and the slab-on-ground
equation in ACI 440.1R-06 (ACI 2006) to determine the required re-
inforcement ratio for the GFRP-CRCP. Hence, they extended the
range of the investigated reinforcement ratios below and above the
required reinforcement ratio of 1.2%. Crack width, crack spacing,
J. Compos. Constr.
 concrete temperature, concrete strain, and bar strain were monitored
over a period of 24 months. Based on the preliminary study results,
design recommendations were prepared in a discussion with MTQ
engineers in order to prepare the design of the GFRP-CRCP for
the current field-test study dealing with slab thickness, reinforcement
ratio, and bar size and spacing to comply with AASHTO (1993) re-
quirements. The longitudinal-reinforcement ratio of the steel section,
based on AASHTO (1993), was 0.73%. The value of 0.93% was
chosen as the longitudinal-reinforcement ratio for the GFRP-CRCP
section considering that the modulus of the elasticity of GFRP bars
is lower than that of steel bars.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The CRCP rested on a base made of MG-20 with a thickness of
165 mm and a subgrade made of densified MG-112 with a thick-
ness of 750 mm, where MG-20 and MG-112 are granular mate-
rials (crushed stone) with an aggregate size range of 0–0.75 in.
(0–19.1 mm) and 0–4 in. (0–101.6 mm), respectively. The GFRP
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement was No. 8 (25-mm diam-
eter) at 173-mm spacing and No. 6 (19-mm diameter) at 500-mm
spacing, respectively. The longitudinal and transverse steel rein-
forcement was 20 M at 125-m spacing and 15 M at 600-mm spac-
ing, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the pavement structure of the CRCP
test sections. Figs. 2(a)–2(d) show the steel reinforcement details.
The transverse reinforcement formed an angle of 30° with respect
to the transverse line. The design of the tested sections complies
with the requirements of the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec
standard, volume VII (2011). Table 1 presents the reinforcement
configurations for the steel- and GFRP-CRCP. Table 2 presents
the material properties of the GFRP and steel bars.
Concrete Type IIIA was used for the CRCP pavement and
the jointed plain-concrete pavement (JPCP) doweled slabs of the
shoulders, as per the requirements of the MTQ standard, volume
VII (2011). The concrete was placed in the test sections on the
nights of September 25–26, 2013. Moving in the westerly direc-
tion, the right lane and center lane slabs were placed together.
The left lane slab and the shoulders were placed soon after. Once
the concrete finishing had been completed, the longitudinal shrink-
age joints were cut 5 m apart with a saw. Figs. 2(e and f) show the
concrete placement of the slabs. The compressive strength ( f ′c ) of
concrete cylinders of the CRCP pavement and shoulders were 43.7
and 44.5 MPa, respectively, as determined by testing several stan-
dard cylinders at 28 days under compression as per ASTM
C39 (2012).
Fig. 1. Pavement structure of CRCP test sections on Highway 40 West,
Montreal (all dimensions are in millimeters).
© ASCE 05020004-3
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004
Fiber-Optic Sensors
A total of 36 fiber-optic sensors were used to measure the
GFRP-bar strains, concrete strains, and concrete temperature.
Twenty-nine fiber-optic strain gauges (FOS model), as shown in
Figs. 4(a and b), were attached to six No. 8 longitudinal GFRP
bars (6 FOS on each bar) distributed, as shown in Fig. 3. All the
fiber-optic strain gauges attached to the longitudinal bars were
located by GPS coordinates. Four fiber-optic strain gauges were
embedded in the concrete slab at different heights to measure
the concrete strains [see Fig. 4(c)]. Three thermocouples were em-
bedded in the concrete slab to measure the concrete temperature
[see Fig. 4(d)]. Thermocouples TB-C1 and TB-C2 were placed at
approximately 55 and 100 mm from the ground, while Thermocou-
ple TB-C3 was placed at the same height as the longitudinal
reinforcement in the slab. Fig. 5 illustrates the placement of the
fiber-optic sensors in the CRCP pavement. A data-acquisition sys-
tem with two multichannel data loggers was used to collect the sen-
sor readings. The scanning time of the reading channels was at an
interval of 150 ms.
Field-Test Results and Discussion
Crack Width and Distribution
Crack mapping was carried out by the MTQ’s pavement laboratory
directorate. Surveys were conducted periodically during the
shutdowns of Highway 40 West in the evening. Before opening
the highway to traffic, uniformly distributed microcracks due to
shrinkage and ambient temperature variations were noted in the
steel-CRCP and GFRP-CRCP. The highway was opened to traffic
in December 2013 (see Fig. 6). During the period from October
2013 to November 2014 (13 months), the crack width in the
steel-CRCP ranged from 0.15 to 0.80 mm, while it ranged from
0.15 to 0.60 mm in the GFRP-CRCP. These measured crack widths
were lower than the crack limit of 1.0 mm in the AASHTO (1993)
standard.
Figs. 7(a and b) present typical crack mapping of the
GFRP-CRCP and steel-CRCP, respectively, along a 25-m section
in May 28, 2014, and July 23, 2014. The main difference in the
final crack patterns was the number and spacing of the transverse
cracks along the CRCP. In general, in the steel-CRCP, several
well-distributed transverse cracks were formed with a greater
total number of cracks and a narrower average crack spacing com-
pared to the GFRP-CRCP. The average crack spacing for the three
lanes in the steel-CRCP ranged from 1.02 to 2.04 m; the standard
deviation ranged from 0.81 to 1.67 m. On the other hand, in the
GFRP-CRCP, the very close transverse cracks formed groups of
cracks. The average crack spacing between these groups was rela-
tively wide compared to that of the steel-CRCP, ranging from 1.18
to 3.55 m with standard deviation ranging from 1.24 to 2.49 m. The
average standard deviation of the GFRP-CRCP was greater than
that of the steel-CRCP, which is another indication, along with
the crack mapping, that the crack spacing in the GFRP-CRCP
was wider than in the steel-CRCP. This result is quite normal be-
cause the standard deviation increases when the cracks or groups
of cracks are spaced further apart.
Figs. 8 (a and b) provide the histograms of crack spacing in the
right lane (RL) of the steel-CRCP and GFRP-CRCP, respectively,
on March 30, 2016 (29 months after the time of construction). As
can be seen, the histograms follow the Weibull distribution right
tail, which is commonly used to characterize the probability of
crack distribution in CRCP (Selezneva et al. 2003; Al-Qadi and
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 2. Construction of the CRCP: (a) handling GFRP rebars; (b) overview of the GFRP bars in longitudinal and transverse directions; (c) chairs
under GFRP bars; (d) positioning the fibre-optic sensors (FOS); (e) concrete casting; and (f) GFRP-CRCP after concrete casting. (Images by
Hamdy M. Mohamed.)

