Computer-Based Guidelines for Concrete Pavements, Volume III: Technical Appendices

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

Table of Contents | Next

FOREWORD

This report documents the investigation, modeling, and validation of the enhanced HIgh PERformance PAVing (HIPEPAV^®) II software program. HIPERPAV II is a comprehensive, yet user-friendly software package. HIPERPAV II primarily incorporates as a set of guidelines for the proper selection of design and construction variables to minimize early-age damage to jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) and continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP). In addition, the software determines the effect of early-age behavior factors. This report, Volume III of a three-volume set, is the Technical Appendices, which documents work carried out during the study. Volume I is the Project Summary documenting the efforts undertaken for the guidelines. Volume II is the Design and Construction Guidelines and HIPERPAV II User's Manual, which provides general instruction on the use and application of the HIPERPAV II.

This report will be of interest to those involved in concrete pavement mix design, as well as the design and construction of concrete pavements. Sufficient copies of this report are being distributed to provide two copies to each Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Resource Center, two copies to each FHWA Division Office, and a minimum of four copies to each State highway agency. Additional copies for the public are available from the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161.

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

SI (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• APPENDIX A ANNOTATED OUTLINE OF MODEL REFERENCES
  • A.1 Currently Available Early-Age Behavior Models Similar to HIPERPAV
    • A.1.1 DuCOM
    • A.1.2 HYMOSTRUC
    • A.1.3 Quadrel
    • A.1.4 4C-Temp&Stress
  • A.2 Early-Age Behavior Models with Potential Incorporation
    • A.2.1 Concrete Hydration
    • A.2.2 Concrete Maturity
    • A.2.3 Drying Shrinkage of Concrete
    • A.2.4 Moisture Transport in Concrete
    • A.2.5 Set Time of Concrete
    • A.2.6 Thermal Properties of Concrete
    • A.2.7 Creep
  • A.3 JPCP Literature Review
    • A.3.1 JPCP Structural Models
    • A.3.2 JPCP Climatic Models
    • A.3.3 JPCP Distresses
  • A.4 CRCP Literature Review
• APPENDIX B MODELS SELECTED FOR INCORPORATION INTO HIPERPAV II
  • B.1 General Early-Age Behavior Models
    • B.1.1 PCC Hydration Models
    • B.1.2 HIPERPAV II Finite-Difference Temperature Model
    • B.1.3 Shrinkage
    • B.1.4 Nonlinear Restraint Model
    • B.1.5 Nonlinear Thermal Gradient Model
    • B.1.6 Creep Model
  • B.2 JPCP Performance Models.
    • B.2.1 Environmental Models
    • B.2.2 Long-Term Materials Properties Models
    • B.2.3 Structural Models
    • B.2.4 Distress Models
    • B.2.5 Long-Term JPCP Model Assumptions and Limitations
  • B.3 CRCP Early-Age Models
    • B.3.1 CRCP Stress Prediction
    • B.3.2 CRCP Strength Prediction
    • B.3.3 CRCP Temperature Prediction
    • B.3.4 CRCP Model Limitations
  • B.4 Models Used in the COMET Module
    • B.4.1 Comments on COMET Features and Implementations
    • B.4.2 Concrete Compressive Strength Model
    • B.4.3 Development of the Compressive Strength Prediction Model Based on Mix Design
    • B.4.4 Relative Strength
    • B.4.5 Compressive Strength Prediction Model
  • B.5 Models Used in the HIPERPAV Dowel-Concrete Interaction Analysis Module
    • B.5.1 Dowel Bar Bearing Stress Model
    • B.5.2 Dowel Bar Stress Due to Shear Loading
    • B.5.3 Dowel Analysis Module in HIPERPAV II
• APPENDIX C FIELD INVESTIGATION..
  • C.1 JPCP Sites Investigated
    • C.1.1 JPCP Section on U.S. Highway 50, Illinois
    • C.1.2 JPCP Section on Ticuman Bypass, Mexico
  • C.2 CRCP Sites Investigated..
