Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp.

1258 - 1273, 2005

EFFECTS OF JOINT LOAD TRANSFER ON CONCRETE PAVEMENT

RESPONSE

LIU Wei FWA Tien Fang

Research Scholar Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
National University of Singapore National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent 10 Kent Ridge Crescent
SINGAPORE 119260 SINGAPORE 119260
Fax: 65-6779-1635 Fax: 65-6779-1635
E-mail: engp2472@nus.edu.sg E-mail: cvefwatf@nus.edu.sg

Abstract: Single-slab models have been widely adopted the design and the analysis of concrete
pavement. An implicit assumption of this approach is that the beneficial effects of joint load
transfer are ignored. Field measurements and finite element analyses by researchers have
shown that joint shear transfer had a significant influence on the state of stresses in the slab
when the loads were applied near the joint. Hence, it is of practical significance to quantify the
effect of joint load transfer on load-induced stresses in concrete pavement systems. The present
study adopts a closed-form theoretical three-slab model to analyze the structural responses of
concrete pavements under traffic loading. The analysis concludes that the effects of joint force
transfer must be considered in the design and evaluation of concrete pavements in order to
provide a structurally sound pavement structure for its intended design life.

Key Words: concrete pavement, joint load transfer, three-slab model, slab properties,
modulus of subgrade reaction

1. INTRODUCTION

A concrete pavement system consists of a number of Portland cement concrete slabs, finite in
length and width, resting on a multi-layered sub-structure. Joints are normally placed in the
concrete pavement system to provide space to accommodate thermal movements of the
concrete slab and to control cracking. Hence, the structural system inevitably requires a load
transfer device such as dowel bars or tie bars to bridge the joint. An efficient load transfer
device helps to relieve pavement stresses and reduce slab deflection by tranfering an applied
load to the adjacent slab. Among the models for analyzing wheel load effects, single-slab
models based on thin-plate theories have been widely adopted (Westergaard 1926, Hogg and
Hall 1938, Picket and Ray 1951). Several single-slab models based on thick-plate theories are
also available (Henwood et al. 1982, Shi et al. 1994). The research group at the Center for
Transportation Research of the National University of Singapore (NUS) has developed a
three-slab thick-plate model (Shi et al. 19969) that are able to predict the stresses, deflections
and fatigue properties of concrete pavements under vertically applied wheel loads. This paper
presents the formulation of the three-slab model and employs the model to evaluate the effect
of joint load transfer on structural responses of concrete pavements.

1258
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The NUS three-slab model consists of a system of three slabs resting on a Pasternak
foundation. The governing equations are derived based on Reissner’s thick-plate theory, and
modified to include the Winkler foundation model. By applying the basic strain-displacement
relations of theory of elasticity, neglecting the body forces, and with the aid of equilibrium
conditions, the fundamental equations for a thick-plate resting on Winkler foundation are
obtained as follow:
D∇ 4 w − c 2 ∇ 2 (kw + q ) + kw + q = 0 (1a)

h2 2
10
∇ Qx − Qx = D
∂
∂x
∇2w − ( h2
) ∂
10(1 − μ ) ∂x
(kw + q ) (1b)

h2 2
10
∇ Qy − Qy = D
∂
∂y
∇2w − (h2
)∂
10(1 − μ ) ∂y
(kw + q ) (1c)

⎡ 6(1 − μ ) ∂Q x ⎛ ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w ⎞ 3μ ⎤
M x = D⎢ − ⎜⎜ 2 + μ 2 ⎟⎟ + (kw + q )⎥ (1d)
⎢⎣ 5Gh ∂c ⎝ ∂x ∂y ⎠ 5Gh ⎥⎦

⎡ 6(1 − μ ) ∂Q y ⎛ ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w ⎞ 3μ ⎤
M y = D⎢ − ⎜⎜ 2 + μ ⎟+
⎟ (kw + q )⎥ (1e)
⎣⎢ 5Gh ∂y ⎝ ∂y ∂x ⎠ 5Gh ⎦⎥

h2 ⎛ ∂Q x ∂Q y ⎞ ∂2w
M xy = ⎜ ⎟ − (1 − μ )D
⎜ ∂y + ∂x ⎟ ∂x∂y
(1f)
10 ⎝ ⎠

p = − kw (1g)