Table 1. Reinforcement details and the spacing of the transverse reinforcement. In fact, at the
Details GFRP-CRCP Steel-CRCP same longitudinal-reinforcement ratio, the greater the bar diame-
ter, the lower the bar anchoring. This was one of the reasons for
Concrete slab thickness 315 mm 315 mm
the widely spaced groups of transverse cracks in the
Type of reinforcement GFRP Galvanized steel
Longitudinal-reinforcement 0.93% #8 (25 mm) 0.73% 20 M GFRP-CRCP (Nam et al. 2003; Transtec Group 2004).
ratio @ 173 mm @ 125 mm The modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bars was much lower
Transverse reinforcement #6 (19 mm) 15 M @ 600 mm than that of the steel bars, which also explains the widely spaced
@ 500 mm at 30° at 30° cracks in the GFRP-CRCP bars (Choi and Chen 2015).
AASHTO (1993) recommends a crack spacing between 1.1 and
2.44 m to minimize the potential for punchout or spalling. Table 3
Elseifi 2006). The GFRP-CRCP had a higher crack spacing than the shows the distribution of crack spacing on March 30, 2016. The
steel-CRCP (up to 5.7 m). Several parameters influenced the crack majority of crack spacings were lower than the recommendations
spacing in the steel-CRCP and GFRP-CRCP. These include longitu- in AASHTO (1993). Nevertheless, the two types of the CRCP
dinal and transverse reinforcement ratios, bar diameter, (steel and GFRP) had very similar behavior with respect to the per-
bar-to-concrete bond, concrete type, concreting and concrete con- centage of cracks per lane. No punchout degradation was noted in
ditions, and environmental conditions (Nanni 1993; Gilbert and either the steel-CRCP or GFRP-CRCP.
Ranzi 2010). In the GFRP-CRCP, the very close transverse Fig. 9 illustrates the crack rate of the CRCPs for 29 months,
cracks formed groups of cracks, which were, in turn, widely which was calculated as the sum of the crack lengths in the consid-
spaced because of the size of the longitudinal reinforcement ered section divided by the total area of the considered section