    • C.2.1 CRCP Section at I-30 and I-35 Interchange in Fort Worth, TX
    • C.2.2 CRCP Section on I-29 near Sioux Falls, SD
  • C.3 Mix Designs.
  • C.4 Strength and Stiffness for Texas Site
  • C.5 Strength and Stiffness for South Dakota Site
  • C.6 Strength and Stiffness for Mexico Site
  • C.7 Strength and Stiffness for Illinois Site
  • C.8 Drying Shrinkage for Texas and South Dakota Sites
  • C.9 Setting Time for Texas and South Dakota
  • C.10 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
• APPENDIX D VALIDATION OF THE ENHANCED GUIDELINES
  • D.1 Database Validation.
    • D.1.1 Validation of JPCP Structural Response Models with LTPP Data.
    • D.1.2 Validation of CRCP Early-Age Behavior Models
  • D.2 Field Validation.
    • D.2.1 Validation of Long-Term Performance Models with Inservice JPCP Sites.
    • D.2.2 Validation of Early-Age Behavior Models with Newly Constructed CRCP
  • D.3 Validation of General Early-Age Behavior Models
    • D.3.1 Finite-Difference Temperature Prediction Model
    • D.3.2 Drying Shrinkage Prediction Model
    • D.3.3 Relaxation-Creep Model
• APPENDIX E FINITE-DIFFERENCE TEMPERATURE MODEL VALIDATION
  • E.1 Field Instrumentation Sites
  • E.2 Model Calibration
  • E.3 Model Validation
  • E.4 Summary and Recommendations
  • E.5 Temperature Prediction Results Obtained During Calibration
  • E.6 Temperature Prediction Results Obtained During Validation
• REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

1. HIPERPAV early-age behavior framework showing improved models in HIPERPAV II.
2. Heat transfer mechanisms between pavement and its surroundings.
3. Concrete specific heat as influenced by the mixture constituents, temperature, and degree of hydration.
4. Comparison of different convection coefficients as influenced by the windspeed.
5. Radiant energy exchanges between the sky and an exposed thermally black plate.⁽²⁹⁾
6. Emissivity of moist air at a total pressure of 1 atmosphere and a temperature of 20 °C.
7. Sensitivity of the apparent surrounding temperature to changes in climatic conditions, atmospheric pressure.
8. Sensitivity of the apparent surrounding temperature to changes in climatic conditions, relative humidity.
9. Sensitivity of the apparent surrounding temperature to changes in climatic conditions, ratio of carbon dioxide to water vapor.
10. Surface layer zone subjected to drying shrinkage for a slip-formed pavement.
11. Influence of w/cm on total shrinkage predicted by the Jonasson model.
12. Effect of w/c on total shrinkage predicted by the Baźant-Panula model.
13. Comparison of the Baźant-Panula and Jonasson-Hedlund shrinkage models.
14. Time-dependent deformation at time t, for a loading at time t₀.⁽⁴³⁾
15. A schematic of the additional Y₁(t₀) and Y₂(t,t₀) functions to extend the Triple Power Law for the early-age creep response.⁽⁴³⁾
