See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323272762

Characterizing Strength and Thermal Properties of Concrete for

Implementation of Pavement Mechanistic-Empirical Design in New Mexico

Article  in  Transportation Geotechnics · February 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.02.003

CITATIONS READS

0 65

2 authors, including:

Gauhar Sabih
University of New Mexico
13 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Characterization of Rigid Pavement Materials for NM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gauhar Sabih on 22 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Technical Paper

Characterizing strength and thermal properties of concrete for

implementation of pavement mechanistic-empirical design in
New Mexico
Gauhar Sabih ⇑, Rafiqul A. Tarefder
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, 1 University of New Mexico, MSC01 1070, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The format of the design and performance prediction of rigid pavements was reformed with the advent of
Received 21 October 2017 Pavement mechanistic-empirical (ME) design procedure, which now serves as the state-of-the-art tool in
Revised 24 January 2018 pavement design. Various state agencies have either completed or in the process of calibration of distress
Accepted 11 February 2018
prediction models and characterization of concrete materials to provide accurate inputs required by
Available online 19 February 2018
Pavement ME design software. There are numerous concrete properties for which input data is required
in ME design software, but with previous research, it was found that the concrete strength and thermal
Keywords:
properties including elastic modulus, modulus of rupture and coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) are
Concrete
Coefficient of thermal expansion
the most important ones that affect the design and performance of rigid pavements. Accurate rigid pave-
Modulus of rupture ment design is heavily dependent on accuracy of these material inputs. This study is part of a New Mexico
Characterization Department of Transportation (NMDOT) research project that focuses on the development of guidelines
International roughness index for characterizing Portland cement concrete (PCC) materials for paving mixes being used in New Mexico.
Elastic modulus Concrete mixes with 5 different coarse aggregates were tested for these pivotal concrete properties at the
curing age of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days, and for CTE at 28 days. The laboratory test results represent level 1
PCC material inputs. The data collected offered an excellent opportunity to validate and refine the ME
default level 2 models for estimating flexural strength and elastic modulus based on compressive
strength data. The data demonstrated a slight deviation from the nationally calibrated models. CTE values
of concrete based on aggregate type were established for these paving mixes. Further analysis verified the
benefit of using the level 1 inputs over the default level 3 inputs for accurate pavement design and per-
formance prediction. It was also highlighted that transverse cracking is the most significantly affected
performance parameter between the pavement designed with level 1 and level 3 material inputs.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
A concrete pavement is a structure comprising of a layer of Port-
land cement concrete usually supported by underlying layers on
the subgrade. Concrete pavements may be either unreinforced or
reinforced depending on the preference to control the cracking.
The high strength and rigidity of concrete provides a concrete
pavement with a reasonable degree of flexural strength which
leads to distribution of externally applied wheel loads to a wider
area. This results in minimizing the pressure applied to the sub-
layers. The load capacity of a rigid pavement is solely dependent
on the concrete layer. This study found that jointed plain concrete
pavement (JPCP) is the most widely used rigid pavement across the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gsabih@unm.edu (G. Sabih), tarefder@unm.edu (R.A. Tarefder).
United States (U.S.) and there are about 18 different material prop-
erties of concrete, which are required as input for design of JPCP
according to mechanistic-empirical (ME) design procedure. After
studying the sensitivity of various input factors on rigid pavement
performance, Schwartz et al. [1] identified the modulus of rupture
(MOR), the modulus of elasticity, and the coefficient of thermal
expansion (CTE) as input factors that had significant impact on
the concrete pavement’s performance with regards to transverse
cracking, joint faulting and pavement roughness. Tanesi et al. [2]
worked to determine the effect of the variability of the CTE on
the predicted pavement performance. They performed a sensitivity
analysis by varying the CTE values on a single jointed plain con-
crete pavement design and found that with the increase in CTE
value of concrete, the percentage of slabs with transverse cracking
also increases. Hein [3] conducted his research and described that
thermal expansion and contraction of a concrete pavement can
have a significant effect on its performance. Thermal contraction

