U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-04-121
Date: February 2005

Computer-Based Guidelines for Concrete Pavements Volume I-Project Summary

Previous | Table of Contents | Next


This chapter summarizes feedback collected during previous implementation efforts of HIPERPAV. In addition, provisions for a successful implementation of the final products from this study are discussed, along with the formation of a technical expert group and the recommendations they provided throughout the development of this project.

2.1 User Survey

In the spring of 1996, the HIPERPAV System was first introduced to FHWA. Since that time, HIPERPAV has been presented at numerous meetings and workshops worldwide. During many of these presentations, a number of suggestions for additional features and advancements to the system were made.

2.1.1 Primary Identified Suggestions

A number of suggestions have been identified from a variety of sources and are compiled in this section. From these recommendations, three are the most predominant: Mix Proportioning

A large percentage of current users believe that the mix design/proportioning element could give HIPERPAV a twofold purpose. The first is to calculate/predict the stresses in the pavement as a function of concrete mix designs. The second would be to design, proportion, and record mix design information in a complete database. The thought here was that if a mix tool is developed, HIPERPAV's utility might double. Eventually, the user would begin to interrelate mix properties with slab properties and stress development. Mix proportioning can also encompass concepts such as the use of fibers, materials compatibility issues, recycled materials, and durability. Maturity

Many practitioners asked that HIPERPAV expand its capabilities to determine and manage strength gain in the slabs for two reasons: opening-to-traffic requirements and mix economics. Opening to traffic in a timely manner can mean a cost savings to the traveling public, and possibly be a financial incentive to the contractor. Maturity is a method that nondestructively predicts the strength gain in a concrete mix. The core of HIPERPAV is based on temperature and maturity prediction. The majority of the early-age properties that HIPERPAV predicts are a function of the maturity. A common suggestion is to improve the maturity prediction in HIPERPAV by giving the user more power to characterize mixes. This can be accomplished by inputs for adiabatic heat signatures as well as improved default properties for the use of mineral and chemical admixtures. In short, maturity is closely tied to traffic management, quality control, and ultimately, cost of the final product. Bridge Deck Application

At nearly every HIPERPAV presentation, someone asks: "Can I use this software for my concrete bridge decks?" The answer at this time is: "Not without proper modification of the models for this application." However, this is certainly an application that has a lot of demand. A bridge deck (or bridge deck overlay) application of HIPERPAV would allow a user to predict the potential for uncontrolled cracking just as it does currently for pavements. In truth, since the majority of the models inherent in the HIPERPAV system are based on structural engineering models for concrete, this application could be achieved with only minimal validation.

2.1.2 Detailed List of Identified Suggestions

A detailed list of the suggestions received from the users of HIPERPAV is given here. This list of suggestions and advancements has been grouped into four main categories:

  1. Advancements included in HIPERPAV I.
  2. Advancements incorporated during the HIPERPAV II effort.
  3. Suggestions that relate to but are beyond the scope of the HIPERPAV II effort.
  4. Suggestions requiring new major efforts.

The list is further subcategorized as:

2.1.3 Advancements Included in HIPERPAV I

Features observed from previous comments were addressed in HIPERPAV I (software version 2.4.1). These additional features and advancements are listed below: Pavement Design Inputs Advancements Mix Design Inputs Advancements Model Advancements Additional Modules Incorporated Other Advancements

2.1.4 Advancements Incorporated During the HIPERPAV II Effort

Each recommendation is categorized with a high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) rank based on the level of user desirability. Pavement Design Inputs Advancements Mix Design and PCC Properties Inputs Advancements Environmental Inputs Advancements Construction Inputs Advancements Output Advancements Graphical User Interface Modification Advancements Model Advancements Additional Modules Incorporated Other Advancements

2.1.5 Suggestions Related to, but Beyond the Scope of the HIPERPAV II Effort Pavement Design Inputs Suggestions Mix Design Inputs Suggestions Environmental Inputs Suggestions Construction Inputs Suggestions Output Suggestions Graphical User Interface Modification Suggestions Model Improvement Suggestions Other Suggestions

2.1.6 Suggestions Requiring New Major Efforts

The following advancements suggested by the customers would require relatively significant effort: Mix Design Inputs Suggestions Other Suggestions Model Improvement Suggestions

2.2 Technical Expert Panel (TEP)

In recent years, FHWA has begun to specify forming technical expert groups as part of its various research endeavors. The importance of such groups cannot be overstated-this is especially true for projects that require the end result to be ready to implement.

2.2.1 TEP Members Selection Criteria

For the HIPERPAV II project, the following criteria were used to select TEP members:

2.2.2 TEP Members Selected

For this project, a TEP consisting of seven members was formed. The final selection process of the TEP was done in cooperation with FHWA.

2.2.3 Initial Meeting

The initial TEP meeting for this project was held on June 28-29, 2000 at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, VA. The primary objectives of this meeting were to:

During this initial meeting, issues were identified and key recommendations to address potential problems during the implementation phase of the project were made. The primary recommendations from the TEP members and key highlights from this initial meeting included:

2.2.4 Second TEP Meeting

After a draft version of the written guidelines, interim report, and software prototype were developed, a second meeting was held on January 29-30, 2001. The primary objectives for this meeting were to:

The primary recommendations and highlights from this meeting included:

2.2.5 Third TEP Meeting

On May 14 and 15, 2002, after the beta version of the computer guidelines was developed, a third TEP meeting was held with the following objectives:

The primary recommendations and highlights from this meeting included:

The feedback received from the TEP members during the three meetings held for this project were considered carefully during development of HIPERPAV II, and an extensive number of them were incorporated to ensure a successful implementation.


Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center | 6300 Georgetown Pike | McLean, VA | 22101