16. Decomposition of stress history into stress steps.
17. Discreet subdivision of time for numerical creep analysis.
18. Superposition of various strains intensities: Loading.
19. Superposition of various strains intensities: Unloading.
20. Superposition of various strains intensities: Net applied strains.
21. Comparison of the results of the relaxation model and model without relaxation.
22. Monthly moisture content variation for lean clay (CL), scenarios 1-4.
23. Monthly moisture content variation for well-graded silty gravel (GW-GM), scenarios 5-8.
24. Monthly variation for well-graded gravel (GW), scenarios 9-12.
25. Monthly variation for lean clay (CL) in five U.S. cities.
26. Monthly variation for well-graded silty gravel (GW-GM) in five U.S. cities.
27. Comparison of predicted and measured values from the AASHO road test.
28. Texas LTPP site comparison.
29. Maine LTPP site comparison.
30. Comparison of test results with the correlation proposed in equation 122.⁽⁶⁰⁾
31. Modulus of rupture versus compressive strength for Texas data
32. Tensile strength and elastic modulus values calculated using the CEB-FIP equation.
33. Schematic of deflection load transfer (LTE_d) for a doweled JCP.
34. Schematic of LTE model logic.
35. Relationship between the calculated agg/kl and measured JTE.
36. Relationship between measured crack opening and the calculated agg/kl.
37. Free edge loading of JCP.
38. Loaded and unloaded deflections of a JCP.
39. Relationship between JTE and LTE_d.
40. Relationship between LTE_s and LTE_d
41. JTE results obtained from the experimental work performed by Colley and Humphrey as a function of loading cycles of a 4086-kg load.⁽⁷⁰⁾
42. Influence of joint opening on JTE, 229-mm concrete slab, 152-mm gravel subbase.⁽⁷⁰⁾
43. Influence of joint opening on JTE, 178-mm concrete slab, 152-mm gravel subbase.⁽⁷⁰⁾
44. Asymptote dimensionless joint stiffness as a function of joint opening.
45. Sensitivity of faulting to joint opening and cumulative traffic loading for nondoweled JPCP (MESAL = 1,000,000 ESAL).