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.02.003
2214-3912/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28
can result in transverse cracking of slabs depending on the joint
spacing. Thermal effects also impact slab bending and curling
and when joints/edges are curled upwards, they do not have full
contact with the base and are subject to cracking under traffic
loading. This could be particularly significant for long, thin slabs
under heavy, frequent loading. Sabih and Tarefder [4–6] investi-
gated the effects of variability of mechanical and thermal proper-
ties of concrete on performance predictions of concrete
pavements and found that concrete properties such as elastic mod-
ulus, flexural strength and coefficient of thermal expansion signif-
icantly affect the performance of concrete pavement over the
pavement design life including transverse cracking, joint faulting
and pavement roughness.
The process of design and performance prediction of concrete
pavements was mostly empirical until the advent of Pavement
ME design procedure which was originally developed under the
NCHRP Project 1-37A. This procedure was eventually adopted by
AASHTO as the standard for pavement design and AASHTO made
standard guidelines for agencies to implement the procedure and
perform local calibration [7]. According to the survey conducted
in 2014 by NCHRP to determine the implementation status of
Pavement ME design, it was found that most of the states are using
the default input values as they are in the process of local calibra-
tion and implementation [8]. Pavement analysis and design can
currently be performed using the software program commonly
referred to as Pavement ME design. It is based on mechanistic-
empirical design concepts, which means that the design procedure
calculates pavement responses such as stresses, strains, and deflec-
tions under axle loads and climatic conditions and then accumu-
lates the damage over the design analysis period. The procedure
then empirically relates calculated damage over time to pavement
distresses and smoothness based on performance of actual projects
throughout the U.S. Pavement ME design performs a wide range of
analysis and calculations in a rapid, easy-to-use format [9].
According to the previous research, accurate determination of
concrete material properties enhances the accuracy of the designed
pavement. The variability of CTE, MOR and elastic modulus
impacts the performance indicators of JPCP such as faulting, rough-
ness and cracking. These key parameters can be determined for
each paving mix through laboratory tests. They are used by the
structural response models and performance prediction models
for damage calculations and performance predictions. One of the
features of the Pavement ME Design is its ability to use default,
regional, or site-specific values for materials data inputs which
are regarded as level 3, 2, and 1 respectively. These levels of inputs
define the accuracy of the output in the form of designed pave-
ment. Level 1 inputs comprise of the laboratory tested data of
the specific paving mix while level 2 inputs are the values based
on the default interconversion models and the values obtained
from the average of the constituents of concrete. Level 3 has lowest
accuracy in design as it comprises of the software default values.
This study encompasses the testing of New Mexico paving mixes
to generate level 1 input data of these parameters and refine the
level 2 models correlating compressive strength, elastic modulus,
and MOR. Simulations will be conducted in Pavement ME design
Table 1
Summary of concrete mixes with coarse aggregate mineralogy.
Mix ID Coarse aggregate source
CA-ID-1 Dark Canyon
CA-ID-2 Steele pit
CA-ID-3 Tinaja
CA-ID-4 Placitas
CA-ID-5 Avispa
21
version 2.3 to evaluate the impact of level 1 and level 3 material
inputs on JPCP performance predictions.
Objectives

Testing and evaluation of concrete for CTE, MOR and elastic
modulus to develop a database to be used with pavement ME
design for design of rigid pavements in New Mexico. Moreover,
to develop level 2 interconversion correlations between com-
pressive strength, MOR and elastic modulus.

