Dowel and Tie Bars in Concrete Pavement Joints: Theory and Practice

Dowel and Tie Bars in
Concrete Pavement Joints:

Theory and Practice
Lev Khazanovich
Associate Professor
University of Minnesota
November 2, 2011
2nd International Conference on Best
Practices for Concrete Pavements
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Pavement joints, dowels, and tie bars
Benefits of dowel and tie bars

Dowel and tie bar design
Construction
Summary
November 2, 2011
Longitudinal
joints
Transverse
joints
November 2, 2011
Dowel and Tie Bars
Dowel bars
Placed across transverse joints at the mid-depth of

the slab
Transfer load from one slab to another without
preventing the joint from opening
Commonly made of round, smooth, epoxy coated
steel bars
Reduce joint faulting and corner cracking
November 2, 2011
Dowel and Tie Bars
Tie bars
Placed across longitudinal joints at the mid-depth of the

slab
Prevent lanes from separation and differential
deflections
Made of deformed epoxy coated steel
Reduce transverse cracking
November 2, 2011
Dowels and Tie Bars

Longitudinal construction
joint
Transverse contraction
joint
Tie bars
Dower bars
Courtesy of Dr. Darter

November 2, 2011
Introduction
Theory
Mechanism of load transfer

Effect on deflections and stresses
Effect on performance
Practice
Cost

Construction
Summary
November 2, 2011
Why do we need tie bars?

None or inadequate tie bar design
Lane separation
November 2, 2011
Effect of tie bars on pavement responses
No tie bars
Aggregate
interlocking
High stresses
High deflections
Pavement
distresses
Tie bars
Low stresses
Low deflections
November 2, 2011
Good joint
performance
ISLAB2000 Finite Element Model
80 kN single axle load

November 2, 2011
Deflection
Deflections without Tie Bars
Nontied joint
Max Deflection = 0.54 mm
November 2, 2011
Effect
of Dowels
on Deflections
Deflections
with Tie
Bars
Tied joint
November 2, 2011
Effect of Tie Bars on PCC Stresses

Stresses in Y-direction
Principal Stresses at the Slab Bottom

Nontied joint
Max Stress = 2051 kPa
X-direction
Y-direction
Stresses in Y-direction
Tied joint
November 2, 2011
293
269
245
222
198
174
151
127
103
80
56
33
9
-15
Why do we need dowels?

None or inadequate dowel bar design
Faulted Joint
November 2, 2011
Effect of dowels on pavement responses

Traffic direction
No dowels
Aggregate
interlocking
High stresses
High deflections
Pavement
distresses
Leave slab
Approach slab
Traffic direction
Rapid slab rebound
Aggregate
Interlock
Rapid movement of
materials backward
November 2, 2011
Loss of support
Effect of dowels on pavement responses

Traffic direction
Dowels
Low stresses
Low deflections
No differential deflection,
No faulting
November 2, 2011
Good joint
performance
Traffic direction
Effect of Dowels on Stresses and

Deflection
ISLAB2000
November 2, 2011
Effect of Dowels on Deflections
Nondoweled joint
November 2, 2011
Effect of Dowels on Deflections

Deflection
Doweled joint
November 2, 2011
Effect of Dowels on Stresses

Principal Stresses at the Slab Bottom
Principal Stresses
Y-direction
Nondoweled joint
160
142
125
107
89
72
54
37
19
2
-16
-33
-51
-68
Principal Stresses
Y-direction
X-direction
Doweled joint
November 2, 2011
116
104
92
80
68
57
45
33
21
9
-3
-15
-26
-38
X-direction
Dowel and Tie Bars?