46. Sensitivity of faulting to joint opening and cumulative traffic loading for doweled JPCP (MESAL = 1,000,000 ESAL).
47. Relationship between joint opening model predictions.
48. Relationship between revised joint opening model predictions.
49. Allowable loads versus stress-to-strength ratio.
50. Fatigue cracking model with associated data.⁽⁷⁶⁾
51. Flowchart of stress, damage, and cracking module.
52. Amount of each individual distress required to reach a PSI of 2.0.
53. Shape of IRI versus PSI curve.
54. Effect of faulting on IRI.
55. Comparison of faulting influence between the various IRI models.
56. Effect of percent cracked slabs on FHWA-RD-00-130, 1-37A Guide, and contractor IRI models.
57. Effect of percent spalling on FHWA-RD-00-130, 1-37A Guide, and contractor IRI models.
58. Effect of percent patching on IRI for the 1-37A models.
59. Effect of initial IRI₀ on FHWA-RD-00-130, 1-37A, and contractor IRI models.
60. Schematic representation of analysis of concrete and steel stresses in CRCP-8.
61. Simplified coordinate system for development of bond stress distribution functions.
62. Compressive strength as a function of w/c and cement content.
63. Schematic of dowel deformation and loading at the joint.
64. Schematic of dowel deformation without concrete compliance and with concrete compliance at the joint.
65. Effect of varying the dowel diameter (d_D) on the bearing stress.
66. Effect of varying the effective modulus of dowel support (K_D) on the bearing stress.
67. Effect of varying the joint opening on the bearing stress.
68. Effect of varying the concrete modulus (E_c) on the bearing stress.
69. Effect of varying the concrete CTE (a_c) on the bearing stress.
70. Effect of varying the slab length (L) on the bearing stress.
71. Effect of varying the slab thickness (h) on the bearing stress.
72. Effect of varying the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) on the bearing stress.
73. Effect of varying the linear temperature gradient (T) on the bearing stress.
74. Schematic representation of slabs loaded in shear.
75. HIPERPAV II screen capture showing typical output from the dowel bar module.
76. Pavement temperature profiles for Illinois JPCP evaluation.
77. Joint movement for section AA in Illinois JPCP evaluation.
78. Longitudinal profiles for section AA, 253-mm thickness.
79. Ticuman bypass project location.
80. Mean concrete compressive and flexural strength gain curves for the Ticuman bypass.
81. Number of distressed slabs per kilometer for the Ticuman bypass.
82. Faulting distribution for the Ticuman bypass.
83. Measured joint opening during August 22 to 24.
84. Comparison of PSI ratings on the southbound direction (summer 2001 versus summer 1995).
85. Comparison of PSI ratings on the northbound direction (summer 2001 versus summer 1995).
86. Typical cross section for the CRCP instrumented section.
87. Instrumented section delineated by crack inducers.
88. Strain gages in PCC and on reinforcing steel.
89. Shear failure as a result of pushoff test.
90. Position of strain gages and thermocouples as constructed.
91. Typical cross section for I-29, South Dakota (from opposite direction to traffic).
92. Strain gages in PCC and on reinforcing steel.
93. Cracking pattern on instrumented section.
94. Location of the sensors with respect to the pavement edge and cracks as constructed.
95. Time growth of Texas compressive strength.
96. Time growth of Texas splitting tensile strength.
97. Time growth of Texas modulus of elasticity.
98. Time growth of South Dakota compressive strength.
99. Time growth of South Dakota splitting tensile strength.
100. Time growth of South Dakota modulus of elasticity.
101. Time growth of Mexico compressive strength.
102. Time growth of Mexico splitting tensile strength.
103. Time growth of Mexico modulus of elasticity.
104. Time growth of Illinois compressive strength.
105. Time growth of Illinois modulus of elasticity.
106. Drying shrinkage of South Dakota concrete.
107. Drying shrinkage of Texas concrete.
108. Setting times of concrete for Texas and South Dakota concretes.
109. Concrete and ambient air temperatures for the South Dakota concrete.
110. Concrete and ambient air temperatures for the Texas concrete.
111. Measured versus predicted joint opening.
112. Typical plot of PCC temperature versus joint LTE, section 37-0201.
113. Computed LTE versus PCC temperature for section 49-3011.
114. Average LTE above freezing and below 25 °C, section 49-3011.
115. Variability of LTE for individual joints, section 49-3011.
116. Effect of joint spacing on LTE, section 49-3011.
117. Computed LTE versus PCC temperature for nondoweled section 31-3018.
118. Computed LTE versus PCC temperature for nondoweled section 06-3042.
119. Computed LTE versus PCC temperature for nondoweled section 83-3802.
120. Computed LTE versus PCC temperature for nondoweled section 53-3813.
121. LTE versus PCC temperature for doweled section 04-0215.
122. LTE versus PCC temperature for doweled section 18-3002.
123. LTE versus PCC temperature for doweled section 13-3019.
124. LTE versus PCC temperature for doweled section 32-0204.
125. LTE versus PCC temperature for doweled section 89-3015.
126. LTE versus PCC temperature for doweled section 39-0204.
127. LTE versus joint opening for section 49-3011, joint at 5.5 m from start of section.
128. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 31-3018, joint 5.5 m from start of section.
129. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 49-3011, joint 5.5 m from start of section.
130. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 06-3042, joint 148.1 m from start of section.
131. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 83-3802, joint 149.7 m from start of section.
132. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 53-3813, joint 0.0 m from start of section.
133. Sensitivity analysis of LTE model for nondoweled pavements.
134. LTE model sensitivity for doweled sections.
135. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 37-0201, joint 145.1 m from start of section.
136. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 04-0215, joint 144.5 m from start of section.
137. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 13-3019, joint 21.3 m from start of section.
138. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 32-0204, joint 8.5 m from start of section.
139. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 89-3015, joint 36.3 m from start of section.