To conduct the sensitivity analysis of these material input levels
on rigid pavement performance.
Casting of concrete specimens (cylinders and beams)
This study consisted of laboratory testing of 5 concrete paving
mixes from different districts of New Mexico prepared with differ-
ent coarse aggregates. Concrete cylinder and beam specimens were
casted from these mixes to determine compressive strength, elastic
modulus, MOR and CTE. The test results provided pavement engi-
neers with level 1 inputs to be used in rigid pavement design with
Pavement ME design software for these specific mixes and level 2
correlations were produced for interconversion of compressive
strength into elastic modulus and MOR for New Mexico paving
mixes. Forty cylindrical specimens and twelve beam specimens
were prepared from each of the five mixes. These mixes are indi-
cated as CA-ID-1 to CA-ID-5 for data composition and analysis pur-
poses. The detail of coarse aggregate mineralogy of these mixes is
listed in Table 1.
Details of mix design
The concrete mixes consisted of different coarse aggregates
with different mix proportions and mix properties. The details of
all the tested mixes are tabulated in Table 2. The concrete speci-
mens were prepared in the field and transported to the pavement
laboratory at UNM, after an initial setting, and placed in tempera-
ture controlled curing tanks at 75 °F for final curing. All of the pav-
ing mixes considered in this study contains fly ash as a
supplementary cementitious material, which contributes to the
properties of fresh and hardened concrete. Fly ash improves the
workability, reduces the water demand and reduces the heat of
hydration of plastic concrete. It also increases the ultimate
strength and durability and reduces the permeability of hardened
concrete.
Compressive strength and elastic modulus testing
Compressive strength testing and results
The compressive strength of concrete cylinders (4  8 in.) was
determined per ASTM C39-16 [10] and AASHTO T-22-14 [11] at
the age of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. This test method covers determi-
nation of compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens
Coarse aggregate mineralogy Fine aggregate Location
Un known Grand Falls Hobbs
Granite Steele pit Clovis
Limestone Tinaja Grants
Quartzite Placitas Santa Fe
Limestone Dryer Vado
22 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28

such as molded cylinders. The testing was conducted on 3 replicate
specimens for each age group for each paving mix. The comparison
of compressive strength results is shown in Fig. 1. The results are
consistent with a constantly increasing trend with concrete age.
The 28-day compressive strength values range from 4422 to
7694 psi whereas the strength at 14 days range from 3658 psi to
6482 psi. These values far exceed the minimum NMDOT specifica-
tion requirement of 3000 psi. The average 28-day PCC compressive
strength values in the long-term pavement performance (LTPP)
database range from 3034 to 7611 psi with an average value of
5239 psi [12]. These NMDOT paving mixes have a higher than aver-
age compressive strength value compared to the mixes used in the
sections included in the national calibration of the ME design
models.
Elastic modulus testing and results
Concrete cylindrical specimens were tested per ASTM C469-14
[13], which covers determination of chord modulus of elasticity
(Young’s modulus) of concrete cylinders. The cylindrical specimens
of all the mixes were tested for elastic modulus at the age of 7, 14,
28 and 90 days. The testing was conducted on 3 replicate speci-
mens for each age group for each paving mix. The comparison anal-
ysis of these results is shown in Fig. 2. The 28-day elastic modulus
values range from 4.29 to 6.49  106 psi, with an average of 5.4 
106 psi. These values can be considered high relative to the average
value of 4.38  106 psi corresponding to LTPP sections used in the
national calibration of rigid pavement models for ME design.

Table 2
Details of mix designs.

Mix ID CA-ID-1 CA-ID-2 CA-ID-3 CA-ID-4 CA-ID-5

Cement (lbs/CuYd) 421 466 390 510 506
Specific Gravity 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15
Fine aggregate
Specific Gravity 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.57 2.65
Absorption (%) 1 1.2 2.2 0.7 1.1
Fine Aggregate (lbs/CuYd) 1380 1215 1505 1400 992
Fineness modulus 2.94 2.94 3.27 2.67 2.72
Coarse aggregate
Specific Gravity 2.779 2.644 2.665 2.587 2.709
Absorption 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.3 0.3
Batch Weight (lbs/CuYd) 1757 1787 1505 1372 2008
Fly Ash-class F (lbs/CuYd) 140 132 130 217 140
Specific Gravity 2.6 2 2.03 2.03 2.35
Pozzolan/Cementitious Ratio 25 22.1 25 30 25
Water/Cement Ratio 0.57 0.49 0.63 0.35 0.38
Slump (in) 4.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2
Air Content (%) 6 6.5 7 5.4 7.5

Fig. 1. Comparison of compressive strength results.