© ASCE 05020004-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004

 Table 2. Material properties of the GFRP and steel rebars
Bar Nominal diameter Cross-sectional area (by Nominal cross-sectional areaa
type (mm) immersion tests) (mm2) (mm2)
GFRP 19 302 285.0
25 546 506.7
Steel 15 — 200
20 — 300
a
The strength and modulus were calculated based on this area.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Distribution of fiber-optic strain gauges on the GFRP bars.
(m/m2). Generally, the GFRP-CRCP had a lower crack rate than the
steel-CRCP because the cracks in this section were widely spaced
groups of very close cracks. The crack rate in both the steel-CRCP
and GFRP-CRCP increased sharply in the first 4 months. Then,
the slope significantly dropped for the next 11 months. After that,
the crack rate remained almost constant until the end of the field read-
ings. In general, the center lane (CL) had the highest crack rate dur-
ing the test period because it carried the most traffic of the three lanes.
The left lane had the lowest crack rate because it is generally used
only for passing.
CRCP Temperature Behavior
Figs. 10(a–c), respectively, illustrate the change in concrete temper-
ature in the GFRP-CRCP during a period in autumn 2013, winter
2014, and spring 2014, compared to the ambient temperature
taken from the Environment Canada website (Environment and
Natural Resources 2014). Fig. 10(a) shows the temperature varia-
tion for 2 weeks after placing the CRCP concrete, and Figs. 10(b
and c) show the temperature variation for about 4 weeks in winter
and spring 2014, respectively. The concrete temperature was con-
siderably higher than the ambient temperature for the first hours
after concrete placement because of the heat of hydration. After
that, the concrete temperature gradually decreased over time. Dur-
ing the three seasons, a peak shift occurred among the temperatures
of the three thermocouples and between the temperatures of the
thermocouples and the ambient temperature. The thermocouple
variation curves followed a sinusoidal profile of the ambient tem-
perature. During autumn 2013 and spring 2014, the concrete
temperature was generally higher than the ambient temperature
by 1°C–13°C. Temperature peaks were more frequent during
spring 2014. During winter 2014, the concrete temperatures
were between the peaks of the ambient temperature, with the
© ASCE 05020004-5
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004
Modulus of elasticity Tensile strength Yield stress
(GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
52.5 1,110 N.A.
52.5 800 —
200 540 400
— — —
ambient temperature ranging from −28°C to +7°C and the concrete
temperature ranging from −18°C to +3°C. The relatively constant
temperature of the ground, along with the thermal inertia in the slab
thickness, might account for the delayed effects of air–temperature
variations on the concrete slab.
Figs. 11(a and b) illustrate, respectively, the temperature var-
iation in the concrete thickness of the GFRP-CRCP over a period
of 24 h in winter and spring of 2014. The concrete temperature
varied nonlinearly in the concrete thickness during the day within
a range of 0.5°C–3.0°C and 0.25°C–3.25°C, respectively. The
concrete temperature variation in the thickness was highest in
the hour before sunset in the winter and the hour after sunrise
in the spring. During the winter, the middle surface was hotter
during the day, while the bottom was hotter at night. During the
spring, the top surface was hotter during the day, while the bottom
was usually hotter at night. This variation in concrete temperature
in the thickness during the winter and spring explains the crack
occurrence because of the difference between the concrete and
ambient temperatures.
Concrete Strain Behavior
Figs. 12(a and b) illustrate the concrete strains over a period of
2 weeks during winter 2014 and spring 2014, respectively. The var-
iation in concrete temperature is also presented in these figures.
The temperature peaks in the concrete were in phase with the
peaks of its strains for the periods considered. Therefore, a decrease
in the concrete temperature resulted in an increase in the compres-
sive strains. In addition, the concrete strains in the DB-C3 gauge,
which was placed at the same level as the longitudinal reinforcement,
were almost always higher than the readings of the other gauge,
which were placed close to the ground. The concrete strains ranged
from −25 µɛ to −245 µɛ and −30 µɛ to +45 µɛ during these 2 weeks
J. Compos. Constr.
 (a) (e)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(d)
(c)

Fig. 4. Fibre-optic sensors (FOS) and data-acquisition system: (a and b) FOS as received to measure concrete strain and temperature, respectively;
(c and d) installation of FOS for concrete strain and temperature measurement, respectively; and (e) data-acquisition system. (Images by Hamdy
M. Mohamed.)

in the winter and spring, respectively. Fig. 13(a) illustrates the con-
crete strain during the whole entire field test. The concrete strain
ranged from −255 µɛ to +160 µɛ. The tensile strain exceeded the
tensile-strain capacity of the concrete. The high compressive strains
occurred during the winter, while the high tensile strains occurred
during the spring. Note that the friction between the concrete slab
and its base reduced the expansion and contraction of the concrete
slab due to the ambient temperature, thereby reducing the concrete
tensile and compressive strains.
GFRP-Bar Strain Behavior
Figs. 12(c and d) illustrate the strains in GFRP bar 2 during 2
weeks in winter and spring 2014, respectively. The variation
in concrete temperature is also presented in these figures. During
the winter and spring, the increase in the concrete temperature
was accompanied by a decrease in the GFRP-bar compressive
strains. The GFRP strains ranged from −110 µɛ to −295 µɛ
and −140 µɛ to +15 µɛ during these 2 weeks, respectively.
Fig. 13(b) illustrates the GFRP bar 2 strain during the entire
field test. The GFRP strain ranged from −320 µɛ to +2,050 µɛ
for this bar. These readings of GFRP-bar strains were considered
in developing the GFRP-CRCP design equation for the rein-
forcement stress limit.
Proposed Method for Determining the Reinforcement
Ratio of the GFRP-CRCP
AASHTO (1993) is the most common guide for designing
steel-CRCP. The AASHTO (1993) procedure uses considerations
similar to the design of hollow concrete slabs, which are based on
a desired range of crack width and crack spacing as well as a limit
for steel stresses. Compared to the jointed plain-concrete pavement,
CRCP can be thinner under similar loading and climatic conditions
(e.g., the State of Illinois allows a 20% reduction in slab thickness,
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute 2001). The reason is that the con-
tinuous reinforcement in the CRCP maintains closed cracks, leading
to a higher load-transfer coefficient. CRCP thickness is commonly
between 178 and 330 mm, depending on the traffic and environmen-
tal conditions (Roesler et al. 2016). It has been considered that a steel-
reinforcement ratio of between 0.7% and 0.85% would have adequate
crack widths (Roesler et al. 2016). The design of the steel-CRCP, ac-
cording to AASHTO (1993), was based on the following criteria:
- Crack spacing is limited to between 1.1 and 2.4 m to reduce the
risk of punchout.
- Crack width is limited to less than 1.0 mm to reduce the risk of
penetration water or spalling of the pavement.
- Stresses in the steel bars are limited to less than 75% of the yield
strength to avoid bar yielding.

