View Q&A

ODOT construction staff requested a preformed expansion joint filler at the unreinforced median barrier and concrete pavement interface. This is due to issues with cracking of the pavement due to cyclical expansion/contraction of the pavement without anywhere for it to go. Our current standard has the barrier set on the aggregate base with the concrete pavement essentially poured against it with a 1/4” wide by 1” deep joint seal (which I have doubts on the constructability of that detail). I created a new detail to show a full-depth preformed expansion joint filler, but am hesitant to move forward as the Midwest study TRP-03-388-18 (unl.edu) cites the 1” asphalt keyway as the perceived minimum anchorage system (pasted referenced section from the report below). Don and I kind of think the full-depth 1” wide expansion joint may cause the median barrier to be isolated and may negate the anchorage/interlocking gained by the pavement being poured directly against it. Do you think that having this 1” PEJF (for concrete pavement applications) could negatively impact the performance of the median barrier?

Without further testing or research, it would be difficult to recommend the PEJF material. The concern would be that the compressible material would allow displacement of the ends of the barrier segments at the end of the expansion joint that could expose vehicles to some portion of the face of a downstream barrier segment end. We have seen issues with this type of behavior in previous testing.

While I think that the system may work as shown in your detail with the PEJF, we don’t have enough information to eliminate the concern for additional movement.