Pavement Design PDF

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
Dower bars
Tie 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
Aggregate
No tie bars interlocking
High stresses Pavement

High deflections distresses
Tie bars
Low stresses Good joint

Low deflections performance
November 2, 2011
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
Deflections on 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 293

269
Max Stress = 2051 kPa 245

222
198
Stresses in Y-direction 174
151
127
103
80
56
33
Y-direction
9
-15
X-direction
Tied joint
Max Stress = 1603 kPa
November 2, 2011
Why do we need dowels?
None or inadequate dowel bar design
Faulted Joint
November 2, 2011
Effect of dowels on pavement responses
Traffic direction
Aggregate
No dowels interlocking
High stresses Pavement

High deflections distresses
Approach slab Leave slab
Traffic direction
Rapid slab rebound
Aggregate
Interlock
Rapid movement of Loss of support

materials backward
November 2, 2011
Effect of dowels on pavement responses
Traffic direction
Dowels
Low stresses Good joint

Low deflections performance
No differential deflection, Traffic direction

No faulting
November 2, 2011
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
Nondoweled joint
Y-direction
Max Stress = 1120 kPa

160
142
125
107
89
72
54
37
19
2
-16
-33
-51
-68
Principal Stresses
X-direction
Y-direction
Doweled joint 116

104
92
Max Stress = 812 kPa 80

68
57
45
33
21
9
-3
-15
-26
-38
November 2, 2011
2nd International Conference on Best X-direction
Dowel and Tie Bars?
Federal Highway Administration Long Term

Pavement Performance Studies
1. Evaluation of Joint and Crack Load Transfer
(Khazanovich and Gotlif 2002)
2. Common Characteristics of Good and Poorly
Performing PCC Pavements (Khazanovich et al.
1997)
Almost 150 pavement sections located
throughout USA
November 2, 2011
Effect on Load Transfer Efficiency
100
Cumulative Percentage of Passes
90
80 Doweled Nondoweled
70
60 nondoweled
50
40 Poor
30 doweled
20 Good
10
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Joint LoadMean LTE, Efficiency,
Transfer percentOOOO percent
November 2, 2011
Effect of Dowels on Faulting
of sections
100
(%)
90 Nondoweled
percentdistribution
Doweled
80 Doweled
70
60
Cumulative frequency
50
40
30
Cumulative
20
10 Good Normal Poor
0
0.00 0.05 2.00.10 4.0
0.15 0.20 6.0
0.25 0.308.0 0.35 0.40
Faulting (mm)
Faulting, in
November 2, 2011
2nd International Conference on Best Nondoweled Doweled
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
Nondoweled
(mm) (in)
0.15 ND
D=1
FaultingFaulting
D=1.25
0.10
2.50 D=1.5
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
AADTT perdirection
in one days
Khazanovich et al. 2004
November 2, 2011
Effect of Dowels Diameter on Bearing
Stresses
Dowel Diameter, mm Concrete Bearing Stress, MPa

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

November 2, 2011
Tie bar Diameter
• Tie bar diameter

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

Austria: 700 mm
Germany: 800 mm
USA: 760 mm
• Tie bar spacing
Austria: 3 bars/slab
Germany: construction joints: 5 bars /slab
contraction joints: 3 bars/slab
USA: table
November 2, 2011
FHWA Tie Bar Spacing
Bar diameter: 12.5 mm
Steel yield strength: 280 MPA
PCC Distance to free edge (mm)
thickness (mm) 3000 3600 4800 7200
225 650 550 400 275
250 600 500 400 250
275 550 450 350 225
300 500 400 325 225
November 2, 2011
FHWA Tie Bar Spacing
Bar diameter: 16 mm
Steel yield strength: 280 MPa)
PCC Distance to free edge (mm)
thickness (mm) 3000 3600 4800 7200
225 1050 875 650 425
250 950 775 600 400
275 850 725 525 350
300 775 650 500 325
November 2, 2011
• 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 Tie bar chairs
November 2, 2011
Common Installation Problems
Happy families are all alike;

every unhappy family is unhappy in its
own way.
Todas as famílias felizes são iguais.
Todas as famílias infelizes são 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
Dowel Installation
November 2, 2011
Common Problems
Dowel Installation
The tie is too close to the dowel
November 2, 2011
Common Problems
Dowel Installation
November 2, 2011
Common Problems
Dowel Installation
November 2, 2011
Poor Consolidation of Concrete
Dowel Installation
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
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
Depth,
150
mm
300
November 2, 2011
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
Dowel Installation
• 16 beams ,64 dowels with
precise misalignments
• Pullout test
• Shear test
• Ultimate one time load
application
• Repeated load application
Shear Test
Pullout Test
November 2, 2011
Analytical Modeling
Dowel Installation
Plane of Symmetry
8”
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 D=33 mm
0.12
3 mm
0.10
Faulting, in
D=38 mm
0.08
2 mm
10.06 Equivalent dowel diameter=1.32 in
0.04
1 mm Nominal dowel diameter=1.5 in
0.02
Faulting Limit
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Pavement age, years
November 2, 2011
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

Pavement Design PDF

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

Pavement Design PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dowel and Tie Bars in

Concrete Pavement Joints:

Courtesy of Dr. Darter

High stresses Pavement

Low stresses Good joint

80 kN single axle load

Nontied joint 293

Max Stress = 2051 kPa 245

High stresses Pavement

Rapid movement of Loss of support

Low stresses Good joint

No differential deflection, Traffic direction

Principal Stresses at the Slab Bottom

Max Stress = 1120 kPa

Doweled joint 116

Max Stress = 812 kPa 80

Federal Highway Administration Long Term

Gharaibeh and M. I. Darter 2001

Dowel Diameter, mm Concrete Bearing Stress, MPa

5 @ 300 MM 900 MM 5 @ 300 MM

Dowels in the wheel paths only

• Tie bar diameter

• Tie bar length

Drilled Tie bar chairs

Happy families are all alike;

Lev Tolstoy “Anna Karenina”

• Bars are missing or misplaced

– Dowel and tie bar misplacement

A tie bar is too far from the

If a bar is too close to the

Cracking occurred near the joint the next

The tie is too close to the dowel

The tie is too close to the dowel

The tie is too close to the dowel

Three Ways to Achieve Good

Non-destructive Methods for Bar Location

Rister and Graves 2011

dowels joint Crack Reflection

Washington DOT tolerances for tie bars

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO 2007)

NCHRP 10-69 Study

d eq  remb  rcc  rvt  rhs  d 0

•Case A: a dowel or tie bar is to close to the top surface

• If properly designed and installed, dowels and tie bars

You might also like