6 ∂w
ωx = Qx − (1h)
5Gh ∂x
6 ∂w
ωy = Qy − (1i)
5Gh ∂y

where q, h, E, μ , and k are the intensity of the vertical load, the thickness of the slab, the

elastic modulus of the slab, the Poisson’s ratio of the slab, and the reaction modulus of
the foundation respectively; ω x and ω y are the rotations in the x-direction and
y-direction, respectively, of a line element originally perpendicular to the neutral surface,
and w is the mean vertical displacement of all points on this line element; and
Eh 3
D= (1j)
12( 1 − μ 2 )

h2( 2 − μ )
c2 = (1k)
10( 1 − μ )

1259
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

E
G= (1l)
2( 1 + μ )

2
⎛ ∂2 ∂2 ⎞
∇ = ⎜⎜ 2 + 2
4
⎟
⎟ (1m)
⎝ ∂x ∂y ⎠

⎛ ∂2 ∂2 ⎞
∇ 2 = ⎜⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟
⎟ (1n)
⎝ ∂x ∂y ⎠
Equations. (1a) to (1i) are the fundamental equations for solving the bending problem of
a thick plate resting on a Winkler foundation. The general solutions of w, Qx and Qy are
obtained by solving the governing Equations (1a) to (1c). Solutions of other unknowns
are then determined from Equations. (1d) to (1i) by substituting the general solutions of
w, Qx and Qy into these equations.

Fig. 1(a) shows the three-slab model adopted in the present study to represent the concrete
pavement system. The slab of interest is Slab A on which a vertical load q is applied, although
the proposed theoretical solution also provides the stresses and strains in the other two slabs.
Fig. 1(b) depicts the boundary conditions of the three slabs. Except for the edges along the
two joints, all slab boundaries are assumed to be free edges. Across the joints, the transfer of
shear forces Q1 and Q2 is assumed as shown in Fig. 1(b). Shear transfer is specified in terms
of the efficiency of joint shear transfer Rw, which is defined as the ratio of vertical deflections
along the joint between the unloaded slab (slab A) and loaded slabs (slabs B and C)
R w = wU w L (2)
where wU and w L = deflections of the unloaded and loaded slabs, respectively. The ratio Rw is
considered a constant along a joint, and its value falls between 0 and 1. Value 0 means that
and there is no shear transfer across the joint. Value 1 means that there is 100% shear transfer
across the joint.
b/2 b/2

b
a/2 S la b C

x
a/2

S la b C
a
( U n lo a d e d ) y
S h e a r Fo rce Q

J o in t
D ir e c t io n o f a/2 S la b A
T r a f f ic
a
x
Load q a/2
S la b A
J o in t
y
S h e a r Fo rce Q
S la b B
a
( U n lo a d e d )

a/2 S la b B

x
a/2
( a ) T h r e e - s la b t h ic k - p la t e m o d e l
w ith a lo a d e d c e n tro l p a n e l
y

( b ) B o u n d a r y c o n d i t io n s o f s l a b

Fig.1 Three-Slab Concrete Pavement Model

1260
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

The solution of the three-slab system shown in Fig. 1 is arrived at by means of the method of
superposition as follows: (a) representing the three-slab system by individual elemental slabs
with appropriate boundary conditions, (b) deriving the solutions of the individual elemental
slabs, (c) superposing of the solutions of suitable elemental slabs under the given applied
loads, and (d) determining the coefficients in the solutions to satisfy the boundary conditions
of the three-slab system. The solution is coded as a software known as NUS 3-SLAB. Each
solution run will take only 1 second on a Pentium IV 2.4 GHz personal computer.

3. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

The most critical design conditions of stresses and deflections of a concrete pavement occur
in the slow lane that carries the majority of heavy vehicles in the traffic streams. In other
words, the edge slabs of a concrete pavement will govern the design. The 3-slab model (see
Fig.1) offers an appropriate model for this purpose, with a conservation simplification of
ignoring the presence of the slabs in the next inner lane. This paper analyzes the effects of
joint force transfer for three loading conditions: interior loading, edge loading and corner
loading as shown in Fig. 2. The emphasis of the analysis by the three-slab model solution is
the effects of joint force transfer across the transverse joints along the wheel paths for
concrete pavement system with different structural parameters. Comparisons are made with
solutions of single-slab model and errors caused by non-consideration of joint effects are
investigated.
3.5m P=0.7MPa
r=200mm
k
h
a a a

(a) Central Loading

3.5m P=0.7MPa
r=200mm
k
h
a a a

(b) Edge Loading

3.5m P=0.7MPa
r=200mm k
h
a a a

(c) Corner Loading

Fig.2 Three-slab pavement system under three typical loading conditions
In the present analysis, two indices are used to show the influences of joint shear transfer. One
is the bending stress ratio defined as the ratio of maximum bending stress at a given Rw to that

1261
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

at Rw = 0. The other is the deflection ratio defined as the ratio of maximum deflection at a
given Rw to that at Rw = 0. Slabs of common sizes used in practice were analyzed to study how
slab dimensions affect the effects of joint load transfer on slab stresses and deflections. The
range of pavement parameters studied are as follows: (a) slab length from 3 m to 9m, (b) slab
thickness from 150 mm to 350 mm, (c) modulus of subgrade reaction from 30 MN/m3 to 150
MN/m3, and (d) joint load transfer efficiency from 0 to 1.

4. PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS OF JOINT LOAD TRANSFER

4.1 Effect of Joint Load Transfer for Concrete Pavement with Different Slab Lengths

Five different slab lengths equal to 3.0 m, 4.5 m, 6.0 m, 7.5 m and 9.0 m are considered in the
analysis. Other parameters in this analysis include: slab thickness of 0.25 m, elastic modulus
of slab equal to 30,000 MPa, slab Poisson’s ratio of 0.15, modulus of subgrade reaction of 80
MN/m3, and applied pressure of 0.7 MPa acting over a circular area with a radius of 200mm.

The computed maximum deflection ratios for different slab lengths are plotted in Fig. 3(a),
3(b) and 3(c) for the cases of central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively. It
can be seen from Fig. 3 that the computed maximum deflection decreases as Rw increases for
all the three loading cases. As expected, the effect of joint load transfer is more significant for
edge and corner loading and less significant under central loading. It can also be seen from
Fig. 3 that the efficiency of joint shear transfer has stronger effects for smaller slab length.
The percentage reductions of the maximum deflection under central loading are 5.4%, 4.1%,
3.2%, 2.3% and 1.4% for slab length of 3.0m, 4.5m, 6.0m, 7.5m, and 9.0m respectively when
Rw is increased from 0 to 1. The corresponding reductions of the maximum deflection under
edge loading are 24.9%, 20.1%, 16.7%, 14.0% and 12.1% while the corresponding reductions
of the maximum deflection under corner loading are 22.5%, 18.5%, 15.9%, 13.4% and 11.6%.

The maximum bending stress ratios are plotted in Fig. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) for the cases of
central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively. The plots show that the
computed maximum bending stress decreases as Rw increases for all the three loading cases.
The effect of joint load transfer is more significant for edge and corner loading and less
significant for central loading. The efficiency of joint shear transfer has stronger effects for
smaller slab length. The percentage reductions of the maximum bending stress under central
loading is 2.7%, 2.0%, 1.4%, 1.0% and 0.5% for slab length of 3.0m, 4.5m, 6.0m, 7.5m, and
9.0m respectively when Rw is increased from 0 to 1. The corresponding reductions of
maximum bending stress under edge loading are 15.4%, 13.9%, 12.4%, 11.1% and 10.0%
while the corresponding reductions of the maximum deflection under corner loading are
12.3%, 10.5%, 9.1%, 8.4%, and 7.9%.

4.2 Effect of Joint Load Transfer for Concrete Pavement with Different Slab Thickness

Five different slab thickness equal to 0.15 m, 0.20 m, 0.25 m, 0.30 m and 0.35 m are
considered in the analysis. Other parameters include: slab dimensions of 3.5 m wide and 4.5

1262
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

m long, elastic modulus of the slab equals to 30,000 MPa, slab Poisson’s ratio of 0.15,
modulus of subgrade reaction of 80 MN/m3, and applied pressure of 0.4 MPa acting over a
circular area with a radius of 200 mm.