Federal Highway Administration Long Term
Pavement Performance Studies
1.
2.
Evaluation of Joint and Crack Load Transfer

(Khazanovich and Gotlif 2002)
Common Characteristics of Good and Poorly
Performing PCC Pavements (Khazanovich et al.
1997)
Almost 150 pavement sections located

throughout USA
November 2, 2011
Cumulative Percentage of Passes
Effect on Load Transfer Efficiency

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Doweled
Nondoweled
nondoweled
Poor
doweled
20
30
Good
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LTE, Efficiency,
percentOOOO
Joint LoadMean
Transfer
percent
November 2, 2011
of sections
percentdistribution
Cumulative
(%)
Cumulative frequency
Effect of Dowels on Faulting

100
90
80
Doweled
Nondoweled
Doweled
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.00
Good
Normal
0.05 2.00.10
Poor
4.0
0.15
0.20
0.25
6.0
Faulting
(mm)
Faulting,
in
November 2, 2011
Nondoweled
Doweled
0.308.0 0.35
0.40
Benefits of Dowels
Smith et al. 1990
Dowels increase the initial cost between
5 and 8 percent, but increase the load
carrying capacity over 100 percent
Gharaibeh and M. I. Darter 2001
The use of dowel bars increases the
initial pavement life by about 60 percent
and results in similar total Life Cycle
Cost reduction than not using dowels.
November 2, 2011
Introduction
Diameter
Length
Spacing
Construction
Summary
November 2, 2011
Dowel Diameter
Germany
25 mm
USA
Concrete thickness
Dowel diameter
<200 mm
25 mm
200 - 250 mm
32 mm
>250 mm
38 mm
MEPDG based on the maximum allowed faulting
November 2, 2011
Effect of Dowel Diameter on Faulting

0.25
Design period: 20 years
Slab thickness: 200 mm.
0.20
5.00
(mm) (in)
FaultingFaulting
Nondoweled
ND
D=1
D=1.25
D=1.5
0.15
0.10
2.50
DD=25 mm
0.05
DD=32 mm
DD=38 mm
0.00
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number
of Trucks
perdirection
days
AADTT
in one
November 2, 2011
Khazanovich et al. 2004
Effect of Dowels Diameter on Bearing

Stresses
Dowel Diameter, mm
Concrete Bearing Stress, MPa
25
32
38
17.3
12.7
9.3
November 2, 2011
Dowel Length and Spacing
Dowel length
Germany:
USA:
Minnesota:
Dowel spacing
Germany:
USA:
November 2, 2011
500 mm
450 mm
380 mm
250 mm in wheel path
500 mm outside of the wheel path
300 mm
non-uniform
Non-uniform Dowels Spacing
5 @ 300 MM
900 MM
Dowels in the wheel paths only

November 2, 2011
5 @ 300 MM
Tie bar Diameter
Tie bar diameter

Austria:
Germany:
USA:
November 2, 2011
14 mm
20 mm
12.5 and 16 mm
Tie Bar Length and Spacing
Tie bar length

Austria:
Germany:
USA:
Tie bar spacing
Austria:
Germany:
USA:
November 2, 2011
700 mm
800 mm
760 mm
3 bars/slab
construction joints: 5 bars /slab
contraction joints: 3 bars/slab
table
FHWA Tie Bar Spacing

Bar diameter: 12.5 mm
Steel yield strength: 280 MPA
PCC
thickness (mm)
225
250
275
300
Distance to free edge (mm)

3000
650
600
550
500
November 2, 2011
3600
550
500
450
400
4800
400
400
350
325
7200
275
250
225
225
FHWA Tie Bar Spacing

Bar diameter: 16 mm
Steel yield strength: 280 MPa)
PCC
thickness (mm)
225
250
275
300
Distance to free edge (mm)

3000
1050
950
850
775
November 2, 2011
3600
875
775
725
650
4800
650
600
525
500
7200
425
400
350
325
Introduction
Construction
Installation
Common problems
Evaluation
Fixing
Summary
November 2, 2011
Installation
Dower bars
Dowel baskets
Dowel bar inserter (DBI)
A bond breaker (typically, grease) must be
applied prior to placement
Tie bars
Machine-place
Placed by hand
Chairs
Drilled and grouted
November 2, 2011
Dowel Baskets
November 2, 2011
Dowel Bar Inserter
NHI
November 2, 2011
Dowel Bar Inserter
NHI
November 2, 2011
Tie Bar Installation
Drilled
November 2, 2011
Tie bar chairs
Common Installation Problems
Happy families are all alike;

every unhappy family is unhappy in its
own way.
Todas as famlias felizes so iguais.
Todas as famlias infelizes so diferentes.
Lev Tolstoy Anna Karenina
November 2, 2011
Common Installation Problems

