Effect of Concrete Strength and Stiffness Characterization on Predictions of Mechanistic–Empirical Performance for Rigid Pavements

Abstract

The hierarchical approach for specifying design inputs is a key feature of the new Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). The three levels of design input for the strength and stiffness characterization of portland cement concrete (PCC) range from a Level 1 laboratory measurement of modulus of elasticity and modulus of rupture at 7, 14, 28, and 90 days to a Level 3 estimation of the 28-day unconfined compressive strength. This paper evaluates the effect of design input level for PCC strength and stiffness properties on MEPDG performance predictions for jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCPs). The effects of the different PCC stiffness and strength design input levels on predicted faulting, transverse cracking, and international roughness index (IRI) are evaluated for eight PCC mixtures in several JPCP design scenarios. Faulting was found to be insensitive to the MEPDG PCC input level, transverse cracking was extremely sensitive, and IRI was only moderately sensitive. In particular, the results showed that the Level 3 input combination of a measured 28-day modulus of rupture and a measured 28-day modulus of elasticity yielded predicted distresses that were consistently in closest agreement with predictions that used Level 1 inputs. Reliable and accurate 28-day modulus of rupture and modulus of elasticity values can therefore be used as less-expensive and more-practical alternatives to full Level 1 stiffness and strength characterization in JPCP analysis and design. When full Level 1 characterization is performed, high-quality testing is mandatory for avoiding small anomalies in measured values that can cause physically unrealistic predictions by the MEPDG of stiffness and strength gains over time.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division. Guide for Mechanistic–Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final report, NCHRP Project 1-37A. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.trb.org/mepdg/guide.htm.

Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008.

Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 3rd ed. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1993.

Special Report 61: The AASHO Road Test. Highway Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1962, pp. 291–306.

Hall

K. D.

, and Beam

Estimating the Sensitivity of Design Input Variables for Rigid Pavement Analysis with a Mechanistic–Empirical Design Guide. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1919, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 65–73.

Kannekanti

, and Harvey

J. T.

Sensitivity Analysis of 2002 Design Guide Distress Prediction Models for Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1947, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 91–100.

Buch

, Chatti

, Haider

S. W.

, and Manik

Evaluation of the 1-37A Design Process for New and Rehabilitated JPCP and HMA Pavements. RC-1516. Michigan State University, East Lansing, 2008.

Guclu

, Ceylan

, Gopalakrishnan

, and Kim

Sensitivity Analysis of Rigid Pavement Systems Using the Mechanistic–Empirical Design Guide Software. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 8, 2009, pp. 555–562.

McCracken

J. K.

, Vandenbossche

J. M.

, and Asbahan

R. E.

Effect of the MEPDG Hierarchical Levels on the Predicted Performance of a Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement. Proc., 9th International Conference on Concrete Pavement, Vol. 1, San Francisco, Calif., Aug. 17–21, 2008, International Society for Concrete Pavements, 2009, pp. 153–170.

10.

Mallela

, Titus-Glover

, Ayers

M. E.

, and Wilson

T. P.

Characterization of Mechanical Properties and Variability of PCC Materials for Rigid Pavement Design. Proc. 7th International Conference on Concrete Pavements, Lake Buena Vista, Fla., International Society for Concrete Pavements, 2001.

11.

Implementing the AASHTO Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide in Missouri. Volume I: Study Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Final report, MODOT Study RI-4-002. Applied Research Associates, Champaign, Ill., 2009.

12.

Ceylan

, Kim

, Turner

D. J.

, Rasmussen

R. O.

, Chang

G. K.

, Grove

, and Gopalakrishnan

Impact of Curling, Warping, and Other Early-Age Behavior on Concrete Pavement Smoothness: Early, Frequent, and Detailed (EFD) Study, Phase II. Final report, FHWA DTFH61-01-X-00042 (Project 16). Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, 2007.

13.

Mindess

, Young

J. F.

, and Darwin

Concrete, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 2003.

14.

Wood

S. L.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Properties of Concrete. Materials Journal, Vol. 88, No. 6, Nov. 1992, pp. 630–643.

15.

Vandenbossche

J. M.

, Mu

, and Burnham

T. R.

Comparison of Measured vs. Predicted Performance of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements Using the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Aug. 2010.