Computer-Based Guidelines for

Concrete Pavements, Volume I:

Project Summary

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-04-121 FEBRUARY 2005

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD 

This report documents the investigation, modeling and validation of the enhanced High 

PERformance PAVing (HIPEPAV®) II, a comprehensive, yet user-friendly software package. 

HIPERPAV II primarily incorporates 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 on JPCP long-term performance. This report, Volume I of a three-volume set, 

is the Project Summary documenting the efforts undertaken for the development of the guidelines. 

Volume II is the Construction and Design Guidelines HIPERPAV II User’s Manual, which provides 

general instruction on the use and application of the HIPERPAV II. Volume III is the Technical 

Appendixes, which documents the investigation, modeling and validation of the HIPEPAV II. 

HIPERPAV II software program will be available on a CD, or will be downloadable from FHWA Web 

site http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/pccp/hipemain.htm. 

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 and CD software 

program are being distributed to provide two copies to each 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. 

 T. Paul Teng, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Infrastructure 

 Research and Development 

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. 
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

FHWA-HRT-04-121 N/A N/A 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

 February 2005 

 

 6. Performing Organization Code 

 N/A 

7. Authors(s) 

 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

 N/A 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 N/A 

 11. Contract or Grant No. 

 DTFH61-00-C-00121 

 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

 

 Final Report: 

 February 2000 to April 2004

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

 

 

15. Supplementary Notes 

 

 

16. Abstract 

 

 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

 

 

 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) 

21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

 Unclassified Unclassified 106 N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized (art. 5/94) 

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

J. Mauricio Ruiz, Robert O. Rasmussen, George K. Chang, Jason C. Dick, Patricia K. Nelson, Ted R. 

Ferragut 

The Transtec Group, Inc. 

1012 East 38 1⁄2 Street 

Austin, TX 78751 

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development 

Federal Highway Administration 

6300 Georgetown Pike 

McLean, VA 22101 

This report documents enhancements incorporated in the (HIgh PERformance PAVing) HIPERPAV® II software. Enhancements made within this 

project include the addition of two major modules: a module to predict the performance of jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) as affected by earlyage factors, and a module to predict the early-age behavior (first 72 hours) and early life (up to 1 year) of continuously reinforced concrete pavement 

(CRCP). Two additional Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) studies were also incorporated: one that predicts dowel bearing stresses as a 

function of environmental loading during the early age, and a module for optimization of concrete paving mixes as a function of 3-day strength, 28-day 

strength, and cost. Additional functionality to the software was also incorporated by reviewing and prioritizing the feedback provided by users of the 

first generation of the software, HIPERPAV I. 

To accomplish the above, an extensive literature search was conducted in search of mechanistic and mechanistic-empirical models that could be 

used for this purpose. A system approach was followed for incorporating additional developments in the software following the same methodology 

employed during the development of the original HIPERPAV I software. Evaluation of the enhancements was accomplished with the help of a 

Technical Expert Panel (TEP). Likewise, validation of the model predictions was accomplished by employing existing databases and investigation of 

pavements during construction and in service. 

This report summarizes the work conducted to enhance the HIPERPAV concrete pavement design guidelines. This is the first volume in a series 

of three volumes that document the different tasks carried out in accomplishing the objectives for this project. 

FHWA No. Vol. No. Short Title

FHWA-HRT-04-121 Volume I Project Summary 

FHWA-HRT-04-122 Volume II Design and Construction Written Guidelines and HIPERPAV II User’s Manual 

FHWA-HRT-04-127 Volume III Technical Appendixes 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service; Springfield, VA 22161 

High Performance Concrete Pavement; HIPERPAV; Jointed; 

Continuously Reinforced; Early-Age Behavior; Long-Term 

Performance; Mechanistic-Empirical Models; Temperature; 

Hydration; Shrinkage; Relaxation; Creep; Thermal Expansion; 

Slab Base Restraint; Curling; Warping; Plastic Shrinkage; 

Cracking; JPCP; CRCP 

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Fred Faridazar, HRDI - 11 
ii 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2

 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E e 380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................1

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................1

1.3 PROJECT SCOPE.................................................................................................................2

1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE.........................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2.PREVIOUS HIPERPAV FEEDBACK AND PROVISIONS FOR 

FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................................5

2.1 USER SURVEY ....................................................................................................................5

2.1.1 Primary Identified Suggestions........................................................................................5

2.1.2 Detailed List of Identified Suggestions............................................................................6

2.1.3 Advancements Included in HIPERPAV I........................................................................6

2.1.4 Advancements Incorporated During the HIPERPAV II Effort........................................7

2.1.5 Suggestions Related to, but Beyond the Scope of the HIPERPAV II Effort ...................9

2.1.6 Suggestions Requiring New Major Efforts....................................................................11

2.2 TECHNICAL EXPERT PANEL (TEP) ................................................................................11

2.2.1 TEP Members Selection Criteria ...................................................................................11

2.2.2 TEP Members Selected..................................................................................................12

2.2.3 Initial Meeting................................................................................................................12

2.2.4 Second TEP Meeting .....................................................................................................12

2.2.5 Third TEP Meeting ........................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 3.INFORMATION SEARCH AND MODEL SELECTION..............................15

3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................15

3.2 LITERATURE SEARCH .....................................................................................................15

3.2.1 Currently Available Early-Age Behavior Simulation Software Similar to HIPERPAV16

3.2.2 General Early-Age Behavior Models.............................................................................16
iv 

3.2.3 JPCP Performance Models ............................................................................................16

3.2.4 CRCP Early-Age Behavior Models ...............................................................................16

3.2.5 Electronic Database and Search Tool ............................................................................17

3.3 MODEL IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION ....................................................................17

3.3.1 Model Approach ............................................................................................................18

3.3.2 Selection Criteria ...........................................................................................................21

3.3.3 General Early-Age Behavior Models.............................................................................21

3.3.4 JPCP Performance Models ............................................................................................26

3.3.5 CRCP Models ................................................................................................................39

3.4 REVIEW OF FHWA STUDIES FOR POTENTIAL INCORPORATION IN HIPERPAV II...40

3.4.1 High Strength Study (FHWA-DTFH61-95-C-00108)...................................................40

3.4.2 Dowel Bar Study............................................................................................................45

3.4.3 Performance-Related Specifications Study (See references 52, 53, 54, and 55.) ..........47

3.4.4 Curing Study ..................................................................................................................51

3.4.5 Curling/Warping Study..................................................................................................54

3.4.6 Mix Optimization Study ................................................................................................54

3.4.7 FHWA Studies Selected for Incorporation ....................................................................57

CHAPTER 4.GUIDELINE ENHANCEMENTS AND EVALUATION................................59

4.1 APPROACH....................................................................................................................59

4.1.1 CRCP Early-Age Behavior ............................................................................................59

4.1.2 JCP Long-Term Performance ........................................................................................60

4.2 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................63

4.2.1 Features..........................................................................................................................64

4.2.2 System Architecture and Communication .....................................................................65

4.2.3 Graphical User Interface ................................................................................................67

4.2.4 Document Object Model (DOM)...................................................................................68
v 

4.2.5 Technical Code ..............................................................................................................69

4.2.6 Verification and Validation............................................................................................75

4.2.7 Implementation ..............................................................................................................76

4.2.8 Modifications to the Software Development Plan .........................................................77

4.3 VALIDATION OF THE ENHANCED GUIDELINES..............................................................79

4.3.1 Database Validation .......................................................................................................79

4.3.2 Field Validation .............................................................................................................81

4.3.3 Validation of General Early-Age Behavior Models.......................................................83

CHAPTER 5.SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................85

5.1 SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................85

5.2 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................86

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................87

5.3.1 Model Improvements .....................................................................................................87

5.3.2 The Future of HIPERPAV .............................................................................................88

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 91 
vi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Schematic of total systems approach to the HIPERPAV II system..............................................3

Figure 2. Microsoft Windows screen capture of database search tool.......................................................17

Figure 3. Schematic of empirical and mechanistic solutions for prediction of pavement distress. ...........19

Figure 4. Use of empirical (regression) model for prediction of concrete strains......................................19

Figure 5. Use of empirical and analytical (mechanistic) model for prediction..........................................20

Figure 6. Use of empirical and calibrated analytical (mechanistic-empirical) model for prediction.........20

Figure 7. Graphical representation of revised Rasmussen-Zollinger-Parrot model...................................23

Figure 8. Schematic of dowel bar deformation due to slab curling. ..........................................................46

Figure 9. Conceptual schematic of dowel bar bending moment and its correlation to the temperature 

difference in the slab............................................................................................................................47

Figure 10. Simple schematic outlining PRS. .............................................................................................48

Figure 11. JPCP pavement performance in terms of faulting. ...................................................................49

Figure 12. JPCP pavement performance in terms of transverse cracking..................................................49

Figure 13. JPCP pavement performance in terms of spalled joints. ..........................................................49

Figure 14. JPCP pavement performance in terms of initial pavement roughness......................................50

Figure 15. General outline of the FHWA curing guide. ............................................................................54

Figure 16. Conceptual representation of the COMET module in HIPERPAV II. .....................................56

Figure 17. CRCP early-age module. ..........................................................................................................59

Figure 18. JCP long-term performance modeling......................................................................................60

Figure 19. System architecture flowchart. .................................................................................................65

Figure 20. Screenshot of interface for HIPERPAV II................................................................................68

Figure 21. Structure of HIPERPAV II tech components. .......................................................................... 70

Figure 22. Subcomponents of module HP_CORE.....................................................................................71

Figure 23. Subcomponents of module HP_MECH.................................................................................... 72

Figure 24. Subcomponents of module HP_JCP.........................................................................................73

Figure 25. Subcomponents of module HP_CRCP. ....................................................................................74
vii 

Figure 26. Subcomponents of module HP_JCPLON.................................................................................75

Figure 27. Software project life cycle........................................................................................................76
viii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Proposed additions to the HIPERPAV II software. .......................................................................2

Table 2. Hydration models identified for possible incorporation in HIPERPAV II. ..................................24

Table 3. Climatic models. ..........................................................................................................................30

Table 4. Structural behavior models. .........................................................................................................31

Table 5. Faulting models............................................................................................................................34

Table 6. Midpanel cracking models...........................................................................................................35

Table 7. Corner cracking models. ..............................................................................................................35

Table 8. Spalling models............................................................................................................................36

Table 9. Roughness (ride) models..............................................................................................................37

Table 10. JCP selected models...................................................................................................................39

Table 11. CRCP models identified for possible incorporation in HIPERPAV II (early-age behavior)...... 41

Table 12. CRCP models identified for possible incorporation in HIPERPAV II (long-term 

performance)............................................................................................................................... 42

Table 13. Primary variables affecting PCC properties...............................................................................44

Table 14. Primary PCC properties that influence JPCP distresses. ...........................................................44

Table 15. Pros and cons of the FHWA studies identified for incorporation in HIPERPAV II..................58

Table 16. Primary system architecture components. .................................................................................65

Table 17. Secondary system architecture components. .............................................................................66

Table 18. List of HIPERPAV II tech components.....................................................................................70

Table 19. List of HP_CORE subcomponents. ...........................................................................................71

Table 20. List of HP_MECH subcomponents. ..........................................................................................72

Table 21. List of HP_JCP subcomponents.................................................................................................73

Table 22. List of HP_BCO subcomponents...............................................................................................73

Table 23. List of HP_CRCP subcomponents.............................................................................................74

Table 24. List of HP_CRCP subcomponents.............................................................................................75
ix 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

ACI: American Concrete Institute 

ASCE: American Society of Civil Engineers 

ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials 

ADO: ActiveX® Data Objects 

AQC: Acceptance Quality Characteristics 

BCO: Bonded Concrete Overlays 

BP: Bazant-Panula 

CCRI: Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute 

CEB-FIP: Euro-International Concrete Committee (Comité Euro-International du Béton)-International 

Concrete Federation (Fédération Internationale du Béton) 

COM: Component Object Model 

COMET: Concrete Optimization, Management, Engineering, and Testing 

COPES: Concrete Pavement Evaluation System 

COST: Concrete Optimization Software Tool 

COTR: Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative 

CPTP: Concrete Pavement Technology Program 

CRCP: Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement 

CRSI: Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute 

CTB: Cement-Treated Base 

CTE: Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 

CTR: Center for Transportation Research 

DOM: Document Object Model 

DOT: Department of Transportation 

ESAL: Equivalent Single Axle Loads 

FEM: Finite-Element Method 

FDM: Finite-Difference Method 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration 

FWD: Falling Weight Deflectometer 

GIS: Geographic Information System 

GPS: General Pavement Studies 

GUI: Graphical User Interface 
x 

HIPERPAV: HIgh PERformance Concrete PAVing. 

ICM: Integrated Climate Model 

IRI: International Roughness Index 

JCP: Jointed Concrete Pavement 

JPCP: Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement 

LCC: Life Cycle Costs 

LCCDES: “As-Designed” Life Cycle Costs 

LCCCON “As-Constructed” Life Cycle Costs 

LTE: Load Transfer Efficiency 

LTPP: Long-Term Pavement Performance 

M&R: Maintenance and Rehabilitation 

MOR: Modulus of Rupture 

MRU: Most Recently Used 

NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology 

PCC: Portland Cement Concrete 

PCCP: Portland Cement Concrete Pavements 

PRS: Performance-Related Specifications 

PSI: Present Serviceability Index 

PSR: Present Serviceability Rating 

QA: Quality Assurance 

RIPPER: Performance/Rehabilitation of Rigid Pavements 

SHA: State Highway Agency 

SHRP: Strategic Highway Research Program 

SDS: Software Design Specification 

SMP: Seasonal Monitoring Program 

SRS: Software Requirement Specification 

TEMP: Total Environmental Management for Pavements 

TEP: Technical Expert Panel 

XML: Extensible Markup Language 
1 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

This report describes the efforts undertaken to enhance the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) High Performance Concrete Paving (HIPERPAV®) computerized design and construction 

guidelines by incorporating jointed concrete pavement (JCP) long-term performance prediction models, 

continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) early-age behavior models, and two additional 

modules with results from related FHWA studies. 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

When the first generation of the software, HIPERPAV I, was first developed in 1996, a new 

approach was born: a total systems approach to concrete paving. In this simple to use, yet technically 

complex piece of software, the power to simulate problems before they happen is now a reality. In the 

past few years, FHWA has sponsored the expansion of this concept into a usable and reliable tool. 

Contractors, suppliers, agencies, and academics all can utilize the power in this approach. 

The total systems approach has now proven itself with the end-user. This project continued this 

development by incorporating additional modules in a new software generation, termed HIPERPAV II. 

For example, a CRCP module has been added. CRCP has been used by a number of States as a durable 

concrete paving alternative. Although more expensive initially, many CRCP sections have given 

excellent performance with little to no maintenance. 

Long-term pavement performance (LTPP) is also now being considered in HIPERPAV II. As a 

result of the work done under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), an extensive database 

has been compiled that contains a wealth of valuable data related to design, construction, and 

performance of hundreds of pavements throughout North America currently available to the pavement 

community. A number of additional models have been developed since that time. 

In 1996, as part of the LTPP program, a critical gap was identified to predict properly the 

performance of concrete pavements: the early-age conditions. “Early-age” in this case is the period of 

performance (typically 48–96 hours) that is critical in establishing the benchmark for future pavement 

performance. In this project, the early-age mechanisms that influence long-term performance have been 

investigated. Experienced practitioners have always recognized this cause and effect, and now the total 

systems approach to concrete paving is the vehicle to tie these mechanisms together. 

In recent years, FHWA has sponsored a number of projects related to various aspects of concrete 

paving. The end results of these studies are valuable assets. These assets, however, must be shaped into a 

form that the end-user can readily accept. Findings from two of these FHWA studies were incorporated 

into the total systems approach vis-à-vis HIPERPAV II. As a result, two new modules were integrated; a 

dowel analysis module and a concrete mix optimization module. 

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

There are three objectives for the work conducted in this project: 

1. Develop a module capable of predicting the impact on long-term jointed plain concrete 

pavement (JPCP) performance as a function of early-age behavior. 
2 

2. Develop a module capable of predicting the early-age behavior of CRCP. 

3. Develop additional modules that incorporate results from existing FHWA studies 

related to concrete paving. 

Table 1 graphically depicts these additions to the HIPERPAV II software. HIPERPAV I is 

characterized by cell 1 in this table. Project objectives 1 and 2 have been accomplished by developing the 

modules shown in cells 2 and 3, respectively. An additional module that might be developed in the future 

would meet the attributes of cell 4. This additional module could characterize the long-term performance 

of CRCP as a function of early-age behavior. 

Table 1. Proposed additions to the HIPERPAV II software. 

JPCP CRCP 

Early-Age Behavior 1 HIPERPAV I 3 Proposed Module 

(Objective #2) 

Long-Term Performance 2 Proposed Module 

(Objective #1) 

4 Identified Module 

for Future 

1.3 PROJECT SCOPE 

The scope of this study is to assemble these key elements into a user-friendly, practical, and 

reliable end product using a total systems approach. In this document, this approach is described and its 

benefits are demonstrated. This unique approach allows the project objectives to be accomplished and 

helps ease the integration of new features in the future. The total systems approach allows the various 

components of the current HIPERPAV I to be integrated easily to work in conjunction with the proposed 

modules to be developed in HIPERPAV II. Figure 1 demonstrates the interaction of the various modules 

within the overall HIPERPAV II system. The baseline element of this approach is the core of the 

HIPERPAV system. The core predicts the temperature transport as well as key portland cement concrete 

(PCC) behavior such as curling, warping, and shrinkage. The various shaded modules orbiting about the 

core are modules that make up the HIPERPAV II system. In some cases, modules are interrelated. For 

example, the Early-Age JPCP module (from HIPERPAV I) drives the Long-Term Performance module 

for JPCP developed in this effort. 

The user interface also has been modified to accommodate the additional modules and to add the 

flexibility for the addition of future modules. 

The system is analogous to a puzzle; however, instead of beginning to assemble the pieces from 

the outside toward the center, the opposite is true here. Each piece is a module, and the final look of the 

puzzle will continue to change as the pieces continue to be added. Continuing this analogy, for the puzzle 

to be assembled, each of the pieces must be shaped correctly for an exact fit. This describes the work 

conducted for this project. 
3 

HIPERPAV

Core Module

CRCP Early-Age

Module

JCP Early-Age

Module

BCO Early-Age

Module

JCP Long-Term

Module

(Future)

CRCP Long-Term

Module

Early Sawing

Module

Early Traffic Loading

Module

FHWA Research

Module I

FHWA Research

Module II

Evaporation Rate

Module

= Existing HIPERPAV Module = Proposed Module = Proposed Module not in RFP Scope

BCO = bonded concrete overlays 

Figure 1. Schematic of total systems approach to the HIPERPAV II system. 

1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE 

This report describes the work conducted to enhance the HIPERPAV concrete pavement design 

and construction guidelines.1

 The remaining chapters of this report are organized as follows: 

Chapter 2: Previous HIPERPAV Feedback and Provisions for Future Implementation 

Chapter 2 presents a description of implementation efforts of the computer guidelines. 

Comments from current users of the guidelines and desired enhancements are listed and prioritized. This 

chapter also documents the creation of the technical expert panel (TEP) for HIPERPAV II. The guidance 

and direction received from the TEP members throughout the development of the enhanced guidelines is 

summarized. 

 1

 HIPERPAV alone with no preceding numeral refers to the overall concrete pavement design and construction guidelines, while HIPERPAV I 

and HIPERPAV II refer to the two different software generations. 
4 

Chapter 3: Information Search and Model Selection 

This chapter documents the identification of the models that were incorporated in the guidelines. 

This includes the literature review conducted for identification and selection of updated 

theoretical models on JPCP early-age pavement behavior, JPCP long-term performance models, 

and CRCP early-age behavior models. In addition, this chapter describes the efforts to identify 

and incorporate two additional FHWA studies related to the design and construction guidelines. 

A detailed description of each individual model incorporated is reported in volume III of this 

report series. Also presented in that volume is a detailed annotated bibliography on the primary 

references reviewed during the information search performed in this study. 

Chapter 4: Guidelines Enhancements and Evaluation 

This chapter describes the approach taken for development of the final HIPERPAV II software 

product, including a description of the functionality of the JPCP long-term performance, CRCP 

early-age behavior, and additional FHWA modules. The design of the user interface, and 

development approach for incorporation of each of the individual modules into the total analysis 

tool, is also described. 

In addition, this chapter briefly describes the approach for validation of the software guidelines. 

A detailed description of the validation efforts is reported in volume III of this report series. 

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 

A brief summary of the steps taken throughout the project for enhancing and evaluating the 

guidelines is presented in chapter 5. Major findings identified throughout development of the 

guidelines are summarized in this chapter. In addition, recommendations for future enhancement 

of the guidelines with additional modules and features, as well as incorporation of more 

sophisticated models, are outlined. 
5 

CHAPTER 2. PREVIOUS HIPERPAV FEEDBACK AND PROVISIONS FOR 

FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION 

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. 

• Maturity. 

• Bridge deck applications. 

2.1.1.1 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. 

2.1.1.2 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. 
6 

2.1.1.3 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: 

• Pavement design inputs suggestions. 

• Mix design inputs suggestions. 

• Environmental inputs suggestions. 

• Construction inputs suggestions. 

• Output suggestions. 

• Graphical user interface modification suggestions. 

• Model improvement suggestions. 

• Suggestions for additional modules. 

• Other suggestions. 

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: 

2.1.3.1 Pavement Design Inputs Advancements 

• Additional subbase types were included. 

• Laboratory 28-day PCC tensile strength was required as an input, rather than the flexural 

strength. 

2.1.3.2 Mix Design Inputs Advancements 

• The default values of the aggregate thermal coefficient of expansion are now displayed 

for the selected coarse aggregate type. 

• Class “C” fly ash was incorporated into the mix design. 
7 

2.1.3.3 Model Advancements 

• The effect of changes in the Poisson’s ratio at early age was taken into account. 

• The prediction of the creep relaxation model for early age was slightly improved. 

2.1.3.4 Additional Modules Incorporated 

• A joint sawing module was incorporated based on a FHWA study (but disabled until 

validated). 

• An earliest traffic loading module was incorporated based on a FHWA study (but 

disabled until validated). 

2.1.3.5 Other Advancements 

• An autoscale feature of the output screen was included. 

• Icons related to each one of the modules were included in the control panel. 

• A warning note was added to explain the need for laboratory-measured values of strength 

and modulus of elasticity. 

• A warning note was included in the maturity data box to explain the maturity method 

used in HIPERPAV. 

• Online help for chemical and mineral admixtures, cement chemistry, and different curing 

methods was provided. 

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. 

2.1.4.1 Pavement Design Inputs Advancements 

• Improve the stress prediction accuracy by adding paving width as an input, adjusting the 

models accordingly. (H) 

2.1.4.2 Mix Design and PCC Properties Inputs Advancements 

• Allow the user to enter the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the mix or the 

aggregate. (M) 

• Add a conversion calculator to estimate splitting tensile strength from other strength 

types (i.e. compressive, flexural). (M) 

• Add graphical representation of maturity input data. (H) 

• Add an input option for Arrhenius maturity data in addition to Nurse-Saul. (H) 

• Add an input for cement fineness and adjust the models accordingly. (H) 

• Allow the user to enter drying shrinkage test results. (M) 
8 

2.1.4.3 Environmental Inputs Advancements 

• Allow for solar radiation, windspeed, and humidity to be user-defined over the 72-hour 

period. (H) 

• Add a grid control for the air temperature input data to allow the user to manually enter it 

in a gridline (as numbers) instead of only graphically (point dragging). (H) 

• Use a simplified geographic information system (GIS) for climatic inputs. This data is 

stored on a CD-ROM along with the software. (H) 

2.1.4.4 Construction Inputs Advancements 

• Add a “no sawing” input option instead of setting saw time to 72. (H) 

• Add a “green sawing” input option instead of setting saw time to 0. (H) 

• Add a skip saw option. Add an input for the time of the intermediate cuts. (H) 

2.1.4.5 Output Advancements 

• Save output in Microsoft® Excel format. (H) 

• Improve the print dialog; add zoom, printer configuration, and multiple pages. (M) 

• Allow the user to change the scale of output plots (autoscale). (H) 

• Show stress and strength when the mouse is hovered over them. (H) 

2.1.4.6 Graphical User Interface Modification Advancements 

• Add input bounds checks. (H) 

• Add a multiple document interface (allowing multiple analysis files to be opened 

simultaneously.) (H) 

• Change to a Microsoft Outlook®-style (document object model) graphical user interface. 