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0

0.9
a=3.0m
0.85 a=4.5m
0.8 a=6.0m
a=7.5m
0.75 a=9.0m
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(a) Central loading

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0

0.9
a=3.0m
0.85 a=4.5m
0.8 a=6.0m
a=7.5m
0.75 a=9.0m
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(b) Edge Loading

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0

0.9
a=3.0m
0.85 a=4.5m
0.8 a=6.0m
a=7.5m
0.75 a=9.0m
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(c) Corner loading

Fig.3 Effects of Joint Load Transfer on Maximum Deflection for Concrete Pavement with
Different Slab Length

1263
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

) 1
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92
a=3.0m
0.9
a=4.5m
0.88
a=6.0m
0.86 a=7.5m
0.84 a=9.0m
0.82
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(a) Central loading

)

1
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92 a=3.0m
0.9
a=4.5m
0.88
a=6.0m
0.86
a=7.5m
0.84
a=9.0m
0.82
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(b) Edge loading

)

1
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92 a=3.0m
0.9
a=4.5m
0.88
a=6.0m
0.86
a=7.5m
0.84
a=9.0m
0.82
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(c) Corner loading

Fig.4 Effects of Joint Load Transfer on Maximum Bending Stress for Concrete Pavement with
Different Slab Length

1264
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

The computed maximum deflection ratios of different slab thickness are plotted in Fig. 5(a),
5(b) and 5(c) for the cases of central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively. It
can be seen from Fig. 5 that the computed maximum deflection decreases as Rw increases for
all the three loading cases. The effect of joint load transfer is more significant for edge and
corner loading and less significant under central loading. The efficiency of joint shear transfer
has stronger effects for concrete pavement with large slab thickness. The percentage
reductions of the maximum deflection under central loading are 2.7%, 4.5%, 5.5%, 6.3% and
6.7% for slab thickness of 0.15 m, 0.20 m, 0.25 m, 0.30 m, and 0.35 m respectively when Rw
is increased t from 0 to 1. The corresponding reductions of the maximum deflection under
edge loading are 18.8%, 22.0%, 24.3%, 26.5% and 28.2% while the corresponding reduction
of the maximum deflections under corner loading are 16.2%, 19.4%, 22.1%, 24.0% and
25.5%.

The maximum bending stress ratios are plotted in Fig. 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) for the case of
central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively. In each case, the computed
maximum bending stress decreases as Rw increases for all the three loading positions. The
effect of joint load transfer is more significant for edge and corner loading and less significant
for central loading. The efficiency of joint shear transfer has stronger effects for concrete
pavement with large slab thickness. The percentage reductions of the maximum bending
stress under central loading are 1.4%, 3.2%, 4.3%, 5.1% and 5.8% for slab thickness of 0.15
m, 0.20 m, 0.25 m, 0.30 m, and 0.35 m respectively when Rw is increased from 0 to 1. The
corresponding reductions of the maximum bending stress under edge loading are 12.0%,
13.6%, 15.0%, 16.1% and 17.6% while the corresponding reductions of the maximum
bending stress under corner loading are 10.2%, 12.0%, 12.4%, 13.4% and 14.5%.

4.3 Effect of Joint Load Transfer for Concrete Pavement with Different Moduli of
Subgrade Reaction

Five different moduli of subgrade reaction equal to 30 kN/m3, 60 kN/m3, 90 kN/m3, 120
kN/m3 and 150 kN/m3 are considered in the analysis. Other parameters include: slab
dimensions of 3.5 m wide, 4.5 m long and 0.25 m thick, elastic modulus of the slab equal to
30,000 MPa, slab Poisson’s ratio of 0.15, and applied pressure of 0.4 MPa acting over a
circular area with a radius of 200 mm.