© ASCE 05020004-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004

 Huang (2003) provided design equations based on the AASHTO
(1993) method to determine the longitudinal-reinforcement ratio
(P) as a function of crack spacing, as per Eqs. (1) and (2) for the min-
imum and maximum crack spacing, respectively; crack width as per
Eq. (3); steel stresses as per Eq. (4)

1.457

ft αs 0.25
(a) 1.062 1 + 1+ (1 + 0.04φ)0.476
6.894 2αc
Pmax,steel =
 −1
σ w 1.13
1.294 X
min
0.217
1+ (1 + 1,000Z)0.389
6.894
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1)

1.457

ft αs 0.25
1.062 1 + 1+ (1 + 0.04φ)0.476
6.894 2αc
(b) Pmin1,steel =
 −1
σ w 1.13
1.294 X
max 1 +
0.217
Fig. 5. Distribution of FOS in the concrete slab: (a) concrete strain (1 + 1,000Z)0.389
6.894
gauge; and (b) thermocouples (all dimensions are in millimeters). (2)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Highway 40 West (Montreal): (a) highway open to traffic in December 2013; (b) September 2019; (c) crack mapping after 6 months from
opening; and (d) close view for the cracks: September 2019. (Images by Hamdy M. Mohamed.)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 7. Crack mapping: (a) GFRP-CRCP; and (b) steel-CRCP.

© ASCE 05020004-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004


1.435
ft
0.358 1 + (1 + 0.04φ)0.484
6.894
Pmin2,steel =
 −1 (3)
σ w 1.079
(0.04 CW ) 0.220
1+
6.894

0.155
1.493
1.8 DTD + 32 ft
50.834 1 + 1+
100 6.894
Pmin3,steel =
1.146 −1
σw
(145 σ s )0.365 1 + (1 + 1,000Z)0.18
6.894
(4)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where P = required longitudinal reinforcement (%); ft = concrete

(a) indirect tensile strength (%); αs = steel coefficient of thermal ex-
pansion (°C−1); αc = concrete coefficient of thermal expansion
(°C−1); φ = reinforcement-bar diameter (mm); X
min = minimum

(b)

Fig. 8. Crack-spacing frequency in the right lane in March 2016:

(a) steel-CRCP; and (b) GFRP-CRCP. (a)

Table 3. Range distribution of crack spacing on March 30, 2016

Lane 0.1–1.1 m 1.1–2.44 m >2.44 m
RL-steel 58.1% 29.6% 12.3%
CL-steel 66.3% 24.4% 9.3%
LL-steel 58.4% 29.9% 11.7%
RL-GFRP 63.5% 17.6% 18.9%
CL-GFRP 70.5% 12.8% 16.7%
LL-GFRP 41.3% 21.7% 37.0%

(b)

(c)

Fig. 10. Concrete and ambient temperature for (a) 2 weeks in autumn
Fig. 9. Crack rate of the CRCPs over 29 months. 2013; (b) a month in winter 2014; and (c) a month in spring 2014.

© ASCE 05020004-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004

 crack spacing (m) (taken as 1.1 m); X
max = maximum crack
spacing (m) (taken as 2.4 m); σw = wheel–load stress (MPa);
Z = concrete shrinkage at 28 days (mm/mm); CW = crack width
(mm); DTD = difference between the average temperature after
slab concreting and the mean daily minimum winter temperature
(°C); and σs = longitudinal steel stress limit of 75% of the yield
stress (MPa).
Eqs. (1)–(4) yielded longitudinal-reinforcement values of
0.80%, 0.48%, 0.71%, and 0.71%, respectively. So, the required
longitudinal reinforcement for the steel-CRCP is between Pmin of
0.48% and Pmax of 0.80%. AASHTO (1993) does not make any
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where γc = concrete density (N/mm3); D = thickness of the slab
(mm); L′ = distance from the longitudinal joint to the free edge of
the slab (m) (i.e., for two- or three-lane highways L′ is the lane
width; and fa = average coefficient of friction between the slab
and the foundation of the pavement.
This paper proposes a method for calculating the longitudinal-
reinforcement ratio of GFRP-CRCP. It is based on the AASHTO
(1993) method for steel-CRCP, considering the properties of
the GFRP bars instead of steel bars. Choi and Chen (2005) re-
ported that, given the same reinforcement ratio, GFRP-CRCP
had wider cracks and greater crack spacing than steel-CRCP