140. Predicted versus computed LTE for section 39-0204, joint 0.0 m from start of section.
141. Crack spacing history for summer sections, SH-6.
142. Crack spacing history for winter sections, SH-6.
143. Preliminary long-term crack spacing prediction.
144. Crack spacing prediction at 3 days from construction.
145. Measured versus predicted crack widths, SH-6.
146. Conceptual representation of residual drying shrinkage effect (adapted from Otero et al.).⁽¹¹⁶⁾
147. Comparison of measured and predicted strength, Illinois site.
148. Comparison of measured and predicted modulus of elasticity, Illinois site.
149. Comparison of measured versus predicted LTE.
150. Early-age analysis for section AA, for placement at 2 p.m.
151. Early-age analysis for section IA, for placement at 2 p.m.
152. Early-age analysis for section NA for placement at 2 p.m.
153. Predicted faulting for sections MA and NA (191-mm thick).
154. Comparison of measured and predicted transverse cracking (sections NA and MA).
155. Comparison of measured and predicted transverse cracking for sections (IA, JA, KA, LA).
156. Transverse cracking for section AA, thickness = 241 mm.
157. Comparison of measured and predicted longitudinal cracking (sections MA and NA)
158. Comparison of measured and predicted IRI (section NA).
159. Comparison of measured versus predicted flexural strength, Ticuman, Mexico.
160. Comparison of measured versus predicted modulus of elasticity, Ticuman, Mexico.
161. Comparison of measured versus predicted LTE, Ticuman, Mexico.
162. Analysis for 229-mm slab at different construction times and built-in gradient conditions, Ticuman bypass.
163. Comparison of measured versus predicted joint faulting, Ticuman, Mexico.
164. Comparison of measured versus predicted transverse cracking, Ticuman, Mexico.
165. Comparison of measured versus predicted longitudinal cracking, Ticuman, Mexico.
166. Comparison of measured versus predicted present serviceability index, Ticuman, Mexico.
167. Restraint at the slab/subbase interface.
168. Determination of set time with pulse velocity equipment.
169. PCC strains during PCC set time as a function of temperature changes.
170. Determination of PCC CTE with the use of PCC strains on an unconfined concrete
171. Steel strains at various distances from the crack location.
172. Steel strain along the slab length at different ages.
173. Concrete strains at middepth along slab length.
174. Drying shrinkage observed in the field on an unrestrained PCC cylinder.
175. Strains in concrete and steel at 68.5 hours after construction.
176. Displacements in steel and concrete along slab length at 68.5 hours.
177. Steel stress along the slab at 68.5 hours.
178. Measured versus predicted crack spacing at 3 days of age, Fort Worth, TX
179. PCC strains during PCC set time as a function of temperature changes.
180. Determination of PCC CTE with the use of PCC strains on an unconfined concrete cylinder.
181. Steel strains at various distances from the crack location.
182. Steel strain along the slab length at different ages.
183. Concrete strains at middepth along slab length.
184. Drying shrinkage observed in the field on an unrestrained PCC cylinder.
185. Strains in concrete and steel at 67.2 hours after construction.
186. Comparison of measured and predicted bond development length.
187. Steel stress along the slab at 67.2 hours.
188. Measured versus predicted crack spacing at 3 days of age, Sioux Falls, SD.
189. Drying shrinkage results for North Carolina site.
190. Drying shrinkage results for Texas site.
191. Drying shrinkage results for Arizona site.
192. Drying shrinkage results for Nebraska site.
193. Drying shrinkage results for Minnesota site.
194. Calibration of drying shrinkage factor for Houston, TX, sections constructed in summer.
195. Calibration of drying shrinkage factor for Houston, TX, sections constructed in winter.
196. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Minnesota, Slab 1.
197. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Minnesota, Slab 1.
198. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Minnesota, Slab 1.
199. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Minnesota, Slab 1.
200. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Minnesota, Slab 4.
201. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Minnesota, Slab 4.
202. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Minnesota, Slab 4.
203. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Minnesota, Slab 4.
204. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Arizona, Slab 1.
205. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Arizona, Slab 1.
206. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Arizona, Slab 1.
207. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Arizona, Slab 1.
208. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Arizona, Slab 3.
209. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Arizona, Slab 3.
210. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Arizona, Slab 3.
211. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Arizona, Slab 3.
212. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Arizona, Slab 6.
213. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Arizona, Slab 6.
214. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Arizona, Slab 6.
215. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Arizona, Slab 6.
216. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Lufkin, TX, Slab 2.
217. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 2.
218. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 2.
219. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Lufkin, TX, Slab 2.
220. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Lufkin, TX, Slab 3.
221. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 3.
222. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 3.
223. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Lufkin, TX, Slab 3.
