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

net/publication/271839394

New AASHTO 336-09 Coefficient of thermal expansion test method: how will it
affect you?

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · November 2010
DOI: 10.3141/2164-07

CITATIONS READS
12 1,462

5 authors, including:

Jussara Tanesi Gary Crawford

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation
56 PUBLICATIONS   435 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jagan M. Gudimettla
FHWA/ATI
44 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Variability of PEM Tests During Production View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jussara Tanesi on 05 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New AASHTO T336-09 Coefficient
of Thermal Expansion Test Method
How Will It Affect You?
Jussara Tanesi, Gary L. Crawford, Mihai Nicolaescu,
Richard Meininger, and Jagan M. Gudimettla
Although many papers were published during the past decade on the co-
efficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and its impact on concrete pavement
design, an error was recently discovered in the AASHTO TP60-00 about
the calibration of the testing equipment and, consequently, determination
of the concrete CTE. The new AASHTO T336-09, even though based on
the TP60-00, rectifies this calibration issue. This paper presents differ-
ences between the two test methods and implications for the Long-Term
Pavement Performance database and for the Mechanistic–Empirical
Pavement Design Guide and for its implementation by state departments
of transportation. Recommendations are provided for improvements to
the AASHTO T336-09 test method.
The Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) of FHWA
was one of the pioneers in carrying out coefficient of thermal expan-
sion (CTE) tests of concrete pavements over the past 10 years. It
has tested more than 2,200 specimens, mostly cores for the Long-
Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) database. The LTPP CTE
test results were originally used to calibrate Version 1.0 of the
Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) models.
Interest in CTE testing has increased significantly in the past few
years because it was observed to be one of the most important inputs
of the MEPDG for pavement design (1–7). In the past 5 years alone,
more than 20 papers have been published on CTE and its effect on
the MEPDG.
AVAILABLE COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL
EXPANSION TESTS FOR CONCRETE
Several test methods are available for determining the CTE of con-
crete. The most widely used is the AASHTO TP60-00, the basis for
all the LTPP CTE testing. This test method was recently modified
and approved as the new AASHTO T336-09. This is the test method
used by all the state departments of transportation except Texas,
which uses a local version of the test method.
J. Tanesi and M. Nicolaescu, Global Consulting, Inc., and R. Meininger, Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center, FHWA, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean,
VA 22101. G. L. Crawford, FHWA, Room E73-438, HIPT-20, and J. M. Gudimettla,
Global Consulting, Inc., FHWA Mobile Concrete Laboratory, Room E73-105C,
HIPT-20, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. Corresponding
author: J. Tanesi, jussara.ramadan@dot.gov.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2164, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2010, pp. 52–57.
DOI: 10.3141/2164-07
52
The principle of TP60 is quite simple. It measures the length change
of a saturated concrete specimen placed vertically in a metal frame sub-
jected to a specific temperature change. A controlled temperature water
bath is used to vary the temperature range specified by the test method.
Deformation of the frame is taken into account by measuring the length
change of a specimen of known CTE, normally a 304 stainless steel
specimen. TP60 states that the CTE of a 304 stainless steel specimen
is 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F). This is the value normally reported
in the literature (8–11) and used by most of the state and university
laboratories that perform TP60.
Won proposed a new method to calculate CTE of concrete based
on modifications to TP60 (12). The remainder of this paper refers
to this new method as the Texas method. The principal and testing
equipment proposed in this method is similar to that of TP60. It is
based on the same principles and also assumes that the CTE of the
304 stainless steel specimen is 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F). The
difference between the Texas method and TP60 is that the former
calculates the concrete CTE as the slope of the deformation versus
temperature curve, while in AASHTO TP60, the CTE is calculated
as the length change over a temperature change after the specimen
achieves thermal equilibrium.
Both TP60 (or new AASHTO T336) and the Texas method can
be carried out with the same equipment. Equipment may be a custom-
made unit (manual or automated versions) or an automated commer-
cially available unit. See Figure 1a through 1d. TFHRC has been
evaluating three commercial units over the past 2 years, but it has
not published data on specific units. Two of them are commercially
available, and one is still under evaluation.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has its own CTE test method,
CRD-C 39-81, which has some similarities to TP60 but does not
employ a frame; consequently, no calibration specimen is required
for the test. Instead, it uses a length comparator. Preliminary tests at
TFHRC using this procedure showed higher variability of test results
than with others.
The Bureau of Reclamation has test method USBR 4910-92, which
does not require the use of a calibration specimen.
Other test methods have been proposed but are not widely
used (13–15), including test methods that measure the CTE of the
aggregates and calculate the CTE of the concrete (16).
REFERENCE MATERIALS FOR RUGGEDNESS TEST
TFHRC, as part of the CTE equipment evaluation study and in
preparation for ruggedness and precision studies of equipment and
laboratories, obtained additional reference materials (other than
Tanesi, Crawford, Nicolaescu, Meininger, and Gudimettla
(a)
(c)
FIGURE 1 Examples of CTE units: (a) manual custom-built units, (b) automated commercially available unit (Pine), (c) automated commercially
available unit (Gilson), and (d) unit under FHWA evaluation not commercially available (InstroTek).
the 304 stainless steel calibration used for obtaining the correction
factor in all initial TFHRC manual custom-built CTE testing of LTPP
portland cement concrete pavement cores).
The new reference specimens consist of a variety of materials with
a range of CTE values typically within the range of the concrete spec-
imens that have been tested previously by TFHRC. Materials obtained
were as follows:
• Alumina bisque. According to the literature, its CTE is 5.5 ×
10−6/°C (3.1 × 10−6/°F) (11). In the case of alumina bisque, the speci-
men is a very porous ceramic and needs to be saturated before testing.
Careful is necessary when handling the specimen, for the material can
be easily broken.
• Titanium 6 – aluminum 4 – vanadium (Ti-6Al-4V). According
to the literature, its CTE is 9.2 × 10−6/°C (5.1 × 10−6/°F) (11).
• Meanwhile, the FHWA Mobile Concrete Laboratory (MCL)
obtained another reference material, 410 stainless steel. According
to the literature, its CTE is 10.5 × 10−6/°C (5.8 × 10−6/°F) (8).
53
(b)
(d)
The 410 stainless steel has a weak magnetic field that could affect
the linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) during tests.
Preliminary evaluations did not show any effect on the CTE units at
FHWA’s TFHRC or MCL.
THIRD-PARTY TESTING
The reference material specimens were tested at TFHRC using man-
ual custom-built units and one of the commercially available units
following TP60. As can be seen in Table 1, CTE values obtained for
the alumina bisque, titanium alloy, and 410 stainless steel CTEs did
not coincide with the values reported in the literature. They were
about 1 × 10−6/°C (0.6 × 10−6/°F) higher than the values reported
in the literature. Possible reasons for the differences were that the
alumina bisque, titanium alloy, and 410 stainless steel obtained by
the TFHRC laboratory and MCL laboratory were not exactly the
same materials for which values are reported in the literature, or the
54 Transportation Research Record 2164