particular recommendation for the transverse-reinforcement ratio. due to the low modulus of elasticity of GFRP bars. Therefore,
Huang (2003) proposed Eq. (5) to determine the required transverse a coefficient was proposed to compensate the effect of the low
reinforcement modulus of the elasticity of GFRP bars versus steel bars on
crack width and spacing. Eqs. (1)–(4) were modified to adapt
γ c D L′ fa the AASHTO (1993) requirements in calculating the reinforce-
Atr,steel = (5)
2 σs ment ratio for GFRP-CRCP.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. Gradient temperature in the slab cross section: (a) during a day in winter 2014; and (b) during a day in spring 2014.

© ASCE 05020004-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004

 Eqs. (6)–(9) were proposed for the design of GFRP-CRCP.
Eqs. (1)–(3) for the crack spacing and crack-width criteria have
been modified by implementing a coefficient of (200/EGFRP)0.15,
where EGFRP = modulus of elasticity of GFRP bars in GPa, to
take into account the difference in stiffness between steel and
GFRP bars [Eqs. (6)–(8)]. The 200 in the coefficient is the modulus
of elasticity of the steel reinforcement. This coefficient was deter-
mined from a regression analysis of approximately 3 million read-
ings of the field-test results over 29 months for the concrete crack
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
width, concrete temperature, concrete strain, and bar strain in order
to meet the required criteria in AASHTO (1993). This coefficient is
1.22 for the GFRP-bar type used. Eq. (9) (bar-stress criterion) is
similar to Eq. (4), but with the GFRP properties, since its denom-
inator already takes into account the bar properties. For this last cri-
terion, the stress in the GFRP bars was limited to 35% of the
guaranteed minimum tensile strength to avoid large crack widths.
Table 4 summarizes the design data for the GFRP-CRCP as well
as the data for the steel-CRCP, as a reference

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 12. Strain behavior: concrete strain and temperature for a period of 2 weeks in (a) winter 2014; and (b) spring 2014; GFRP-bar strains for a
period of 2 weeks in (c) winter 2014; and (d) spring 2014.

(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Strain behavior during the field-test period: (a) concrete strain; and (b) GFRP-bar strains.

© ASCE 05020004-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004


⎛ 1.457
 ⎞
ft αGFRP 0.25

 1.062 1 + 1+ (1 + 0.04φ) 0.476
200 0.15 ⎜
⎜ 6.894 2αc ⎟
⎟
Pmax,GFRP = ⎜   − 1⎟ (6)
EGFRP ⎝ σ 1.13 ⎠
1.294 X
min 1 +
0.217 w
(1 + 1,000Z) 0.389
6.894

⎛
1.457
 ⎞
f αGFRP 0.25

0.15 ⎜1.062 1 + t 1+ (1 + 0.04φ)0.476 ⎟
200 ⎜ 6.894 2αc ⎟
Pmin1,GFRP = ⎜   − 1⎟ (7)
EGFRP ⎝ σ 1.13 ⎠
1.294 X
max 1 +
0.217 w
(1 + 1,000Z) 0.389
6.894
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

⎛
1.435 ⎞
f

0.15 ⎜0.358 1 + t (1 + 0.04φ)0.484 ⎟
200 ⎜ 6.894 ⎟
Pmin2,GFRP = ⎜   − 1⎟ (8)
EGFRP ⎝ σw 1.079 ⎠
(0.04 CW ) 0.22
1+
6.894


1.493
1.8 DTD + 32 0.155 ft
50.834 1 + 1+
100 6.894 (9)
Pmin3,GFRP =   −1
σ w 1.146
(145 σ GFRP )0.365 1 + (1 + 1,000Z)0.18
6.894

