australian society for concrete pavements - ascp … papers/paper 08... · australian society for...

Australian Society for Concrete Pavements

4th Concrete Pavements Conference

CRCP Roundabouts – A Theoretical Case Study

Tim Buckingham-Jones BEng (Hons) DipEngPrac CPEng NER

Senior Pavement Engineer

Aurecon

ABSTRACT

The use of concrete roundabouts in NSW, in recent times, is generally limited to a steel fibre

reinforced concrete pavement (SFCP). The higher flexural strength and ‘toughness’ being

beneficial in areas where conventional slab geometric limits often need to be exceeded due

to the complex geometry.

An alternative to SFCP is the use of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) in

roundabout applications. This approach has found acceptance in Europe, namely in Belgium

and the Netherlands, and in more recent years the United States.

On a 2014 ASCP visit to Belgium a number of CRCP installations, including two

roundabouts, were inspected. Whilst only a brief visit, the roundabout installations were

performing well, and demonstrated that there is potential application for this technology in

Australia.

This paper presents a theoretical case study of the design of a CRCP roundabout in

Australia. The purpose is to clarify the potential opportunities and raise issues that may

present barriers to implementation. The paper will provide the industry an opportunity to

assess in further detail a CRCP roundabout pavement design.

ASCP 4th Concrete Pavements Conference 2

CRCP Roundabouts – A Theoretical Case Study, Tim Buckingham-Jones

Introduction

In July 2014 a group of Australian engineers toured Belgium, visiting a number of concrete

roads around the country. The visit included 3 continuously reinforced concrete pavement

(CRCP) roundabouts of variable age. From the visual inspection during the visit, and by all

accounts, the CRCP roundabouts were performing well.

Even before this visit there had been discussion in Australia regarding the suitability of

CRCP as an alternative to steel fibre reinforced concrete pavement (SFCP) typically adopted

for roundabout construction in NSW.

This paper has been prepared to provide a more detailed analysis of the potential for CRCP

roundabouts under current Australia design standards. The intention of this paper is not to

explore new innovations with respect to the structural design of CRCP, but merely to use the

tools and techniques currently available to the designer and apply these to a CRCP

roundabout design.

This paper will summarise local and overseas practice and provide potential CRCP designs

for 2 existing SFCP roundabouts such that a comparison may be undertaken by road

authorities, consultants and contractors alike.

Current concrete roundabout practices

Australia

Construction of concrete roundabouts in Australia is generally in the form of plain concrete or

SFCP in a conventional jointed layout. For heavy duty applications on the state highway

network in NSW the SFCP variety is the current default pavement type.

Figure 1 – Typical SFCP radial joint layouts used in NSW (RTA, 2004)

The SFCP base thickness varies based on the anticipated traffic loading, but recent

experience suggests a base thickness between 180 – 250 mm is usually adopted. Designs

typically incorporate a lean-mix concrete subbase (LCS) to which wax curing and interlayer

debonding treatments are applied.



Approach zones are constructed of the same SFCP type, with anchor lugs installed to

restrain terminal end movement associated with thermal movements of the slabs.

Europe

Both jointed concrete pavement and CRCP are used in Europe. Per Debroux et al (1998)

and Rens (2013) CRCP was only used for the first time in 1995 in Belgium. The first

examples are now almost 20 years old and are still in good condition today. Many others

have been built in the meantime in Belgium, France and the Netherlands, with positive

results.

Figure 2 – Typical CRCP roundabout joint layout (Rens, 2013)

United States

There seems to be limited experience with CRCP for roundabout applications within the

United States. One notable application is reported on by Plei (2016), the Almeda Paisano

roundabouts.

When describing the reasons for pursuing a CRCP roundabout option, in leiu of other jointed

concrete pavement options Plei notes the following:

“…certain issues can make [conventional jointed] roundabouts difficult to construct and

maintain. The inherent form of the roundabout makes the layout of joints, sawcut timing, and

joint maintenance challenging – often more art than science”. (Plei, 2016)

Accordingly, CRCP was selected for the project.



A CRCP base thickness of 200 was adopted for the project, over 100 mm of HMAC (dense

graded asphalt) over 150 mm of lime stabilised subgrade material.

Figure 3 – Almeda Paisano roundabouts, Texas (Source: Plei, 2016)

Why CRCP for roundabouts?