(H) 

• Add better tool tips. (M) 

• Add pulldown menu to change units but not value. (M) 

• Add more units—e.g., millimeters (mm) for thickness. (M) 

• Add a most recently used file list under the file menu option. (M) 

• Add default option to reset the variables back to default values. (H) 

2.1.4.7 Model Advancements 

• Make efforts to improve and/or validate the creep relaxation model. (H) 

• Improve materials characterization for mineral and chemical admixtures. (H) 

• Add autogenous shrinkage model. (H) 

2.1.4.8 Additional Modules Incorporated 

• Add a JPCP long-term performance module. (H) 

• Add a CRCP early-age behavior module. (H) 
9 

2.1.4.9 Other Advancements 

• Add warning/guidance screens with the “do’s” and don’ts” on the use and interpretation 

of HIPERPAV. (H) 

• Add online documentation by digitizing the final report and user’s manual. (H) 

• Develop a technology transfer package for implementing HIPERPAV. (H) 

2.1.5 Suggestions Related to, but Beyond the Scope of the HIPERPAV II Effort 

2.1.5.1 Pavement Design Inputs Suggestions 

• Add a database for the customization of subbase types. (L) 

• Add more cementitious subbase types with better descriptions to account for large 

variance in different types. (L) 

2.1.5.2 Mix Design Inputs Suggestions 

• Add a mix-design and proportioning module. (H) 

• Add an option for aggregate blending. (H) 

• Add volumetric flags for unbalanced (incorrect) total volumes of PCC. (H) 

• Add a mix proportions pie chart feature “by volume.” (M) 

• Add import/export feature for maturity data. (H) 

• Add a cements database that can be customized to a specific location. (H) 

• Add mix design database that can be customized to a specific location. (H) 

• Add type IV cement as a default cement type. (L) 

2.1.5.3 Environmental Inputs Suggestions 

• Add (as an advanced input) the latitude to estimate solar radiation. (M) 

• Add a feature to save/load ambient air temperature distributions to disk, and provide 

default files for various climatological events. (M) 

• Include the ability to account for the effects of rainfall on the early-age slab temperature. 

(M) 

• For clarity, make the mouse cursor shape a function of the selected environment tool 

(e.g., cold front). (L) 

• Add an air temperature “spline” tool to allow the user to define maxima and minima at 

any time. (L) 

2.1.5.4 Construction Inputs Suggestions 

• Add application rates for curing method, and perhaps brand names. (H) 

• Add a mix temperature calculator that will calculate the estimated initial PCC 

temperature (a HIPERPAV input) as a function of the aggregate, cement, and water 

temperatures. (M) 

• Add an option to automatically calculate the base temperature before placement, instead 

of making it a user input only. (M) 
10 

2.1.5.5 Output Suggestions 

• Add a feature to show all of the stresses in the pavement (top, mid, bottom). (H) 

• Make a three-dimensional plot of stress and strength for different placement times of 

day—color code surface for closeness to failure—green, yellow, and red. (M) 

• Make analysis period variable (e.g., anywhere from 24 to 96 hours). (M) 

• Add animations for stresses and displacements (in post-processor). (M) 

• Separate the curling, shrinkage, and axial stresses on plot. (M) 

• Show evaporation rate, air temperature, concrete temperature, relative humidity, and 

windspeed for points on the evaporation rate output curves as the mouse is hovered over 

them. (M) 

• Add a feature for user-defined plot color schemes. (M) 

• Add a toggle to show the compressive stresses in the pavement (instead of just zero 

stress). (L) 

• Add a button to switch between absolute (megapascals (MPa)) and relative (percent) 

stress vs. strength. (M) 

• Add tool tip showing absolute (MPa) and relative (percent) stress vs. strength. (M) 

2.1.5.6 Graphical User Interface Modification Suggestions 

• Color code the inputs for specific applications of the software (planner, designer, 

construction, etc.), or use a wizard interface to step through inputs that can be tailored to 

the user. (L) 

2.1.5.7 Model Improvement Suggestions 

• Add combined curling-axial restraint model. (H) 

• Include consolidation/density impacts on stress/strength development model input. (M) 

• Add effects of alkali content on the heat of hydration. (M) 

• Add a longitudinal early-age cracking prediction. (M) 

• Investigate edge restraint due to multipass paving. (L) 

• Improve characterization of moisture state with respect to strength and other behaviors. 

(H) 

2.1.5.8 Other Suggestions 

• Include help screens with measurement guidelines for base temperature, slab-base 

friction, and other nonstandardized inputs. (H) 

• Add additional help screens to describe curing application, moisture loss, and heat 

retention. (H) 

• Add more detailed Microsoft Windows® help files to help the user execute the program. 

(H) 

• Add warning/guidance screens with the “do’s” and “don’ts” on the use and interpretation 

of HIPERPAV. (H) 

• Add advanced input screens for inputs like k-value, latitude, and finite-element method 

(FEM) mesh size, etc. (M) 

• Add a smart update feature for easy software updates via the Internet. (M) 
11 

• Add command line options for batch processing of input files. (L) 

2.1.6 Suggestions Requiring New Major Efforts 

The following advancements suggested by the customers would require relatively significant 

effort: 

2.1.6.1 Mix Design Inputs Suggestions 

• Add the use of synthetic or steel fibers as an input, and adjust the models accordingly. 

(H) 

2.1.6.2 Other Suggestions 

• Develop a construction (real-time) version of HIPERPAV using a weather station and 

digital satellite weather forecasting. (H) 

• Develop a version to model bridge slab decks or deck overlays. (H) 

• Add sensitivity analysis options that would run several simulations and compare the 

results of the runs via plots and tables. (H) 

• Convert to a Web-based application. (H) 

• Add plot-predicted pavement temperatures vs. time and space. (H) 

2.1.6.3 Model Improvement Suggestions 

• Develop a version for bridge decks and bridge deck overlays. (H) 

• Add a mechanistic moisture model to better predict moisture-related behavior. (H) 

• Add fracture mechanics theory to better predict uncontrolled cracking and/or joint 

popping. (H) 

• Conduct a validation study of the effects of chemical and mineral admixtures on the heat 

of hydration. (H) 

• Include early-age PCC durability models as a parallel simulation. (H) 

• Develop materials for a National Highway Institute (or other) short course. (H) 

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: 

• The TEP members should be stakeholders in the concrete paving industry. 

• The TEP members should have the ability to contribute constructively to help the project 

team accomplish the objectives of the project. 
12 

• The TEP members should be representative of their respective areas of expertise. 

• The TEP members should be leaders in their respective areas of expertise. 

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: 

• Familiarize the TEP members with HIPERPAV. 

• Discuss the overall project objectives. 

• Discuss the proposed technical approach to the current project. 

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: 

• Concentrate efforts on strengthening HIPERPAV in its prediction of early-age pavement 

behavior. 

• Keep HIPERPAV user-friendly by ensuring simplicity of the input screens and by 

possibly creating unique user profiles. 

• Optimize the mix design module for materials selection and proportioning, giving the 

users another reason to open the software. 

• Address long-term performance modeling as a means of further optimizing early-age 

pavement design, materials selection, and construction procedures; looking at relative 

performance of the aforementioned factors, but not as an independent tool. 

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: 

• Review project deliverables to date, including software prototype, written guidelines, and 

modeling. 

• Discuss future software development work plan and validation work plan. 

The primary recommendations and highlights from this meeting included: 

• The draft written guidelines presented to date are clear and understandable. 

• Long-term performance models in HIPERPAV II will depend highly on the load transfer 

efficiency (LTE) model. 

• Regarding the field sites, start contacting departments of transportation (DOT) now, if 

possible, during the bidding process. Involve the American Concrete Pavement 

Association chapter executives. 
13 

• It is important to incorporate the mix design module to attract additional users and to 

facilitate the use of HIPERPAV’s stress analyses techniques. 

• FHWA should eventually consider the development of two versions of HIPERPAV—a 

research grade and a practical grade. In the research grade, include provisions for inputs 

that are the most sensitive in the models. During the development of this project, the 

project team should concentrate more on the development of the practical grade version 

of HIPERPAV. 

• The outputs of the models should be evaluated carefully—different scenarios need to be 

generated, and the results need to be examined from both the absolute and the relative 

perspective. The TEP should assist in this determination. 

• The measurement and inclusion of adiabatic calorimetry for concrete mixes should be a 

high priority. As a result, HIPERPAV can become a real-time construction tool for 

quality control. 

• If States are interested, additional sites for validation can be funded via a pooled fund 

project. 

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: 

• Present project deliverables to date. 

• Discuss specifics of the work plans as executed thus far. 

• Understand fully the software layout, menus, and options. 

• Accept the technical premise behind the software. 

• Develop the ability to work the software and provide advice as to its functionality and 

ease of operation. 

The primary recommendations and highlights from this meeting included: 

• HIPERPAV could be seen as a day-to-day quality control tool as well as an analysis tool. 

• Recent University of Texas findings on hydration modeling and characterization of 

admixtures have been incorporated in HIPERPAV II, and should form part of the 

fundamental training of the software. 

• The Total Environmental Management for Pavements (TEMP) System, currently under 

development, will be a version of HIPERPAV in-place. 

• The main focus of the software should still be on early-age behavior of JPCP. The longterm module can be used to reinforce good paving practices. 

• The future of HIPERPAV should include mix-related calorimetry for use with specific 

project materials. 

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. 

15 

CHAPTER 3. INFORMATION SEARCH AND MODEL SELECTION 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

As was briefly discussed in the introduction to this report, the HIPERPAV system has already 

proved successful in simulating early-age behavior of JPCP. However, although many of the models 

incorporated when HIPERPAV was originally developed were considered to be the best options at the 

time, new developments are now available that could potentially increase the accuracy of prediction. 

Some examples include the findings from a cement and admixtures characterization study recently 

conducted by the University of Texas at Austin and improved models for prediction of creep-relaxation in 

the early-age.(1,2,3) Furthermore, previous validation and implementation efforts have made it possible to 

identify areas that may require of model enhancements, such as a better characterization of the concrete 

creep-relaxation effects at early ages and improved shrinkage models. 

In addition, the systems approach used in HIPERPAV makes it ideal for expanding its 

capabilities to include new modules for prediction of JPCP long-term performance as a function of earlyage behavior. Incorporating new modules for predicting early-age behavior of other pavement types such 

as CRCP is similarly possible. 

Finally, a number of studies oriented to enhance the performance of concrete pavements have 

been identified to be compatible with the function of the HIPERPAV system, and therefore also may be 

incorporated. 

To accomplish the objectives for this project, an information search first was conducted to 

identify models in each of the above categories. In this chapter, the information review results are 

described. The chapter is divided into three sections: 

1. Literature search (section 3.2). 

2. Model identification and selection (section 3.3). 

3. Review of FHWA studies for potential incorporation into HIPERPAV II (section 3.4). 

3.2 LITERATURE SEARCH 

This section describes the literature review efforts made to identify theoretical models developed 

to date in each of the following four categories: 

• Currently available early-age behavior simulation software similar to HIPERPAV. 

• General early-age behavior models. 

• JPCP performance models. 

• CRCP early-age behavior models. 

The following sections describe the literature review for each of the above categories. A detailed 

annotated bibliography on the primary references reviewed during the information search performed in 

this study is provided in volume III, appendix A of this report series. 
16 

3.2.1 Currently Available Early-Age Behavior Simulation Software Similar to HIPERPAV 

Besides HIPERPAV, four other software programs that can similarly predict the early-age 

behavior of concrete have been identified. These include DuCOM®, HYMOSTRUC®, Quadrel®, and 4C 

Temp & Stress®. HYMOSTRUC and Quadrel focus on developing the adiabatic hydration curves for 

concrete. DuCOM and 4C Temp & Stress are more robust FEM programs that calculate the state of stress 

in early-age concrete structures. These programs are similar in some aspects to HIPERPAV, but also 

have differences in theory and application. DuCOM, HYMOSTRUC, Quadrel, and 4C Temp & Stress 

are summarized in volume III, section A.1 of appendix A in this report series. A review of these models 

has helped in identifying possible improvements in the HIPERPAV software for characterization of earlyage behavior. The section below describes specific models identified for possible incorporation into 

HIPERPAV. 

3.2.2 General Early-Age Behavior Models 

The early-age properties of concrete are significantly influenced by the climatic conditions and 

temperatures, as well as by the concrete mix components. For this purpose, a literature review of earlyage concrete properties was completed. The properties that are addressed include: 

• Concrete hydration. 

• Concrete maturity. 

• Drying shrinkage of concrete. 

• Moisture transport in concrete. 

• Set time of concrete. 

• Creep. 

A literature search was also performed for concrete thermal properties including: CTE, thermal 

conductivity, specific heat, thermal diffusivity, convection, surface emissivity, and solar absorptivity. 

The literature review on early-age concrete properties is summarized in volume III, section A.2 of 

appendix A in this report series. 

3.2.3 JPCP Performance Models 

The literature review of JPCP models contained three categories. The first category was a 

literature review on pavement structural models for prediction of pavement response as a function of 

temperature, moisture, and traffic loading. The second category was a literature review on available 

climatic models that can be used in conjunction with the structural models to account for climatic 

conditions at the time of pavement curing and also over the years as the pavement is subjected to longterm usage. In the third category, a number of JPCP performance models were investigated. A literature 

review on faulting, transverse cracking, spalling, and JPCP roughness was conducted for this purpose. In 

HIPERPAV, it is preferable to use mechanistic models that have been calibrated and validated with actual 

experimental data. Information on the above three categories is presented in volume III, section A.3 of 

appendix A in this report series. 

3.2.4 CRCP Early-Age Behavior Models 

A literature review on CRCP early-age behavior also was conducted. From this effort, a number 

of references have been compiled, and models were identified describing the early-age behavior of CRCP. 

An additional effort was made to identify references on CRCP long-term performance. References on 
17 

CRCP early-age behavior and CRCP long-term performance are summarized in volume III, section A.4 of 

appendix A in this report series. 

3.2.5 Electronic Database and Search Tool 

To help the project team coordinate references, performance data sources, and other aspects of the 

project, an electronic database and associated search tool were developed. 

The search tool, a Microsoft Windows application, allows the user to search by specific 

categories related to PCC, JPCP, CRCP, and bonded concrete overlays (BCO). A screen capture of the 

computer program is shown in figure 2. In addition, the user can refine the search by typing title, author, 

or keywords into the three text boxes just above the results window. If the user does not know the exact 

spelling of a word, partial entries in these boxes will produce matches that contain the text string 

somewhere in the reference database entry. 

The tool may be of use to those who are interested in learning more about concrete pavements. 

For this reason, and to enhance the reliability and acceptability of the results of this research project, this 

database and search tool has been coupled with the final software product from this study. 

HIPERPAV Reference Database

Figure 2. Microsoft Windows screen capture of database search tool. 

3.3 MODEL IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION 

This section summarizes the general early-age behavior models, JPCP performance models, and 

CRCP models identified. A description of model selection is provided, followed by a brief evaluation of 

each model. The models finally selected for incorporation in the HIPERPAV II system are fully 

documented in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 
18 

3.3.1 Model Approach 

In this new set of guidelines, a mechanistic approach is used to describe the existing link between 

early-age behavior and long-term performance. Traditionally, three classes of theoretical models have 

been used in the pavement engineering field to predict long-term pavement behavior and performance: 

empirical, mechanistic, and a hybrid: mechanistic-empirical. 

3.3.1.1 Empirical Models 

Empirical models are based on experimental data collected from field studies. These models are 

considered valid only within the limited range of data collected. If, for example, the environmental, 

material, or loading conditions are outside the boundaries of the study, then the model is no longer 

applicable. A new model will have to be developed for the new conditions. For this reason, empirical 

models cannot be applied to all situations. 

3.3.1.2 Mechanistic Models 

Mechanistic models do not have the same limitations as empirical models. Mechanistic models 

are based on the mechanics of the materials and physics behind the problem. With mechanistic models, 

stress, strain, or resulting deflections are determined to explain the influence of internal or external forces 

over the pavement system. Using the theoretical mechanistic equations, pavement performance can be 

predicted. 

3.3.1.3 Mechanistic-Empirical Models 

The empirical approach of pavement performance prediction is a two-step process. From the 

input parameters, the LTPP (distress) history can be predicted. This process is illustrated in 

figure 3. However, this method bypasses four key steps that the mechanistic approach takes into 

account. The mechanistic method accounts for the material characterization (e.g. strength development of 

the concrete). Pavement response is then predicted (e.g., stresses development in the slab due to 

temperature loading). Then, pavement behavior is assessed (e.g., permanent deformation of the pavement 

slab as a result of curling/warping effects). Finally, the pavement distress is predicted (e.g., transverse 

cracking). From this, the distress history as a function of time can be generated. 

Although mechanistic models more clearly determine the process of pavement behavior and 

performance, theory, by itself, has not proven sufficient for an accurate analysis of pavements. Therefore, 

the observed performance must be used with the mechanistic model as part of calibration. Consequently, 

the models used in pavement performance prediction are commonly termed mechanistic-empirical 

models. Mechanistic-empirical models are defined as analytical models calibrated with field observations 

that may be used to predict pavement performance reliably. 
19 

Input

Material Characterization

Pavement Response

Distress Manifestation

Long-Term Performance History

EMPIRICAL

Pavement Behavior

LongM

E

C

H

A

N

I

S

T

I

C

Input

Material Characterization

Pavement Response

Distress Manifestation

Long-Term Performance History

EMPIRICAL

Pavement Behavior

LongM

E

C

H

A

N

I

S

T

I

C

Figure 3. Schematic of empirical and mechanistic solutions for prediction of pavement distress. 

There are at least three primary benefits to successfully applying mechanistic-empirical models in 

design. These are: 

• Increased design reliability. 

• Ability to predict specific types of distresses. 

• Ability to extrapolate from limited sets of field and laboratory results. 

Mechanistic-empirical models can be used to provide better pavement performance predictions. 

With these models, the effect of new parameters can be assessed, such as new loading or materials. 

Available materials are better utilized, and improved diagnostic techniques are available, leading to an 

understanding of why a pavement is performing better or worse than expected. Improved modeling of 

aging distresses, weather, subbase erosion, and the benefits of improved drainage also can be modeled 

effectively with mechanistic-empirical models. 

The concepts behind development of a regression (empirical) model are shown in figure 4. Using 

the observed points, a regression curve is fit through them. The regression curve can be used to 

extrapolate beyond the physically measured values for prediction purposes. However, it is this 

extrapolation that demonstrates the potential for inaccuracy of regression models. 

Pavement 

Strain

Change in Temperature

Observations

(Interpolation)

Predicted 

(Extrapolation)

Empirical Model 

(Regression)

Observed data

Pavement 

Strain

Change in Temperature

Observations

(Interpolation)

Predicted 

(Extrapolation)

Empirical Model 

(Regression)

Observed data

Pavement 

Strain

Change in Temperature

Observations

(Interpolation)

Predicted 

(Extrapolation)

Empirical Model 

(Regression)

Observed data

Figure 4. Use of empirical (regression) model for prediction of concrete strains. 
20 

In figure 5, an example of the analytical (mechanistic) solution versus the regression solution is 

shown. The slope of the analytical model is not necessarily the same as that of the regression curve. For 

this reason, when both are used in the prediction side of the plot, the difference from the regression model 

is apparent. 

Difference

Pavement 

Strain

Change in Temperature

Observations

(Interpolation)

Predicted 

(Extrapolation)

Mechanistic Model

Empirical Model 

(Regression)

Difference

Pavement 

Strain

Change in Temperature

Observations

(Interpolation)

Predicted 

(Extrapolation)

Mechanistic Model

Empirical Model 

(Regression)

Figure 5. Use of empirical and analytical (mechanistic) model for prediction. 

With the collection of additional data, the analytical model can be calibrated for specific sites, 

resulting in a mechanistic-empirical model. This further increases the accuracy of the analytical model 

(see figure 6). 

Pavement 

Strain

Change in Temperature

Observations

(Interpolation)

Predicted 

(Extrapolation)

Mechanistic Model

Empirical Model

(Regression)

Mechanistic-Empirical 

Model

Pavement 

Strain

Change in Temperature

Observations

(Interpolation)

Predicted 

(Extrapolation)

Mechanistic Model

Empirical Model

(Regression)

Mechanistic-Empirical 

Model

Figure 6. Use of empirical and calibrated analytical (mechanistic-empirical) model for prediction. 

In summary, empirical models do not have the same indepth analysis as mechanistic models; 

instead, they directly relate input to LTPP based on site-specific data. Mechanistic models are the result 

of a five-step process to relate input to material characterization, pavement response, pavement behavior, 

distress prediction, and long-term performance history. Without calibration, mechanistic models are not 

site specific like the empirical models. Instead, these models account for the physical processes behind 

LTPP. Despite the shortcomings of the empirical data, it is still needed to calibrate the mechanistic 

models. The use of mechanistic-empirical models is preferred in pavement design and analysis. 
21 

 

3.3.2 Selection Criteria 

Five primary factors have been considered in the selection of models for incorporation in 

HIPERPAV II, namely: 

• Type of approach. 

• Status of development. 

• Calibration/validation. 

• Inputs. 

• Outputs. 

These selection criteria are described below: 

1. Type of approach: The HIPERPAV system has been recognized for providing a mechanistic 

approach to the analysis of early-age behavior of JPCP during the first 72 hours after 

construction. The advantages of mechanistic models, as compared to empirical models, were 

provided in section 3.3.1. The selection of models for analysis of JPCP and CRCP should favor 

mechanistic or mechanistic-empirical models. Also, as stated in the objectives of this project, the 

most important factor considered when selecting JPCP long-term performance models was the 

effect that early-age behavior factors had on long-term performance. Section 3.3.4 expands on 

the importance of early-age behavior factors on long-term performance. 

2. Status of development: Some of the identified models may be conceptual, or currently under 

development. As the scope of this project does not include the resources for developing new 

models, caution must be used in selecting models that are not fully developed. 

3. Calibration and validation: Calibration and validation of the available models was also an 

important factor to consider in model selection. Some limited validation of the models selected 

was performed within the scope of this project. However, it was desired that the models selected 

had undergone at least some calibration to warrant their selection, and to be certain that the model 

had sound logic in its development. 

4. Inputs: One of the objectives of the HIPERPAV system is to be as practical as possible. Models 

that require inputs that may be difficult to obtain, or not readily available to the average user, 

were considered undesirable. 

5. Outputs: The selection of pavement early-age behavior models will eventually help to assess 

long-term performance. Therefore, these models should provide the necessary information 

required by existing long-term performance models. 

3.3.3 General Early-Age Behavior Models 

The early-age behavior models used in HIPERPAV I for stress and strength prediction are 

described in detail in previous reports.(4) The models identified here are improvements to some of those 

models, which predict: 
22 

• Cement hydration. 

• Concrete temperature. 

• Concrete moisture. 

• Shrinkage. 

• Concrete creep. 

• Subbase restraint. 

• Thermal gradients. 