224. Measured concrete and air temperatures for North Carolina, Slab 2.
225. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for North Carolina, Slab 2.
226. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for North Carolina, Slab 2.
227. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for North Carolina, Slab 2.
228. Measured concrete and air temperatures for North Carolina, Slab 3.
229. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for North Carolina, Slab 3.
230. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for North Carolina, Slab 3.
231. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for North Carolina, Slab 3.
232. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Minnesota, Slab 2.
233. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Minnesota, Slab 2.
234. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Minnesota, Slab 2.
235. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Minnesota, Slab 2.
236. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Minnesota, Slab 3.
237. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Minnesota, Slab 3.
238. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Minnesota,
239. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Minnesota, Slab 3.
240. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Arizona, Slab 4.
241. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Arizona, Slab 4.
242. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Arizona, Slab 4.
243. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Arizona, Slab 4.
244. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Arizona, Slab 5.
245. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Arizona, Slab 5.
246. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Arizona, Slab 5.
247. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Arizona, Slab 5.
248. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Lufkin, TX, Slab 1.
249. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 1.
250. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 1.
251. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Lufkin, TX, Slab 1.
252. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Lufkin, TX, Slab 4.
253. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 4.
254. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Lufkin, TX, Slab 4.
255. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Lufkin, TX, Slab 4.
256. Measured concrete and air temperatures for North Carolina, Slab 1.
257. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for North Carolina, Slab 1.
258. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for North Carolina, Slab 1.
259. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for North Carolina, Slab 1.
260. Measured concrete and air temperatures for North Carolina, Slab 4.
261. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for North Carolina, Slab 4.
262. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for North Carolina, Slab 4.
263. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for North Carolina, Slab 4.
264. Measured concrete and air temperatures for Fort Worth, TX, Slab 1.
265. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from top of slab for Fort Worth, TX,
266. Measured versus predicted temperatures 25 mm from bottom of slab for Fort Worth, TX, Slab 1.
267. Measured versus predicted temperature gradient for Fort Worth, TX, Slab 1.

Tables