TABLE 1 CTE Reported in Literature and Test Results (AASHTO TP60 and ASTM E228)

AASHTO TP60
ASTM E228
Literature Reported Manual Unit Commercial Unit
Specimen CTE Value × 10−6/°C CTE × 10−6/°C CTE × 10−6/°C Third-Party Laboratory 1
ID Material (× 10−6/°F) (× 10−6/°F)a (× 10−6/°F)a CTE × 10−6/°C (× 10−6/°F)b

A Alumina bisque 5.5 (3.1) 6.5 (3.6) 6.7 (3.7) 5.4 (3.0)
T Titanium alloy 9.2 (5.1) 10.0 (5.6) 10.2 (5.7) 8.9 (4.9)
S 410 stainless steel 10.5 (5.8) 11.8 (6.6) 11.5 (6.4) 10.4 (5.8)
SS743 304 stainless steel—manual 17.3 (9.6) Not applicable Not applicable 15.8 (8.8)
Calibration Specimen 2
M1 304 stainless steel—Manufacturer 1 17.3 (9.6) Not applicable Not applicable 15.9 (8.8)
calibration specimen
M2 304 stainless steel—Manufacturer 2 17.3 (9.6) Not applicable Not applicable 16.2 (9.0)
calibration specimen

a
Average of two tests.
b
Single test result. ASTM E228 precision is 0.8% for the temperature range of 25°C to 400°C (77°F to 752°F).