Reasons for considering a concrete pavement for roundabout construction is primarily

associated with the ability of a concrete pavement to withstand deformation due to the high

centripetal forces encountered at a roundabout.

Figure 4 – CRCP roundabout in Herselt, Belgium

Whilst a jointed SFCP is the default concrete roundabout pavement choice in Australia, there

has been discussion in recent years regarding the potential of CRCP as a valid and perhaps

more desirable solution.

The theoretical attractions of a CRC pavement option include:



▪ A concrete slab layout that is tied together results in a lower likelihood that in the heat

of summer slabs will ‘wander’ with the result being a loss of load transfer at joints

when slabs subsequently cool and contract. An example of such slab movement is

presented as a case study, in Tamworth NSW.

▪ The elimination of a significant number of contraction joints required in jointed

concrete pavement and thus avoid loading of the slab corners. The elimination of

these sawn joints also presents advantages, particularly in noise sensitive areas

where night time saw-cutting is often required after daytime concrete pours.

▪ The potential to reduce the number of construction joints, with the result being a

shorter construction programme.

▪ Potential to provide a surface treatment (eg. asphalt) without the maintenance

concerns associated with overlaying a significant number of contraction joints. It is

acknowledged that this treatment would need special consideration due to the risks

of deformation and delamination of any asphalt surfacing.

These claims obviously require further investigation and discussion, but serve as a starting

point for the investigation presented herein.

Case study – Tamworth, NSW Australia

Concerns have existed within the industry regarding the risk of a portion, or ‘wedge’, of the

roundabout pushing out because of thermal stresses during summer expansions. To date

only one example of this has been reported, in Tamworth in 2013, near the entrance to the

Australia Equine and Livestock Events Centre (AELEC).

The SFCP roundabout in question was designed and constructed by Tamworth Regional

Council in 2008 – 09, and to a very high standard and there are no indications that this event

is related to design or construction omissions.

The slab movement was reported in 2013, approximately 4 years after opening, with a

portion of the radial layout having shifted outwards. The movement caused tiebars in a short

section of a tied hinge joint to yield, with a resulting contraction and hinge joint opening of

between 25 and 30 mm.

The movement introduces significant concerns as the load transfer is effectively eliminated

between slabs at contraction joints that have opened up, and in the case of yielded tiebars

between slabs each side of the (former) longitudinal hinge joint.

Remedial works were undertaken by the council to correct the slab movement in the form of

horizontal slab jacking and cross stitching. It was completed in a timely and professional

manner and there have been no signs to date of a recurrence.



Figure 5 - Roundabout on the New England Highway, Tamworth (Courtesy of Tamworth Regional Council)

CRCP roundabouts – theoretical case studies

The main objective of this paper is to compare a CRCP roundabout pavement design with

the current standard SFCP. To do this 2 existing roundabouts have been selected that have

both recently been designed and constructed. They include:

▪ The George Booth roundabout, located in the Hunter Valley, NSW; and

▪ The Eungai roundabout, located at Stuarts Point Interchange just north of Kempsey,

NSW.

The full design details prepared for the above roundabouts are presented as Figure A.1 and

Figure A.2 included in Annexure A. The SFCP designs for comparison are presented in

Annexure B, as Figure B.1 and B.2 respectively.



George Booth roundabout

The George Booth roundabout was constructed in NSW as part of the Hunter Expressway

Alliance project between 2010 and 2013. The roundabout consists of 2 lanes of circulating

traffic, with a central heavy vehicle overrun area. Details of the as-built roundabout are as

follows:

▪ Inner radius: 20 m

▪ Outer radius: 30 m

▪ Design traffic: 6.35 x 107 HVAG’s

▪ Pavement type: SFCP base over LMC subbase

Eungai roundabout (West)

The western roundabout at the Stuarts Point Interchange near Eungai, NSW, was

constructed as part of the Pacific Highway Upgrade between Frederickton and Eungai

between 2014 and 2016. The roundabout consists of a relatively narrow single circulating

carriageway. Details of the as-built roundabout are as follows:

▪ Inner radius: 23 m

▪ Outer radius: 30 m

▪ Design traffic: 3.38 x 107

▪ Pavement type: SFCP base over LMC subbase

CRCP roundabout thickness design

To compare the thickness design for a CRCP alternative the current Australian concrete

pavement structural design methodology has been followed, including Austroads provisions

as follows:

Austroads (2012) states:

“The geometry of roundabouts usually dictates that traffic will travel through them at

relatively low speeds. Where a lean concrete subbase is provided joint erosion is unlikely to

be the controlling factor in their pavement life. Under these conditions, the thickness design

for roundabouts is carried out only for the fatigue analysis. The load safety factors that

should be adopted for rigid pavements for roundabouts in order to cater for radial/centripetal

forces transmitted to the outer wheels is a value for a specific project reliability with the

addition of 0.3.”