Fig. 2. Comparison of elastic modulus results.

 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28 23

ME design model for interconversion of compressive strength into

elastic modulus

The global calibration of the Pavement ME design distress mod-

els utilized several level 2 and level 3 inputs based on the best
information available from literature and LTPP database. The elas-
tic modulus correlation was borrowed from American Concrete
Institute (ACI) model. The model is as follows:

00:5
Ec ¼ q1:5  33  f c ð1Þ

00:5
Ec ¼ 57000  f c ð2Þ

where Ec = modulus of elasticity in psi; f0 c is compressive strength in

psi; q is the density in lb/ft3.
For concrete unit weight of 145 lb/ft3, the model in Eq. (1) will
result in Eq. (2). Fig. 3. 0.5 Power model for elastic modulus.

Proposed model for NMDOT mixes

With the help of tested data of five mixes i.e. CA-ID-1 to 5, two
inter-conversion models have been proposed for these paving
mixes. First model is 0.5 power model similar to ME design model,
designated as Model-1, and the second model is power model
shown as model-2. The regression analysis of these two models
is presented in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively.
The two models are presented as follows:

00:5
Ec ¼ 67290  f c Model-1

00:7464
Ec ¼ 7986:8  f c Model-2
Fig. 4. Power model for elastic modulus.
The proposed 0.5 power model has a R2 (coefficient of determi-
nation) value of 0.77 and the power model gives R2 value of 0.88,
which shows that both the models fits the data well but the power Modulus of rupture testing of concrete beams
model works better than 0.5 power model.
Testing methodology

Analysis of proposed models
The analysis of the predicted elastic modulus values was carried
out with the measured values and the results have been plotted as
shown in Fig. 5, which clearly shows that the proposed models
gives better results for NMDOT mixes when compared to the ME
design default model. In comparison of the two proposed models,
the power model works better as the predicted values from this
model are closer to the measured elastic modulus values as com-
pared to the 0.5 power model.
The density of the paving mixes used in this study ranges
between 137.1 to 144.7 lb/ft3 and the multiplying factor in the
default model (Eq. (2)) for these mixes comes in the range of
52,900 to 57,400 with these values of densities. Whereas, the pro-
posed 0.5 power model has the factor of 67,000. Thus, it is evident
that the default model will under predict the elastic modulus val-
ues of these mixes.
The standard error of estimate (SEE) was determined for all of
the interconversion models. The SEE values for power model, 0.5
power model and default model were 0.35  106, 0.49  106 and
0.90  106 respectively. It is evident that the proposed power
model has the lowest value of SEE which again proves that it is
the best model for the prediction of elastic modulus for these pav-
ing mixes.
This test is conducted per the specifications of ASTM C78-15
[14] and AASHTO T 97-14 [15]. This test method covers the deter-
mination of the flexural strength of concrete using a simple beam
with third-point loading.
Test results and discussion
The concrete beams casted from all the mixes were tested for
flexural strength at the age of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. The testing
was conducted on 3 replicate specimens for each age group for
each paving mix. The comparison of average values of flexural
strength is plotted in Fig. 6. The results are consistent with a con-
stantly increasing trend and flexural strength increases with con-
crete age. The 28-day flexural strengths are in the range of 665
psi to 963 psi with an average value of 833 psi. These values are
characteristic of high strength mixes. A typical 28-day PCC flexural
strength value used in rigid pavement design is 650 psi. The target
flexural strength of the LTPP sections, which represent the newly
constructed rigid pavement experiments nationwide, was 550
psi. The 28-day flexural strength values reported in the LTPP data-
base range from 489 to 1006 psi with an average of 735 psi [12]. It
is evident that these paving mixes have higher than average 28-
day flexural strengths.
24 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28

Fig. 5. Comparison of measured and predicted results.