The computed maximum deflection ratios of different moduli of subgrade reaction are plotted
in Fig. 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) for the case of central loading, edge loading and corner loading
respectively. The computed maximum deflection decreases as Rw increases for all the three
loading cases. The effect of joint load transfer is more significant for edge and corner loading
and less significant under central loading. The efficiency of joint shear transfer has stronger
effects for concrete pavement subgrade with large modulus of subgrade reaction. The
percentage reductions of the maximum deflection under central loading are 4.1%, 3.3%, 2.8%,
2.4% and 2.0% for modulus of subgrade reaction of 30 kN/m3, 60 kN/m3, 90 kN/m3, 120
kN/m3 and 150 kN/m3 respectively when Rw is increased from 0 to 1. The corresponding
reductions of the maximum deflection under edge loading are 26.7%, 25.3%, 24.2%, 22.8%,

1265
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

and 21.4% while the corresponding reductions of the maximum deflection under corner
loading are 25.9%, 23.7%, 21.5%, 19.7% and 18.2%.

The maximum bending stress ratios of different moduli of subgrade reaction are plotted in Fig.
8(a), 8(b) and 8(c) for the cases of central loading, edge loading and corner loading
respectively. The computed maximum bending stress decreases as Rw increases for all the
three loading cases. The effect of joint load transfer is more significant for edge and corner
loading and less significant under central loading. The efficiency of joint shear transfer has
stronger effects for concrete pavement subgrade with large modulus of subgrade reaction. The
percentage reductions of the maximum bending stress under central loading are 2.8%, 2.0%,
1.5%, 1.2% and 0.9% for modulus of subgrade reaction of 30 kN/m3, 60 kN/m3, 90 kN/m3,
120 kN/m3 and 150 kN/m3 respectively when Rw is increased from 0 to 1. The corresponding
reductions of the maximum bending stress under edge loading are 14.1%, 13.0%, 12.2%,
11.6%, and 11.1% while the corresponding reductions of the maximum bending stress under
corner loading are 15.0%, 13.2%, 12.1%, 11.3% and 10.6%.

4.4 Errors due to non-consideration of joint effects in concrete pavement

Theoretically, the load transfer efficiency Rw has two extremes: 0 and 1.0. 1.0 means that the
loaded side and the unloaded side of the slab carry an equal amount of the applied wheel load.
0, on the other hand, implies that the loaded side of the joint carries the entire applied wheel
load. In practice, most load transfer efficiencies fall somewhere between these two extremes.
It has been found that more than 80 percent of joint load transfer efficiencies in actual
in-service concrete pavements lie in the range of 0.6 to 1.0 (Khazanovich and Gotlif 2003).
Therefore, differences of pavement response between Rw=0.8 and Rw=0 were used to evaluate
the errors caused by non-consideration of joint load transfer effects.

Differences of pavement response between Rw=0.8 and Rw=0 for concrete pavements with
different slab lengths, different slab thickness and different moduli of subgrade reaction are
shown in Fig. 9, Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 9 to Fig. 11 that
under interior loading, the errors of single-slab model for either the maximum deflection or
the maximum bending stresses are less than 10 percent. This indicates that the effects of joint
load transfer can be ignored in the structural analysis of concrete pavement under central
loading. The errors of single-slab model are mostly exceeding 10% for concrete pavements
under edge and corner loading, which indicate that the effects of joint load transfer should be
taken into consideration in the structural analysis of concrete pavement under edge or corner
loading. It can also be seen from Fig. 9 to Fig. 11 that the maximum deflection errors are
slightly large than the corresponding errors of maximum bending stress, which indicate that
slab deflections are more sensitive to joint load transfer efficiency than bending stresses.

1266
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0
0.9
h=0.15m
0.85
h=0.20m
0.8 h=0.25m
h=0.30m
0.75 h=0.35m

0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(a) Central loading

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0

0.9
h=0.15m
0.85
h=0.20m
0.8 h=0.25m
h=0.30m
0.75 h=0.35m

0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(b) Edge loading

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0

0.9
h=0.15m
0.85
h=0.20m
0.8 h=0.25m
h=0.30m
0.75 h=0.35m

0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(c) Corner loading

Fig.5 Effects of Joint Load Transfer on Maximum Deflection for Concrete Pavement with
Different Slab Thickness