The resulting design base thickness, inclusive of the increased project reliability, has been

summarised in Table 1 for various concrete pavement types. Note that where the CRCP

‘design’ base thickness exceeds the ‘minimum’ base thickness per Austroads (2012) then

the SFCP option is generally thinner. This is the result of the increased flexural strength of



the SFCP concrete mix, 5.5 MPa in lieu of the 4.5 MPa assumed for concrete base,

increasing the fatigue life of the concrete slab.

Table 1 demonstrates that where more than one type of concrete pavement is specified the

thickness design would need to be checked for both types. For example, if a CRCP central

zone (circulating carriageway) is specified, an approach pavement consisting of SFCP would

suit given the thickness design is generally less than that required for CRCP.

Table 1 – Base thickness design for various concrete pavement types

Case Study Design traffic

(HVAG)

Design base thickness (Note 1)

CRCP SFCP PCP

George Booth

roundabout

6.35 x 107 210 (230) 190 (230) 220 (250)

Eungai roundabout 3.38 x 107 210 (180) 190 (180) 220 (200)

Notes

1. Thickness in brackets is the minimum thickness per Austroads (2012) Table 9.7.

2. Construction tolerances have been excluded from the design base thickness.

Design detailing

Two fundamentals in the detailing of a roundabout include a) the joint layout and b) the

reinforcement quantity and layout.

Joint layout

There are 3 key zones of the roundabout as defined by RTA (2004) and illustrated in Figure

6. Considering these zones, it is possible to determine the key considerations for a CRCP

alternative.

Figure 6 – Roundabout zones as defined in RTA, 2004



Central zone

The approach adopted for this exercise has been to include CRCP within the ‘central zone’

and the ‘transition zone’. The CRCP within the central zone is expect to be relatively

straightforward with slab width generally being constant for the circulating carriageway.

The exception to this is at the outer edge where the slab needs to step out to allow for a 1.0

m wide slab to commence within the transition zone, as seen in Figure 7. This proposed

construction joint (type C7) should strictly be full width of the circulating slab, however the

provision of trimmer bars per a typical pit intrusion detail is considered appropriate. The

absence of a full width construction joint at these locations is consistent with European

practice as outlines by Rens (2013).

Central zone ‘stepping’ in the Eungai

roundabout (See Figure A.2 in Annex A)

Central zone ‘stepping’ on site in Belgium

(Photo: Rens, 2013)

Figure 7 – Central zone ‘stepping’ to allow a new 1.0 m wide slab within the transition zone

Transition zone

It is noted that the ‘transition zone’ in Belgium (shown in Figure 2) is typically a mesh-

reinforced slab, in lieu of CRCP.

If a CRCP transition zone was adopted in these zones there is uncertainty as to the crack

direction within the slabs. Cracks would likely propagate from the circulating carriageway

slab, from induced joints in the tied kerb, and at the re-entrant angle formed by the type 2

construction joint in the transition zone. As a result it is unclear how cracking would form

within this slab, and hence whether the longitudinal steel would be in the correct orientation

to resist the resulting movements.

Provision of conventional jointed SFCP slabs within this zone also presents issues. The

movement that would be anticipated at resulting sawn contraction joints would be large

reducing load transfer efficiency during cooler periods. The movement would also likely be in

a direction that is not perpendicular to the joint itself as the roundabout and the jointed slabs

would be moving in different directions.



Provision of long SFCP-R slabs within the transition zone, when compared with conventional

joint layout, would likely address these concerns. By providing sufficient mesh in the slab to

resist crack opening irrespective of the crack geometry, the slabs could be expected to

behave in a similar fashion to the long slab jointed reinforced concrete pavements. (A

similarity could be drawn with the long SFCP-R slabs adopted at bridge approach zones

where skews prevent CRCP being adopted. See RMS CRCP Standard Drawings, 2016).