LVDTs were being affected by temperature change or moisture,
or both, during the test cycling. This difference led to the explo-
ration of options for verification of the CTE by an independent
third-party laboratory.
As a result, the reference specimens were sent to be tested at a lab-
oratory specializing in the CTE testing of metals for the aerospace
industry. The tests were carried out following a modified version of the
ASTM E228-06 test method, to accommodate 18-cm long × 8-cm-
or 10-cm (7-in. × 3-in. or 4-in.) diameter specimens and the same
temperature range as TP60, 10°C to 50°C (50°F to 122°F).
In addition to sending of the newly obtained reference specimens,
several 304 stainless steel specimens used for calibration of the
FHWA manual custom-built unit and two of the commercial units
were sent to the same laboratory for verification.
In the ASTM E228 test method, a push-rod dilatometer is used to
measure linear thermal expansion. The differential expansion between
the sample and a known standard reference material is measured as a
function of temperature. The expansion of the sample is computed
from this differential expansion and the expansion of the standard.
Measurements are made under computer control, and linear expansion
is calculated at preselected temperature intervals.
Table 1 shows the CTE reported in the literature and test results
obtained at TFHRC and at the independent laboratory. As can be
seen, results obtained at TFHRC following TP60 are much higher
than those obtained at the third-party laboratory following ASTM
E228. No need existed to test the 304 stainless steel in the manual
and commercial units, for they are calibrated with the assumed CTE
value of 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F). So if the specimens are
tested, the CTE result would be 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F).
Results obtained according to TP60 were much higher than
those obtained according to ASTM E228. Moreover, other than
the 304 stainless steel specimens, results reported by the third-
party laboratory are in general agreement with the values reported
in the literature. The 304 stainless steel CTE test result was lower
than the reported 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F) for all three of the
specimens.
After analysis of results received from the independent laboratory,
another reason for the higher TP60 results arose: the values of CTE
of 304 stainless steel used for the calibration of the units might not
be correct for the temperature range during CTE testing. Of empha-
sis is that the CTE value of 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F) is used
by most laboratories running TP60 and the Texas method, whether
a custom-built or a commercially available unit is used.
If the 304 stainless steel calibration specimen CTE values used as
an input for the determination of the correction factor (according to
TP60) were not correct, the resulting CTE values for the materials
tested would not be correct, either. As a proof of concept, a new cor-
rection factor was obtained using 15.8 × 10−6/°C (8.8 × 10−6/°F) as
the CTE for 304 stainless steel (TFHRC manual custom-built unit).
With the new correction factor, the CTE reported in Table 1 were
recalculated (Table 2). The CTE tests in Table 2 were carried out in
the TFHRC manual custom-built units.
When the correction factor is determined using the TP60 suggested
default value for 304 stainless steel, the CTE of alumina bisque, tita-

TABLE 2 Comparison of CTE Obtained at Third-Party Laboratory and at TFHRC

Assuming Two CTE Values for Calibration Specimen

Third-Party Manual Unit CTE Manual Unit CTE

Laboratory 1 × 10−6/°C (× 10−6/°F) × 10−6/°C (× 10−6/°F)
Specimen CTE × 10−6/°C (Cf a based on 304 SS (Cf a based on 304 SS
ID Material (× 10−6/°F) of 15.8 × 10−6/°C) of 17.3 × 10−6/°C)

A Alumina bisqueb 5.4 (3.0) 5.0 (2.8) 6.5 (3.6)

T Titanium alloy 8.9 (4.9) 8.5 (4.7) 10.0 (5.6)
S 410 stainless steel 10.4 (5.8) 10.3 (5.7) 11.8 (6.6)

a
Cf = correction factor as determined by AASHTO TP60.
b
The difference between TFHRC and the third-party laboratory test result was partially due to the fact that the third-
party laboratory was unable to keep the specimen saturated and alumina bisque is very porous.
Tanesi, Crawford, Nicolaescu, Meininger, and Gudimettla 55

TABLE 3 Comparison Between CTE Test Results Obtained by Two Third-Party Laboratories
(ASTM E228)

Third-Party Third-Party
Laboratory 1 Laboratory 2
Specimen CTE × 10−6/°C CTE × 10−6/°C
ID Material (× 10−6/°F) (× 10−6/°F)

T Titanium alloy 8.9 (4.9) 9.2 (5.1)

S 410 stainless steel 10.4 (5.8) 10.2 (5.7)
SS743 304 stainless steel—manual Calibration Specimen 2 15.8 (8.8) 15.9 (8.8)
M1 304 stainless steel—Manufacturer 1 calibration specimen 15.9 (8.8) 15.7 (8.7)

NOTE: CTE values based on temperature range of 10°C to 50°C (50°F to 122°F).

nium alloy, and 410 stainless steel are higher than expected, but when
the correction factor is determined using the measured CTE value for
304 stainless steel obtained by the third-party laboratory, the CTE
of alumina bisque, titanium alloy, and 410 stainless steel are much
closer to the expected values. It seemed that the differences were not
due to the impact of the temperature change or moisture on the
LVDT readings. Rather, they were due to the use of an inappropri-
ate CTE for the 304 stainless steel calibration specimen as an input
to calculate the correction factor and consequently the CTE of the
reference materials.
To confirm the CTE of the 304 stainless steel specimens, TFHRC
sent specimens to a second independent laboratory. Since another
laboratory was not found that was capable of running a modified
ASTM E228 on 18-cm long × 8-cm- or 10-cm (7-in × 3-in. or 4-in.)
diameter, small samples of each of the specimens previously sent to
the first independent laboratory were cut off. The samples, also called
coupons, were approximately 5.1 × 5.1 × 0.6 cm (2 × 2 × 1⁄4 in.).
Because it was not possible to obtain coupons out of all the specimens
previously tested by the first independent laboratory without damag-
ing the specimens, only four specimens were tested by the second
independent laboratory. This laboratory measured the CTE over a
much wider temperature range of −40°C to 300°C (−40°F to 572°F)
than did the previous laboratory.
Table 3 shows clearly that results received from the second indepen-
dent laboratory were in agreement with results obtained from the first
independent laboratory. The small differences observed can be attrib-
uted to test variability. The CTE test results shown in Table 3 repre-
sent the CTE values over the same temperature range as for TP60 and
do not include the full temperature range used by the laboratory.
Figure 2 shows the mean CTE for the entire temperature range
used during the test by the second independent laboratory. It can be
seen that the CTE value changes with temperature. The material that
presented the most stable CTE over the temperature range of −40°C
to 300°C (−40°F to 572°F) was the titanium alloy. It is also clear
that at around 300°C (572°F), the CTE test results for the 304 stain-
less steel specimens approach the value reported in the literature of
17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F).
IMPACT OF RECENT FINDINGS ON NEW
T336 COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSION
TEST METHOD
In light of new findings about the CTE of the 304 stainless steel cal-
ibration specimen, the recently approved T336 has incorporated lan-
guage that cautions the reader on the use of assumed CTE values
regardless of the material used. The differences between the TP60
and the new T336 are as follows:
• Third-party testing. While TP60 states in the nonmandatory
appendix that the CTE of the 304 stainless steel is 17.3 × 10−6/°C

20

18
Mean CTE (x10-6/°C)

16

14 T 336 temperature
range
12

10

8
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature (°C)
M1 S SS743 T

FIGURE 2 Mean CTE over wide range of temperature (CTE calculated with
reference temperature of 20ⴗC: M1 ⴝ 304 stainless steel of commercial unit;
S ⴝ 410 stainless steel; SS743 ⴝ 304 stainless steel of manual units; and
T ⴝ titanium alloy).
56
(9.6 × 10−6/°F), T336 requires the CTE of any calibration specimen
to be determined by a laboratory possessing ISO 9001 or equivalent
certification.
• Determination of CTE of the calibration specimen. The CTE
has to be determined by a third-party laboratory, according to ASTM
E228 or ASTM E289. Moreover, the CTE determination has to be
conducted over the same temperature range as with T336: 10°C to
50°C (50°F to 122°F).
• CTE certificate. The calibration specimen has to have a certifi-
cate issued by the third-party laboratory, including the lot number of
the specimen tested. The CTE has to be determined on the same spec-
imen or on a specimen from the same lot, since the CTE of materials
may change by lot.
• MEPDG cautionary note. Models in Version 1.0 of the MEPDG
software were calibrated using the LTPP database on CTE, obtained
according to TP60. Since the values obtained according to TP60 and
T336 may differ considerably depending on the calibration specimen
used and assumed CTE value, the CTE obtained according to T336
should not be used as an input in Version 1.0 of the MEPDG software,
to prevent pavement thickness from being underestimated.
IMPACT OF RECENT FINDINGS ON LONG-TERM
PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE DATABASE
The current LTPP database of CTE values is the result of extensive
testing of thousands of cores from pavements throughout the coun-
try over a 10-year period. The test method used to obtain the CTE
was the TP60, which assumes an improper CTE for the calibration
specimen for the temperature range at which the test is carried out.
As a result, the CTE values in the LTPP database are higher than
they should be for the expected temperature range and needed to be
adjusted accordingly.
Since the divergence on the CTE of the calibration specimens was
discovered, TFHRC has worked to backcalculate all the test results,
substituting the 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F) by the CTE value of
the specific calibration specimens used for each specific unit, includ-
ing several manual custom-built units and the commercial units. The
LTPP database Version 24, released in January 2010, contains the
adjusted CTE values.
IMPACT OF RECENT FINDINGS
ON MECHANISTIC–EMPIRICAL
PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE
Several studies in the past few years have identified CTE as one of
the most significant inputs or classified as extremely sensitive input
in the MEPDG for designing concrete pavements (1–7). The CTE of
the concrete determines the magnitude of the pavements curling
stresses, joint movement, and load transfer efficiency that affect the
overall pavement design. In continuously reinforced concrete pave-
ments, the CTE determines the crack spacing and crack width, which
affects the crack load transfer efficiency and ultimately punchouts.
Since the various distress models in the MEPDG use CTE data
from the LTPP database, these models need to be adjusted based on
the corrected data (using the right CTE for the calibration specimen).
Because the current models in the MEPDG software are based on the
higher CTE values included in the LTPP database, a lower CTE value
should be used only after the models have been recalibrated, either
through a global recalibration of the models or through a local cali-
bration process. If this issue is not addressed, it could have a negative
Transportation Research Record 2164
impact on the predicted design thickness. For example, based on a
sample design, not adjusting the models would result in less conserv-
ative designs of approximately 1.3 cm (0.5 in.) thinner pavement for
low CTE values and 2.5 cm (1.0 in.) thinner pavement for higher CTE
values. A national recalibration of MEPDG concrete models based on
revised CTE values (NCHRP 20-7 Task 288) has been initiated.
OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Numerous highway agencies have started characterizing the material
properties of their typical mixtures in advance of MEPDG implemen-
tation. The CTE values stored in these databases are still valid. How-
ever, the recorded values will need to be adjusted by the difference in
the assumed CTE value of the calibration specimen and the CTE value
obtained according to ASTM E228. As noted, these adjusted CTE val-
ues should be used for design purposes with the MEPDG software only
after the models have been recalibrated.
Some states have already developed typical pavement designs and
design tables based on the MEPDG and CTE. In that case, once the
MEPDG is recalibrated, the tables should be verified and changed as
necessary.
SUGGESTED CHANGES FOR T336
Although the approval of a full standard dedicated to measuring the
CTE of concrete has been a great achievement, some modifications
would further improve the procedure. The following recommendations
are based on TFHRC extensive testing and research experience:
• Correction factor. T336 already presents a procedure for the
determination of the correction factor. Nevertheless, it is in a non-
mandatory appendix to the test method. Since determination of the
correction factor is mandatory, it should be moved to the body of
the standard.
Moreover, in the current T336, no discussion is provided for the
calibration specimen. To obtain accurate results, it is suggested that
the length of the calibration specimen be within 2 mm (0.1 in.) of
the concrete specimens to be tested. The diameter of the calibration
specimen should be a suitable diameter to firmly rest on support
buttons of the frame.
• Addressing the water level. When the water level in the controlled
temperature water bath affects the CTE, especially if the water level
changes during the test or if the water level during concrete testing is
different from the water level during calibration. This is because when
the water level changes, the length of the frame and the LVDT shaft
that is submerged or exposed to the ambient air will change. Therefore,
based on TFHRC research, the water level should not depart from the
last calibration’s water level by more than 13 mm (0.5 in.).
• Equipment verification. With use of LVDTs in contact with water
and at high temperatures, the electronics can be affected. To verify
proper functioning of the LVDT and overall equipment operation, it is
suggested that the setup be verified monthly by testing a reference
specimen of known CTE, other than the calibration specimen. The ref-
erence specimen should have a CTE value at least 5 × 10−6/°C (2.8 ×
10−6/°F) different from that of the calibration specimen. It will ensure
that readings are consistently good, for any discrepancies would be
easily discovered.
A suggestion is that the reference specimen should be composed
of a material that is noncorroding, nonoxidizing, nonporous, and
nonmagnetic. Also, it should have a thermal coefficient close to that
 Tanesi, Crawford, Nicolaescu, Meininger, and Gudimettla
of concrete within the temperature range of 10°C to 50°C (50°F to
122°F). The CTE of the reference material should be determined by
an independent laboratory, the same as with CTE of the calibration
specimen. In this study, the titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) was found
to be a suitable material.
After verification, if the CTE of the reference specimen is found
to differ by more than 0.3 × 10−6/°C (0.2 × 10−6/°F) from the certi-
fied value, the correction factor should be determined again using
the procedure described in T336.
• Calibration of LVDTs. The current T336 requires a micrometer
be used for calibrating the LVDT. Nevertheless, it does not provide
any guidance on calibration, nor on the frequency of calibration. A
calibration every 6 months is believed to be adequate.
• Specimen end condition. The end condition of the concrete
specimen may be a source of some test error. T336 should pro-
vide guidance on the minimum requirements. It is suggested that
the same requirements from AASHTO T 22-07 on compressive
strength be applied.
• Number of specimens to be tested. The CTE of a mixture
should not be determined based on a single test result. Guidance on
the number of specimens to be tested should be provided. It is sug-
gested that a minimum of two specimens be tested and the average
value reported, to characterize a mixture.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In an effort to finalize the work on CTE, FHWA discovered that
the CTE of the 304 stainless steel specimen, a calibration spe-
cimen normally used to test the CTE of concrete according to
AASHTO TP60, is not 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F) for the tem-
perature range of the TP60. Of importance is that the CTE value
of 17.3 × 10−6/°C (9.6 × 10−6/°F) is employed by most laboratories
running TP60 and the Texas method. One cannot overemphasize the
impact this finding may have.
A new test method was approved (AASHTO T336). It is based on
the provisional test method TP60 but does not assume any value for
the calibration specimen. However, it requires that the CTE of the
calibration specimen be determined by a certified independent
laboratory.
The CTE values in the LTPP database were determined based on
TP60 and need to be adjusted for the difference in CTE values of the
calibration specimen. The January 2010 LTPP database (Release 24.0)
already contains the adjusted values.
The MEPDG models were developed based on the LTPP data.
Since the LTPP database needs to be adjusted, the MEPDG models
need to be recalibrated. With use of MEPDG Version 1.0, the CTE val-
ues must be determined according to TP60 and not T336, to prevent an
inaccurate pavement design.
Some improvements to the new T336 have been suggested, in
regard to the water level, correction factor, equipment verification,
LVDT calibration, specimen end condition, and number of specimens
to be tested.
The following recommendations are made:
1. All laboratories that conduct CTE tests should determine the
CTE value of the calibration specimen measured according to
ASTM E228.
2. A reference specimen with a known CTE value according to
ASTM E228 should be obtained and used to verify correct operation
of the CTE equipment.
3. Once the models in the MEPDG software have been recali-
brated, highway agencies will need to adjust their CTE test results
View publication stats
57
to account for the difference between assumed and actual CTE value
of the calibration specimen.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank William Luecke of NIST for his expertise on
metal properties and the invaluable contributions provided.
REFERENCES
1. Tanesi, J., M. E. Kutay, A. R. Abbas, and R. C. Meininger. Effect of
CTE Variability of Concrete Pavement Performance as Predicted
Using the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide. In Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2020, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
emies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 40–44.
2. Mallela, J., A. Abbas, T. Harman, C. Rao, R. Liu, and M. Darter. Measure-
ment and Significance of Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Concrete in
Rigid Pavement Design. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1919, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 38–46.
3. Tanesi, J., M. Hossain, T. Khanum, G. Schieber, and R. Montney. The
Portland Cement Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Input for the
Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide. Presented at 85th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
4. Kohler, E., R. F. Alvarado, and D. Jones. Measurement and Variability of
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion for Concrete Pavements. Presented at
86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 2007.
5. Kannekanti, V., and J. T. Harvey. Sensitivity Analysis of 2002 Design
Guide Distress Prediction Models for Jointed Plain Concrete Pave-
ment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, No. 1947, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 91–100.
6. Ceylan, H., B. Coree, and K. Gopalakrishnan. Design of Rigid Pave-
ment in Iowa Using Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide.
Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2009,
pp. 219–225.
7. Jahangirnejad, S., N. Buch, and A. Kravchenko. Evaluation of Coefficient
of Thermal Expansion Test Protocol and Its Impact on Jointed Concrete
Pavement Performance. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 106, Jan.–Feb. 2009,
pp. 64–71.
8. Oberg, E., F. Jones, and H. Horton. Machinery’s Handbook, 25th ed.
Industrial Press, New York, 1996.
9. Davis, J. Stainless Steels. ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, 1994.
10. Steffe, J., and C. Daubert. Bioprocessing Pipelines: Rheology and Analy-
sis. Freeman Press, East Lansing, Mich., 2006.
11. MatWeb. http://www.matweb.com. Accessed May 2010.
12. Won, M. Improvements of Testing Procedures for Concrete Coefficient
of Thermal Expansion. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1919, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 23–28.
13. Burnham, T., and A. Koubaa. A New Approach to Estimate the In-Situ
Thermal Coefficient and Drying Shrinkage for Jointed Concrete Pave-
ment. Proc., 7th International Conference on Concrete Pavements,
Orlando, Fla., Sept. 9–13, 2001, pp. 313–332.
14. Sakyi-Bekoe, K. Assessment of the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
of Alabama Concrete. Master’s thesis, Auburn University, Ala., 2008.
15. Mukhopadhyay, A., S. Neekhra, and D. Zollinger. Preliminary Charac-
terization of Aggregate Coefficient of Thermal Expansion and Gradation
for Paving Concrete. Texas Transportation Institute and Texas Depart-
ment of Transportation. FHWA Report FHWA/TX-05/0-1700-5. FHWA,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007.
16. Mukhopadhyay, A., D. Zollinger, and S. Sarkar. New Mineralogical
Approach to Predict Aggregate Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (COTE)
Based on Dilatometer and Bulk Chemical Analysis. Proc., 11th Annual
Symposium of International Center for Aggregate Research (CD-ROM),
Austin, Tex., April 27–30, 2003.
The Properties of Concrete Committee peer-reviewed this paper.