3.3.3.1 Concrete Hydration Models 

From the literature review, several models were identified as candidates to incorporate into 

HIPERPAV II for expanding and improving the current hydration model. Table 2 lists the identified 

models, including a summary of advantages and disadvantages for using each of the models. Inputs 

required, outputs, validation, and need for further development are also identified. 

During this project, the research team closely followed the development of hydration models 

conducted by the University of Texas at Austin under a research project with the Texas DOT.(1) The 

models developed by Schindler were selected for use in HIPERPAV II, because they could be adapted 

with relative ease and are practically the only hydration models available validated with U.S. cements. A 

detailed description of these models is provided in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

3.3.3.2 HIPERPAV II Finite-Difference Temperature Model 

In HIPERPAV I, a one-dimensional FEM technique was used, but this procedure has proven to 

be a computational burden and may not be appropriate for the large number of time-steps involved in 

long-term analyses. The finite-difference method (FDM) is another numerical technique that is available 

to solve the transient heat transfer problem. In this study, the previous FEM procedure for heat transfer 

analysis was replaced with an FDM after extensive calibration and validation. The finite-difference 

model FDM model is used for both early-age and long-term predictions of concrete temperature. A 

description of this model is provided in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

3.3.3.3 Models for Characterization of Concrete Moisture 

Many of the models in HIPERPAV I include terms for the moisture state in the PCC. The current 

moisture model in HIPERPAV I assumes that the moisture gradient varies uniformly from the surface of 

the pavement to near 100 percent at the center of the slab and below. Although incorporating a 

mechanistic-based moisture transport model is outside of the scope of this project, an effort was made to 

improve the moisture characterization. This step included integrating moisture terms into the most 

sensitive models such as the strength, shrinkage, and warping models. 

An improvement to the current model was considered, based on the model proposed by Parrott 

for PCC slab moisture prediction.(5) Zollinger has proposed a modification to the Parrot model to account 

for the effect of curing. (4) The curing material is assigned an equivalent thickness of concrete. This 

additional thickness of concrete on top of the slab is assumed to mitigate the moisture loss from the 

pavement surface. This equivalent thickness was proposed based on an empirical data fit from laboratory 

data collected to derive the moisture gradient through the slab depth. Rasmussen proposed a modification 

to the Zollinger model.(4) Following the same methodology, the revised model increases the depth of the 
23 

slab by the equivalent thickness, and derives the resulting moisture gradient. This can be seen graphically 

in figure 7. 

RH

Depth

Predicted RH @

Top of Slab

Predicted RH @

Bottom of Slab

Total Analysis Thickness

Actual Slab Thickness Eq. Curing

Thickness

Proposed

Model

RH

Depth

Predicted RH @

Top of Slab

Predicted RH @

Bottom of Slab

Total Analysis Thickness

Actual Slab Thickness Eq. Curing

Thickness

Proposed

Model

Figure 7. Graphical representation of revised Rasmussen-Zollinger-Parrot model. 

Although it is believed that the modified Parrott model would improve the moisture 

characterization in HIPERPAV, a careful calibration and validation process of the model would have 

been required before integrating it into the HIPERPAV system. However, validating this model was 

outside the scope of this project. 

3.3.3.4 Shrinkage Models 

Two shrinkage models were identified for incorporation into HIPERPAV II: a drying shrinkage 

model with better materials characterization than the one previously used; and an autogenous shrinkage 

model for low water-cement ratios. 

Although developed later than the previous Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires D'essais et 

de Recherches sur les Materiaux et les Constructions (RILEM) B3 model used in HIPERPAV I, the 

Bazant-Panula (BP) drying shrinkage model incorporates more empirical material dependencies.(6,7) One 

of these empirical dependencies is the influence of the aggregate volume fraction on final shrinkage, on 

which drying shrinkage is believed to be greatly dependent. It accounts for the total aggregate (coarse + 

fine)-to-cement ratio by weight, the coarse aggregate-to-fine aggregate ratio by weight, and the sand-tocement ratio by weight. These two models are very similar; however, the B3 model does not account for 

these aggregate contributions. Predictions of the BP model and the B3 model were compared, and it was 

found that the BP model was better able to predict the shrinkage of concrete specimens of various mix 

designs. The drying shrinkage model in HIPERPAV II was therefore updated, from the RILEM B3 model 

previously used to the BP model. This model is described in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

 
24 

Table 2. Hydration models identified for possible incorporation in HIPERPAV II. 

MODEL PROS CONS VALIDATION INPUTS OUT

Schindler Hydration Models(1)

-Practical -Can accommodate any 

cement type 

-Accounts for fineness 

-Empirical -Few tests results on mineral 

admixtures 

Yes, laboratory and limited field conditions

-Cement composition -Water-cement ratio -Mineral admixtures 

replacement 

-Degree of h-Activation e-Set time 

Swedish CCRI*(8) -Practical 

-Well established -Can accommodate any 

cement type 

-Data for many mix designs 

available 

-Effect of moisture not 

modeled 

-Effect of cement fineness 

cannot be modeled 

-Few test results on mineral 

admixtures 

Yes, under laboratory conditions 

-Mix proportions -Curing temperature -28-day strengths -Cement type 

-Compressiv-Modulus of -Poisson’s ra-Creep adjus-Degree of h-Total heat o

Dispersion Model(9) 

-Account for cement fineness

-Simplicity -Recognized and accepted 

-Limited data available on 

particle size distribution. 

Partially - Mean particle size 

- Rate constant 

-Degree of h-Strength vs

Hyperbolic Model(10)

-ASTM** standard model -Requires conversions from 

compressive to tensile 

Yes -Final strength 

-Activation energy -Set time 

-Strength ga

HYMOSTRUC(11) -Accounts for effect of 

moisture 

-Accounts for effect of 

moisture 

-Microstructure development 

is modeled 

-Effects of mineral and 

chemical admixtures are not addressed 

-Large investment in 

development time 

Yes -Cement composition 

-Particle size distribution-Water/cement ratio -Initial curing temp -Adiabatic testing -Concrete strength 

-Degree of h-Temperatur-Pore structu-Strength -Stress -Risk of crac

DuCOM(12) -Accounts for effect of 

moisture 

-Modeling of deterioration 

mechanisms (corrosion and sulfate attack) 

-Microstructure development 

is modeled 

-Large investment in 

development time 

-Moisture model needs 

improvement 

Yes -Mix proportions 

-Particle size distribution

-Initial curing 

temperature 

-Chemical composition -Structural dimensions 

-Porosity dis-Strength -Moisture di-Shrinkage, -Thermal str-Concentrati

harmful ag

Rahhal and Batic(13)

-All combinations of mineral 

admixtures considered 

- Argentinean cement types - Empirical model 

Yes, empirical -Mineral admixture 

replacement level 

-Cement heat of hydration 

-Blended cem

heat of hyd

*CCRI = Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute **ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials 

24 
25 

Concrete paving mix designs continually are being developed with lower water-to-cementitious 

materials ratios (w/cm). It is not uncommon for the w/cm to drop below 0.40. When this occurs, there is 

not enough water available in the fresh concrete mixture to allow for the complete hydration of the 

unhydrated cement grains. Two forms of shrinkage are apparent: drying shrinkage (already included in 

the HIPERPAV I prediction) and autogenous shrinkage. Autogenous shrinkage is a low w/cm 

phenomenon, and it cannot be ignored in these instances. For example, total shrinkage of a concrete 

mixture having a w/cm of 0.30 can be 50 percent autogenous shrinkage and 50 percent drying 

shrinkage. Neglecting autogenous shrinkage would significantly underestimate the concrete’s shrinkage 

in the field; therefore, identifying an autogenous shrinkage model was necessary. The autogenous 

shrinkage model identified for incorporation in HIPERPAV II is the one developed by Jonasson and 

Hedlund.(14) A detailed description of this model is presented in volume III, appendix B of this report 

series. 

3.3.3.5 Concrete Creep and Relaxation 

Efforts were also made to investigate further the extended triple power law creep/relaxation 

model identified from previous efforts. Although it was anticipated that such a model would require 

extensive calibration and validation efforts, an initial model evaluation was conducted during this project. 

This model is developed from the double power law and the triple power law.(14,15) The double 

power law is perhaps the most well known compliance function, and has been used by many authors, 

because it is based on extensive laboratory test results. The triple power law was developed to more 

accurately describe the long-term creep. Neither the double nor the triple power laws were calibrated for 

loading at early ages, and they were not intended to predict creep for young concrete.(2) Westman 

estimated that the double and triple power laws are only valid for loading ages larger than about 2 days.(3) 

Therefore, the triple power law was adjusted first by Emborg, and then by Westman, to account for 

loading at ages less than about 2 days.(2, 3) The extended triple power law, as documented by Westman, 

provides good agreement with early-age test data, and accounts for all the factors that could influence the 

time dependent deformation, such as: 

• Concrete age at setting. 

• Concrete age at loading (which is most important). 

• Applied stress level. 

• The influence of varying temperature. 

The model definition for the creep/relaxation model based on the extended triple power law is 

provided in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

3.3.3.6 Nonlinear Restraint Model 

Recognizing the nonlinear restraint effect imposed by some subbases, such as hot-mix asphalt 

subbases, a nonlinear model was also included in addition to the current linear one to provide for the 

characterization of such behavior. The nonlinear restraint model is described in volume III, appendix B 

of this report series. 
26 

3.3.3.7 Nonlinear Thermal Gradient Model 

Finally, recognizing that thermal gradients through the slab depth are nonlinear for the most part, 

the model developed by Mohamed and Hansen was included to determine an equivalent linear gradient as 

a function of a nonlinear one.(16) This model is described in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

3.3.4 JPCP Performance Models 

To analyze the behavior of JPCP and to predict JPCP distress development as a result of traffic 

loading, analytical models were selected. As stated in the objectives of this project, the most important 

factor considered when selecting these analytical models was the effect that early-age behavior factors 

had on long-term performance. Researchers found the size of the joint opening, curling and warping of 

the slab, and moisture loss at early ages in JPCP to be some of the primary early-age indicators of the 

pavement’s long-term performance. A brief description of primary early-age behavior factors is given in 

the following bullets. More detailed information on these factors can be found in volume II of this report 

series: 

• Joint opening controls the LTE across the joint, which controls how well the JPCP will 

perform over time. Large joint openings may lead to JPCP spalling, faulting, and transverse 

cracking. The joint opening at early ages is controlled primarily by the effect that 

temperature and moisture changes have on pavement and subbase properties such as concrete 

CTE, drying shrinkage, and subbase restraint. Joint opening varies with the daily temperature 

cycles due to changes in the pavement’s thermal conditions. Drying shrinkage, CTE, and 

pavement length also affect the joint opening. To control the joint opening to acceptable 

levels, properly curing the pavement at early ages is of paramount importance. 

• Evaporation of bleed water at the concrete surface is governed by the concrete temperature 

and climatic conditions such as windspeed, relative humidity, and air temperature. However, 

at any point during the early age of the pavement, the loss of moisture in concrete pavements 

will also be a function of the moisture transport characteristics of the concrete, the water 

available in the mix, and in particular, the water that has not been used for hydration. 

Moisture gradients usually develop in concrete pavements due to the loss of moisture to the 

environment. Under conditions where significant moisture is lost to the environment, critical 

moisture gradients may develop in the slab, leading to a reduction in the strength of the 

concrete at the slab surface, plastic shrinkage, and cracking. Moisture loss may later result in 

delamination and spalling of the concrete surface. 

• The temperature gradients during the early age are a function of the environmental conditions 

and the heat concrete hydration. The initial thermal gradient in the slab at set will influence 

the curling shape of the slab. Built-in curling is a term used for the curling state that develops 

at set and that later influences the curled shape of the slab as the thermal gradient is 

subsequently modified by the hydration process and climatic conditions. In general, when 

concrete sets, the temperature through the slab is generally not uniform, but rather is a 

function of the climatic conditions, the heat of hydration, and curing methods. Built-in 

curling may later translate into faulting and cracking problems as the level of stresses 

developed in the pavement slabs is increased as a function of traffic loads and long-term daily 

and seasonal climatic conditions. 
27 

A discussion of JPCP performance models that were identified in the literature search of this 

project is provided in this section, along with a discussion on the models that were finally incorporated in 

HIPERPAV II. The models are divided into four categories: 

1. Environmental. 

2. Long-term materials properties models. 

3. Structural behavior models. 

4. Distress prediction models. 

3.3.4.1 Environmental Models 

Table 3 provides a summary of the climatic models considered, including model basis, 

advantages, and disadvantages. The models selected for incorporation in HIPERPAV II were the FDM 

model developed under this study, and the subgrade moisture model by Lytton.(23)

The FDM is used to predict long-term concrete temperatures. The selection of this model is 

previously discussed in section 3.3.3.2. The FDM model is described in detail in volume III, appendix B 

of this report series. 

The moisture model provides a simple method to predict the average monthly moisture content in 

pavement base materials using site-dependent climate conditions, soil data, and some pavement geometry. 

This model is described in detail in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

3.3.4.2 Long-Term Materials Properties Models 

Mechanical properties used for long-term PCC characterization include modulus of elasticity and 

any of the following three strengths: tensile, flexural (modulus of rupture), or compressive. During the 

pavement life, the PCC slab is exposed to various stresses, such as curling and warping stresses, thermal 

axial stresses, and wheel load stresses. In the long term, one of the major failure modes is cracking due to 

fatigue. This generally has been found to be a function of the tensile stress to strength ratio at the bottom 

of the layer, implying that tensile strength is a significant characterization property. Unlike most concrete 

structures, JPCP does not rely on steel to withstand tensile stresses and therefore typically is designed 

using a specified tensile strength. Because concrete is much weaker in tension than in compression, 

tensile strength is the most critical strength characteristic. 

The elastic modulus is an estimate of the slope of the stress-strain curve in the elastic region and a 

good indicator of the overall structural stiffness of the concrete. Because stresses and strains are related 

through the elastic modulus under assumptions of linear elasticity, it is important that this property be 

characterized. 

Although conversion coefficients for the different strength types are user-defined in HIPERPAV 

II, default conversion models were investigated. The model sources identified are: 

• Conversion relationship between third point modulus of rupture (MOR) and splitting tensile 

strength developed by Melis et al.(17)

• Conversion relationship between third point MOR and center point MOR developed by 

Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo.(18)

• Conversion relationship between third point MOR and compressive strength developed by 

Raphael.(19)
28 

• Conversion relationship between compressive strength and modulus of elasticity 

recommended by the American Concrete Institute (ACI).(20)

In addition, the long-term strength gain after 28 days was investigated. Long-term strength and 

stiffness models recommended by the CEB/FIP1

 Model Code 1990 were incorporated. 

A detailed description of each of the above models is presented in volume III, appendix B of this 

report series. 

3.3.4.3 Structural Models (Load Transfer Efficiency, and Midslab Stress and Deflection Models) 

To predict accurately the response of a rigid pavement due to external wheel loads, a model is 

needed to assess the behavior of the pavement structure in the vicinity of discontinuities such as cracks 

and joints. Several structural response models based mainly on FEM modeling were identified. A 

summary of their advantages and limitations is presented in table 4. Initially, a FEM model such as 

KENSLABS had been proposed to predict slab stresses due to traffic loading for use in the pavement 

performance cracking models in HIPERPAV II.(21) However, due to the computational burden of the 

FEM model and because the cracking models selected are based on stresses predicted with Westergaard 

formulations, a structural model that accounts for LTE between slabs was developed under this study and 

was considered more appropriate for this purpose. The LTE, stress, and deflection models selected for 

incorporation in this study are presented in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

3.3.4.4 Distress Models 

As previously mentioned in section 3.3.2, several criteria were considered in the selection of each 

individual JPCP distress model. In selecting long-term distress prediction models, the most important 

criterion (with respect to this effort) is that the model account for early-age indicators for distress 

prediction such as joint opening and/or built-in curling. Tables 5 to 9 present the JPCP distress models 

identified in the literature. For these tables, the “Model Basis” category designates whether the model is 

mechanistic, empirical, or mechanistic-empirical in nature. Additional fields include the databases used 

for their development, the quality of data used in their development, model statistics, early-age modeling 

parameters used, and availability of required model inputs. 

3.3.4.4.1 Faulting 

Table 5 shows the faulting models identified. Models for both doweled and nondoweled 

pavements were investigated. The models selected are those developed by Smith et al. reported in 

FHWA-RD-89-137.(22) Selecting the same model source for both doweled and nondoweled pavements 

was important to avoid inconsistencies in predicting faulting distress under each condition. In addition, 

these models include an input for joint opening, which is considered an important indicator needed to 

relate the performance of the pavement to early-age conditions. Selection of these models was also 

reinforced because they are mechanistic-empirical in nature. Besides joint opening, they account for 

traffic loading, environmental conditions, support conditions, pavement structure, and the presence of 

dowels. Finally, these models were developed using the combined Concrete Pavement Evaluation 

System (COPES) and Performance/Rehabilitation of Rigid Pavements (RIPPER) databases with a large 

 1

 CEB stands for Euro-International Concrete Committee (Comité Euro-International du Béton), FIB stands for International Concrete 

Federation (Fédération Internationale du Béton) 
29 

data set of pavement sections in a variety of environmental regions (wet-freeze, wet-no freeze, dry-freeze 

and dry-no freeze) in the United States. (22) 

These faulting models originally were developed and calibrated based on a unique definition of 

joint opening. The joint opening prediction made by HIPERPAV II is based on a different approach than 

the FHWA model. The FHWA model is a closed-form and rather simple prediction, while the model in 

HIPERPAV II is based on a more sophisticated FDM-based analysis. Therefore, to use the joint 

prediction made by HIPERPAV II in predicting long-term faulting, a submodel was developed to convert 

the HIPERPAV II-predicted joint opening to the joint opening parameter used in the FHWA faulting 

model. 

A detailed description of the faulting models and development of the HIPERPAV II joint opening 

conversion model are presented in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 
Table 3. Climatic models. 

Model Model Basis Pro C

HIPERPAV II M-E* - Able to predict the early-age behavior of PCC 72 hours after 

construction 

- Transient FDM temperature core - Accounts for climatic conditions 

- Some empirical a

Lytton(23) E** - Fast run-time 

- Limited validation 

- Simplistic model 

assumptions 

ICM(23 M-E - Predicts moisture and temperature profiles in pavement structures - Moisture model s

development 

- Slow run-time 

*M-E = Mechanistic-Empirical **E = Empirical 

30 
Table 4. Structural behavior models. 

Model Model Basis Pro C

KENSLABS(21) M - FEM-based 

- User-defined dimensions - Two layers (bonded/un) with same/different material properties - Liquid/solid subgrade - Uniform/nonsupport to account for erosion - Multiple slabs with load transfer - Warping/curling with load response - Arbitrary loading conditions—wheel loading - Arbitrary shoulder conditions - Nonuniform slab/shoulder thickness 

- Large amounts o

storage 

ILLI-SLAB(24) M - FEM-based 

- User-defined dimensions, any number of slab arrangements, layer 

bonding 

- Two layers (bonded/un) with same/different material properties - Liquid/solid subgrade - Uniform/nonsupport to account for erosion - Multiple slabs with load transfer - Warping/curling with load response - Arbitrary loading conditions, axle configurations - Arbitrary shoulder conditions - Nonuniform slab/shoulder thickness 

- Large amounts o

storage 

- Poorly condition

ISLAB 2000(25) M - Improvement to ILLI-SLAB - Source code not JSLAB(26) M - FE used to compute critical stresses and deflections - Stiffness matrix 

correct 

- Based on early v

SLAB 

LTE, stress, and deflection 

M -Fast computations 

-Predicted stresses compatible with selected midslab cracking 

model inputs 

-Simplistic closed

31 
32 

3.3.4.4.2 Midslab and Corner Cracking Models 

Tables 6 and 7 present the midslab and corner cracking models identified during the literature 

search respectively. The models selected were those developed by Yu et al. in FHWA-RD-95-111 and 

the stress adjustment models developed by Lee and Darter and Lee et. al. (See references 27, 28, 29, and 

30.) The midslab cracking model is based on Westergaard stresses. Using this model, joint opening, 

LTE, and built-in curling can be accounted for by using the LTE, stress, and deflection model developed 

in this study. The accumulated fatigue damage is predicted, as is the percentage of cracked slabs, in both 

the longitudinal and transverse directions. 

These models were selected given the following considerations: 

• The model uses mechanistic components. 

• The fatigue model is based on Miners Law using the Westergaard edge stress prediction 

model. 

• By incorporating the LTE, stress, and deflection models, stress can be calculated for 

typical slab configurations, load transfer devices, and joint opening; these can be included 

as a predictor variable for the stress state at any given time as a function of climatic 

conditions using the HIPERPAV II joint opening prediction model. 

• By employing the stress adjustment factors developed by Lee and Darter, the model can 

be adapted to use load spectra or 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL). 

• A relative good fit of a comprehensive database was used for the midslab cracking model 

validation. 

More details on the selection and a detailed description of the midslab cracking models are 

provided in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

No corner cracking model was selected for incorporation in HIPERPAV II because the LTE 

model is one-dimensional and could not account for stress transfer efficiency on both directions as a 

function of joint opening near the corner location. The corner cracking models identified did not account 

for joint opening or were based on FEM runs impractical for incorporation in HIPERPAV II due to the 

analysis time required by the FEM. 

3.3.4.4.3 Spalling Model 

Table 8 shows spalling models identified. Although a number of models were identified, the 

difficulty to realistically account for all the factors affecting spalling distress was recognized during the 

TEP meetings. Since developing a new spalling model was out of the scope of this project, it was decided 

not to include a spalling distress model in HIPERPAV II during this effort. 

3.3.4.4.4 Roughness Model 

Two common roughness indicators are the Present Serviceability Index (PSI) and the 

International Roughness Index (IRI). A number of models for both roughness indicators were identified 
33 

in this project and are summarized in table 9. A detailed comparison of the models identified is presented 

in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 
Table 5. Faulting models. 

Models Model Source Model Type Development Database Quality of Data Used in Model Development Model Statistics Early-Age Modeling Parameter 

Yu et al., 1998 FHWA-RD-95-111(27)

MechanisticEmpirical COPES+ with 208 more 

sections 

Good N = 146 sections 

r2 = 0.60 

RSE = 0.056 mm 

Dowel bearing stress 

Simpson et al., 1994 SHRP P-393(31)

Empirical LTPP 

GPS-3 and GPS-4 

Good N = 59 sections 

r2 = 0.53 

RMSE = 0.071 mm 

None 

Doweled JPCP 

Smith et al., 1990 FHWA-RD-89-137(22)

MechanisticEmpirical COPES+ Good N = 559 sections r2 = 0.67 

SEE = 1.27 mm 

Dowel bearing stress, Joint opening 

Yu et al., 1998 FHWA-RD-95-111(27)

Empirical COPES+ with 

208 more sections 

Good N = 131 sections 

r2 = 0.45 

RSE = 0.86 mm 

None 

Smith et al., 1990 FHWA-RD-89-137(22)

MechanisticEmpirical COPES+ Good N = 398 sections r2 = 0.81 

SEE = 0.71 mm 

Joint opening, Corner deflectio

Nondoweled JPCP 

Simpson et al., 1994 SHRP P-393(31)

Empirical LTPP GPS-3 Good N = 25 sections 

r2 = 0.55 

RMSE = 1.19 mm 

None 

Titus-Glover et al., 1999 FHWA-RD-98-113(32)

MechanisticEmpirical LTPP Good N = 120 sections r2 = 0.56 

SEE = 0.762 mm 

Deflections of unloaded slab 

Doweled and Nondoweled JPCP 

Darter et al., 1985 COPES(33)

Empirical COPES Good N = 259 sections 

r2 = 0.79 

RMSE = 0.51 mm 

None 

N = number of observations r2 = coefficient of determination 

RMSE = root mean-square error RSE = relative standard error SEE = Standard Error of the Estimate 

34 
Table 6. Midpanel cracking models. 

Model Source Model Type Development Database Quality of Data Used in Model Development Model Statistics Early-Age Modeling Parameter 

Yu et al., 1998 FHWA-RD-95-111(27)

MechanisticEmpirical COPES+ with 208 more 

sections 

Good N = 465 sections 

r2 = 0.91 

SEE = 6.8% 

None 

Titus-Glover et al., 1999 FHWA-RD-98-113(32)

MechanisticEmpirical LTPP Good N = 92 sections r2 = 0.64 

SEE = 12% 

Damage due to temperature stresses 

Smith et al., 1990 FHWA-RD-89-137(22)

MechanisticEmpirical COPES+ Good - None 

Simpson et al., 1994 SHRP P-393(31)

MechanisticEmpirical LTPP Good - None 

Darter et al., 1985 COPES(33)

MechanisticEmpirical COPES Good N = 303 sections r2 = 0.69 

SEE = 33.3 m/km 

None 

Lee and Darter (28-30) Mechanistic n/a* - - Curling * FEM model development N = number of observations r2 = coefficient of determination 

SEE = Standard Error of the Estimate 

Table 7. Corner cracking models. 