Table 4. Design data for the GFRP-CRCP and steel-CRCP pavement laboratory directorate to investigate the performance of
Description GFRP-CRCP Steel-CRCP
the GFRP-CRCP after 6 years under actual service conditions.
−6
The team from the University of Sherbrooke and MTQ’s pave-
Coefficient of thermal expansion of the 15 × 10 9.0 × 10−6 ment laboratory directorate checked the crack mapping, crack
bars, α (°C−1) width, and the general performance of the GFRP-CRCP section.
Coefficient of thermal expansion of the 9.54 × 10−6 9.54 × 10−6
The observed crack mapping was compared to that recorded in
concrete, αc (°C−1)
Bar diameter, φ (mm) 25 20 February 2016. The comparison indicated that no significant
Concrete shrinkage at 28 days, Z (mm/mm) 0.00036 0.00036 new cracks need to be reported. In addition, the measured maxi-
Wheel–load stress, σw (MPa) 1.07 1.07 mum crack widths were comparable to that measured before. The
Concrete tensile strength, ft (MPa) 4.0 4.0 team confirmed that no major cracks or any signs of deterioration
Maximum crack spacing, X
max (m) 9.4 2.44 were found during the inspection. Moreover, they indicated that
Minimum crack spacing, X
min (m) 0.10 0.98 the field test results after 6 years under actual service conditions
Crack width, CW (mm) 1.0 0.80 revealed that the GFRP-CRCP performed very competitively
Design temperature drop, DTD (°C) 42.22 42.22 compared to the steel-CRCP. Fig. 6 shows a close overview
Reinforcement allowable stress, σ (MPa) 280.0 360.6 for the cracks in the GFRP-CRCP section during September
2019 visit.
where EGFRP = modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bars (GPa); and
σGFRP = longitudinal GFRP stress limit of 35% of the guaranteed
minimum tensile strength (MPa). Summary and Conclusions
The crack spacing for the GFRP-CRCP ranged from 0.1 to 9.4 m
with an average of 1.77 m. The crack width of the GFRP-CRCP wThis paper presented a long-term field test comparing
ranged from 0.15 to 0.60 mm, although a maximum opening of GFRP-CRCP to steel-CRCP over 6 years. The total length of
1.0 mm was considered for the design equations. The maximum ten- the CRCP studied was 400 m on Highway 40 West (Montreal,
sile strain in the #6 GFRP bars was +2,296 µɛ, which represents a ten- Quebec), of which 306 m was GFRP-CRCP and 94 m was
sile stress of 120 MPa. An allowable stress of 35% of the guaranteed steel-CRCP. The average number of vehicles per day for this is
minimum tensile strength of the GFRP bars was proposed based on approximately 125,000, heavy trucks accounting for 10% of the
the field-test readings. From these data, Eqs. (6)–(9) returned percent- traffic. In addition, the highway is exposed to severe annual envi-
ages of longitudinal GFRP reinforcement of 2.7%, 0.23%, 0.83%, and ronmental conditions with temperatures varying from −40°C to
0.88%, respectively. So, the required amount of GFRP reinforcement 35°C, an annual snowfall of more than 3.0 m, more than 40 an-
should be between Pmin of 0.88% and Pmax of 2.7%. The nual freezing-and-thawing cycles, and an annual precipitation of
GFRP-reinforcement percentage used in the field test was 0.93%, 1.0 m. The longitudinal-reinforcement ratios used for the
which is within the required range. GFRP-CRCP and steel-CRCP were 0.93% and 0.73%, respec-
tively. The concrete crack width, concrete crack spacing and
rate, concrete temperature, concrete strain, and GFRP strain
Performance of GFRP-CRCP after 6 Years were examined, with the following results:
1. Environmental conditions and traffic demand greatly influ-
The latest site investigation was conducted in September 2019. enced the cracking behavior of the steel-CRCP and
The visit was again carried out in collaboration with the MTQ’s GFRP-CRCP.