Fig. 6. Comparison of MOR test results.

Interconversion default model for ME design

ME design distress models utilized several level 2 and level 3

inputs based on the best information available from literature
and LTPP database. PCC flexural strength model for ME design soft-
ware is based on Portland Cement Association (PCA) and LTPP
studies. The model uses the general model form used in literature
for flexural strength estimation and the correlation can be
expressed as:
00:5
MR ¼ 9:5  f c ð3Þ
0
where MR is flexural strength in psi; f c is compressive strength in
psi. Fig. 7. 0.5 Power model for MOR prediction.

Proposed MOR models for NMDOT paving mixes

00:5
MR ¼ 10:7  f c Model-3
Based on test data of five mixes, two interconversion models
have been proposed for NMDOT paving mixes i.e. 0.5 power model 00:6308
MR ¼ 3:45  f c Model-4
and power model. The regression analysis for these two models is
presented in Figs. 7 and 8 respectively.
The proposed models are presented as Model 3 and 4 respec- Analysis of proposed models
tively. The 0.5 power model presents the R2 value of 0.84 while
the power model gives R2 value of 0.86, which shows that both The analysis of the proposed models was conducted by deter-
the models are a good fit to the experimental data but the power mining the MOR values with reference to the ME default model
model is slightly better than the 0.5 power model. The models and the proposed models in comparison with the experimental
are as follows: values and the results have been plotted as shown in Fig. 9, which
 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28 25

clearly shows that the proposed model gives better results for
NMDOT mixes when compared to the ME design default model.
The standard error of estimate (SEE) was determined for all the
interconversion models. The SEE values for power model, 0.5
power model and default model were 48, 53 and 103 respectively.
It is evident that the proposed power model has the lowest value of
SEE which again proves that it is the best model for the prediction
of MOR for these paving mixes.
Coefficient of thermal expansion testing of concrete cylinders
The concrete cylinders were tested for determination of CTE per
AASHTO T 336-11 [16]. This method determines the CTE of a cylin-
drical concrete specimen maintained in a saturated condition. The
testing was conducted on 2 replicate specimens for each paving
mix. The comparison of the results at the age of 28 days is shown
in Fig. 10. The CTE property in NMDOT mixes vary over a fairly
large range. The CTE values range from 3.71 to 5.39  106 in/in/
°F. The CTE of CA-ID-1, 2 and 4 are consistently higher than that
of CA-ID-3 and CA-ID-5 which are 100% limestone. This confirms
the findings from the literature that limestone has the lowest
CTE value as compared to other minerals. The impact of coarse
aggregate on the CTE values is evident with these results. For the
tested mixes the standard deviation values for the test data (same
lab, same mix design) are within 0.1  106 in/in/°F which shows
excellent repeatability.

Comparison of CTE Test Data to ME Design Default Data

The comparison of CTE test data for NMDOT mixes with the ME
design default data was conducted. The average CTE values for con-
crete with limestone, quartzite, and granite are different than the
Fig. 8. Power model for MOR prediction. average values of ME default data. The average value for concrete

Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and predicted MOR results.

Fig. 10. Comparison of CTE test results.