1267
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

) 1
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92 h=0.15m
0.9
h=0.20m
0.88
h=0.25m
0.86
h=0.30m
0.84
h=0.35m
0.82
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(a) Central loading

1
)
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92
h=0.15m
0.9
h=0.20m
0.88
h=0.25m
0.86
h=0.30m
0.84
h=0.35m
0.82
0.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(

Rw

(b) Edge loading

1
)
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92
h=0.15m
0.9
h=0.20m
0.88
h=0.25m
0.86 h=0.30m
0.84 h=0.35m
0.82
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(c) Corner loading

Fig.6 Effects of Joint Load Transfer on Maximum Bending Stress for Concrete Pavement with
Different Slab Thickness

1268
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0
0.9

0.85 k=30MN/m3
0.8 k=60MN/m3
k=90MN/m3
0.75 k=120MN/m3
k=150MN/m3
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(a) Central loading

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0

0.9

0.85
k=30MN/m3
0.8 k=60MN/m3
k=90MN/m3
0.75 k=120MN/m3
k=150MN/m3
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(b) Edge loading

1
Max Deflection at Indicated Rw

0.95
( Max Deflection at Rw=0

0.9

0.85
k=30MN/m3
0.8 k=60MN/m3
k=90MN/m3
0.75 k=120MN/m3
k=150MN/m3
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Rw

(c) Corner loading

Fig.7 Effects of Joint Load Transfer on Maximum Deflection for Concrete Pavement with
Different Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

1269
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

) 1
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92
0.9
k=30MN/m3
0.88
k=60MN/m3
0.86
k=90MN/m3
0.84
k=120MN/m3
0.82
k=150MN/m3
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(a) Central loading

)

1
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92
0.9
k=30MN/m3
0.88
k=60MN/m3
0.86
k=90MN/m3
0.84
k=120MN/m3
0.82
k=150MN/m3
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(b) Edge loading

)

1
Max Bending Stress at Indicated Rw

0.98
0.96
Max Bending Stress at Rw=0

0.94
0.92
0.9
k=30MN/m3
0.88
k=60MN/m3
0.86
k=90MN/m3
0.84
k=120MN/m3
0.82
k=150MN/m3
0.8
(

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Rw

(c) Corner loading

Fig.8 Effects of Joint Load Transfer on Maximum Bending Stress for Concrete Pavement with
Different Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

1270
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

Maximum deflection errors for center loading (%)

25
Errors for non-consideration of
Maximum bending stress errors for center loading(%)
Maximum deflection errors for edge loading(%)
20 Maximum bending stress errors for edge loading(%)
Maximum deflection errors for corner loading(%)
joint effects

Maximum bending stress errors for corner loading(%)

15

10

0
3 4.5 6 7.5 9
Slab length (m)

Fig. 9 Comparisons of Single-Slab Model and Three-Slab Model for Concrete Pavement with
Different Slab Length
M aximum deflection errors for center loading (%)
25 M aximum bending stress errors for center loading(%)
Errors for non-consideration of joint

M aximum deflection errors for edge loading(%)

M aximum bending stress errors for edge loading(%)
M aximum deflection errors for corner loading(%)
20 M aximum bending stress errors for corner loading(%)

15
effects

10

0
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Slab thickness (m)

Fig. 10 Comparisons of Single-Slab Model and Three-Slab Model for Concrete Pavement
with Different Slab Thickness
M aximum deflection errors for center loading (%)
Errors for non-consideration of joint

25 M aximum bending stress errors for center loading(%)

M aximum deflection errors for edge loading(%)
M aximum bending stress errors for edge loading(%)
M aximum deflection errors for corner loading(%)
20 M aximum bending stress errors for corner loading(%)

15
effects

10

0
30 60 90 3 120 150
Modulus of subgrade reaction (kN/m )

Fig. 11 Comparisons of Single-Slab Model and Three-Slab Model for Concrete Pavement
with Different Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

1271
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

By means of closed-form theoretical model, the effects of joint load transfer have been
analyzed for different pavement parameters against conventional single-slab model. The
analysis was conducted for the following parameters: pavement slab length, pavement slab
thickness, and modulus of subgrade reaction.