© ASCE 05020004-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004

 2. The crack width of the steel-CRCP varied from 0.15 to 0.80 mm,
while it varied from 0.15 to 0.60 mm for the GFRP-CRCP.
3. The crack width in both the GFRP-CRCP and steel-CRCP did
not exceed the limit of 1.0 mm in AASHTO (1993).
4. The crack distribution in the steel-CRCP was largely uniform,
with groups of cracks in some locations.
5. The crack distribution in the GFRP-CRCP consisted of several
relatively widely spaced groups of cracks.
6. The concrete temperature varied nonlinearly in the slab thick-
ness within a range of 0.25°C–3.25°C.
7. The lane with the most traffic—the center lane—had the high-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
est crack rate during the test period.
8. New equations were proposed for GFRP-CRCP design based
on AASHTO guidelines; however, more data are needed to
validate these equations.
9. The field test results after 6 years under actual service condi-
tions revealed that the GFRP-CRCP performed competitively
compared to the steel-CRCP.
10. Lastly, this successful field test demonstrated the effectiveness
of GFRP bars in CRCP over 6 years of observation under ac-
tual service conditions. The CRCP investigated performed as
expected based on monitoring with advanced sensors and con-
tinuous field observations. This application opens the way for
a major application of FRP reinforcing bars in concrete pave-
ments in North America and across the world. GFRP-CRCP
would extend the service life of roadways compared to
steel-CRCP.
11. The experimental evidence from this investigation provides
some basis for including design provisions in AASHTO for
the use of GFRP bars in CRCP. This case study has answered
a significant number of questions and issues. Other detailed is-
sues related to the design of CRCP need, however, to be ad-
dressed. The proposed equations require other field results to
be calibrated, taking into consideration different parameters
in CRCP design. In addition, the impact of the vehicle’s
weight explicitly deserves further investigation.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study ap-
pear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted with funding from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC-Industry Research Chair program), the Fonds de recher-
che du Quebec en Nature et Technologies (FRQ-NT), and the
Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
CW = crack width (mm);
D = thickness of the slab (mm);
DTD = design temperature drop, which is the difference between
the average temperature after concrete placement and the
mean daily minimum winter temperature (°C);
EGFRP = modulus of elasticity of the GFRP bars (GPa);
fa = average coefficient of friction between the slab and the
foundation of the pavement;
© ASCE 05020004-12
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004
ft = concrete indirect tensile strength (MPa);
L′ = distance from the longitudinal joint to the free edge of the
slab (m) (i.e., for two- or three-lane highways L′ is the
lane width);
P = required longitudinal reinforcement (%);
Pmax = maximum required longitudinal reinforcement (%);
Pmin = minimum required longitudinal reinforcement (%);
X
max = maximum crack spacing (m) (taken as 2.4 m);
X
min = minimum crack spacing (m) (taken as 1.1 m);
Z = concrete shrinkage at 28 days (mm/mm);
αc = concrete coefficient of thermal expansion (°C−1);
αs = steel coefficient of thermal expansion (°C−1);
γc = concrete density (N/mm3);
σGFRP = longitudinal GFRP stress limit of 35% of the guaranteed
minimum tensile strength (MPa);
σs = longitudinal steel stress limit of 75% of the yield stress
(MPa);
σw = wheel–load stress (MPa); and
φ = reinforcement-bar diameter (mm).
References
AASHTO. 1972. Interim guide for design of pavement structures.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 1993. AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2006. Guide for the design and con-
struction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars. ACI
440.1R-06. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2015. Guide for the design and con-
struction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. ACI 440.1R-15.
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Ahmed, E. A., B. Benmokrane, and M. Sansfaçon. 2017. “Case study:
Design, construction, and performance of the La Chancelière parking
garage’s concrete flat slabs reinforced with GFRP bars.” J. Compos.
Constr.ppp 21 (1): 05016001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC
.1943-5614.0000656.
Ahmed, E. A., F. Settecasi, and B. Benmokrane. 2014. “Construction and
testing of GFRP steel hybrid-reinforced concrete bridge-deck slabs of
Sainte-Catherine overpass bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (6): 04014011.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000581.
Al-Qadi, I. L., and M. A. Elseifi. 2006. “Mechanism and modeling of trans-
verse cracking development in continuously reinforced concrete pave-
ment.” Int. J. Pavement Eng. 7 (4): 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10298430600799067.
ASTM. 2012. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. ASTM C39. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Benmokrane, B., M. Eisa, S. El-Gamal, D. Thébeau, and E. El-Salakawy.
2008. “Pavement system suiting local conditions.” Concr. Int. 30 (11):
34–39.
Benmokrane, B., E. El-Salakawy, S. El-Gamal, and S. Goulet. 2007.
“Construction and testing of an innovative concrete bridge deck totally
reinforced with glass FRP bars: Val-Alain Bridge on Highway 20 East.”
J. Bridge Eng. 12 (5): 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084
-0702(2007)12:5(632).
Benmokrane, B., E. El-Salakawy, A. El-Ragaby, and T. Lackey. 2006.
“Designing and testing of concrete bridge decks reinforced with glass
FRP bars.” J. Bridge Eng. 11 (2): 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:2(217).
Bossio, A., G. P. Lignola, F. Fabbrocino, T. Monetta, A. Prota, F. Bellucci,
and G. Manfredi. 2017. “Nondestructive assessment of corrosion of re-
inforcing bars through surface concrete cracks.” Struct. Concr. 18 (1):
104–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600034.
Choi, J. H., and H. L. Chen. 2003. “Design considerations of
GFRP-reinforced CRCP.” ACI Spec. Publ. 215: 139–160.
Choi, J.-H., and H.-L. R. Chen. 2015. “Design of GFRP reinforced CRCP
and its behavior sensitivity to material property variations.” Constr.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Build. Mater. 79: 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014
.12.080.
Choi, J. H., and R. H. Chen. 2005. Design of continuously reinforced con-
crete pavements using glass fiber reinforced polymer rebars. Rep. No.