Bars are missing or misplaced
Poorly adjusted equipment
Damaged dowel baskets
Improper basket anchoring
Concrete around bars is poorly consolidated
Poorly adjusted equipment
Too stiff mix (often caused by mix delays)
November 2, 2011
Common Problems Problems
Dowel and tie bar misplacement

Dowel and tie bars are too close to each other
Poor consolidation of concrete around dowels
and tie bars
November 2, 2011
Vertical Position Problem
Dowel Installation
A tie bar is too far from the

mid-depth.
Concrete cover is too low.
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
If a bar is too close to the

top surface
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
Cracking occurred near the joint the next

morning
November 2, 2011
Common Problems
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
Common Problems
The tie is too close to the dowel
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
Common Problems
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
Common Problems
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
Poor Consolidation of Concrete
Entrapped air
Dowel bar
The PCC mix was way too stiff
due to paving delays.
300 meters had to be
removed and replaced.
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
How to Avoid Problems
Three Ways to Achieve Good

Placement
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection
November 2, 2011
NDT for Bar Placement
Non-destructive Methods for Bar Location

Magnetic (MIT SCAN)
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
Ultrasound tomography
November 2, 2011
MIT SCAN
Advantages
Simple
Accurate
Relatively fast
Disadvantages
Must be calibrated for specific dowels and tie bars
May be have problems when dowel baskets are used
Cannot determine condition of concrete around dowel or
tie bars
November 2, 2011
MIT SCAN
November 2, 2011
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)

Advantages
Fast can be used for initial screening/gross bar
misplacements
Disadvantages
Data interpretation is time-consuming
Resolution is not very high
Rister and Graves 2011

November 2, 2011
Ultrasound Tomography
Advantages
Determines not only bar
position but also condition of
concrete around dowel/tie bar
Disadvantages
Relatively slow
November 2, 2011
Dowels
Lane 3
Measurement Point
18 in.
Longitudinal Joint
Pavement-Base Interface
Shoulder
November 2, 2011
dowels
joint
Crack Reflection
150
300
November 2, 2011
Depth,
mm
Alignment Tolerances
Washington DOT tolerances for tie bars
Vertical translation: 25-mm
Horizontal translation: 25-mm

Vertical tilt: 25 mm
Horizontal skew: 25 mm
November 2, 2011
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO 2007)
tolerances for tie bars
Depth tolerance
PCC thickness 200 mm : -6 mm / +12 mm
PCC thickness 250 mm : -15 mm/ +25 mm
Longitudinal translation: 50-mm

Vertical tilt: 15 mm
Horizontal skew: 15 mm
November 2, 2011
NCHRP 10-69 Study
University of Minnesota
(Prime Contractor)
Lev Khazanovich
Kyle Hoegh
Mark Snyder
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_637.p
November
2, 2011
df
Field Testing of 60 pavement sections across USA
The majority of joints had dowel misalignments
within the following limits:
Vertical translation +/- 13 mm
Horizontal skew +/- 13 mm
Vertical tilt - +/- 13 mm
Longitudinal translation - +/- 50 mm
Dowel misalignment within these limits does not
appear to significantly affect pavement
performance.
November 2, 2011
Laboratory Testing
16 beams ,64 dowels with
precise misalignments
Pullout test
Shear test
Ultimate one time load
application
Repeated load application
Pullout Test
November 2, 2011
Dowel Installation
Shear Test
Analytical Modeling
Dowel Installation
Plane of Symmetry
Joint
180
60
Exaggerated
joint opening
November 2, 2011
Analytical and Laboratory Results