A distinct difference that this approach would allow versus the conventional SFCP jointed

roundabout is the ‘squaring’ of the isolation joint, between the transition and approach

zones. See Figure 8 below for an example. This provides for better slab corner angles, with

a corresponding reduction in stress associated with more acute slab corners.

Conventional jointed (SFCP) layout at interface

between transition and approach zones. Note

the skewed type 14 isolation joint.

Proposed CRCP layout at interface between

transition and approach zones. Note the

square type 14 isolation joint.

Figure 8 – Differing alignments of the isolation joints (type 14 joints) at the same location, at the interface

between the transition and approach zones.

Approach zone

The ‘approach zone’ has been detailed as jointed concrete (SFCP type). This is similar to

overseas practice, although typically with the addition of SFCP in lieu of plain or mesh

reinforced plain concrete.

This is considered the most suitable layout for the following reasons:

▪ The approach zone has been detailed with an isolation joint, as depicted in Figure 8.

The vastly different directions of movement of the CRCP circulating carriageway and

the approach zone makes it undesirable to tie the approach legs to the transition

zone.

▪ The difficulty in anchoring, or controlling the movement of a CRCP approach leg.

With an isolation joint between the transition and approach zones this approach

zone would likely by a long jointed reinforced concrete slab, with excessive

movements resulting at the isolation joint. The jointed approach zone minimises the

movement at the isolation joint (type 14 joint), thus reducing the movements the joint

and sealant needs to be designed to cater for.



▪ The thickness design for SFCP is typically less than that for the CRCP base due to

the higher flexural strength. If a plain concrete mix were to be adopted the approach

zone base thickness would likely need to increase as indicated by Table 1.

Terminal anchors are proposed, consistent with current practice for SFCP roundabouts.

These terminal anchors restrict movements against the adjoining flexible pavement.

Reinforcement

Longitudinal steel

The current longitudinal steel requirements for a mass steel ratio of between 0.67% and

0.72% is consistent with the requirements in Europe for CRCP roundabouts. Rens (2013) is

worth noting:

“The longitudinal reinforcement in a roundabout should exactly follow the curve of the

roundabout. In order to facilitate the bending of the longitudinal (concentric) reinforcement

bars, it is recommended to limit the diameter to 16 mm.”

Therefore, using the formulas presented in Austroads (2012) the resulting spacing of

longitudinal 16 mm deformed steel bars is as follows:

▪ George Booth roundabout: 120 mm (for 250 mm CRCP base thickness)

▪ Eungai roundabout: 140 mm (for 210 mm base thickness)

Regarding splicing, Rens 2013 notes:

“… it is difficult to maintain a constant angle of splicing a (to the perpendicular of the tangent

of the axis of the road i.e. the radius). This means that the length of overlap should be varied

as a function of the radius of the circle formed by the longitudinal reinforcement, or that, in

other words, the length of the longitudinal reinforcement should be reduced towards the

inner edge of the roundabout ring. It is important to avoid a concentration of splices in the

same radial section, so that not all the splices lie on the same radial line.”

Whilst the splicing would need careful attention on site, it is expected to be achievable per

European experience outlined above.

Transverse steel and tiebars

Provision of transverse reinforcement in CRCP is primarily to provide support for the

longitudinal steel, with a maximum spacing of 750 mm adopted to prevent ‘sagging’ of the

longitudinal steel. However, in Australian practice the transverse steel is also designed to act

as a tie-bar in the case of any unplanned cracking in the concrete base.

Tiebars are provided to ensure close contact is maintained between slabs thus ensuring load

transfer is maintained at formed construction or sawn induced joints.

The number of tiebars is determined using the subgrade drag theory per Austroads (2012).

The amount of steel needs to be sufficient to overcome stresses associated with adjacent

slabs contracting away from the joint during the cooler months.



A key input to the subgrade drag theory is the distance to the nearest un-tied joint, or ‘relief

edge’. This is essentially the nearest edge of the concrete base that is free to move during

thermal (cooling) contractive movements. For the circulating carriageway in a roundabout

situation the relief edge could be assumed to be the inner and outer edge of the concrete

base, or tied kerbs where they exist.

However, with a CRCP roundabout the circulating carriageway is acting as a ‘ring’, with

contractive movements towards the centroid. In this instance the centroid would be the

centre of the roundabout. As a result there is a question as to whether the transverse steel in

CRCP roundabouts would need to be designed using the outer edge of the roundabout as

the relief edge due to the inner edge contracting away from any longitudinal joint within the

circulating carriageway. This is likely to be more critical in smaller roundabouts where the

‘ring’ movements toward the centroid are likely to be more distinct.