1. Summary of how pavement design parameters influence JPCP distresses.
2. Summary of factors affecting transverse cracking in JPCP.
3. Influence of concrete properties on JPCP pavement distresses.
4. Data sources and their use in the development of the hydration models.⁽⁴⁾
5. Range of cement properties used to calibrate the hydration model.
6. Range of mixture proportions and mineral admixtures properties used for model calibration.
7. Typical specific heat values for concrete constituents.
8. Typical values of thermal conductivity of moist mature concrete.⁽⁹⁾
9. Thermal characteristics of various base materials.⁽¹⁶⁾
10. Thermal characteristics of various pavement materials.⁽¹⁷⁾
11. Thermal characteristics of various soil materials.⁽¹⁷⁾
12. Thermal characteristics of various insulation materials.
13. Typical peak solar radiation values used in HIPERPAV II.⁽¹⁾
14. Thornthwaite moisture index values.
15. Default soil characteristics.
16. Factorial for reference suction sensitivity analysis.
17. Moisture contents for lean clay (CL) in scenarios 1-4.
18. Moisture contents for well-graded silty gravel (GW-GM) in scenarios 5-8.
19. Moisture contents for well-graded gravel (GW) in scenarios 9-12.
20. Factorial for climate and rainfall variation.
21. Soil data for climate and rainfall variation analysis.
22. Monthly rainfall totals for locations in the U.S in millimeters.⁽⁴⁹⁾
23. Moisture contents for lean clay (CL) in five U.S. cities.
24. Moisture contents for well-graded silty gravel (GW-GM) in five U.S. cities.
25. Gradation for AASHO road test soils.⁽⁵⁰⁾
26. Soil parameters for AASHO road test soils.
27. Climatic data for LTPP sites.
28. Summary of strength test results obtained by Melis et. al.⁽⁵⁵⁾
29. Specific gravities for different aggregate types.⁽⁶²⁾
30. Specific unit weights for different aggregate types.⁽⁶²⁾
31. LTE model variables used in developing the aggregate interlock model.⁽⁷⁰⁾
32. Distribution of pavement sections used in nondoweled faulting model.⁽⁷⁵⁾
33. Distribution of doweled pavement sections.⁽⁷⁵⁾
34. HIPERPAV slab-base restraint model variables.
35. Definition of equivalent slab-base restraint values for joint opening models.
36. Factorial of joint opening model inputs.
37. PCA edge adjustment factors.
38. Comparison between IRI models.
39. Input to the dowel bar bearing stress model.
40. Summary of the sensitivity analysis of the dowel model.
41. JPCP test section descriptions.⁽¹⁰³⁾
42. Concrete mix design-88PCC0710.⁽¹⁰⁴⁾
43. Accumulation of ESALs.
44. Design and consumed ESALs.
45. Historical ride quality data.
46. Historical FWD data.
47. Section AA-historical* and current condition survey.
48. Section IA-historical* and current condition survey.
49. Section JA-historical* and current condition survey.
50. Section KA-historical^* and current condition survey.
51. Section LA-historical* and current condition survey.
52. Section MA-historical^* and current condition survey.
53. Section NA-historical* and current condition survey.
54. Center slab deflections in microns, normalized to 4090 kg for Illinois JPCP evaluation.
55. Approach slab load transfer data for Illinois JPCP evaluation.
56. Leave slab load transfer data for Illinois JPCP evaluation.
57. Joint movement summary for Illinois JPCP evaluation.
58. Summary of thickness measurements for Illinois JPCP evaluation.
59. Historical traffic data.
60. Summary statistics for 28-day PCC compressive strength in Ticuman bypass.
61. Summary statistic for flexural strength and splitting tensile test results for the Ticuman
62. Summary statistics of core thickness for the Ticuman bypass.
63. Deflection indicators for the southbound direction (microns).
64. Deflection indicators for the northbound direction (microns).
65. Concrete mix design for CRCP on Jones-Stephenson access road, Texas.
66. Concrete mix design for reconstruction project on I-29, South Dakota.
67. Laboratory testing plan of PCC concrete specimens.
68. HIPERPAV II laboratory testing.
69. Concrete mix designs for the HIPERPAV II field sites.
70. Average concrete properties for the Illinois site (tested May 2002).
71. Drying shrinkage model input.
72. Quality control data for Texas and South Dakota concrete mixes.
73. Setting times of the Texas and South Dakota concrete mixes.
74. CTE values determined according to AASHTO TP-60-00.
75. Computed effective ratio of joint movement to change in temperature (ER) for SMP
76. Data points used for LTE analysis.
77. LTE statistics for SMP sections evaluated and some design and construction characteristics.
78. Summary statistics for effect of pavement age on LTE.
79. Cumulative ESALs measured on design lane versus ESALs required to fit LTE model predictions.
80. Cumulative ESALs measured on design lane and ESALs multiplication factor required to fit LTE model predictions.
81. Factorial design for CRCP test sections constructed in SH-6.
82. Mix design for SH-6 test sections.
83. Test results (SH-6-summer).⁽¹⁰⁶⁾
84. Test results (SH-6-winter).⁽¹⁰⁶⁾
85. Time of placement for test sections in SH-6.⁽¹⁰⁶⁾
86. Mix design for SH-6 test sections.
87. Comparison of average crack width predicted and measured values.
88. Comparison of predicted and measured average crack spacings.
89. Comparison of average crack width predicted and measured values.
90. Comparison of predicted and measured average crack spacings.
91. Calibration of D_eff for the HIPERPAV I field sites.
92. Different construction sites and their use for calibration and validation.
93. Summary of variables collected during instrumentation of some HIPERPAV field sites.⁽¹²¹⁾
94. Summary of hydration parameters for all the field sites.
95. Summary of r² values obtained during the calibration of the temperature model.
96. Summary of r² values obtained during the validation of the temperature model.

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS