ACPA Quarter 3 2018

Concrete Pavement Progress www.acpa.org 20 C O N C R E T E P A V E M E N T C R A C K I N G 3. Given that a contractor should only be required to repair random cracking if its results from the contractor’s failure to follow the design, the cause of cracking should be established before repairs are performed. Insofar as “[c]racks in concrete have many causes, . . . [including] under-design,” in order to determine whether the contractor should be responsible to pay for the repair, “[t]he cause of cracking should be established before repairs are specified.” The cause of cracking is not only necessary for who should pay for the repairs, but also what repairs are necessary. Cracking may be the result of “[e]rrors in design and detailing.” Where there is “systematic” cracking, “a thorough review of all design features and all construction procedures will likely be needed.” “Following the evaluation of a cracked structure, a suitable repair procedure can be selected.” For some cracking, the proper response is to “[d]o nothing.” If the cracks are larger, “sealing” may be “the appropriate remedy.” “Slab replacement” may only be required for random or uncontrolled cracking if the “slabs have lost their structural capacity as well as ride quality.” Repairs that go beyond what is required not only cost more, but also may actually undermine the structural integrity. The project engineer representing the State agency, not necessarily trained in the nuances of judg- ing harmless versus crippling concrete fractures, generally errs on the side of conservatism and requires full-depth repair. Unfortunately, the replacement panel, besides being a more costly fix, can never duplicate the aggregate interlock properties of the original slab. Conclusion Cracking can occur in concrete pavement notwithstanding proper construction. When cracking occurs, it is therefore essential to evaluate why the cracking occurred. This is necessary to not only determine what repair should be required, but who should pay for this. If the contractor properly followed the engineer’s design and random cracking occurs, the contractor should not be required to pay for the repair costs. This is true notwithstanding that the contract may indicate otherwise. As a consequence, if random cracking occurs notwithstanding that the contractor followed the engineer’s design, the contractor should not be required to repair the random cracking. This is true even if the contract says or suggests otherwise. » continued from page 19