Model Source Model Type Development Database Quality of Data Used in Model Development Model Statistics Early-Age Modeling Parameter 

Lee and Lee(34) Mechanistic n/a* - - Curling Titus-Glover et al., 1999 FHWA-RD-98-113(32)

MechanisticEmpirical LTPP Good N = 92 sections r2 = 0.69 

SEE = 9% 

Damage due to temperature stresses 

* FEM model development N = number of observations r2 = coefficient of determination 

SEE = Standard Error of the Estimate 

35 
Table 8. Spalling models. 

Models Model Source Model Type Development Database Quality of Data Used in Model Development Model Statistics Early-Age Modeling Parameter 

Simpson et al., 1994 SHRP P-393(31)

Empirical LTPP GPS-3 Good N = 56 sections 

r2 = 0.34 

RMSE = 11.05% joints 

None 

Titus-Glover et al., 1999 FHWA-RD-98-113(32)

MechanisticEmpirical LTPP Good N = 52 Sections r2 = 0.61 

RMSE = 12.0% joints 

Relative humiditfrom month of construction, Horizontal movement of sla

Senadheera and Zollinger, 1994(35,36)

Mechanistic - Empirical 

TTI Good - Moisture loss fro

concrete surface, joint opening 

Yu et al., 1998 FHWA-RD-95-111(27)

Empirical COPES+ with 

208 more sections 

Good N = 163 sections 

r2 = 0.76 

RSE = 5.1% joints 

None 

Doweled and Nondoweled JPCP 

Smith et al., 1990 FHWA-RD-89-137(22)

Empirical COPES+ Good N = 262 sections 

r2 = 0.59 

SEE = 9.3 joints/km 

None 

N = number of observations r2 = coefficient of determination 

RMSE = root mean-square error RSE = relative standard error SEE = Standard error of the estimate 

36 
Table 9. Roughness (ride) models. 

Pavement 

Type Model Source Model Type Development Database Quality of Data Used in Model Development Model Statistics Early-Age Modeling Parameter 

Titus-Glover et al., 1999 FHWA-RD-98-113(32)

Empirical LTPP GPS-3 Good N = 155 sections 

r2 = 0.50 

SEE = 0.33 m/km 

Faulting, Transverse cracking* 

Smith et al., 1990 FHWA-RD-89-137(22)

Empirical COPES+ Good N = 282 sections 

r2 = 0.58 

SEE = 0.31 PSR 

Faulting, Transverse cracking* 

Darter et al., 1985 COPES(33)

MechanisticEmpirical COPES Good N = 316 sections r2 = 0.69 

SEE = 0.25 PSR 

None 

Perera et al., 1998 FHWA-RD-97-147(37)

MechanisticEmpirical LTPP Good N = 104 sections r2 = 0.79 

SEE = 0.34 m/km 

None 

Yu et al., 1998 FHWA-RD-95-111(27)

Empirical COPES+ with 

208 more sections 

Good N = 144 sections 

r2 = 0.61 

RMSE = 1.01 m/km 

Faulting, Transverse cracking* 

Doweled and Nondoweled JPCP 

Hoerner, 2000 FHWA-RD-00-130(38)

Empirical LTPP GPS-3 Good N = 183 sections 

r2 = 0.70 

SEE = 0.35 m/km 

Faulting, Transverse cracking* 

Doweled JPCP 

Simpson et al., 1994 SHRP P-393(31)

Empirical LTPP GPS-3 Good N = 21 sections 

r2 = 0.55 

RMSE = 0.30 m/km 

None 

Nondoweled JPCP 

Simpson et al., 1994 SHRP P-393(31)

Empirical LTPP GPS-3 Good N = 28 sections 

r2 = 0.64 

RMSE = 0.49 m/km 

None 

* Faulting and transverse cracking models used in HIPERPAV II include early-age parameters. N = number of observations r2 = coefficient of determination 

RMSE = root mean-square error SEE = Standard error of the estimate 

37 
38 

The IRI model selected for use in HIPERPAV II is the one developed under FHWA-RD-00-130. 

Selection of this model was made after a parametric study with other IRI models and is based on a 

number of considerations, including: 

• It accounts for pavement structural distresses including cracking and faulting. Faulting 

and transverse cracking models used in HIPERPAV II include early-age parameters. 

Therefore, the model indirectly accounts for early-age parameters. 

• Roughness prediction over time is significantly influenced by initial roughness after 

construction.(38) This model includes roughness as an input therefore improving the 

accuracy of prediction. 

• This model was recently developed with data from sections on the LTPP General 

Pavement Studies (GPS) for JPCP (GPS-3). 

• As indicated in table 9, a reasonably good fit was obtained. 

 

The PSI model selected was developed with data form the LTPP GPS-3 sections and is as a 

function of IRI. The resulting model is also presented in volume III, appendix B of this report series. 

A summary list of models that have been identified for incorporation in HIPERPAV II is 

presented in table 10. 
39 

Table 10. JCP selected models. 

Model Type Candidate Model 

Environmental -HIPERPAV FDM Temperature model 

-Subgrade moisture model—Lytton et al., 

1990(23)

Structural Properties -Conversion relationship between third 

point modulus of rupture and splitting 

tensile strength—Melis et. al, 1985(17) 

-Conversion relationship between third 

point MOR and center point MOR—

Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo, 1987(18). 

-Conversion relationship between third 

point MOR and compressive strength—

Raphael, 1984(19) 

-Conversion relationship between 

compressive strength and modulus of 

elasticity—ACI-318-2002(20)

Structural Behavior -LTE, stress, and deflection models 

(volume III, appendix B of this report 

series) 

-FHWA-RD-95-111, 1995(27) Transverse Cracking 

-Stress adjustments—Lee and Darter 

1993–1994, Lee et. al, 1997(28,29,30)

Faulting with Dowels -FHWA-RD-95-111, 1995(27)

Faulting without Dowels -FHWA-RD-95-111, 1995(27)

Roughness -FHWA-RD-00-130, 1995(38) 

3.3.5 CRCP Models 

From the literature review on CRCP (see section 3.2.4), several models were identified as 

candidates to incorporate in HIPERPAV II for prediction of early-age behavior and long-term 

performance. In this section, the final CRCP model selected for incorporation in HIPERPAV II is 

presented, along with an explanation for its selection. 

Tables 11 and 12 list the identified models for CRCP early-age behavior and long-term 

performance prediction, respectively. These tables present a summary of advantages and disadvantages 

for the use of each one of the models, inputs required, outputs, validation, and need for further 

development. Early-age behavior models identified include CRCP-8, CRCP-9/10 (also known as 

CRCPFEM (since it is based on FEM), Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) model TTICRCP, and CTR 

crack width model. (See references 39, 40, 41, and 42.) A list of advantages and disadvantages for each 

model is provided in these tables. 

Using the selection criteria previously described in section 3.3.2, it is believed that CRCP-8 

would best fit all the requirements set for incorporation in HIPERPAV II. Although the CRCPFEM was 
40 

extensively evaluated for possible incorporation in HIPERPAV II, it was concluded that calibration and 

validation was required, and the schedule for those tasks was in conflict with the deadline for this project. 

As a result, the CRCP-8 model, widely used by the CRCP pavement community, was selected for 

incorporation in HIPERPAV II. The CRCP-8 model has also undergone extensive field validation and 

has been used throughout the world. A detailed description of this model is presented in volume III, 

appendix B of this report series. 

3.4 REVIEW OF FHWA STUDIES FOR POTENTIAL INCORPORATION IN 

HIPERPAV II 

One of the objectives under this project is to extend the guidelines to incorporate as many as two 

FHWA studies compatible with the HIPERPAV system. Six studies were evaluated for possible 

incorporation in HIPERPAV II: high strength concrete study; dowel bar study; performance-related 

specifications (PRS) study; curing guidelines study; curling and warping study; and a concrete mix 

optimization study. In the following sections, these studies are summarized and a framework for their 

incorporation in HIPERPAV II is presented. 

3.4.1 High Strength Study (FHWA-DTFH61-95-C-00108) 

A goal of the FHWA high strength study was to determine the effect of higher strength and 

associated concrete durability properties (permeability) on the long-term performance of pavements. The 

focus of the study was to examine how to eliminate distresses near joints or free edges. The distresses 

studied were spalling, faulting, transverse cracking, and corner breaks. Properties of the concrete 

investigated were tensile, flexural, and compressive strength; shrinkage; elastic modulus; fracture 

properties; air content; permeability; and thermal expansion. 

3.4.1.1 Effect of Concrete Properties on Spalling 

There are two types of spalling for concrete pavements: deflection spalling and delamination 

spalling. These two types of spalling are discussed in detail in volume II, chapter 4 of this report series. 

Spalling is typically associated with a weakening of the concrete. This weakening of the concrete can 

take place at early ages due to improper curing, or at later ages due to freeze-thaw cycles. The latter issue 

is addressed by Hansen et al.(43) Petrographic samples of concrete near a spalled joint reveal filling of the 

air voids with hydration products. The concrete lost its ability to resist freeze-thaw deterioration when 

this happened. When slabs are placed on top of an impermeable subbase, water can collect between the 

slab and the base. Subsequent freeze-thaw cycles can also lead to spalling.
Table 11. CRCP models identified for possible incorporation in HIPERPAV II (early-age behavior)

Model Model Basis* Pros Cons Valid Inputs Outputs 

CRCP-8(39) M-E -Mechanistic-Empirical 

-Validated 

-Crack width predictions 

are not accurate(44)

-1D, does not take into 

account temperature, moisture gradients 

Yes -Temperature drop 

-Drying shrinkage -Materials properties -Geometry -Strength gain -Friction characteristics 

-Crack spacing -Crack width -Steel stress -Bond developmen-Steel stress -Crack width 

CRCPFEM (40,45)

M -Mechanistic 

-2D-FEM (temperature 

gradient) 

-Relaxation/creep 

considered 

-Coarse mesh -Requires validation -Requires crack spacing as 

input 

No -Crack spacing 

-Bond stress characteristics-Geometry -Materials properties -Concrete temperature gradient -Drying shrinkage gradient-Friction characteristics 

-Concrete/steel 

displacement 

-Concrete stress -Steel stress -Crack width 

TTICRCP(41) M-E -Mechanistic-Empirical 

-Allows any type of 

bond-slip relationship 

-Better prediction of 

crack width 

-Requires crack spacing as 

input 

No -Crack spacing 

-Temperature drop -Drying shrinkage -Materials properties -Strength -Geometry -Bond stress characteristics-Friction characteristics 

-Concrete/steel 

displacement 

-Bond stress -Concrete stress -Steel stress -Crack width 

CTR** Crack Width Model(42)

E -Validated -Empirical Yes -Residual shrinkage 

-Materials properties -Temperature difference 

-Crack width 

* Model Basis: M – Mechanistic, E – Empirical, M-E – Mechanistic Empirical.**CTR – Center for Transportation Research

41 
Table 12. CRCP models identified for possible incorporation in HIPERPAV II (long-term perform

Model Model Basis* Pros Cons Valid Inputs Outputs 

FHWA Punchout(46)

M -Mechanistic -Requires validation No -Materials properties 

-Geometry -Crack spacing -Joint stiffness 

-Punchout failure 

CRCP-8 Punchout(39)

SM -Calibrated 

-Reliability included 

- Semi-mechanistic Calibrated -Wheel load stress -Materials properties 

-Geometry -Number of load 

applications 

-Fatigue coefficients 

-Punchout failure 

Delamination Spalling Model(47)

M -Mechanistic 

-Related to early age 

-Requires complex modeling of early-age delamination due to moisture loss 

No -Delamination depth 

-Tire pressure -Tire shear stress -Materials properties -Bond friction 

-Spalling failure 

Performance Models(48)

E -Simple -Empirical No -Geometry 

-Materials properties -ESALs -Subbase type 

-Failures per mile 

CTR** TxDOT Performance Models(49)

E -Simple -Empirical No -Geometry 

-ESALs -Support -Distress index 

-Distress index 

Blowup Model(50)

M -Mechanistic Requires validation No -Temperature increase 

-Materials properties -Geometry 

-Blowup failure 

* Model Basis: M – Mechanistic, E – Empirical, M-E – Mechanistic Empirical, SM – Semi-Mechanistic **CTR = Center for Transportation Research 

42 
43 

3.4.1.2 Effect of Concrete Properties on Faulting 

Faulting of pavements is believed to be a two-step process. First, the joint opens and water 

penetrates into the joint, causing erosion of the subbase/subgrade. PCC material properties, such as its 

CTE, and shrinkage, (in addition to slab-subbase interaction) control the size of the joint opening. If the 

opening is large, water penetration into the joint is likely to occur, and faulting will begin. However, if 

the joint does not open to a critical level, then faulting can be delayed. If the joint opening can be kept 

smaller than 0.6 to 0.75 millimeters (mm), aggregate interlock will provide load transfer, and this will 

keep the joint tight. 

After water has penetrated the joint, faulting is controlled primarily by the behavior of the 

material under the concrete slab. If the material is granular, erosion of the subbase at the leave edge of 

the slab and its subsequent accumulation under the approach edge of a JPCP slab will cause faulting. If 

the material is a cement-treated base (CTB), pumping erodable subgrade materials under the slab will lift 

the slab and cause faulting. Curling of the slab can contribute to an increased amount of faulting. 

3.4.1.3 Effect of Concrete Properties on Transverse Cracking and Corner Breaks 

To prevent transverse cracking and corner breaks, one possibility is to increase the strength of the 

concrete, that is, its tensile strength. In pavements, concrete fails in tension, and very rarely in 

compression. Because compressive strength of concrete is one of the properties commonly measured, 

relations between compressive strength and tensile strength were generated. However, increasing the 

compressive strength from 33 to 75 MPa only increases the tensile strength by 50 percent. Tensile 

strength of concrete is influenced by the aggregate-matrix bond. The bond does not affect the 

compressive strength to the same degree. Likewise, increasing the compressive strength of the concrete 

increases the concrete’s modulus of elasticity. This also increases the curling and warping stresses. 

Because fatigue of the concrete is believed to control transverse cracking and corner breaks, the stress-tostrength ratio is important. This ratio is used in the theoretical equations to predict the number of loads 

the concrete can sustain before cracking. Because an increase in concrete strength causes a similar 

increase in concrete stresses, it is unlikely that increasing the concrete’s strength will also increase 

pavement life. 

Decreasing the water-to-cement ratio is known to increase concrete’s tensile strength. Increasing 

cement content can also increase concrete strength, but this is not desirable because thermal expansion 

and contraction increase, as does the concrete’s shrinkage. The aggregate used in the concrete must be 

sound (not reactive or influenced by freezing and thawing) and have good fracture properties if the tensile 

strength is to increase. From a fracture perspective, to increase the tensile strength of the concrete, the 

resistance to crack initiation (fracture toughness) and crack propagation (fracture energy) has to be 

increased. Fracture toughness has been found to correlate positively to concrete tensile strength. Using 

hard coarse aggregate will increase the toughness of the concrete and also lead to a tougher failure. 

Larger sized aggregate will also make the concrete tougher, provided the aggregate is not susceptible to 

durability problems. 

Faulting of the concrete pavement can also lead to transverse cracking. Pumping and erosion of 

the soil beneath the slab when supported by a CTB can cause cracking; this results from traffic loading 

and curling stresses. Increasing slab thickness has been found to decrease the degree of transverse 

cracking in this scenario. 
44 

3.4.1.4 Concrete Durability Issues 

In pavements, it is not desirable for the strength of the concrete to decrease with time due to 

weathering. This will cause increased spalling and as well as cracking. Therefore, concrete should be 

designed to have good durability properties, such as resistance to freeze-thaw cycles and to air and water 

permeability. Low permeability will prevent freeze-thaw damage, as will a good air void system. 

3.4.1.5 Concrete Mix Proportions 

The concrete mix proportions are the key to obtaining the required concrete properties, whether 

they are for increasing the strength or for increasing the concrete durability. The primary variables 

affecting PCC properties are shown below in table 13. Coarse aggregate characteristics and water-tocement ratio are important in determining the properties of the concrete. 

Table 13. Primary variables affecting PCC properties. 

PCC Property 

Coarse 

Aggregate 

Characteristics 

w/c Ratio

Cement 

Type and 

Content 

Mineral 

Additives 

Air 

Entrainer 

PCC strength • • • • •

Elastic modulus • • 

Fracture energy • • 

Permeability • • •

CTE • • 

Air void system • • NOTE: Coarse aggregate characteristics refer to size, type, gradation, hardness and angularity. 

3.4.1.6 Potential HIPERPAV II Module Based on the High Strength Study 

If included in HIPERPAV II, a module can be developed to relate the PCC properties to the 

distresses quantitatively as well as a qualitatively. The primary PCC properties that influence the JPCP 

distresses are shown in table 14. 

Table 14. Primary PCC properties that influence JPCP distresses. 

PCC Property Joint Faulting Joint Spalling Transverse 

Cracking Corner Breaks 

PCC strength • • • •

Elastic modulus • • •

CTE • •

Shrinkage • 

Fracture energy • •

Permeability • 

Air void system • 
45 

3.4.2 Dowel Bar Study(51)

One of the possible improvements to HIPERPAV is the addition of a dowel bar module. Dowel 

bars are subjected to combined environmental loading and dynamic traffic loading at the joint during the 

pavement’s lifetime. This module can assess how dowel bars affect the early-age performance of the 

joint in JCPs (e.g., how the bearing stress of the dowel on the concrete changes as a function of 

temperature and time will be calculated). If the bearing stress is greater than the concrete’s early-age 

bearing strength, then it is probable that the dowel will loosen in the pavement at a faster rate than if the 

bearing stress was designed to be less than the concrete’s bearing strength. Cyclic loadings commonly 

cause crushing of the concrete at the dowel interface due to the high stresses at those locations. Voids at 

the dowel-concrete interface will eventually cause the dowel to provide reduced LTE. 

This section is divided into two parts. The first part provides background information on 

experimental instrumentation of dowels in a test section in Ohio, and the second section describes the 

input and potential output from the HIPERPAV II dowel analysis module. The data from the 

experimental study can be used to validate theoretical models that will possibly be used in the 

HIPERPAV II dowel analysis module. 

3.4.2.1 Experimental Study of Dowel Bars in Rigid Pavement 

An experimental study on the performance of dowel bars in rigid pavements was recently 

completed by Sargand at Ohio University.(51) One of the major rehabilitation costs for pavements is 

repairing prematurely deteriorated transverse contraction joints. Sawed joints are the primary location of 

premature distress. Joint performance is influenced mainly by temperature and moisture distributions 

through the pavement and the subgrade. Physical properties of the base and subgrade, and dowel bar 

type, size, and spacing are also factors. Typically, circular steel dowel bars are used to transfer vertical 

shear and horizontal bending moments between adjacent slabs. Construction methods used in placing 

these dowels are critical to their performance. For the bars to successfully transfer load, they must be 

aligned properly along their longitudinal axis and be lubricated over half their length before they are 

placed in the concrete. 

The purpose of the Ohio experimental study was to evaluate dowel bar response under field 

traffic loads and environmental conditions. The performance of steel and fiberglass dowel bars was also 

compared. The dowel bars were instrumented with strain gages so that the effect of traffic loading and 

environmental conditions on dowel-concrete bearing stress could be obtained. 

A typical Ohio PCC mix design was used. The PCC pavement is placed over a nonstabilized 

aggregate drainage base (100 mm thick). This layer is over a 150-mm-thick dense-graded aggregate base. 

A bituminous prime coat is applied between the two base materials. The steel dowel bars are 38.1 mm in 

diameter and 457 mm long with modulus of elasticity (E) of 200 gigapascals (GPa) and shear modulus 

(G) of 78 GPa. The fiberglass dowel bars are transversely isotropic; their properties parallel and 

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bar are: Elong = 5,516 GPa, Etrans = 13.8 GPa, Gtrans = 2.8 GPa, 

Poisson’s ratio νlong = 0.071 and νtrans = 0.42. The dowel bars are instrumented with two uniaxial strain 

gages and one rosette strain gage. The strain gages are epoxied to the center of the bar to coincide with 

the location of future joint sawing in the pavement. 

The dowels act to resist the temperature and moisture-induced pavement shapes. For example, if 

the slabs curl upward (as in figure 8), then the dowels bend negatively to resist slab deformation. 
46 

Deformed dowel

PCC

Aggregate base

Compressive stresses Compressive stresses

Figure 8. Schematic of dowel bar deformation due to slab curling. 

The opposite happens for slab warping, where the dowels bend positively (upward) to resist 

deformation. The stiffer the dowel, the more it is able to resist deformation. However, the resultant 

stresses in the dowel and at the dowel-concrete bearing location are higher. 

In this analysis, equations are provided to determine: 

1. Strain as a function of gage voltage for the uniaxial strain gages. 

2. Dowel bar bending moment as a function of strain. 

3. Dowel bar bending stress as a function of bending moment. 

 Vertical shear force and shear stress in the dowel can be determined based on the results obtained 

with the rosette strain gages. Finally, the measured bearing stress on the concrete due to the dowel bar is 

calculated, as is the allowable theoretical bearing stress (using an empirical equation). 

As shown in figure 9, the bending moments measured in the steel and fiberglass dowel bars are 

dependent upon the cyclic daily temperatures. 

The bending moments in the steel dowel bar were found to be three to four times greater than in 

the fiberglass dowel bars; this was due to the greater stiffness of the steel bars. Some of the 

measurements indicated that the calculated steel dowel bar bearing stress is greater than the early-age 

compressive strength of the concrete (during hydration), depending on dowel bar location. The stresses 

on the dowel were found to be 17.9 MPa at the pavement edge, 16.5 MPa at the wheel path, and 15.3 MPa 

at the pavement center. It is highly probable that the dowel will loosen and reduce its efficiency in 

transferring loads across the joint if the dowel bearing stress is greater than the concrete’s compressive 

strength. The fiberglass dowels did not induce a bearing stress comparable to the concrete’s compressive 

strength. 
47 

 

Time (hrs.)

Temperature 

difference 

through the 

pavement 

0 (°C)

Temperature difference

Dowel bar moment -5

2

0 96

-250

100 Dowel bar

bending 

moment

(N-m) 0

Time (hrs.)

Temperature 

difference 

through the 

pavement 

0 (°C)

Temperature difference

Dowel bar moment -5

2

0 96

-250

100 Dowel bar

bending 

moment

(N-m) 0

Figure 9. Conceptual schematic of dowel bar bending moment and its correlation to the temperature 

difference in the slab. 

To simulate the effect of wheel loads on the pavement joint, the Falling Weight Deflectometer 

(FWD) test was used. FWD is one of the most popular nondestructive dynamic testing devices in the 

pavement industry. The results show, as expected, that the joint did not crack where the strain gages are. 