Construction and maintenance considerations

Whilst far from comprehensive, the following paragraphs investigate the impact of CRCP

roundabouts on the construction phase and future maintenance.

Construction of the roundabout under traffic

Where vertical levels or traffic management impose constraints to the construction of the

new roundabout the resulting construction joint locations need to be considered. This is often

difficult during the design phase as the detailed construction staging layout is generally

finalised at a later date. An example of a complex traffic staging arrangement was the

George Booth Roundabout that required construction in distinct stages to keep the existing

road network operational. A snapshot of the staging works is shown in Figure 9.

Where traffic staging constraints are known to exist the designer can provide flexibility to the

contractor by, as much as possible, not restricting the location of construction joints. In

SFCP design, the type 7 transverse formed construction joints must be located a minimum

of 1.5 m from adjacent sawn contraction joints (although this has been relaxed to 1.0 m in

some circumstances). This requires slabs on the inner circulating carriageway to be at least

3.0 m in length before a construction joint may be formed within. Figure 10 gives an example

of the staggered layout that results where a concrete roundabout is constructed in stages.

In a CRCP roundabout there is no such restriction as there are no transverse sawn

contraction joints. The transverse formed construction joint can be located to best suit the

proposed construction staging.



Stage 1, construction of the new George Booth

roundabout (to the right of the photo) whilst the

original roundabout (to the left of the photo) remained

operational. (Photo: Hunter Expressway Alliance)

Stage 2, temporary layout to facilitate construction of

the remainder of the new concrete roundabout.

(Photo: Hunter Expressway Alliance)

Figure 9 – Construction of the George Booth roundabout under traffic.

Figure 10 – Formed construction joints (joint type 7) staggered to meet offset requirements to transverse

contraction joints (joint type 8) (Photo by the author)

Maintenance of a CRCP roundabout

The anticipated maintenance regime for a CRCP roundabout is not to vary significantly from

current SFCP roundabout maintenance regimes, although notable advantages of CRCP

would include:

▪ Fewer sawn contraction joints, with a corresponding reduction in joint seal

maintenance.

▪ Potential to provide a surface course overlay within the circulating carriageway

without the potential reflective crack issues associated with sawn contraction joints.

Whilst only ever reported in one instance, to the authors knowledge, the issue that has

arisen at the SFCP roundabout in Tamworth is not likely to arise with CRCP. Given the

circulating carriageway is effectively tied together as a continuous ring there is little likelihood



of individual segments being pushed outwards, with resulting joint opening as seen in

Tamworth.

Conclusion

The use of CRCP for roundabout pavements would, after undertaking an exercise in the

design and comparison with the SFCP options, seem promising. There are some obvious

advantages of CRCP when compared with current SFCP roundabouts including:

▪ A concrete slab layout that is tied together, resulting in a lower likelihood that in the

heat of summer slabs will ‘wander’ with the result being a loss of load transfer at

joints when slabs subsequently cool and contract.

▪ The elimination of a significant number of contraction joints required in jointed

concrete pavement and thus avoid loading of the slab corners, and reducing joint

seal maintenance.

▪ The potential to reduce the number of construction joints, with the result being a

shorter construction programme.

▪ Potential to provide a surface treatment (eg. asphalt) without the maintenance

concerns associated with overlaying a significant number of contraction joints.

The issues for further discussion include, but are not limited to, the following:

▪ The proposed pavement within the ‘transition zone’ of the roundabout. Is SFCP-R,

with no contraction joints, the appropriate slab type?

▪ Design of the transverse reinforcement, and is the conventional ‘relief edge’ still

applicable in a CRCP roundabout given the contraction in cooler months of the ‘ring’

as a whole?

The roundabout design for industry feedback have been included in Annexure A, with SFCP

design for comparison purposes included in Annexure B.

Recommendations

Subject to industry feedback on the proposed designs, inclusion of CRCP as an alternative

to SFCP roundabouts is recommended. The most appropriate pavement type can then be

selected for individual sites to suit traffic staging.

Construction of a trial CRCP roundabout is encouraged, with a notable opportunity being the

Pacific Highway Woolgoolga to Ballina project, where several roundabouts are proposed.



Acknowledgements:

The comments and views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not

necessarily of Aurecon.