FHWA-HRT-05-081. McLean, VA: FHWA.
Choi, S., S. Ha, and M. C. Won. 2011. “Horizontal cracking of continu-
ously reinforced concrete pavement under environmental loadings.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (11): 4250–4262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2011.04.069.
CRSI (Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute). 2001. Summary of CRCP de-
sign and construction—Practice in the U.S. Research Series No. 8.
Schaumburg, IL: CRSI.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "University of California, Santa Barbara" on 08/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Eisa, M., E. El-Salakawy, and B. Benmokrane. 2006. “Finite element
model for new continuous reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP)
using GFRP bars.” In Proc., 17th IASTED Int. Conf. on Modelling
and Simulation. Calgary, Canada: ACTA Press.
Environment and Natural Resources. 2014. “Weather data, research and
learning: Historical Data.” Accessed December 15, 2014. https://
climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html.
Gilbert, R. I., and G. Ranzi. 2010. Time-Dependent behaviour of concrete
structures. New York: CRC Press.
Ha, S., J. Yeon, and M. C. Won. 2012. CRCP ME design guide. Rep. No.
0-5832-P1. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Center for
Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation.
Huang, Y. H. 2003. Pavement analysis and design. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jung, Y. S., D. G. Zollinger, and B. M. Ehsanul. 2012. “Improved mecha-
nistic–empirical continuously reinforced concrete pavement design ap-
proach with modified punchout model.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2305 (1):
32–42. https://doi.org/10.3141/2305-04.
Kim, S.-M., M. C. Won, and B. F. McCullough. 2000. “Three-dimensional
analysis of continuously reinforced concrete pavements.” Transp. Res.
Rec. 1730 (1): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.3141/1730-06.
Kohler, E. R., and J. R. Roesler. 2005. “Crack width measurements in
continuously reinforced concrete pavements.” J. Transp. Eng.
131 (9): 645–652. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)
131:9(645).
Liu, Z. H., and R. Lin. 2012. “Application research on GFRP bars contin-
uous reinforced concrete pavement design.” In Computer distributed
control and intelligent environmental monitoring, 162–165. New
York: Curran Associates, Inc.
McCullough, B. F., and Treybig, H. J. 1966. Determining the relationship
of variables in deflection of continuously reinforced concrete pavement.
Highway Research Record, Rep. No. 131, 65–86. Texas: Texas
Highway Department.
Micheal, A., B. J. Pease, A. Petrová, M. R. Geiker, H. Stang, and A. E. A.
Thybo. 2014. “Penetration of corrosion products and corrosion-induced
cracking in reinforced cementitious materials: Experimental investiga-
tions and numerical simulations.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 47: 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.04.011.
Mohamed, H. M., and B. Benmokrane. 2014. “Design and performance of
reinforced concrete water chlorination tank totally reinforced with
© ASCE 05020004-13
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 05020004
GFRP bars: Case study.” J. Compos. Constr. 18 (1): 05013001.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000429.
MTQ (Ministry of Transportation of Quebec). 2011. Volume II—Road con-
struction. Québec: MTQ.
Nam, J. H., S. M. Kim, B. F. McCullough, and T. Dossey. 2003. Sensitivity
analysis of CRCP computer programs. Research Rep. No. 1700-4.
Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research, the University of
Texas at Austin.
Nanni, A. 1993. Fiber-reinforced-plastic (GFRP) reinforcement for con-
crete structures: Properties and application. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Perreault, A., M. Brown, and A. Baril. 2012. “Outline of the Ministère des
Transports du Québeci’s approach to the environmental management of
road salts.” In Cold Regions Engineering: Sustainable Infrastructure
Development in a Changing Cold Environment, 302–307. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Roesler, J. R., J. E. Hiller, and A. S. Brand. 2016. Continuously reinforced
concrete pavement manual: Guidelines for design, construction, main-
tenance, and rehabilitation. Rep. No. FHWA-HIF-16-026.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Selezneva, O., M. Darter, D. Zollinger, and S. Shoukry. 2003.
“Characterization of transverse cracking spatial variability: Use of long-
term pavement performance data for continuously reinforced concrete
pavement design.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1849 (1): 147–155. https://doi
.org/10.3141/1849-16.
Thébeau, D., and F. Davidson. 2006. “First experiences with continuously
reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) in Canada.” In Proc., 10th Int.
Symp. on Concrete Roads, Theme I, Concrete Roads and Sustainable
Development. International Society for Concrete Pavements.
Thebeau, D., M. Eisa, and B. Benmokrane. 2008. “Use of glass FRP rein-
forcing bars instead of steel bars in CRCP in Quebec.” In Proc., 9th Int.
Conf. on Concrete Pavements: The Golden Gate to Tomorrow’s
Concrete Pavements. International Society for Concrete Pavements.
Transtec Group. 2004. CRCP in Texas: Five decades of experience.
Research Series No. 11. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.
USDT (US Department of Transportation). 1996. Guidelines of airport
pavement design and evaluation. AC No. 150/5320-6D. Washington,
DC: USDT, FAT.
Vetter, C. P. 1933. “Stresses in reinforced concrete due to volume
changes.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 98 (2): 1039–1053.
Vidal, T., A. Castel, and R. François. 2004. “Analyzing crack width to pre-
dict corrosion in reinforced concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (1): 165–
174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00246-1.
Walton, S., and T. Bradberry. 2005. “Feasibility of a concrete pavement
continuously reinforced by glass fibre reinforced polymer bars.” In
Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Construction Materials. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia.
Zhang, Y., and H. Liu. 2012. “Finite element analysis of thermal stress for
continuous reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP).” J. Highw. Transp.
Res. Dev. 6 (2): 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1061/JHTRCQ.0000118.
Zollinger, D. G., S. P. Senadheera, and T. Tang. 1994. “Spalling of contin-
uously reinforced concrete pavements.” J. Transp. Eng. 120 (3): 394–
411. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1994)120:3(394).
J. Compos. Constr.