Moments in the steel dowel bars were much higher than for the fiberglass bars. Vertical shear in the 

dowel bars was also calculated at the approach, joint, and leave sections. Again, the vertical shear is 

greater in the steel dowel bars than in the fiberglass bars. 

The addition of a dowel analysis module in HIPERPAV II is feasible. This module could be used 

to predict the long-term performance of the dowels based on their early-age behavior. If the dowel 

bearing stress on the concrete is greater than the concrete’s bearing strength during the first 72 hours after 

pavement construction, it is likely that the dowel will loosen from the concrete under additional loading, 

and its LTE would be reduced. This module could be used to reduce expensive and time-consuming 

pavement rehabilitation costs, because deterioration of the JCP’s transverse joint is one of the most 

common distresses. 

3.4.3 Performance-Related Specifications Study (See references 52, 53, 54, and 55.)

Adding a PRS module to HIPERPAV II for JPCP is a possibility. This section summarizes past 

work on PRS and describes how a module can be incorporated in HIPERPAV II. 

3.4.3.1 Performance-Related Specifications 

Acceptance quality characteristics (AQC) are pavement properties that can be measured 

immediately after construction, such as concrete strength, slab thickness, and initial smoothness, and can 

be controlled directly by the contractor. PRS is the method that can directly relate these early-age 

pavement properties directly to pavement performance (distresses), maintenance and rehabilitation 

(M&R) costs, and finally to the pavement’s life cycle costs (LCC). The result of this analysis is the pay 

adjustment factor for the contractor. Pay adjustment is based on the comparison between the pavement’s 

“As-Designed” LCC (LCCDES) and the “As-Constructed” LCC (LCCCON). If LCCCON is less than LCCDES

because of the high quality of the product delivered by the contractor, then the contractor will receive a 

pay increase. However, if the opposite occurs, then the contractor will receive a pay decrease. PRS 

allows for a rational determination of pay adjustment factors. It also can be used to determine the optimal 

values of the AQC (mean and standard deviation) for the optimal financial return for the contractor and 
48 

for the State highway agency (SHA). PRS links materials and construction practices directly to pavement 

performance. 

A simplified schematic showing how PRS works is provided in figure 10. PRS are similar to 

quality assurance (QA) specifications. However, QA specifications only specify the quality of the 

product and not the desired performance of the pavement. QA specifications address only item 1 in figure 

10, while PRS address all 5 items. 

1. Select desired AQC (acceptance quality characteristics)

2. Quantify relationships (models) for distress prediction

3. Predict pavement performance

4. Calculate life cycle costs (LCC) 

for ‘as-designed’ LCCDES and‘as-constructed’ pavements LCCCON

5. Calculate pay factor for contractor 

If LCCDES > LCCCON, pay decrease

IF LCCDES < LCCCON, pay increase

1. Select desired AQC (acceptance quality characteristics)

2. Quantify relationships (models) for distress prediction

3. Predict pavement performance

4. Calculate life cycle costs (LCC) 

for ‘as-designed’ LCCDES and‘as-constructed’ pavements LCCCON

5. Calculate pay factor for contractor 

If LCCDES > LCCCON, pay decrease

IF LCCDES < LCCCON, pay increase

Figure 10. Simple schematic outlining PRS. 

First, the SHA should identify the distresses that should be controlled by the specifications. The 

distresses selected are function of the aspects of pavement performance that the SHA wants to improve. 

Second, the desired AQC are selected. These are properties of the pavement that the contractor 

controls, and are properties that impact the long-term performance of the pavement. At the lowest level 

of PRS, typical AQC are concrete strength, concrete thickness, air content of the concrete, and initial 

roughness of the pavement. Other AQC that are being considered for inclusion in the future include 

percent consolidation around dowels, tie bar depth, and sawcut depth. The mean values and standard 

deviations of these properties impact the final pay adjustment. Therefore, it is important to adopt an 

acceptance sampling and testing plan for the determination of these properties. Because the AQC should 

be obtained immediately after construction, it is necessary to have models that can predict the long-term 

properties based on the early-age properties. 

Third, the pavement distress models are selected. For JPCP, typical distress models selected are 

indicators of faulting, transverse cracking, transverse spalling, and present serviceability rating (PSR). 

The models are chosen because they relate the AQC to the distress type. However, AQC are not the only 

input to these models. In addition, constant values are input to the model, for example climate, traffic, 

and project location. However, the contractor does not have control over all these properties. 

After relating AQC to pavement distresses, pavement performance can be predicted. Figure 11-

14 illustrate that PRS quantify the change in the distresses with time. 

The fourth step is calculating LCC. LCC takes into account the M&R plan and the unit costs for 

M&R. M&R costs can be divided into SHA costs and user costs. The SHA costs are day-to-day 

maintenance, localized rehabilitation (individual slabs and joints), and global rehabilitation (pavement 

replacement). In the FHWA PaveSpec software, local rehabilitation is considered on a sublot basis and 

global rehabilitation on a lot basis. Typical costs to the user are travel time, vehicle operation, accident 

costs, and discomfort costs. 
49 

The final step is to calculate pay factors. Different methods are used to calculate pay factors 

dependent on the level of PRS selected. If a Level A PRS is chosen, then an independent pay factor is 

calculated for each AQC. Finally, a composite pay factor is calculated which is a mathematical function 

of each independent AQC. However, if a Level B PRS is selected, the interactions between the AQC are 

accounted for (e.g., how concrete strength affects pavement thickness). Computer simulation (i.e., using 

the FHWA PaveSpec software) is necessary to calculate the pay factor. Faulting

Time

Figure 11. JPCP pavement performance in terms of faulting. % Slabs cracked

Time

Figure 12. JPCP pavement performance in terms of transverse cracking. % Spalled joints

Time

Figure 13. JPCP pavement performance in terms of spalled joints. 
50 

PSR

Time

Figure 14. JPCP pavement performance in terms of initial pavement roughness. 

3.4.3.2 PRS Benefits 

Four benefits of PRS design for SHAs are:(52)

• PRS provides well-defined AQC target values (mean and standard deviation). A 

particular pavement quality can be reached if the target AQC is achieved. 

• PRS provides a rational means to determine pay adjustments. 

• PRS relates construction properties to pavement performance and LCC. 

• Pavement costs will decrease once a rational PRS plan has been implemented. This is 

because both the SHA and the contractor strive to minimize LCC. 

3.4.3.3 PRS Levels 

There are three discrete levels of PRS implementation.(52) Level A is the simplest and most 

readily implementable PRS. Complexity increases from Level B to Level C. Three factors comprise the 

PRS levels. 

• Methods of acceptance testing (tests currently in use by the SHA). 

• Pay adjustment method (with more tests in situ, such as cores, air content, etc.). 

• Use of nondestructive tests. 

The Level A method of acceptance testing involves in situ sampling and testing from sublots of 

the constructed concrete pavement. A pavement lot is “a discrete quantity of constructed pavement to 

which an acceptance procedure (and corresponding pay adjustment) is applied. All pavement placed 

within a lot should consist of the same mix design and material sources, should be subjected to the same 

support conditions, and should consist of the same design characteristics.”(52) For Level B, sampling and 

testing should include additional in situ testing in addition to nondestructive testing. For Level C, 

nondestructive testing to determine concrete properties primarily should be used. Level C is typically 

described as a futuristic PRS level. 

3.4.3.4 Prospective PRS Module in HIPERPAV II 

PRS and HIPERPAV systems can be thought of as truly complementary. PRS are a means to 

directly address the impacts of various design and construction features on the resulting pavement 

performance. On the other hand, HIPERPAV is able to verify the impacts that these design and 

construction features may have with respect to the potential for early-age damage. For example, if 

strength is selected as an AQC in the PRS system, then the contractor may have an incentive to increase 
51 

the strength. Often, a higher cement factor is selected to achieve the higher strength. Although the 

payment under the PRS system could serve to benefit the contractor, the performance may not necessarily 

improve. Although higher strength will increase the predicted fatigue life of the pavement, the higher 

cement factor could also lead to early-age problems. The interaction of the advantages and disadvantages 

of the strength gain are not easy to quantify. The problem is compounded with separate programs 

(PaveSpec used for PRS, and HIPERPAV used for early-age, damage-related specifications), since the 

user would need to run both systems independently, requiring manual interpretation from both systems. 

However, if brought together, the components of the PaveSpec and HIPERPAV predictive capabilities 

can present the user with this information in a straightforward and easy-to-understand fashion. 

To incorporate early-age damage related specification concepts into HIPERPAV, a substantial 

amount of additional work would have to be performed. As a start point, the lowest equivalent PRS 

Level A could be added. AQC would have to be designated in the software, and their standard deviations 

would be included. An additional module would be required so that the lots and sublots could be defined 

for all sampling and testing. Likewise a pay factor module, an LCC analysis module, and an M&R costs 

module would need to be added. As new models that are able to predict interactions between concrete 

properties of interest and innovative test procedures become available, Levels B and C could be 

incorporated later. 

In general, three unique ways of integrating HIPERPAV with standard specifications are 

possible: 

1. Merging standard specifications into HIPERPAV: This method consists of incorporating 

the text of standard specifications into HIPERPAV through a knowledge base. It would 

provide recommendations and warnings during the HIPERPAV runs that relate to items 

considered in the standard specifications, tying them to the inputs in the software. 

2. Merging HIPERPAV into standard specifications: In this method, standard specifications 

could be written to require the use of a temperature management software such as 

HIPERPAV, further assuring that uncontrolled cracking is avoided. 

3. Integrating HIPERPAV and PaveSpec: This method involves combining HIPERPAV 

and PaveSpec together as described in the above paragraphs, and would be ideal for 

highway agencies currently considering PRS. 

The best option from the above three would depend on the current specifications being used by 

any individual SHA. It is believed that the first method—merging standard specifications into 

HIPERPAV—would be the most readily implementable, because it involves less risk to the highway 

agency in terms of liability. On the other hand, following the current trend of highway agencies shifting 

to PRS, integrating HIPERPAV and PaveSpec would provide an ideal tool for implementing such a 

specification. 

3.4.4 Curing Study 

One FHWA contract currently underway is intended to provide guidelines for curing of PCC 

pavements (PCCP).(56) This section describes briefly the objectives of that study, and evaluates the 

possibility of including the resulting PCCP curing guidelines in HIPERPAV II. 
52 

3.4.4.1 PCCP Curing Guidelines 

The initial efforts under the FHWA curing study have been compiled into an interim report.(56) 

That interim report is the primary source of information in evaluating the guidelines that are expected to 

be available in the near future. 

The primary project objectives identified on the FHWA curing study are: 

• Develop a summary of curing standards, current practice, new technologies, and 

published research. 

• Compile gathered information into a guide on curing practices for PCCP. 

• Identify deficiencies in the current practice. 

• Develop a plan for correcting deficiencies of the current practice. 

Based on the information search on PCCP curing, a number of guidelines on curing methods and 

procedures are recommended in the report. These recommendations are outlined in figure 15. These 

guidelines primarily address the selection of curing methods, duration of curing, and temperature 

management during placement. 

Selection of Curing Methods. The curing methods section in the guidelines is divided into 

curing compound methods, water-added methods, and water-retention methods. The selection of 

curing compounds is primarily based in economic and practical considerations rather than quality 

or performance. 

Selection of the curing compound method is recommended primarily for large placement areas 

such as highway applications, where the curing compound is the only practical option. Curing 

compounds are also recommended when other curing materials are unavailable. 

Selection of water-added versus water-retention methods is based primarily on the availability of 

water for hydration. Because water-cement ratios lower than 0.40 lead to insufficient hydration 

of the cement paste, this threshold is used for selecting curing methods. Water-added methods 

are recommended whenever the water-cement ratio is equal or less than 0.40, or when expansive 

cement is used. For water-cement ratios greater than 0.40, the risk of damage to the concrete is 

lower, and water-retention methods are considered a more viable option. Water-retention 

methods are also recommended whenever curing compound methods are not suitable, and when 

no risk on excessive evaporation is present. 

For each of the curing methods, additional guidelines on material selection, application rate, time 

of application, inspection, and curing verification are also presented. The selection is based 

primarily on select standards, climatic conditions (evaporation rate), mix design and materials 

(bleeding rate), and recommended practice. 

Duration of Curing. Initial guidelines on duration of curing are also presented based on strengthgain rate criteria. However, additional work is required to develop guidelines on the duration of 

curing based on concrete durability. 

Temperature Management. Temperature management is addressed in terms of cold weather 

concreting and hot weather concreting. For temperature management under hot weather, initial 
53 

recommendations are made in terms of preventive measures and adjustments to the curing 

methods (e.g., application rate). Procedures to determine the expected temperature drop in the 

concrete, and calculation of thermal stresses using software programs such as HIPERPAV, are 

also considered. In addition, estimating potential risk in concrete strength reduction for high 

temperature curing is mentioned. Additional work to address this issue is expected. Time of day 

of construction is also addressed, and recommendations in scheduling construction are made to 

avoid coincidence of the heat of hydration peak and the maximum temperature of the concrete 

due to solar radiation. 

For temperature management during cold weather, precautions and recommendations are given to 

protect concrete from freezing, and to maintain a uniform concrete temperature. Primary 

measures mentioned in the guidelines include: insulation, heated enclosures, and need for 

moisture retention. More work is expected for developing cold weather concreting guidelines. 

3.4.4.2 Benefits of Incorporating the Curing Study in HIPERPAV II 

Incorporating the curing guidelines in HIPERPAV II is considered beneficial, as it would 

complement the software with useful recommendations on improving the performance of concrete 

pavements through appropriate selection of curing methods, as well as guidelines on the application and 

duration of curing procedures. 

Provided that the curing guidelines address the effect of moisture loss on strength gain, the 

accuracy of the strength gain prediction with HIPERPAV for different curing methods would also be 

enhanced. 

Finally, it is believed that since HIPERPAV predicts the temperature development in the concrete 

during the early age, incorporating curing guidelines in HIPERPAV would help users address temperature 

management-related issues such as thermal stress development, potential of strength reduction (high 

temperature), strength development during cold weather concreting, and freezing risk. 
54 

Water-Retention

Methods

Temperature

Management

Water-Added

Methods

Curing-Compound

Methods

Choosing Curing Limits on Water Materials

Compounds

Time of Inspection

Application

Application Rate

Time of Inspection Verification

Application

Inspection

Verification of

Curing

Duration of

Curing

Select 

Curing Method

Water-Retention

Methods

Temperature

Management

Water-Added

Methods

Curing-Compound

Methods

Choosing Curing Limits on Water Materials

Compounds

Time of Inspection

Application

Application Rate

Time of Inspection Verification

Application

Inspection

Verification of

Curing

Duration of

Curing

Select 

Curing Method

Figure 15. General outline of the FHWA curing guide.(56)

3.4.5 Curling/Warping Study 

An FHWA study on the modeling of curling and warping behavior of PCCP (Early and LongTerm Effects of Curling and Warping on Jointed Concrete Pavement—DTFH61-95-C-00021) was under 

development at the time of writing this report. Although not enough information on the curling/warping 

study could be obtained at the time of writing this report, the results of this study will include new and 

improved models for predicting the curling and warping response. Since curling and warping are already 

an integral part of the HIPERPAV system, these models would be a natural extension to the overall total 

systems approach in HIPERPAV II. 

3.4.6 Mix Optimization Study 

Under a research project, “Concrete Mixture Optimization Using Statistical Methods,” of the 

FHWA Concrete Pavement Technology Program (CPTP), a straightforward but powerful approach to 

select mixture proportions based on a number of performance criteria was developed.(57,58) The technique 

had been used previously by the petrochemical and food industries, among others, and was adapted for 

use on concrete mixes in that project. It employs the use of statistical techniques for optimization of 

given performance criteria (i.e., slump, strength, cost) based on results from experimental batches. This 
55 

methodology provides the flexibility for optimizing virtually any combination of performance criteria 

defined by the user. 

Over the past 5 years, FHWA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

have further developed this optimization approach, and have recently completed a Web-based application 

named COST (Concrete Optimization Software Tool).(59)

The mix optimization procedure used in COST is summarized below: 

1. Responses to be measured are specified by the user (i.e., slump, strength, cost). 

2. The mixture components considered for optimization and proportioning limits for each 

component are specified. 

3. Based on the above information, an experimental design is developed to produce a 

factorial of mixes for laboratory testing. 

4. Trial batches are run and the responses of interests are measured. 

5. With the results from laboratory testing, polynomial models are developed and calibrated 

to predict the performance results as a function of the mix proportions. 

6. Weight (desirability) functions are assigned to the various performance measures (i.e., 

minimum cost, maximum strength, target slump). 

7. Statistical tools and plots are used for data analysis and interpretation. 

8. Mix designs are scored based on the weight functions assigned for each individual 

response. 

9. Numerical optimization techniques are used to identify optimum mixture proportions. 

3.4.6.1 COMET 

A simplified concrete mix optimization module named Concrete Optimization, Management, 

Engineering, and Testing (COMET) is proposed for incorporation in HIPERPAV II. COMET would be 

based on the same principles used in developing COST. A schematic of COMET is envisioned in figure 

16. As seen in this figure, COMET follows the same general logic as previously described, but with some 

notable modifications. The mix optimization procedure in COMET illustrated in figure 16 is described 

below: 

1. To ensure the greatest potential for implementation (requiring minimal training), mix 

constituents are limited to cement, pozzolan, water, coarse aggregate, and fine aggregate. 

Variables that the user can optimize are limited to coarse aggregate fraction, cementitious 

content, pozzolan substitution, and water-cementitious materials ratio (box 1). 

2. Optimization ranges are provided by the user for every variable, and a total of 29 mixes 

are developed for the experimental program (box 2). 
Mix Constituents:

• Cement, pozzolan, water,

coarse aggregate, and fine aggregate

• Specific gravity• Unit cost ($/kg)

Range of four optimization variables:

n Coarse aggregate fraction

(weight % of total aggregate)

o Cementitious content (kgm3)p Pozzolan substitution

(weight % of total cementitious)

q w/cm ratio

1. Factorial Inputs

• Extremes and midpoints of 

four optimization variables

• 25 unique PCC mix designs +• 4 redundant mixes =• 29 total PCC mix designs

2. Factorial of Mixes

Mix properties to be optimized:

• Total unit cost of PCC • Early-age (72-hr) strength• 28-day strength

Mix properties can be:

• Measured in the lab, and/or• Predicted using models

(e.g., HIPERPAV)

Measured and/or predicted for

each mix in factorial

3. Mix Properties

Predic

m

A func

fram

4

Example

• Boundaries are factorial are

limits of optimization variables

• Thousands of mixes “simulated”• Mix properties of each mix

Estimated using regressionmodels

5. Large Factorial Analysis

Unit Cost of PCC Early-Age Strength

28-Day Strength

Desirability

01

Desirability

01

Desirability

01

The user’s satisfaction with various

magnitudes of mix properties

6. Desirability Function Inputs

• Desirabil

calcula

• Mixes ar

to lowe

• “Optimum

X perce

7. O

Mix Constituents:

• Cement, pozzolan, water,

coarse aggregate, and fine aggregate

• Specific gravity• Unit cost ($/kg)

Range of four optimization variables:

n Coarse aggregate fraction

(weight % of total aggregate)

o Cementitious content (kgm3)p Pozzolan substitution

(weight % of total cementitious)

q w/cm ratio

1. Factorial Inputs

• Extremes and midpoints of 

four optimization variables

• 25 unique PCC mix designs +• 4 redundant mixes =• 29 total PCC mix designs

2. Factorial of Mixes

• Extremes and midpoints of 

four optimization variables

• 25 unique PCC mix designs +• 4 redundant mixes =• 29 total PCC mix designs

2. Factorial of Mixes

Mix properties to be optimized:

• Total unit cost of PCC • Early-age (72-hr) strength• 28-day strength

Mix properties can be:

• Measured in the lab, and/or• Predicted using models

(e.g., HIPERPAV)

Measured and/or predicted for

each mix in factorial

3. Mix Properties

Mix properties to be optimized:

• Total unit cost of PCC • Early-age (72-hr) strength• 28-day strength

Mix properties can be:

• Measured in the lab, and/or• Predicted using models

(e.g., HIPERPAV)

Measured and/or predicted for

each mix in factorial

3. Mix Properties

Predic

m

A func

fram

4

Example

• Boundaries are factorial are

limits of optimization variables

• Thousands of mixes “simulated”• Mix properties of each mix

Estimated using regressionmodels

5. Large Factorial Analysis

Unit Cost of PCC Early-Age Strength

28-Day Strength

Desirability

01

Desirability

01

Desirability

01

The user’s satisfaction with various

magnitudes of mix properties

6. Desirability Function Inputs

• Desirabil

calcula

• Mixes ar

to lowe

• “Optimum

X perce

7. O

Figure 16. Conceptual representation of the COMET module in HIPERPAV II. 

56 
57 

3. Optimization responses are fixed to early-age strength, long-term strength, and cost per 

cubic yard. A unique addition to the process is made here, whereas the COST system 

simply prompted the user to enter lab-measured properties. HIPERPAV II optionally 

utilizes analytical models to predict the same properties. This addition allows the 

optimization tool to be used in a planning stage, where the mix constituents may not be 

readily known or available for testing (box 3). 

4. Regression models based on the results from the experimental program or from the 

predicted responses are developed and calibrated to predict the performance results as a 

function of the mix proportions (box 4). 

5. With the models developed, thousands of mixes are simulated, and the responses for 

every mix computed (box 5). 

6. The user has the flexibility to assign desirability functions to the various optimization 

responses (box 6). 

7. Finally, optimum mixes are identified in terms of the individual desirability for every 

response and in terms of the maximum overall desirability for all responses (box 7). 

3.4.7 FHWA Studies Selected for Incorporation 

Although all FHWA studies reviewed have a potential for successful implementation in 

HIPERPAV II, only two of these studies had to be selected. Several factors were considered for this 

selection, including the status of completion, level of difficulty required for incorporation, easiness of 

implementation, and usability by the pavement community. Table 15 presents a discussion of the pros 

and cons considered during the selection process. Based on the advantages and disadvantages identified 

on each study, the dowel bar study and the mix optimization study were identified as the best candidates 

for incorporation in HIPERPAV II.
58 

Table 15. Pros and cons of the FHWA studies identified for incorporation in HIPERPAV II. 

FHWA Study Pros Cons 

The Effects of Higher 

Strength and Associated 

Concrete Properties on 

Pavement Performance 

(FHWA-RD-00-161)(41)

• Examines the effect of higher strength and 

durability properties of concrete on long-term 

performance and is inline with the objectives of 

the long-term JPCP module in HIPERPAV II. 

• This study had been completed at the time of this 

selection. 

• Although guidelines are 

provided, no specific models 

are identified for performance 

prediction. 

Performance of Dowel 

Bars and Rigid 

Pavement(51)

• Examines the effect of bearing stress at the 

dowel locations as a result of environmental and 

traffic loading. 

• Models for prediction of dowel stresses coupled 

with HIPERPAV predictions are readily 

available. 

• This study had been completed at the time of this 

selection. 

• Simulation of dowel bearing 

stress for traffic loading may 

require further development. 

Guide to Developing 

Performance-Related 

Specifications for PCC 

Pavements(52-55)

• PRS and HIPERPAV can be used as 

complimentary tools for identifying desirable 

acceptance quality characteristics. 

• This study had been completed at the time of this 

selection. 

• A substantial amount of 

additional work would be 

required for incorporation of 

this module. 

• Only a small portion of the 

PRS study could be 

realistically added within the 

time constraints for this 

project. 

Curing of Portland 

Cement Concrete 

Pavements(56)

• This study would complement HIPERPAV with 

useful recommendations for selection of curing 

methods. 

• Provided that the curing guidelines address the 

effect of moisture loss on strength gain, the 

accuracy of the strength gain prediction with 

HIPERPAV for different curing methods would 

be enhanced. 