The author would like to acknowledge the following people:

▪ Luc Rens and Anne Beeldens for kindly hosting the ASCP delegation in Belgium

2014.

▪ Tamworth Regional Council (TRC), for permission to publish the case study of the

roundabout on the New England Highway, and to Geoff Ayton for his assistance in

this regard.

References:

1. Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design,

2012

2. Debroux, R.Dumont, R. Ployaert, C. Roundabouts in Continuously Reinforced

Concrete Design – Construction, 8th International Symposium on Concrete Road,

Lisbon, September 1998

3. Plei, Michael N. Roundabouts Built with CRCP, modernroads.net/blog/texas-crcp-

roundabouts, June 2016.

4. Rens, L. Concrete Roundabouts, European Concrete Paving Association

(EUPave), December 2013

5. Roads and Maritime NSW, CRCP Standard Drawings Series ‘CC’, January 2016

6. Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) NSW, Concrete Roundabout Pavements; A

Guide to their Design and Construction, 2004

7. Stet, Marc J.A, van Leest, Adrian J, Jurriaans, George, Guidelines for Concrete

Roundabouts; The Dutch Practice,



Annexures

Annex A – CRCP Roundabout Design Examples

Figure A.1 – George Booth Roundabout CRCP Jointing Plan

Figure A.2 – Eungai Roundabout (West) CRCP Jointing Plan

Figure A.3 – Typical Cross Sections

Annex B – SFCP Roundabout Design Examples

Figure B.1 – George Booth Roundabout SFCP Jointing Plan

Figure B.2 – Eungai Roundabout (West) SFCP Jointing Plan

1A.3

BARRIER KERB ANDGUTTER (TYPE SA)

MOUNTABLEKERB (TYPE SF)


MOUNTABLE KERB ANDGUTTER (TYPE SE)

BARRIER KERB (TYPE SM)

BARRIER KERB ANDGUTTER (TYPE SA)MOUNTABLE

KERB (TYPE SF)




4.0

4.0

VARIES

TYPE 12 TERMINAL ANCHOR ATINTERFACE WITH BRIDGEAPPROACH SLAB

TYPE 6 TERMINAL ANCHORAT INTERFACE WITHFLEXIBLE PAVEMENT


TYPE 6 TERMINAL ANCHOR ATINTERFACE WITH FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

BLOCKOUT FORDRAINAGE PITS


INNER RADIUS: 20 m

OUTER RADIUS: ~30 m

SEE INSET

LONGITUDINALCONSTRUCTIONJOINT (TYPE C2)

N12 TIEBARS

INSET - REINFORCING PLANNOT TO SCALE

LONGITUDINALCONSTRUCTIONJOINT (TYPE C2)

N16 TIED UNDERTERMINATING 'C' BARSN12 TRANSVERSESTEEL 'A' BARSN16 LONGITUDINALSTEEL 'C' BARS

CONST. JOINT (TYPE C2)

KERB ANDGUTTER (TIED)

N12 TRIMMER BARS ATRE-ENTRANT ANGLE

KERB ANDGUTTER (TIED)

C2

C2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F14

F14

F2

C2

C2

C2

C2

C2

C2

F2

F2

F2

F2

C2

F2

F2F2

C2

C2

C2

C2

C2

C2

C2

C2C2

F2F2F2

F7

F2

F14

C2

F2

F14

F14

F2

F2

F2

F14

F2

F2

F2

F2

F14

F14

F14

F2

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

F

8

T

Y

P

F

8

F

8

T

Y

P

F

8

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

F

8

T

Y

P

F

8

C2C2

C2C2

C2C2

F2

F2

1.0 MIN.

NOTES1. FOR CRCP DETAILS REFER TO ROADS AND MARITIME

STANDARD DRAWINGS SERIES 'CC' EDITION 4 REVISION 0.FOR SFCP DETAILS REFER TO ROADS AND MARITIMESTANDARD DRAWINGS 'SFCP FOR ROUNDABOUTS' EDITION4 REVISION 0.