26 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28

Table 3 Pavement me simulations to evaluate impact of material input

JPCP design parameters for simulation work.
levels
Parameter Value
Design Life 30 years Simulation methodology
Design Thickness 10 in
Dowel Diameter & Spacing 1.25 in @ 12 in The sensitivity analysis of input properties on performance
Joint Spacing 15 ft
parameters of JPCP was performed by conducting the simulations
Slab Width 12 ft
AADTT 4000 in Pavement ME design version 2.3. All the design inputs including
Traffic ESALS 29  106 design life, pavement geometry, traffic volume etc were considered
Terminal IRI 172 in/mile constant as shown in Table 3. The simulations were conducted for
Threshold Transverse Cracking (% of Slabs) 15% CA-ID 2, 3, 4 & 5 to contrast the impact of level 1 and level 3 inputs
Terminal Mean Joint Faulting 0.12 in
on JPCP performance. The lab tested data for concrete strength
Reliability 90%
Modulus of Rupture of Concrete Per CA-ID properties including MOR and elastic modulus and CTE were used
Elastic Modulus of Concrete Per CA-ID for level-1 design while, for level-3 design, default CTE value and
Poisson’s Ratio 0.2 compressive strength input @ 28 days was used. The performance
Aggregate Type Per CA-ID
parameters including transverse cracking, joint faulting, and IRI
Base Course Thickness 6 in
Base Course Resilient Modulus 40,000 Psi
were analyzed with respect to the two input levels.

Analysis of simulation results

The analysis of simulation results was conducted to quantify

with limestone is 3.71  106 in/in/°F in comparison with the cor-
responding LTPP values of 4.4  106 in/in/°F. The test data shows
lower values than the default database in this case. Whereas the
average value for concrete with Granite is 5.4  106 in/in/°F as
compared to the corresponding LTPP values of 4.8  106 in/in/°F
and the test data shows higher values than the default database.
the effects of material input level variation on pavement perfor-
mance indicators.
Effects on transverse cracking
The comparison for transverse cracking is presented in Fig. 11,
which shows that there is significant variation in transverse crack-

Fig. 11. Impact of material input levels on transverse cracking.

Fig. 12. Impact of material input levels on joint faulting.

 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28 27

Fig. 13. Impact of material inputs on IRI.

Fig. 14. Percent change in performance between input levels.

ing between the results of level 1 and level 3 inputs. The change in
transverse cracking with input levels is 39–54% which is highly sig-
nificant. With these results, it is evident that the pavement must be
designed with the accurately tested level 1 inputs for the paving
mix to be used so that the designed pavement can last for the
entire service life. The ME default CTE data will not produce accu-
rate design for NMDOT paving mixes.
spond to the difference in transverse cracking as IRI is dependent
on transverse cracking parameter along with other factors. These
results necessitate the importance of using level 1 inputs while
designing a concrete pavement. These results also confirm the
requirement of generating a database of CTE values and the inter-
conversion models for compressive strength, elastic modulus and
MOR for the paving mixes to be used in New Mexico.