• The temperature management concepts in the 

curing guidelines could be complemented with 

HIPERPAV predictions. 

* 

Early and Long-Term 

Effects of Curling and 

Warping on Jointed 

Concrete Pavement 

FHWA contract No. 

DTFH61-95-C-00021 

• Models developed for prediction of curling and 

warping response are directly applicable to 

HIPERPAV and could be used to enhance 

prediction of pavement behavior. 

* 

Concrete Mixture 

Optimization Using 

Statistical Methods(57,58)

• The concepts in the mix optimization study are 

easily implementable in HIPERPAV. 

• Incorporation of this module in HIPERPAV 

would address the request from many users 

during previous implementation efforts. 

• This study had been completed at the time of this 

selection. 

• No particular drawbacks for 

incorporating this module in 

HIPERPAV were noticed. 

* At the time of this selection process, this study was still in progress. 
59 

CHAPTER 4. GUIDELINE ENHANCEMENTS AND EVALUATION 

4.1 APPROACH 

The total systems approach that the project team has adopted served as the common methodology 

and the general philosophy throughout the enhancement of the software guidelines. This unique approach 

allows for the integration of a number of disconnected concepts into a unified, interconnected entity. 

As discussed in chapter 1, the total systems approach allows the various components of the 

current HIPERPAV system to be integrated easily to work in conjunction with the proposed modules to 

be developed in this phase. This chapter addresses the technical approach that was taken to enhance the 

guidelines by incorporating the JPCP long-term module and the CRCP early-age module. In addition, the 

design of the software user interface and development approach for incorporation of each of the 

individual modules in HIPERPAV II is described. 

4.1.1 CRCP Early-Age Behavior 

The approach in developing the CRCP module for early-age behavior is similar to the current 

HIPERPAV I system for JPCP. The framework for the CRCP module is illustrated in figure 17. This 

figure presents the interactions of the models used to predict the development of strength and stresses in 

the pavement and the resulting cracking behavior. 

Temperature Prediction

Strength

Crack Spacing

Crack Width

Steel Stress

Bond Development

Steel Restraint

Shrinkage Stress

Subbase Restraint

Strain and

Restraint Models

Stress

Steel CTE

PCC CTE

Creep-Adjusted

Elastic Modulus

Mechanical 

Properties

Temperature Prediction

Strength

Crack Spacing

Crack Width

Steel Stress

Bond Development

Steel Restraint

Shrinkage Stress

Subbase Restraint

Strain and

Restraint Models

Stress

Steel CTE

PCC CTE

Creep-Adjusted

Elastic Modulus

Mechanical 

Properties

Figure 17. CRCP early-age module. 

Like the early-age JPCP module, the CRCP module uses the HIPERPAV core for temperature 

prediction. The HIPERPAV I core is a two-dimensional FEM model that governs the heat transport in 

the concrete pavement. HIPERPAV II has been upgraded with a FDM-based model. With the concrete 
 

60

temperature as predicted by the HIPERPAV temperature core, coupled with the maturity model (based on 

the Arrhenius method), the development of the strength and modulus of elasticity are predicted. 

Concrete and steel stresses are predicted in terms of the volumetric changes that accompany the 

predicted change in concrete temperature under the defined restraint conditions. One of the mechanical 

properties required for determining stresses is the CTE of both concrete and steel. 

Volumetric changes in the concrete are influenced largely by temperature and moisture changes. 

As these changes are restrained due to steel restraint, friction with the subbase, and the weight of the slab, 

stresses develop in the concrete. In addition to predicting mechanical properties and concrete 

temperature, the slab behavior in terms of stress development also is predicted. Modeling the CRCP 

early-age behavior characterizes the interaction between the steel and the concrete subjected to the 

various loads and restraints. By computing the stresses and strength along the pavement, the final crack 

spacings, widths, and steel stresses are solved. 

“Early age” in HIPERPAV II includes the first 72 hours after construction for both JPCP and 

CRCP. However, in the case of CRCP, the cracking behavior continues to change until approximately 1 

year after construction. After 1 year, cracking commonly remains constant. HIPERPAV II predicts the 

cracking behavior of CRCP during the early age and also during the early life (up to 1 year) to 

realistically assess the behavior of CRCP in service. 

4.1.2 JCP Long-Term Performance 

This section describes the overall functionality of the JCP long-term performance module. Figure 

18 illustrates how each one of the different models is assembled in the HIPERPAV II system. The 

process is divided in nine different steps: 

4. Characterize Pavement Geometry, Traffic,

Environment, and Materials

6a. Joint

Faulting

Progression

6b. Joint

Spalling

Progression

6c. Corner

Cracking

Progression

6d. MidSlab

Cracking

Progression

8. 

Analysis Period 

Reached?

No

9. Report Comparative

 Results

Yes

2. Predict Early-Age JPCP Behavior

5. Model Pavement Behavior

(Stress, Strain, Deflection)

Progression

6c. Corner

3. Loop Over Each Seasonal Period

7. Predict Functional Distress

 Progression

1. Design, Materials, Environmental,

 Construction, and Traffic Inputs 

Figure 18. JCP long-term performance modeling. 
 

61

Step 1—User Inputs 

The user inputs for the long-term JCP models generally can be grouped into five categories: 

1. Pavement design. 

2. Materials and mix design. 

3. Environment. 

4. Construction. 

5. Traffic. 

Each of these categories contains a number of variables that can be defined by the user. Due to 

the number of inputs, guidance is provided in HIPERPAV II via default values, warnings, and tool tips. 

This also was accomplished by careful and practical engineering of the graphical user interface. As 

mentioned in chapter 2, the TEP members reviewed the product at various stages of completion to ensure 

its practicality. 

Based on interaction with the TEP, great care was employed in this step. It was recognized that if 

the software was too data or labor intensive, most practitioners would not use it. However, if it was too 

simple, it might lack the accuracy for a reliable analysis. Therefore, a balance was made between the 

accuracy of the software and the complexity of the inputs. 

Step 2—Early-Age Behavior 

Early-age behavior of the pavement is required to be characterized for the long-term analysis, 

because it will provide initial information to feed the performance models. For example, initial 

temperature, moisture conditions, and joint opening are key early-age indicators (box 2 in figure 18). The 

enhanced early-age behavior models in HIPERPAV II are used for this purpose. 

Step 3—Loop Over Each Seasonal Period 

The essence of a systems analysis tool is to predict the various paving strategies as realistically as 

possible. This simulation is done chronologically by looping over each season from the initial 

construction season up to the last season of the user-defined analysis period. 

Step 4—Characterize Pavement Geometry, Traffic, Environment, and Materials 

After each seasonal period, the current conditions for the long-term pavement analysis are defined 

in terms of pavement geometry, traffic, environment, and materials. 

a) Characterizing Pavement Geometry

The pavement geometry is characterized in terms of the layer thicknesses, slab configuration, and 

support conditions. 

b) Characterizing Traffic

The traffic for the current period is defined as follows: 

• Axle-load spectra—the simulation is performed over the full range of anticipated axle 

load spectra. An integration of the number of axles by the distress due to each axle load 

is made to predict the overall incremental distress. 
 

62

• Growth—the traffic level generally will increase with time. An adjustment is made to 

reflect the growth function as defined by the user. Three growth functions are 

provided—linear, exponential, and logistic (s-shaped) growth. 

• Time of day—the simulation loops over the time of day. This effect is important because 

the deflected shape of the pavement will differ from day to night, and therefore will 

impact in the predicted stresses. 

To be as compatible as possible with the new guide for pavement structures, which was under 

development at the time of this writing (National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 

Project 1-37A), every attempt was made to develop the traffic module using similar logic.(60)

c) Characterizing Environment

Various user inputs are needed to characterize the environmental conditions at the specified 

location for the design. To minimize the burden to the user, these inputs are extracted using a 

sophisticated GIS-based interface. When a location for the design is selected using the GIS system, an 

extensive environmental database is queried for weather data from weather stations in the vicinity of the 

specified location. 

Using an intelligent algorithm, the most relevant weather stations are selected, and the weather 

information for the specified location is calculated based on a weighted interpolation scheme. The 

database actually contains mean hourly readings for the entire year (based on 30 years of data) for each of 

the specified stations. For simplicity, these values are the reduced seasonal means. In addition, the 

database contains the variances for each of these factors to better characterize the stochastic nature of 

weather phenomena. 

Using the environmental inputs and the materials inputs, the temperature profiles in the pavement 

system are predicted using the FDM algorithm, similar to that of the integrated climate model (ICM) 

developed for FHWA.(23) The remaining characterization, behavior, and distress models in HIPERPAV 

II, in turn, use these profiles. 

d) Characterizing Materials

HIPERPAV II uses dynamic values of variables such as temperature, moisture, cumulative 

damage, and time. 

HIPERPAV II uses two unique models to predict the PCC strength and modulus. The first 

models are based on maturity methods and are used during the early-age analysis (step 2). The second are 

based on a more general form, and are used for subsequent analysis periods (step 4). 

Step 5—Model Pavement Behavior 

For each time step, the pavement behavior is evaluated as a function of the early-age conditions 

and conditions at the current time step to determine the stress, strain, and deflection of the pavement 

system. 
 

63

Step 6—Distress Progression 

After the pavement behavior is analyzed for the current conditions, individual models are used to 

predict distress progression. Two key structural distresses are evaluated. These include joint faulting and 

midslab cracking. 

Other distress types, such as materials related distresses, are covered in the written design and 

construction guidelines (volume II of this report series), but due to the lack of reliable models, are not 

included in HIPERPAV II. 

Step 7—Predict Functional Distress Progression 

Functional distresses are a function of the structural distresses and are computed next. 

Step 8—Check Analysis Period and Distress Thresholds 

This step evaluates the current state of the pavement in the analysis loop. If the simulation has 

predicted a level of distress that the user denotes as being “terminating” in nature, HIPERPAV II reports 

it as the end of the service life for that analysis. However, the analysis continues until the analysis period 

is reached. It is also at this point that the loop advances to the next season to be simulated. 

Step 9—Report Results 

Depending on the analysis period selected, the long-term performance module in HIPERPAV II 

proceeds to the next environmental and traffic loop (step 3), or proceeds to report the results of the 

analysis (step 9). 

As the TEP strongly recommends, long-term performance modeling should be used as a means to 

further optimize early-age pavement design, materials selection, and construction procedures. Long-term 

performance modeling should examine a relative (strategy comparison), rather than an absolute 

performance, based on the aforementioned factors. It must not be used for pavement (structural) design 

purposes. 

4.2 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 

The software product is a stand-alone Microsoft Windows application. It contains code written in 

Microsoft Visual Basic® and Compaq® Visual Fortran®. The software displays numerical and graphical 

outputs for each analysis. The software saves, opens, and prints all inputs and outputs. The software also 

contains an add-in system to allow simple interoperability with current and future modules. 

This section will present the components that make up the HIPERPAV II software in a top-down 

approach. The remainder of this section is divided into four subsections: Section 4.2.1 contains a list of 

feature set of HIPERPAV II; section 4.2.2 is an overview of the components that make up the system 

architecture and the relationships between these components, including the add-in system; section 4.2.3 is 

an overview of the components of the graphical user interface (GUI) with screenshots; section 4.2.4 will 

cover the document object model (DOM); section 4.2.5 describes the technical code that implements the 

models for HIPERPAV II; section 4.2.6 is an indepth look at the steps involved in the process of the 

software validation and verification; and section 4.2.7 summarizes the overall software project. 
 

64

4.2.1 Features 

The following feature set has been implemented into the GUI. 

4.2.1.1 File Management 

• The software allows the user to open and save files, using standard file dialogs. For 

example, 

File Æ New, Open, Save, Save As. 

• The software allows for standard Microsoft Windows interoperability with both the local 

and network file systems, including drag-and-drop, most recently used (MRU) files, and 

file association. 

• HIPERPAV II can import files from previous versions (extensions hpv and h25). 

4.2.1.2 Inputs 

• Only inputs necessary for the current analysis are shown to the user. 

• All inputs contain default values and do not require adjustment to be able to run the 

analysis. 

• The user is given the ability to select measurement units for inputs when applicable (for 

individual units just by clicking on the unit label or for the overall project by going to 

Tools Æ Options: Program Settings\General: Metric System). 

• The product validates all inputs necessary for an analysis to run. Inputs that are 

questionable are displayed along with an explanation: Strategy Æ Validate. 

• The product provides a graphical representation of inputs, where possible, to provide the 

user with a highly cognitive method of instant error checking. 

4.2.1.3 Outputs 

• The user may run the analysis for multiple strategies, and each set of outputs is available 

so that various alternatives can be analyzed and compared within a single project. 

• The software also displays the input set that is associated with the current strategy 

selected. 

• The user is given the ability to select measurement units for outputs when applicable. 

4.2.1.4 Printing 

• The software allows the complete set of inputs and outputs to be printed as a report. 

4.2.1.5 Troubleshooting 

• The product displays and saves any errors that have occurred: Tools Æ Event Log. 

• The product is able to perform a self-diagnostic to determine if any installation files are 

outdated or missing: Tools Æ File Checker. 
 

65

4.2.1.6 Strategy Comparison 

• The product allows for comparison of multiple strategies for the same type of analysis to 

determine the difference between the strategies. 

4.2.2 System Architecture and Communication 

4.2.2.1 Overview of Components 

The flowchart in figure 19 presents a top-level view of the system architecture. All modules use

“Errors and Diagnostics.” The “Add-In System” is integrated into the system as a whole and is not 

considered a module. 

DOM

GUI Printing

Technical

Tools

Unit 

Conversion File Input/Output

Errors and 

Diagnostics

Add-In 

System

DOM

GUI Printing

Technical

Tools

Unit 

Conversion File Input/Output

Errors and 

Diagnostics

Add-In 

System

Figure 19. System architecture flowchart. 

4.2.2.2 Description of Primary Components 

The primary components for this project are highlighted in bold boxes in figure 19. These three 

components contain subcomponents and are examined in table 16. 

Table 16. Primary system architecture components. 

GUI Graphical User Interface (GUI) 

The GUI component contains the code for the user display 

and presentation, as well as some validation and 

preprocessing logic. 

DOM Document Object Model (DOM) 

The DOM component contains the code for logic and 

processing. The DOM is responsible for tying all the 

components together. 

Technical Technical Code Module 

The technical code module contains the code for the 

engineering models and calculations that are used in 

processing the analysis. 
 

66

4.2.2.3 Description of Secondary Components 

The secondary components for this project are hexagonal shapes in figure 19. Table 17 identifies 

those components that are shared libraries, as well as other components that are needed to accomplish 

secondary functions of the software. 

Table 17. Secondary system architecture components. 

 

Tools Tools 

The tools component is a collection of several modules. These 

additional modules are not necessary to run an analysis, but 

provide additional features that complement the main software 

functions, such as input validation. 

Printing Print Engine 

The print engine provides encapsulated functionality for report 

generation, previewing, and printing. 

Unit Conversion Unit Conversion System 

The unit conversion system consists of several modules that 

control all measurement unit conversion and storage that takes 

place in the software. 

File I/O File Input and Output (I/O) System 

The file I/O system is composed of several modules that 

provide easy and fast access to database functions, importing 

and exporting data, file conversions, and saving and opening 

data. 

Errors and 

Diagnostics 

Error Log and File Checker 

These two components make up the bulk of the 

troubleshooting system. They are responsible for logging and 

viewing errors and ensuring that all of the files that 

HIPERPAV II requires are present. 

4.2.2.4 System Communication 

The majority of the communications between the components in the system involve the 

component object model (COM) and the extensible markup language (XML). All of the components 

“talk” to each other using COM. Most of the data transfer between components use COM directly or 

XML. However, Microsoft ActiveX® Data Objects (ADO) is used to load data from the environmental 

databases. 

4.2.2.5 Add-In System 

As stated in the total systems approach, HIPERPAV II is composed of several different modules. 

It is desirable to possibly add or remove modules after the software is designed and/or produced. To 

accommodate this, HIPERPAV II was designed with an add-in system. The system defines a standard 

interface through which modules can define themselves. This eased the development on a module basis. 

Finally, the add-in system allows for more customization of the software for each subsequent version of 

HIPERPAV II. 
 

67

4.2.3 Graphical User Interface 

The GUI is the means through which the user will interact with the HIPERPAV II code. 

Therefore, it was essential to develop a clear, concise, and uncluttered interface. Based on these 

premises and the feature set that needs to be implemented, the development team designed an interface 

centered around the idea of a strategy. The GUI is based on forms. A different form is used for each 

screen of inputs, outputs, tools, etc. Most, if not all, forms are independent of each other, so work can be 

done on one without affecting the others. The GUI also uses some support classes and modules. 

Figure 20 shows the interface for HIPERPAV II. The circled numbers identify key features of 

the interface and are described below: 

1. This is the analysis type dropdown menu. Each project (file) contains only one type of 

analysis except for long-term JPCP projects, which also contain early-age analyses. This 

dropdown identifies the type of analysis for the current project. For long-term JPCP 

projects, there will be two options: early-age JPCP and long-term JPCP. This allows the 

user to switch between the two analysis types. 

2. This is the strategy list. HIPERPAV II is strategy-based. All of the strategies are listed 

here. The highlighted strategy will have its data shown in the right panel (number 5). 

The user can rename the strategies, as well. 

3. The TreeView displays all of the sections or components that make up each strategy 

(inputs and analyses). Three different input categories are differentiated with icons for 

graphical recognition. 

4. The location bar shows where the user is located. In this case, strategy information is 

shown, which is the same as the highlighted item in the TreeView. 

5. The data panel displays the inputs or outputs for the current strategy. 
 

68

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 20. Screenshot of interface for HIPERPAV II. 

The user’s manual contained in volume II of this report series provides a more detailed 

description of the HIPERPAV II graphical user interface. 

4.2.4 Document Object Model (DOM) 

4.2.4.1 Introduction 

The DOM is the component that handles most of the interactions between components and most 

of the functions involving the data except for technical analyses. The DOM has many responsibilities, 

including: 

• Temporary and permanent storage of the input and output data. 

• Handling requests for unit conversion. 

• Input validation. 

• Business rules (e.g., calculating the effects of one input on another input). 

4.2.4.2 Architecture 

The DOM is a class-based hierarchy. The strategy class is the focus of most of the activity in the 

DOM. It consists of the following classes: general, design, materials, environment, construction, traffic, 

and outputs. Not every strategy will make use of all the available classes. 
 

69

There is also a set of global objects that all classes are able to access. Currently, these objects 

contain routines for printing, file I/O, strategy comparison, the error log, units’ conversion functions, 

definitions for standards, input validation, and any other support function necessary for the classes. 

4.2.5 Technical Code 

The objective of this section is to provide a high-level design for the HIPERPAV II software 

components. This high-level design served as a guideline for the programming of the HIPERPAV II 

technical code. This section details the structure of each component and interaction among those 

components. The goal of this guideline was to build a sound base for modularization of the HIPERPAV 

II software components to facilitate the subsequent software integration. 

4.2.5.1 Algorithm Development and Technical Coding 

The algorithm for each technical component (theoretical model) was developed based on its 

corresponding theoretical background. Calibration and verification of each algorithm was implemented 

using available data sources. Then, the technical specification for each component was developed based 

on the calibrated/verified algorithm. 

The technical coding followed the technical specifications. Each technical component is a selfcontained module. Each module contains the following routines: 

• Driver Routine—a communication interface to setup an I/O for solving a specific 

analysis. 

• Computing Routine—the actual routine to perform the computation for a specific 

analysis. 

• Supporting Routine(s)—low-level routine(s) to perform a specific mathematical 

maneuvering. 

• Type Module—a facility to define variable “types.” 

• Error Handler—a routine to handle errors if they occur in executing the component. 

Software testing was performed at the technical component level, and overall system testing was 

conducted after integration of technical components. 

4.2.5.2 Overall Structure 

As seen in table 18, 6 components were formed for HIPERPAV II. The interaction among the 

components is illustrated in figure 21. HP_CORE serves as the core program to feed its output to 

HP_MECH. Then, HP_MECH feeds data to either HP_JCP, HP_BCO, or HP_CRCP for early-age 

analyses. The HP_JCPLON takes output and interacts with HP_JCP and HP_MECH to perform longterm JCP analysis. 
 

70

Table 18. List of HIPERPAV II tech components. 

No. Name Description 

1 HP_CORE Predict pavement temperatures, PCC equivalent age, and moisture 

contents 

2 HP_MECH Predict fundamental concrete properties such as: modulus, CTE, 

shrinkage, strength, friction, curling, and warping 

3 HP_JCP Predict JCP concrete stress and joint width/opening 

4 HP_BCO Predict BCO delamination (not bundled with HIPERPAV II) 

5 HP_CRCP Predict crack width, crack spacing, and steel stress for CRCP 

6 HP_JCPLON Predict JCP long-term performance 

Figure 21. Structure of HIPERPAV II tech components. 

4.2.5.3 Component 1—HP_CORE 

The HP_CORE is the core component for the HIPERPAV II technical codes. The component is 

used to predict pavement temperatures, PCC equivalent age, and moisture profile. The structure of this 

component is illustrated in figure 22, and each subcomponent is described in table 19. 
 

71

Figure 22. Subcomponents of module HP_CORE. 

Table 19. List of HP_CORE subcomponents. 

No. Name Description 

1 HP_THERM Predict thermal conductivity of pavement materials 

2 HP_SPHEAT Predict specific heat of pavement materials 

3 HP_HOH Predict heat of hydration of concrete 

4 HP_TEMP Predict temperature profile through the pavement structure 

5 HP_MOIST Predict moisture profile through the pavement structure 

4.2.5.4 Component 2—HP_MECH 

The HP_MECH is a supporting component to provide computed/predicted mechanical properties 

of pavement materials. Its structure is illustrated in figure 23, and a description of each subcomponent is 

listed in table 20. 
 

72

Figure 23. Subcomponents of module HP_MECH. 

Table 20. List of HP_MECH subcomponents. 

No. Name Description 

1 HP_CTE Predict CTE of pavement materials 

2 HP_SHRNK Predict shrinkage of concrete 

3 HP_STRNG Predict strength of concrete 

4 HP_FRIC Predict slab-base friction 

5 HP_CURL Predict curling/warping 

6 HP_CREEP Predict creep effect of concrete 

4.2.5.5 Component 3—HP_JCP 

The HP_JCP component, as its name implies, is used to perform JCP analysis. The structure of 

HP_JCP is illustrated in figure 24, and the description of each subcomponent is listed in table 21. 
 

73

Figure 24. Subcomponents of module HP_JCP. 

Table 21. List of HP_JCP subcomponents. 

No. Name Description 

1 HP_CRSTRS Predict critical stress in concrete slab 

2 HP_JNTWTH Predict JCP joint width 

4.2.5.6 Component 4—HP_BCO 

The HP_BCO component is used to perform BCO analysis. The HP_BCO component consists of 

the subcomponent in table 22. This component is included to provide compatibility with the 

HIPERBOND module developed under a separate effort, but is not included in the HIPERPAV II system 

at this time. 

Table 22. List of HP_BCO subcomponents. 

No. Name Description 

1 HP_DELAM Predict delamination 

4.2.5.7 Component 5—HP_CRCP 

The HP_CRCP component is used to perform CRCP analysis. Its structure is illustrated in figure 

25. 
 

74

Figure 25. Subcomponents of module HP_CRCP. 

The HP_CRCP component consists of the following subcomponents listed in table 23 below: 

Table 23. List of HP_CRCP subcomponents. 

No. Name Description 

1 HP_CRCPCW Predict CRCP crack width 

2 HP_CRCPCS Predict CRCP crack spacing 

3 HP_CRCPSS Predict steel stress in CRCP 

4.2.5.8 Tech Component 6—HP_JCPLON 

The HP_JCPLON component is used to compare alternatives of JCP pavements for their longterm performance, as seen in figure 26. 
 