SFCP JOINT TYPE (NOTE 1)

TERMINAL ANCHOR (NOTE 1)

CRCP SLAB

CRCP JOINT TYPE (NOTE 1)C2

F2

LEGEND

SFCP SLAB

SFCP-R SLAB (MESH REINFORCED)

SCALE George Booth Roundabout CRCP Jointing Plan CRCP Roundabouts

Figure A.1

0 10 20 m

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

2A.3

3

.5

3

.4

BARRIER KERB ANDGUTTER (TYPE SL)

BARRIER KERB ANDGUTTER (TYPE SL)

MOUNTABLE KERB(TYPE SF)

MOUNTABLE KERB(TYPE SF)

BARRIER KERB(TYPE SM)


TYPE 6 TERMINAL ANCHOR ATINTERFACE WITH PCP RAMPPAVEMENTS


TYPE 6 TERMINAL ANCHORAT INTERFACE WITH PCPRAMP PAVEMENTS

F14

F14

C2

C2

C2

C2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

C2

C2

F2 C2

F2

C2

C2

F2

C2

F2

F2

F2

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

F8

F8

F14

F14F14

F14

C7

C2

C2

C2

C2

C2

INNER RADIUS: 23 mOUTER RADIUS: 30 m

SCALE Eungai Roundabout (West) CRCP Jointing Plan CRCP Roundabouts

Figure A.2

0 10 20 m





CRCP SLAB

CRCP JOINT TYPE (NOTE 1)C2

F2

LEGEND

SFCP SLAB

SFCP-R SLAB (MESH REINFORCED)

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONGEORGE BOOTH ROUNDABOUT

SECTION 1A.1SCALE 1 : 50

LMC SUB BASECRCP

LANDSCAPED MEDIAN 7003500400040002000

TYPE SM BARRIER KERB

TYPE SE MOUNTABLEKERB AND GUTTER

TYPE SA BARRIERKERB AND GUTTER

TRAVEL LANE5000

TRAVEL LANE6000

CIRCULATING CARRIAGEWAY11000500 CLEAR

MESH REINFORCEDCONCRETE INFILL

CROSSFALL

NO FINES CONCRETE EDGEDRAIN WRAPPED IN GEOTEXTILE

C2C2C2C2

TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONEUNGAI ROUNDABOUT (WEST)

SECTION 1A.2SCALE 1 : 50

LMC SUB BASECRCP

500 3400 3500

TYPE SL BARRIERKERB AND GUTTER

CIRCULATING CARRIAGEWAY6900

CROSSFALL

NO FINES CONCRETE EDGEDRAIN WRAPPED IN GEOTEXTILE

LANDSCAPED MEDIAN

500

TYPE SL BARRIERKERB AND GUTTER

MESH REINFORCED CONCRETE

C2

500

OVERRUN AREA FORHEAVY VEHICLES

SCALE Typical Cross Sections CRCP Roundabouts

Figure A.3

(As noted)




MOUNTABLE KERB ANDGUTTER (TYPE SE)

BARRIER KERB (TYPE SM)












INNER RADIUS: 20 mOUTER RADIUS: ~30 m

4.3

2.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

2.5MIN

F2

F2

F2

F14

F14

F14

F14

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F7

F2

F14

F2

F2

F2

F14

T

Y

P

F

8

T

Y

P

F

8

F7

F2

F2

F2

F2

Kf4

F1

F7

F2

F14

F7

F2

F2

F14

F2

F2

F2

F1

F2

F1

F14

F2

F2

F2

F2

F7

F

1

4

F14

F4

F4

F2

T

Y

P

F

8

T

Y

P

F

8

SCALE George Booth Roundabout SFCP Jointing Plan CRCP Roundabouts

Figure B.1

0 10 20 m





SFCP WITH MESH (SFCP-R)

F2

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

3.5

3.5

F2

F14

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F14

F2

P7

F2

F2

F2

F14

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F2

F6

F2

F14

F2

F2

F8

F2

P7

T

Y

P

F

8

T

Y

P

F

8

T

Y

PF

8

T

Y

P

F

8

TY

P

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

T

Y

P

F

8

TYP

F8

T

Y

P

F

8

F8

F8

F14

K4

K4

F14

K4

F14

F8


TYPE 6 TERMINAL ANCHOR ATINTERFACE WITH PCP RAMPPAVEMENTS


TYPE 6 TERMINAL ANCHORAT INTERFACE WITH PCPRAMP PAVEMENTS

SCALE Eungai Roundabout (West) SFCP Jointing Plan CRCP Roundabouts

Figure B.2

0 10 20 m





SFCP WITH MESH (SFCP-R)

F2

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

AutoCAD SHX Text

.

australian society for concrete pavements - ascp … papers/paper 08... · australian society for...

Documents