Dowel greasing is very important!
Dowel alignment
Good
Bad
Vertical position
Mid-depth +/- 13 mm
Concrete cover <50

mm
Concrete cover < saw
cut depth
Embedment length
>175 mm
< 50 mm
Rotation
< 25 mm/450 mm
> 75 / 450 mm
Dowel misalignment has the same apparent effect

on joint performance as a reduction in dowel
diameter
November 2, 2011
Equivalent Dowel Diameter Concept
d eq remb rcc rvt rhs d 0

remb <1 if longitudinal translation is greater than 50 mm
rcc <1 if vertical translation is greater than 12.5 mm
rvt < 1 if vertical tilt is greater than 12.5 mm
rhs <1 if horizontal skew is greater 12.5 mm
d0 = nominal dowel diameter
Predicted Faulting
MEPDG Faulting Prediction, mm

0.14
0.12
3 mm
0.10
0.08
2 mm
10.06
0.04
1 mm
0.02
0.00
Faulting, in
D=33 mm
D=38 mm
Equivalent dowel diameter=1.32 in
Nominal dowel diameter=1.5 in
Faulting Limit
0
November 2, 2011
10
12
14
Pavement age, years
16
18
20
22
If the Bars Misplaced ..

It is NOT OK to have dowel positioned out of specification
Do not harm try to minimize invasive treatment
How to react
Carefully evaluate the problem (determine actual bar
location)
Evaluate short-term and long-term effects
Develop remedy plan
November 2, 2011
If the Bars are Misplaced ..

Case A: a dowel or tie bar is to close to the top surface
(<50 mm)
Cut the dowel through
Develop penalty and/or retrofit dowels or tie bars
Case B: Other types of misplacements
Evaluate effective dowel/tie bar diameter
Predict performance
Develop penalty and/or retrofit dowel or tie bar
November 2, 2011
Summary
If properly designed and installed, dowels and tie bars
significantly improve performance of pavement joints
Although they increase the initial cost, dowel and tie bars
reduce Life Cycle Cost
Both dowel baskets and dowel bar inserters are good
installation alternatives
Improper dowel installation may reduce effectiveness of
the dowels and tie bars
Nondestructive testing methods give an opportunity to
trouble shoot the problems and determine their extent
The best approach is to use NDT during construction to
identify and fix the problem
November 2, 2011

Dowel and Tie Bars in Concrete Pavement Joints: Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dowel and Tie Bars in Concrete Pavement Joints: Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dowel and Tie Bars in

Concrete Pavement Joints:

Pavement joints, dowels, and tie bars

Benefits of dowel and tie bars

Dowel and Tie Bars

Placed across transverse joints at the mid-depth of

Dowel and Tie Bars

Placed across longitudinal joints at the mid-depth of the

Dowels and Tie Bars

Courtesy of Dr. Darter

Mechanism of load transfer

Dowel and tie bar design

Why do we need tie bars?

Effect of tie bars on pavement responses

ISLAB2000 Finite Element Model

80 kN single axle load

Deflections without Tie Bars

Effect of Tie Bars on PCC Stresses

Principal Stresses at the Slab Bottom

Why do we need dowels?

Effect of dowels on pavement responses

Effect of dowels on pavement responses

Effect of Dowels on Stresses and

Effect of Dowels on Deflections

Effect of Dowels on Deflections

Effect of Dowels on Stresses

Dowel and Tie Bars?

Evaluation of Joint and Crack Load Transfer

Almost 150 pavement sections located

Cumulative Percentage of Passes

Effect on Load Transfer Efficiency

Effect of Dowels on Faulting

Effect of Dowel Diameter on Faulting

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Khazanovich et al. 2004

Effect of Dowels Diameter on Bearing

Concrete Bearing Stress, MPa

Dowel Length and Spacing

Non-uniform Dowels Spacing

Dowels in the wheel paths only

Tie bar Diameter

Tie bar diameter

Tie Bar Length and Spacing

Tie bar length

FHWA Tie Bar Spacing

Distance to free edge (mm)

FHWA Tie Bar Spacing

Distance to free edge (mm)

Dowel Bar Inserter

Dowel Bar Inserter

Tie Bar Installation

Tie bar chairs

Common Installation Problems

Happy families are all alike;

Common Installation Problems

Common Problems Problems

Dowel and tie bar misplacement

Vertical Position Problem

A tie bar is too far from the

Vertical Position Problem

If a bar is too close to the

Vertical Position Problem

Cracking occurred near the joint the next