75

HP_JCPLON

HP_FAULT

HP_MIDSLBCRK

HP_PSI

HP_IRI

Figure 26. Subcomponents of module HP_JCPLON. 

The subcomponents of HP_JCPLON are listed in table 24: 

Table 24. List of HP_CRCP subcomponents. 

No. Name Description 

1 HP_FAULT Predict long-term faulting of JCP 

2 HP_MIDSLBCRK Predict long-term midslab cracking of JCP 

3 HP_PSI Predict long-term PSI of JCP 

4 HP_IRI Predict long-term IRI of JCP 

4.2.6 Verification and Validation 

4.2.6.1 Models 

Each technical model was developed in Microsoft Excel or Mathsoft MathCAD®. Calibration 

and verification of each algorithm was implemented using available data sources. 

4.2.6.2 Software 

The software was integrated one component at a time. For each integration, the components were 

checked to ensure that they were communicating and functioning correctly with all other modules. The 

first integration included the GUI and DOM. The file I/O was then checked so that test data files could be 

loaded for system-level testing of the models. Next, the DOM was connected to the technical code, and 

I/O communications were tested strenuously to ensure models robustness. The remaining feature 

development and testing occurred concurrently with the model testing. 
 

76

4.2.7 Implementation 

The implementation plan included an overall software development plan, development of the 

software requirement specification, development of the software design specification, coding, and release 

and debugging. Each of these stages is described in the following sections. 

4.2.7.1 Overall Software Plan 

The overall software plan included the software project life cycle illustrated in figure 27. This 

plan involved the following four steps implemented during execution of the work plan: 

1. Development of the software requirement specification (SRS). 

2. Development of the software design specification (SDS). 

3. Implementation (coding). 

4. Release and debugging. 

Requirements

(SRS)

Requirements

(SRS) Design

(SDS)

Design

(SDS) Implementation

(Coding)

Implementation

(Coding) Release Release

Debugging Debugging

Figure 27. Software project life cycle. 

4.2.7.2 Development of the SRS 

The SRS was based on the requirements that are defined in previous sections in this chapter. The 

SRS specifies the software requirements (such as features) in general terms, with no discussion of how 

the features will be implemented. For the technical code, the SRS includes a high-level description of the 

integration of technical models. Iterations of review/modification are needed to reach the final, welldefined scope. 

4.2.7.3 Development of the SDS 

The SDS is an extension and detailed design based on the SRS documentation. The SDS includes 

low-level designs (such as properties and functions for each component class) in tables and flowcharts. 

Iterations of review/modification are needed to reach the final, well-checked design. 

During this phase, a nonfunctional prototype of the GUI was developed. This prototype allowed 

basic navigation among the screens that compose a strategy. This was essentially a proof-of-concept 
 

77

prototype for presentation and obtaining feedback concerning the layout of the GUI. This feedback was 

used during the iteration process of the SDS for the GUI to better define the specifications. 

For the technical code, algorithms for each technical model were developed in technical 

memorandums, and prototyped in Microsoft Excel/MathCAD files. These prototypes were then 

calibrated and validated using field data. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check the engineering 

reasonableness. 

4.2.7.4 Implementation (Coding) 

The actual coding for the GUI, DOM and technical code were implemented based on the SDS. 

The coding followed the Microsoft Visual Basic and Fortran coding guidelines to maximize robustness, 

modularization, reusability, and interoperability. 

4.2.7.5 Release and Debugging 

Upon completing the coding phase, the project team developed an initial beta version of the 

software for review by the TEP members. Feedback from the TEP on the software was included to 

enhance its development. Several beta versions of the HIPERPAV II software were then released after 

the verification and validation. Debugging and enhancement was performed based on the user feedback 

and the available resources. 

4.2.8 Modifications to the Software Development Plan 

During the various TEP meetings for this project, a number of comments and feedback from the 

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) and TEP members were received. These 

comments required modifications to the work plan for developing the HIPERPAV II software and are 

addressed in this section. 

4.2.8.1 HIPERPAV Practical Grade and Research Grade Versions 

 It was recognized that, because of the diversity of users, two different versions of HIPERPAV 

should be developed: a “practical grade” version and a “research grade” version. The practical grade 

version would be geared toward users that require practical and easy-to-use tools for their application in 

real construction projects in a regular basis. For this version, the inputs required would be simplified as 

much as possible without compromising the accuracy of the results. A research grade version would 

include advanced screens with more detailed inputs. This version would be tailored for academic and 

experimental applications. 

Since the aim of this project is to develop practical tools for use by the engineering community, 

the emphasis was on developing a practical grade version of HIPERPAV. Before releasing the software, 

a final assessment of the product should be made to determine if additional simplification is necessary to 

improve the success of the implementation process. 
 

78

4.2.8.2 Relative Versus Absolute Software Values 

The panel members’ comments were split on the desire for relative versus absolute software value 

outputs for the long-term performance JCP module. The project team made both options available in the 

software. 

4.2.8.3 Software Prototype: Comments on Materials and Mix Design Inputs 

The possibility of obtaining adiabatic calorimeter data for different cement types and compiling it 

in the technical code of the software was discussed. During the previous HIPERPAV I validation effort, 

researchers found that the prediction of the pavement temperature relies heavily on the hydration 

characteristics for the specific mixture in evaluation. It is believed that, although information on the total 

heat of hydration of the cement (and admixtures) obtained with American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) test method ASTM C 186 would be helpful, this information would still have to be 

complemented with the shape of the hydration curve obtainable only through calorimetry tests. Volume 

III, appendix B of this report series expands on the database of cements evaluated and hydration models 

included in HIPERPAV II. 

To compare strength types and complement the available information on concrete strength 

relationships, the research team evaluated a report on modulus of rupture conversion relationships.(61)

It was agreed that incorporating a mix design module in the software would benefit engineers 

who would be interested in mix design, particularly contractors. This module would facilitate its 

acceptability and implementation in the future. Incorporation of the COMET module for mix 

optimization was pursued after this recommendation. 

4.2.8.4 Comments on Construction Inputs 

For skip sawing, the preferred approach from FHWA’s standpoint was to have the operator “fool” 

the program, as with HIPERPAV I, by putting in a longer joint spacing as the input. However, after 

further discussions with the TEP members, it was agreed to provide a skip sawing option and include a 

comment stating that this is not a recommended practice; however, it can be used to assist the contractor 

to avoid undesirable situations. 

4.2.8.5 CRCP Steel Design 

The need to model the use of a double layer of steel as an input option (top and bottom mats) was 

discussed. As new models that consider the effects on shrinkage and other behaviors as a function of the 

steel depth and number of bar mats become available, they may be included in subsequent generations of 

HIPERPAV. 

4.2.8.6 Long-Term Performance Models 

Spalling distress prediction as a function of early-age behavior was very difficult to model due to 

a number of factors, including lack of data required for model calibration and validation. Since 

development of a new spalling model was out of the scope of this project, a spalling distress model was 

not included in HIPERPAV II during this effort. 
 

79

4.2.8.7 Additional Modules 

FHWA suggested incorporating information from the joint FHWA/NIST mixture optimization 

study, and the COMET module based on this study was incorporated successfully. In addition, at the 

time of writing this report, a new project under FHWA CPTP Task 64 is further investigating concrete 

mixture optimization procedures based on the work developed under the FHWA concrete mixture 

optimization study.(62) 

4.3 VALIDATION OF THE ENHANCED GUIDELINES 

Although the CRCP early-age behavior models and long-term JPCP models selected for use in 

this project (see table 10 and section 3.3.5) have already undergone extensive validation efforts, 

modification to some of the models to reflect specific early-age conditions and integrate effectively with 

the overall system warranted further validation. 

Validation focused on determining the reliability of the models. Model reliability determines if 

the model is a good one or a poor one. If there is significant scatter in the data compared to the 

prediction, then the model is possibly poor. Less scatter implies that the model is reliable. The reliability 

of the individual models in the long-term JPCP and early-age CRCP modules in HIPERPAV II was 

assessed under this concept. 

Two levels of validation were undertaken for both the long-term JPCP and early-age CRCP 

models incorporated into HIPERPAV II. The first level of validation was performed with using 

databases. The second level of validation consisted of evaluating the accuracy of prediction with 

information collected from a field investigation performed on select pavement sites. Additional 

validation was also performed for general early-age behavior enhanced models such as the FDM 

temperature prediction model and the improved drying shrinkage model. A summary of the validation 

efforts and findings is presented in the following paragraphs. A detailed description of the field 

investigation, laboratory testing, and validation efforts is presented in volume III, appendixes C through F 

of this report series. 

4.3.1 Database Validation 

The primary databases used for this purpose were the database maintained by LTPP and the 

CRCP database maintained by the Texas DOT. (See references 63, 64, and 65.) The wider geographical 

distribution and variety of pavement sections in the LTPP database was a determining factor for its use, 

while the extensive amount of early-age data for CRCP in the Texas rigid pavement database was a major 

factor for its selection. Other databases such as the COPES and the RIPPER databases were also 

investigated.(33, 27) However, lack of early-age information and monitoring records made validation with 

these databases difficult. 

4.3.1.1 Validation of JPCP Structural Response Models with LTPP Data 

Database validation efforts within this project were limited due to the lack of extensive early-age 

information on current databases. Information required for validation of JPCP long-term performance 

prediction includes mix design information, early-age climatic data, construction times and dates, earlyage material characterization, initial construction smoothness, history of structural pavement response, 

and distress information. 
 

80

Information in the Seasonal Monitoring Program (SMP) pavement database maintained by LTPP 

was used exclusively to validate the JPCP structural response models. Provided the LTE model has not 

been previously calibrated as a whole, pavement sections in the LTPP-SMP database were also used for 

model calibration. The LTPP-SMP program includes monitoring of JPCP sections to observe the effects 

of temperature and moisture on the pavement structure and pavement’s response to loads. It was found 

during the verification process that, although the LTE model predictions follow the general trends of LTE 

as computed from FWD tests, further investigation of a number of factors is necessary to be able to 

predict LTE with more accuracy. For the doweled sections evaluated, it was difficult to determine the 

level of dowel looseness, because LTE appears to be provided by aggregate interlock with some dowel 

looseness present for half of the sections, while the remaining sections appear to have very little or no 

dowel looseness. Therefore, further work is required to verify the dowel looseness models presented. It 

is recommended that factors such as aggregate characteristics, dowel coatings, and compressive stresses 

at the dowel location due to curling stresses in the early age be investigated. 

4.3.1.2 Validation of CRCP Early-Age Behavior Models 

Validation of the CRCP early-age behavior models had two objectives: validation of cracking 

behavior during the early age, and validation of cracking behavior in the long term. Although, as its name 

implies, the CRCP module in HIPERPAV II should predict cracking behavior at early ages, long-term 

performance can be estimated better based on the cracking characteristics after the lowest temperature 

(typically after 1 year). Therefore, validation also was performed on existing CRCP sections with crack 

spacing information. In addition to information on cracking behavior, information on characterization of 

the concrete materials used, climatic data, and construction times and dates were needed. This 

information was available in the Texas rigid pavement database and CRCP field sites investigated. 

With the above information, each section was analyzed with the CRCP module in HIPERPAV II 

to compare the measured crack spacings to the predicted values. Although a slight overprediction of 

crack spacing was observed, a reasonably good fit of predicted versus measured crack spacing with 

respect to the 45o line was obtained (r2

=0.82). 

For the early age, a generally poor prediction of crack spacings was observed. However, 

similarly poor results had been observed in previous validation efforts with this dataset. Suh et al. had 

found good predictions for the first few months after construction; however, significant deviations were 

observed for the first 5 to 10 days.(65) This poor prediction was attributed to the inability to accurately 

predict early-age temperatures due to lack of curing information. It was also suggested that because the 

sections were relatively short (70 meters (m) long), and the crack spacings relatively large, it is possible 

that the data points generated were not sufficient to predict crack spacing with accuracy. 

Otero et al. reported crack width measurements 2 years after placement for the SH-6 test 

sections.(66) The CRCP module in HIPERPAV II was used to predict crack widths at the temperature 

observed in the concrete during the crack width measurements. Although a positive trend in crack width 

prediction was observed, all crack widths were largely overpredicted. This overprediction in crack widths 

had been observed in previous validation efforts.(66) Although Otero et al. proposed a new model for 

crack width prediction, using this model in this study did not give reasonable results. The overprediction 

was attributed to the fact that the CRCP-8 model does not account for the time when the crack forms, but 

it is rather dependent on the predicted crack spacing, PCC thermal properties, and total shrinkage. It is 

believed that the residual drying shrinkage after the crack forms has a large effect on crack width. In 

addition, the CRCP-8 model includes a fixed model for the concrete-steel interaction. Later studies have 

shown crack widths to be very sensitive to this characterization.(67)
 

81

4.3.2 Field Validation 

Four field sites were investigated for validation of the HIPERPAV II system: 

• Two in-service JPCP sections were evaluated to validate the long-term performance 

models in the JPCP module. 

• Two newly constructed CRCP sections were instrumented to validate the CRCP earlyage behavior module. 

It is believed that the number of field sites evaluated provides the minimum level of information 

necessary to meet the objectives of this effort successfully. However, additional data from field sites in 

the future could be used for local customization. 

4.3.2.1 Validation of Long-Term Performance Models with In-Service JPCP Sites 

JPCP sites investigated include a section on U.S. 50 in Illinois and a bypass section of a farm-tomarket road near Ticuman, Mexico. The selection of both sites was heavily weighted on the fact that 

extensive early-age and performance information is available for both of these sections. A field 

investigation and monitoring of both JPCP test sections was performed in the summer of 2001. Extensive 

information on design, construction, and previous monitoring activities for both pavement sites was 

collected. 

During the current field investigation, the monitoring activities included: 

• Installation of a weather station to collect ambient temperature, relative humidity, and 

solar radiation. 

• Visual inspection of each JPCP section. 

• Deflection measurements at transverse contraction joints and at midslab. 

• Demountable mechanical gagee caliper measurements of joint movement. 

• Profile measurement. 

• Coring to determine depths and obtain specimens for laboratory testing. 

The data collected from these sites was used with early-age information available to validate the 

long-term JPCP performance models in HIPERPAV II. 

The reliability of prediction for these two sites was evaluated. Several factors were considered in 

validating the long-term JPCP module in HIPERPAV II for each field site. This validation included 

comparing measured and predicted mechanical properties, LTE, and long-term distresses. 

In summary, it can be concluded that reasonable predictions were obtained in terms of long-term 

performance for both field sites. Although limited, this validation was done with quality data on 

pavement design, materials, climatic, and construction inputs. Validation of the models should continue, 

as more information about materials characterization and construction information becomes available for 

sites. 

4.3.2.2 Validation of Early-Age Behavior Models with Newly Constructed CRCP Sites 

Besides database validation, the CRCP model in HIPERPAV II was validated with two CRCP 

construction sites. The first CRCP section instrumented was part of an access road to the Interstate 
 

82

highway (IH)-35/IH-30 interchange located in Fort Worth, TX. The second CRCP section was located on 

IH-29 near Sioux Falls, SD. 

Model inputs were collected for prediction of crack spacing, crack width, steel stress, and bond 

development length. Information collected included all necessary inputs to feed the prediction model, 

such as structural design, mix design, slab/subbase restraint, concrete strains, steel strains, and climatic 

conditions during the first 72 hours after placement. In addition, laboratory testing was performed for 

material characterization, including splitting tensile strength, elastic modulus, CTE, drying shrinkage, and 

concrete set time. 

The instrumentation procedures consisted in installing embedment gages at midslab, edge, and 

corner at three different depths. Thermocouples also were installed at seven different depths throughout 

the slab depth. Resistance type strain gages were also installed on the steel rebar at different distances 

from the crack. In addition, similar procedures were used to monitor climatic conditions; CTE and free 

drying shrinkage; slab curling and warping; and cracking behavior in the field. A summary of the 

validation results is discussed below: 

• Variable results were obtained for bond development length. The bond development 

length predicted with HIPERPAV II for the Fort Worth, TX site varied from 560 to 790 

mm for the first 3 days of age. This prediction is significantly higher than the measured 

one of approximately 280 mm. However, the bond development length predicted with 

HIPERPAV II for the CRCP section in South Dakota closely matched the bond 

development length obtained from field measurements, varying from 480 to 660 mm. 

The difference in predicted and measured bond development length for the Fort Worth, 

TX site was attributed to the limitations in the bond-slip relationships assumed in the 

CRCP-8 model; Palmer et al. previously identified these limitations.(41)

• Similar to the bond development length results, variable results in steel stresses were 

observed. While a large overprediction was observed for the Fort Worth, TX site, a 

rather good prediction of stresses at the steel was observed for the South Dakota section. 

The difference in predicted and measured steel stress for the Fort Worth, TX site was also 

attributed to the limitations in the bond-slip relationships assumed in the CRCP-8 model. 

• As had been reported in previous validation efforts of crack width in the CRCP-8 model, 

a large discrepancy in measured and predicted crack widths was observed for both CRCP 

sections. The predicted crack width is overpredicted by a factor of 3, compared to the 

average crack width measured at middepth for the CRCP section in South Dakota, and by 

a factor of 10 for the CRCP section in Forth Worth, TX. The limitations in crack width 

prediction are attributed to the fact that the CRCP-8 model incorporated in HIPERPAV 

does not take into account the time when the crack forms, but it is rather dependent on the 

predicted crack spacing, PCC thermal properties, and total shrinkage. The drying 

shrinkage after crack formation depends on the concrete age when the crack occurs. It is 

believed that the residual drying shrinkage after the crack forms has a large effect on 

crack width. The differences in steel stress and bond development length found in this 

analysis are believed to also contribute to overpredicting crack widths. 

• The average crack spacing predicted for both CRCP sites matches the measured average 

crack spacing at 3 days of age very closely. 
 

83

This analysis concludes that reasonably good predictions for the crack spacings observed after 3 

days are achieved for both sites. However, further investigation of the bond slip relationships in the 

CRCP-8 program is recommended to accurately predict steel stresses and crack widths. 

4.3.3 Validation of General Early-Age Behavior Models 

In addition to the validation of JPCP long-term performance and CRCP early-age behavior 

models, improvements to the concrete pavement temperature prediction, drying shrinkage, and creeprelaxation models were also investigated in this study. 

4.3.3.1 FDM Temperature Prediction Model 

Over the course of its development, HIPERPAV has employed two different temperature 

prediction models (see section 3.3.3.2). Originally, the temperature prediction model was a transient twodimensional FEM model. However, this procedure had proven to require excessive solution times. The 

model has since been replaced by a one-dimensional FDM approach, which allows quicker execution 

without a compromise in accuracy. However, the accuracy of the FDM model needed to be verified by 

comparison with field data. Verification of the temperature predictions with the improved model is 

presented in volume III, appendix F of this report series. 

4.3.3.2 Drying Shrinkage Prediction Model 

 Using the field data collected from the five early-age HIPERPAV I field sites, the calibration 

factor (Deff) for the Bazant-Panula shrinkage model could be determined.(68) 

 To calibrate the size factor Deff for CRCP, 28-day drying shrinkage predictions from the BazantPanula model were matched to the experimentally measured drying shrinkage values taken in concrete 

placed on State Highway 6 in winter and summer.(65) At 28 days, the drying shrinkage was 171 με in the 

summer and 165 με in the winter. These values were matched using a Deff of 0.2. 

4.3.3.3 Relaxation-Creep Model 

Attempts were made to validate the creep model based on the extended triple power law 

presented in volume III, appendix B of this report series. However, preliminary sensitivity analyses 

showed that in some instances, tensile stresses were being significantly overpredicted as compared to 

results from the previous validation efforts of the current prediction models in HIPERPAV I. Possible 

reasons for inaccuracy: 

• In an attempt to incorporate this model in HIPERPAV II, it was assumed that creep in 

compression is equivalent to creep in tension. Due to the cyclic stress state in the 

pavement between tension and compression, if this assumption does not hold true, it is 

possible that compressive stresses may be underpredicted while tensile stresses are 

overpredicted or vice versa. 

• In implementing the creep compliance formulation, there are two possible approaches as 

outlined in volume III, appendix B: (1) with numerical integration, and (2) with the use of 

a Maxwell chain model for conversion of creep compliance into relaxation values. In this 

effort, both methods were explored. However, the required user intervention in the 

second method made it inappropriate for this effort. The first method was investigated 
 

84

further, however, the large matrix array required to store the stress history limited the 

minimum time step that could be implemented to 1 hour. Such a large time step possibly 

contributed to the observed overpredictions of tensile stresses. 

Further work is required to validate this method properly. It is believed that, once calibrated and 

validated, this relaxation-creep model will prove helpful in properly determining creep and relaxation 

effects for stress prediction, built-in curling prediction, and possibly the curled slab shape. 
85 

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Significant findings and recommendations for enhancing the guidelines in the future are outlined 

in this chapter. 

5.1 SUMMARY 

This report documents enhancements incorporated in the HIPERPAV II system. These 

enhancements include the addition of two major modules: a module to predict the performance of JPCP as 

affected by early-age factors, and a module to predict the early-age behavior (first 72 hours) and early life 

(up to 1 year) of CRCP. Two additional FHWA studies were also incorporated: one that predicts dowel 

bearing stresses as a function of environmental loading during the early age, and a module for 

optimization of concrete paving mixes as a function of 3-day strength, 28-day strength, and cost. 

Additional software functionality was incorporated by reviewing and prioritizing the feedback 

provided by HIPERPAV I system users. The following is a short list of the many features incorporated: 

• A new graphical user’s interface accommodating the different analysis types and options 

while keeping the simplicity and user friendliness of the previous version. 

• A geographical weather database system that contains historical averages of weather data 

from weather stations located throughout the United States. Climatic information 

includes air temperatures, windspeed, relative humidity, cloudiness, and annual rainfall 

conditions. 

• Analysis of multiple strategies: The new HIPERPAV II system is capable of analyzing 

multiple strategies for one specific project. This allows for evaluating “what if” scenarios 

within the same project file and facilitates comparison between strategies. 

• A routine to perform consistency of inputs (input range validation). 

• A reference database that includes the primary references used during the HIPERPAV II 

development. 

• Improved cement and admixtures characterization with recently developed models. 

• A strength conversion tool with default and user-defined conversion factors. 

• An option for user-defined equivalent age maturity in addition to the Nurse-Saul maturity 

option previously incorporated. 

• Inputs for user-defined nonlinear slab support characterization. 

• Optimum sawcutting, skip sawcutting, and no sawcutting options. 

• Concrete CTE and ultimate shrinkage inputs. 

• Enhanced input capability with tabular and graphic options. 

To ensure a successful implementation of the HIPERPAV II system, a TEP was formed, which 

consisted of stakeholders in the paving industry. Throughout the project’s development, the project team 

followed recommendations from the TEP, and numerous feedback items were incorporated to facilitate 

software implementation. 
 

86 

To incorporate the new modules, an exhaustive literature search was performed, and the pertinent 

models were identified and selected after evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. 

Special emphasis was placed in selecting models developed with a mechanistic or mechanistic-empirical 

approach that took early-age factors into account. Model selection was followed by a plan for model 

integration. This integration was achieved by following a systems approach methodology that built on 

the concrete temperature and early-age behavior prediction core modules within HIPERPAV I. Model 

integration included developing a new graphical user interface and extensive model coding. This phase 

was followed by extensive software debugging and testing. 