Effects on joint faulting Percent change in performance parameters

The comparative summary for joint faulting is presented in
Fig. 12. It is evident that the impact on joint faulting between
the two input levels is less than the impact on transverse cracking.
The difference in joint faulting values ranges between 0.01 to 0.04
in. For further accuracy in the design, level-1 inputs should be
used. With these results, it is evident that the pavement must be
designed with the accurately tested input values of CTE, MOR
and elastic modulus to obtain an accurate design. The ME default
data may not produce accurate design for NMDOT paving mixes
and there is a need to generate a database of concrete material
properties for NMDOT paving mixes to obtain precision in pave-
ment design and performance predictions.
Effects on pavement roughness
The comparison is presented in Fig. 13, which shows that there
is significant variation in IRI between the two input levels. The dif-
ference ranges between 13 and 55 in/mile. The high values corre-
To compare the impact of input levels on the performance
parameters, the% change in transverse cracking, faulting and IRI
was determined and the comparison is shown in Fig. 14. The
results show that transverse cracking has the highest% change with
40–91% change as compared to faulting and IRI. While IRI is the
next significantly affected parameter with change of 8–42%.
Conclusion
The characterization of concrete material inputs including CTE,
elastic modulus and MOR of paving mixes is essential for accurate
design and performance prediction of JPCP with pavement ME
design procedure. There is a significant difference between the
results of performance predictions of JPCP obtained with level 1
and level 3 inputs. The most significant effect of input levels is
on transverse cracking predictions which is in the range of 39–
54%. The effect of coarse aggregate mineralogy on CTE of concrete
28 G. Sabih, R.A. Tarefder / Transportation Geotechnics 15 (2018) 20–28
is also confirmed with the experimental data. Furthermore, it is
confirmed that the default interconversion correlations need to
be adjusted for locally used paving mixes for accurate rigid pave-
ment design.
Acknowledgements
This study is part of a project funded by the NMDOT. The
authors would like to express their gratitude to Jeffrey Mann for
being the Advocate of this project and David Hadwiger for being
Project Manager. Special thanks to Parveez Anwar, Sean Brady
and Naomi Gaede for their help and support in execution of this
project. The help of the pavement research group at UNM in col-
lecting concrete mixes and specimens’ preparation is greatly
appreciated.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.02.003.
References
[1] Schwartz C, Li R, Kim SH, Ceylan H, Gopalakrishnan K. Sensitivity evaluation of
MEPDG performance prediction. National cooperative highway research
program research results digest, RRD 372, Washington, D.C.: National
Research Council; 2011.
[2] Tanesi J, Kutay ME, Abbas A, Meininger R. Effect of coefficient of thermal
expansion test variability on concrete pavement performance as predicted by
mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide. Transp Res Rec
2008;2020:40–4.
[3] Hein DK, Sullivan S. Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) and its
significance in mechanistic-empirical pavement design. Advances in Pavement
Evaluation and Instrumentation of the 2012 Annual Conference of the
Transportation Association of Canada Fredericton, New Brunswick; 2012.
View publication stats
[4] Sabih G, Tarefder RA. Impact of variability of mechanical and thermal
properties of concrete on predicted performance of jointed plain concrete
pavements. Int J Pavement Res Technol 2016:1–13.
[5] Sabih G, Tarefder RA. Effects of concrete stiffness on mechanistic-empirical
performance of unbonded jointed plain concrete overlay. In: Proc of the
international conference on highway pavements & airfield technology,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, Aug 27–30; 2017. p. 25–32.
[6] Sabih G, Tarefder RA. Effect of CTE, MOR and Elastic Modulus on Performance
of Rigid Pavement by MEPDG Simulation. In: Proc of the 4th Geo-China
International Conference, July 25 to 27; 2016, Shandong, China. p. 86–93.
[7] AASHTO. Mechanistic – Empirical pavement design guide, A Manual of
Practice, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials; 2008.
[8] NCHRP. Implementation of the AASHTO mechanistic-empirical pavement
design guide and sofware. National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Synthesis 457, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; 2014.
[9] Mallela J, Titus-glover L, Bhattacharya B, Darter M, Von Quintus H. Idaho
AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design User’s Guide; 2014.
[10] ASTM C39/C39M–12a. Standard test method for compressive strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. In: ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, United States; 2012.
[11] AASHTO T-22-14. Standard method of test for compressive strength of
concrete specimens. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249,
Washington, D.C., 20001; 2014.
[12] Rao C, Varner R, Barstis W. PCC material characterization in mississippi for
aashtoware pavement ME design. Annual meeting of Transportation Research
Board; 2016.
[13] ASTM C469/C469M–10. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity
and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression. ASTM International, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, United
States; 2010.
[14] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard test method for flexural
strength of concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading) 1, vol.
C78–02, No. C; 2010.
[15] AASHTO T 97–14. Standard method of test for flexural strength of concrete
specimens. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249, Washington, D.C., 20001;
2014.
[16] AASHTO T 336–11. Coefficient of thermal expansion of hydraulic cement
concrete. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249, Washington, D.C., 20001; 2011.