Although the CRCP behavior models and long-term JPCP models selected for use in this project 

had already undergone extensive calibration and validation efforts, further modification to some of the 

models to reflect specific early-age conditions and to integrate well with the overall system warranted 

further validation during this effort. Validation focused on determining the reliability of model 

prediction. Two levels of validation were undertaken. The first level of validation was performed with 

databases. The SMP pavement database maintained by LTPP and the Texas rigid pavement database 

were used to validate the JPCP LTE response and early-age behavior prediction, respectively. The 

second level of validation consisted of evaluating the accuracy of prediction with information collected 

from a field investigation performed on select pavement sites. Two JPCP sections were investigated to 

evaluate distress prediction, and two CRCP sections were investigated to evaluate early-age CRCP 

behavior. Additional validation also was performed for general early-age behavior enhanced models, 

such as a FDM temperature prediction model and an improved drying shrinkage model. 

5.2 CONCLUSIONS 

The objectives for this study were accomplished successfully. The module for JPCP long-term 

performance prediction as a function of early-age factors and the module for prediction of CRCP earlyage behavior were successfully incorporated by employing available models in the literature from 

recognized sources. Because developing new models was outside the scope of this project, available 

models were adapted for integration into the HIPERPAV II system. 

Overall, the results from the validation efforts for both long-term performance of JPCP and earlyage CRCP behavior models were positive. A summary of the findings obtained during the validation 

phase of this project is summarized below: 

• It was found during the verification process that although the JPCP LTE model 

predictions follow the general trends of LTE as computed from FWD tests, further 

investigation of a number of factors are necessary to predict LTE with improved 

accuracy. 

• Reasonable predictions were obtained in terms of long-term performance for the JPCP 

field sites evaluated; these follow logical trends. Although limited, this validation was 

done with quality data on pavement design, materials, climatic, and construction inputs. 

• For the validation of the CRCP models, variable results were obtained for bond 

development length and steel stress prediction. This difference in prediction was 

attributed to the limitations in the bond-slip relationships assumed in the CRCP-8 model. 

• A large overprediction of CRCP crack widths was also observed with both pavement 

databases and field sites investigated. The overprediction was attributed to the fact that 

the CRCP-8 model does not take into account the time when the crack forms, but rather is 
 

87 

dependent on the predicted crack spacing, PCC thermal properties, and total shrinkage. It 

is believed that the residual drying shrinkage after the crack forms has a large effect on 

crack width. It is also believed that the limitations in bond-slip characterization in the 

CRCP-8 model contributed to the overprediction in crack width. 

• Despite the expected overpredictions in crack width, a reasonably good prediction of 

CRCP average crack spacing was observed with both the pavement databases and the 

field sites investigated. 

The long-term JPCP module of the HIPERPAV II system was developed to optimize early-age 

strategies based on how they perform in the long term. With this objective in mind, two early-age 

strategies can be analyzed in the long term under the same long-term environmental and traffic 

conditions. Accurate predictions of long-term performance require accurate and detailed information on 

pavement structural factors, materials characterization, environmental conditions, and traffic data. 

Because the long-term module in HIPERPAV II is intended to help the user optimize early-age strategies 

rather than serve as a tool for pavement design, a number of considerations were made to simplify the 

data entry and improve user-friendliness. Long-term models assumptions and limitations are described in 

volume III, appendix B of this report series. Despite the model limitations, significant efforts were made 

to include mechanistic or mechanistic-empirical models. The advantage of taking a more mechanistic 

approach is that new developments and model improvements can be incorporated gradually in the future. 

Regarding the CRCP models, it is believed that despite the observed overprediction in bond 

development length, steel stress, and crack width, the CRCP model provides a good foundation for 

comparing alternatives. With relatively moderate effort, the crack width model could be improved to 

account for drying shrinkage effects and time of crack formation. Furthermore, the CRCP-8 model could 

be replaced with relative ease with the newer CRCP-9/10 model which validation is currently in 

progress.(67) The CRCP-9/10 model may provide improved predictions. 

Regarding the additional FHWA studies evaluated, although all FHWA studies reviewed 

potentially could have been implemented successfully in HIPERPAV II, only two of these studies had to 

be selected. Several factors were considered for study selection, including the status of completion, level 

of difficulty required for incorporation, easiness of implementation, and usability by the pavement 

community. Based on the advantages and disadvantages identified on each study, the dowel bar study 

and the mix optimization study were incorporated in HIPERPAV II. 

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.3.1 Model Improvements 

Based on the findings from the model validation, a number of key recommendations are provided 

below; these would greatly enhance the prediction capabilities of the HIPERPAV II system. 

• To improve the prediction of LTE, further investigation of the slab support conditions, 

aggregate interlock, dowel looseness, and aggregate wearout, among other factors, is 

recommended, both in the early age and throughout the pavement’s long-term 

performance. 

• A limited validation with good quality early-age information available for two field sites 

was performed; however, the long-term module requires further validation with 
 

88 

numerous other sites. Database validation efforts within this project were limited due to 

the lack of extensive early-age information on current databases required for validation. 

Required information includes mix design information, climatic data, construction times 

and dates, early-age material characterization, initial construction smoothness, history of 

structural pavement response, and distress information. 

• Because of the model limitations and assumptions made, predictions will not be 

comparable with the NCHRP 1-37A product result. Furthermore, HIPERPAV II must 

never be used for pavement structural design, since it was not validated for this purpose. 

Instead, the results of long-term performance comparisons should be used for further 

optimization of early-age strategies examining the effect of early-age environment, 

materials, and construction factors. The inputs for pavement structural design should 

already have been performed using a design procedure such as the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) method.(69)

• Continued validation of the long-term JPCP models is recommended as more sites 

become available with enough information on materials characterization and construction 

information. 

The PRS module based on the FHWA PaveSpec study was not incorporated in HIPERPAV. 

However, three unique ways of integrating HIPERPAV with standard specifications were identified: 

1. Merging standard specifications into HIPERPAV: This method consists of incorporating 

the text of standard specifications into HIPERPAV through a knowledge base. It would 

provide recommendations and warnings during the HIPERPAV runs that relate to items 

considered in the standard specifications, tying them to the inputs in the software. 

2. Merging HIPERPAV into standard specifications: In this method, standard specifications 

could be written to require the use of temperature management software such as 

HIPERPAV, further assuring that uncontrolled cracking is avoided. 

3. Integrating HIPERPAV and PaveSpec: This method involves combining HIPERPAV 

and PaveSpec together as described in the above paragraphs, and would be ideal for 

highway agencies currently considering PRS. 

The best option from the above three would depend on the current specifications being used by 

any individual SHA. It is believed that the first method, merging standard specifications into 

HIPERPAV, would be the most readily implementable, since it involves less risk to the highway agency 

in terms of liability. On the other hand, following the current trend of highway agencies shifting to PRS, 

an integration of HIPERPAV and PaveSpec would provide an ideal tool for implementing such a 

specification. 

5.3.2 The Future of HIPERPAV 

When HIPERPAV was first developed in 1996, a new approach was born: a total systems 

approach to concrete paving. In this simple to use yet technically complex piece of software, the power to 

simulate problems before they happen is now a reality. Since its development, the HIPERPAV concept 

has expanded into a usable and reliable tool for concrete pavement design and construction. Demand for 

HIPERPAV has spread throughout the industry. Contractors, suppliers, agencies, and academics all 

realize the power in this approach. In the future, it is only logical to further advance the total systems 
 

89 

approach concepts inherent in HIPERPAV by incorporating additional modules. The following sections 

briefly identify some of the possible future trends that have been recognized by the users of the 

HIPERPAV system. 

5.3.2.1 Bridge Deck Application 

Users have asked at nearly every HIPERPAV presentation: “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, there is high demand for this application. 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, because the majority of the models inherent in the 

HIPERPAV system are based on structural engineering models for concrete, industry acceptability of this 

could be achieved with minimal validation. 

5.3.2.2 Real-Time HIPERPAV Application 

Another concept that is often discussed involves the development of a real-time version of 

HIPERPAV. As with the current version of HIPERPAV, the real-time version would provide a means to 

predict the behavior of a concrete pavement during the first few critical hours after construction. The 

difference would be in the methods in which the inputs to the program are determined. In the current 

version, the user enters the various inputs and a number of assumptions are made as a result. A real-time 

version would use a weather station and pavement instrumentation to, in essence, calibrate the models in 

the HIPERPAV system in real time. As a result, the reliability of the HIPERPAV solution is increased 

substantially, and more informed decisions could be made. 

5.3.2.3 Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Application 

Fibers, both synthetic and steel, are being used more often in today’s concrete pavements. 

Although common in other concrete flatwork construction, such as industrial floors, the use of fibers in 

concrete paving has been slow to evolve. However, in many instances, fibers can contribute to the 

durability and overall performance of concrete pavements. HIPERPAV currently does not use models 

that would predict the difference in concrete behavior as a result of fiber use. However, using more 

sophisticated materials characterization models, such as fracture mechanics, would allow for the 

HIPERPAV system to objectively assess the impact of fibers in the mix. 

5.3.2.4 Internet (Web)-Based Application 

Although slow to respond at first, the paving industry is now realizing the potential of the Internet 

in improving efficiency in day-to-day operations. One possible future direction for HIPERPAV would be 

to deploy the software in an Internet-based mode. By developing a Web-based HIPERPAV application, 

the customer base of the HIPERPAV systems would expand. In addition, the resulting client server-based 

system would allow HIPERPAV system use to be evaluated. Trends could be tracked, and modifications 

to the system made more effective. 

5.3.2.5 Concrete Durability Predictive Application 

One final application that could be developed, based on the current HIPERPAV system, is an 

application to better predict the potential durability of concrete used in paving operations. There are a 
 

90 

number of ongoing research efforts that aim to better predict the durability of paving concrete as a 

function of the mix and the surrounding conditions. A future version of HIPERPAV could be developed 

that can use these models to predict the potential for durability-related issues in a practical manner. With 

the current trend toward longer life pavements, the durability of the materials used in concrete is 

becoming more prevalent. In the future, HIPERPAV can be used to make more informed decisions 

objectively and practically with respect to this important criterion. 
 

91 

REFERENCES 

1. Schindler, A.K., Concrete Hydration, Temperature Development, and Setting at Early Ages, Doctoral 

Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2002. 

2. Emborg, M., Thermal Stress in Concrete Structures at Early Ages, Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University 

of Technology, Division of Structural Engineering, 285 pp., 1989. 

3. Westman, G., Concrete Creep and Thermal Stresses, Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of 

Technology, Division of Structural Engineering, 301 pp., 1999. 

4. McCullough, B.F., and Rasmussen, R.O., Fast-Track Paving: Concrete Temperature Control and 

Traffic Opening Criteria for Bonded Concrete Overlays, Volume I: Final Report, FHWA-RD-98-167. 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 191 pp., October 1999. 

5. Parrott, L.J., “Moisture Profiles in Drying Concrete,” Advances in Cement Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, 

July 1988. 

6. Bazant, Z.P. and Baweja, S. “Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Model for Analysis and Design of 

Concrete Structures—Model B3,” Materials and Structures, Vol. 28, pp. 357-365, 1995. 

7. Baźant, Z.P., and Panula, L., “Practical Predictions of Time-Dependent Deformations of Concrete,” 

Materials and Structures, Vol. 11, No. 65, pp. 307-316, 1978. 

8. Byfors, J., Plain Concrete at Early Ages, Research 3:80, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research 

Institute, Cement och Betong Institutet (CBI), Stockholm, Sweden, 1980. 

9. Knudsen, T., “Modeling Hydration of Portland Cement—The Effect of Particle Size Distribution,” 

Conference Proceedings, Characterization and Performance Prediction of Cement and Concrete, 

Edited by Young, J.F., United Engineering Trustees, Inc., New Hampshire, pp. 125-150, 1983. 

10. Pinto, R.C., The Effect of Curing Temperatures on the Development of Mechanical Properties of 

Fresh and Hardened High-Strength Silica Fume Mixtures—A Maturity Approach, Dissertation, 

Cornell University, 294 pp., 1997. 

11. Van Breugel, K., Simulation of Hydration and Formation of Structure in Hardening Cement-Based 

Materials, Second Edition, Delft University Press, Netherlands, pp. 305, 1999. 

12. Maekawa, K., Chaube, R., and Kishi, T., Modeling of Concrete Performance, Hydration, 

Microstructure Formation, and Mass Transport, E & FN Spon, 1999. 

13. Rahhal, V.F. and Batic, O.R., “Mineral Admixtures Contribution to the Development of Heat of 

Hydration and Strength,” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 150-158, December 

1994. 

14. Jonasson, J.E. and Hedlund, H., “An Engineering Model for Creep and Shrinkage in High 

Performance Concrete,” Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires D'essais et de Recherches sur les 

Materiaux et les Constructions (RILEM) Proceedings, Shrinkage of Concrete, Shrinkage 2000. Ed. 

V. Baroghel-Bouny and P.C. Aitchin, pp. 507-529. 
 

92 

15. Baźant, Z.P. and Chern, J.C., “Strain Softening with Creep and Exponential Algorithm,” Journal of 

Engineering Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Vol. 111, No. 3, 

1985. 

16. Mohamed, A. and Hansen, W., Effect of Nonlinear Temperature Gradient on Curling Stresses in 

Concrete Pavements, Transportation Research Record 1568, pp. 65-71, 1997. 

17. Melis, L.M., Meyer, A.H., Fowler, D.W., An Evaluation of Tensile Strength Testing, CTR Project 

432-1F, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1985. 

18. Carrasquillo, P.M. and Carrasquillo, R.L., Improved Concrete Quality Control Procedures Using 

Third Point Loading,” CTR Project 1119-1F, Center for Transportation Research, University of 

Texas at Austin, November 1987. 

19. Raphael, J.M. “Tensile Strength of Concrete,” ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 81, pp. 158-165, MarchApril 1984. 

20. American Concrete Institute, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and 

Commentary (ACI 318R-02),” ACI Standards, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 

2002. 

21. Huang, Y.H. Pavement Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993. 

22. Smith, K.D., Mueller, A. L., Darter, M.I., and Peshkin, D.G., Performance of Jointed Concrete 

Pavements. Volume II—Evaluation and Modification of Concrete Pavement Design and Analysis 

Models, FHWA-RD-89-137, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 1990. 

23. Lytton, R.L., Pufhl, D.E., Michalak, C.H., Lian, H.S., and Dempsey, B.J., An Integrated Model of the 

Climatic Effects on Pavements, FHWA-RD-90-033, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC, 1990. 

24. Tabatabaie, A.M., Barenberg, E.J., and Smith, R.E., Longitudinal Joint Systems in Slip-Formed Rigid 

Pavements, Volume II. Analysis of Load Transfer Systems for Concrete Pavements, USDOT FAARD-79-4, II, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1979. 

25. Khazanovich, Lev and Gotlif, Alex, Evaluation of Joint and Crack Load Transfer, FHWA-RD-02-

088, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, May 2003. 

26. Tayabji, S.D. and Colley, B.E., Analysis of Jointed Concrete Pavements, FHWA-RD-86-041, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, February 1986. 

27. Yu, H.T., Smith, K.D., Darter, M.I., Jiang, J., and Khazanovich, L., Performance of Concrete 

Pavements Volume III—Improving Concrete Pavement Performance, FHWA-RD-95-111, Federal 

Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 1995. 

28. Lee, Y.H. and Darter, M.I., Loading and Curling Stress Models for Concrete Pavement Design, 

Transportation Research Record No. 1449, Transportation Research Board, National Research 

Council, Washington, DC, 1994. 
 

93 

29. Lee, Y.H. and Darter, M.I., “Mechanistic Design Models of Loading and Curling in Concrete 

Pavements, Airport Pavement Innovations: Theory to Practice,” Airfield Pavement Committee, 

Proceedings of the Conference, ASCE, New York, NY, 1993. 

30. Lee, Y.H., Yen, S.-T., Lee, C.-T., Bair, J.-H., and Lee, Y.-M., “Development of New Stress Analysis 

and Thickness Design Procedures for Jointed Concrete Pavements,” Proceedings of the 6th 

International Conference of Concrete Pavements, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1997. 

31. Simpson, A.L., Rauhut, J.B., Jordahl, P.R., Owusu-Antwi, E., Darter, M.I., Ahmad, R., Pendleton, 

O.J., Lee, Y.-H., Sensitivity Analyses for Selected Pavement Distresses. Strategic Highway Research 

Program, SHRP-P-393, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1994. 

32. Titus-Glover, L., Owusu-Antwi, E.B., and Darter, M.I., Design and Construction of PCC Pavements. 

Volume III: Improved PCC Performance Models, FHWA-RD-98-113, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC, January 1999. 

33. Darter, M.I., Becker, J.M., Snyder, M.B., and Smith, R.E., Portland Cement Concrete Pavement 

Evaluation System, COPES, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 277, 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, September 1985. 

34. Lee, Y.H., and Lee, Y.M. Corner Stress Analysis of Jointed Concrete Pavements, Transportation 

Research Record No. 1525, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, 

DC, 1996. 

35. Senadheera, S.P. and Zollinger, D.G., Framework for Incorporation of Spalling in Design of 

Concrete Pavements, Transportation Research Record No. 1449, Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1994. 

36. Senadheera, S. P. and Zollinger, D.G., Influence of Coarse Aggregate in Portland Cement Concrete 

on Spalling of Concrete Pavements, Research Report 1244-11, Texas Transportation Institute, The 

Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX, 1994. 

37. Perera, R.W., Byrum, C., and Kohn, S.D., Investigation of Development of Pavement Roughness, 

FHWA-RD-97-147, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, May 1998. 

38. Hoerner, T.E., Improved Prediction Models for PCC Pavement Performance Related Specifications, 

Volume I: Final Report, FHWA-RD-00-130, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 

December 2000. 

39. Won, M., Hankins, K. and McCullough, B.F., Mechanistic Analysis of Continuously Reinforced 

Concrete Pavements Considering Material Characteristics, Variability and Fatigue, Research Report 

1169-2, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, March 1991. 

40. Kim, S.M., Won, M.C., and McCullough, B.F., Development of a Finite-Element Program for 

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Research Report 1758-1F, Center for Transportation 

Research, The University of Texas at Austin, November 1997. 

41. Palmer, R.P., Olsen, M.P., Lytton, R.L., TTICRCP—A Mechanistic Model for the Prediction of 

Stresses, Strains and Displacements in Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Research 

Report 371-2F, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, 

TX, 1988. 
 

94 

42. Jimenez, M.A., McCullough, B.F., and Hankins, K., Monitoring of Siliceous River Gravel and 

Limestone Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement Test Sections in Houston Two Years after 

Placement, and Development of a Crack Width Model for the CRCP-7 Program, Research Report 

1244-4, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, March 1992. 

43. Hansen, W., Jensen, Elin, Mohr, P., Jensen, K., Pane, I. and Mohamed, A., The Effects of Higher 

Strength and Associated Concrete Properties on Pavement Performance, FHWA-RD-00-161, June 

2001. 

44. Dossey, T. and McCullough, B.F., Characterization of Concrete Properties with Age, Research 

Report 1244-2, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, March 1992. 

45. Kim, S.M., Won, M., and McCullough, B.F., “Three-Dimensional Analysis of Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavements,” Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting, January 9-

13, 2000. 

46. Zollinger, D.G., Buch, N., Xin, D., and Soares, J., Performance of Continuously Reinforced Concrete 

Pavements, Volume VI: CRC Pavement Design, Construction and Performance, FHWA-RD-97-151, 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1999. 

47. Zollinger, D. and Senadheera, S., “Spalling of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements,” 

Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3, May/June 1994. 

48. Lee, Y.H. and Darter, M.I., Development of Performance Prediction Models for Illinois Continuously 

Reinforced Concrete Pavements, Research Report No. 1505, Transportation Research Record, pp. 75-

84, 1995. 

49. Weissman, A.J., McCullough, B.F., and Hudson, W.R., Development of Pavement Performance 

Models for Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements In Texas, Research Report 472-7F, Center 

for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1989. 

50. Kerr, A.D., “Assessment of Concrete Pavement Blowups,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, 

Vol. 123, No. 2, pp. 123-131, March/April 1997. 

51. Sargaand, S.M., Performance of Dowel Bars and Rigid Pavement, Ohio Department of 

Transportation, FHWA/HWY-01/2001, June 2001. 

52. Hoerner, T.E. and Darter, M.I., Guide to Developing Performance-Related Specifications for PCC 

Pavements, Volume I: Practical Guide, Final Report, and Appendix A, FHWA-RD-98-155, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, February 1999. 

53. Hoerner, T.E., Darter, M.I., Tarr, S.M., and Okamoto, P.A., Guide to Developing PerformanceRelated Specifications for PCC Pavements, Volume II: Appendix B—Field Demonstrations, FHWARD-98-156, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, February 1999. 

54. Hoerner, T.E., Tarr, S.M., Darter, M.I., and Okamoto, P.A., Guide to Developing PerformanceRelated Specifications for PCC Pavements, Volume III: Appendixes C through F, FHWA-RD-98-171, 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, February 1999. 
 

95 

55. Hoerner, T.E., Guide to Developing Performance-Related Specifications for PCC Pavements, Vol. IV: 

Appendix G—PaveSpec 2.0 User Guide, FHWA-RD-99-059, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC, February 1999. 

56. Poole, T.S., Curing of Portland Cement Concrete Pavements, Interim Report, Report prepared for the 

FHWA by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, February 7, 2000. 

57. Simon, M.J., Snyder, K.A., and Frohnsdorff, G.J., “Advances in Concrete Mixture Optimization,” 

Concrete Durability and Repair Technology Conference, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK, 

September 8-10, 1999. 

58. Simon, M.J., Lagergren, E.S., and Wathne, L.G., “Optimizing High-Performance Concrete Mixtures 

Using Statistical Response Surface Methods,” Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on 

Utilization of High-Strength/High-Performance Concrete, Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo, 

Norway, pp. 1311-1321, 1999. 

59. Simon, M.J, Concrete Mixture Optimization Using Statistical Methods, FHWA-RD-03-060, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, September 2003. 

60. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Final 

Report, 1-37A, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, March 2004. 

61. Tia, M., Bloomquist, D., Yang, M.C.K., Soongswang, P., and Meletiou, C.A., Field and Laboratory 

Study of Modulus of Rupture and Permeability of Structural Concretes in Florida, Final Report 

FL/DOT/SMO/89/361, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 

1990. 

62. Ruiz, J.M, Rasmussen, R.O., Nelson, P.K., Merritt, D.K., Chang, G.K., and Dick, J.C., ComputerBased Guidelines for Job-Specific Optimization of Paving Concrete, FHWA Contract DTFH61-02-C00081, Interim Report, The Transtec Group, 2003. 

63. Data Collection (LTPP), http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/ltpp/data.htm, date last modified 3/21/03. 

Last accessed on February 9, 2004. 

64. Dossey, T. and McCullough, B.F., Updating and Maintaining the Rigid Pavement Database, Research 

Report 1342-3F, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, November 

1994. 

65. Suh, Y.C., Hankins K., and McCullough, B.F., Early-Age Behavior of Continuously Reinforced 

Concrete Pavement and Calibration of the Failure Prediction Model in the CRCP-7 Program, 

Research Report 1244-3, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 

March 1992. 

66. Otero, M.A., McCullough, B.F., and Hankins, K., Monitoring of Siliceous River Gravel and 

Limestone Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement Test Sections in Houston 2 Years After 

Placement, and Development of a Crack Width Model for the CRCP-7 Program, Research Report 

1244-4, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, March 1992. 

67. Nam, J.H., Kim, S.M, McCullough, B.F., and Dossey, T., Sensitivity Analysis of CRCP Computer 

Programs, Research Report 1700-4, Texas Department of Transportation, March 2003. 
 

96 

68. Ruiz, J.M., Kim, P.J., Schindler, A.K., and Rasmussen, R.O., Validation of HIPERPAV for 

Prediction of Early-Age Jointed Concrete Pavement Behavior, Transportation Research Record No. 

1778. Washington, DC, 2001. 

69. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993, American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1993. 
FHWA-HRT-04-121 COMPUTER-BASED GUIDELINES FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENTS, 

VOLUME I: PROJECT SUMMARY
HRDI-11/02-05(1M)E Recycled

Recyclable