The analysis of effects of joint load transfer by the three-slab model shows that:
• The maximum deflections and bending stresses of concrete pavement under vertical
loading decease with the increase of joint load transfer efficiency: the reductions in
maximum deflections are ranged from 1.4% to 6.7% for central loading, 12.1% to
28.2% for edge loading, and 11.6% to 25.9% for corner loading, and the reductions in
maximum bending stresses are ranged from 0.5% to 5.8% for central loading, 10.0%
to 17.6% for edge loading, and 7.9% to 15.0% for corner loading.
• The effects of joint load transfer on the maximum pavement response vary with slab
length with the ranges of 1.4% to 24.9% for maximum deflection and 0.5% to 15.4%
for maximum bending stress when slab length increases from 3m to 9m.
• The effects of joint load transfer on the maximum pavement response vary with slab
thickness with the ranges of 2.7% to 25.5% for maximum deflection and 1.4% to
17.6% for maximum bending stress when slab thickness increases from 0.15m to
0.35m.
• The effects of joint load transfer on the maximum pavement response vary with
modulus of subgrade reaction with the ranges of 2.0% to 26.7% for maximum
deflection and 0.9% to 15.0% for maximum bending stress when modulus of subgrade
reaction decreases from 150 kN/m3 to 30 kN/m3.

The errors caused by non-consideration of joint load transfer effects in single-slab models
were evaluated by comparing pavement responses between Rw=0.8 and Rw=0. All the cases
analyzed concluded that single-slab models would lead to overestimation of the maximum
deflection and the maximum bending stress of a pavement slab under vertical loading. Based
on the cases analyzed, the magnitudes of overestimation due to non-consideration of joint
load transfer were found to vary as follows:
• For slab lengths varying from 3.0 m to 9.0 m, overestimations of the maximum
deflection ranged from 1.2% to 4.7%, 10.3% to 21.0%, and 9.0% to 19.3% for the
case of central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively; overestimations
of the maximum bending stress ranged from 0.4% to 2.3%, 9.2% to 13.3%, and 6.8%
to 10.7% for the case of central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively,
where the higher percentages occurred in smaller slabs.
• For slab thickness varying from 15cm to 35cm, overestimations of the maximum
deflection ranged from 2.3% to 5.8%, 15.6% to 23.2%, and 13.4% to 21.1% for the
case of central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively; overestimations
of the maximum bending stress ranged from 1.1% to 5.0%, 10.4% to 14.5%, and 8.9%
to 12.5% for the case of central loading, edge loading and corner loading respectively,
where the higher percentages occurred in thicker slabs.

1272
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1258 - 1273, 2005

• For moduli of subgrade reaction varying from 30 MN/m3 to 150 MN/m3,

overestimations of the maximum deflection ranged from 1.6% to 3.6%, 18.4% to
22.7%, and 16.1% to 22.2% for the case of central loading, edge loading and corner
loading respectively; overestimations of the maximum bending stress ranged from
0.8% to 2.3%, 9.5% to 11.8%, and 9.1% to 12.7% for the case of central loading, edge
loading and corner loading respectively, where the higher percentages occurred in
smaller modulus of subgrade reaction.

The results obtained from this study clearly suggest that the effects of joint load transfer are
significant for the cases of edge loading and corner loading. For accurate assessment of
concrete pavement responses under vertical loading, it is recommended that the three-slab
model, instead of the conventional single-slab model should be adopted for concrete
pavement design and evaluation. On-going research is currently undertaken at the National
University of Singapore to develop a nine-slab model to further refine the analysis by
including the side slabs in the computation. The presence of side slabs is expected to affect
the case of corner loading most.

REFERENCES

1. Henwood, D. J., Whiteman, J. R. and Yetteram, A. L. (1981) Fourier Series Solution for
A Rectangular Thick Plate with Free Edges on An Elastic Foundation. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 12, pp. 1801 – 1820.
2. Hogg, A. and Hall, A. (1938) Equilibrium of a Thin Plate Symmetrically Loaded, Resting
on an Elastic Subgrade of Infinite Depth. Philosophical Magazine, Series 7, Vol. 25.
3. Khazanovich, L. and Gotlif, A. (2003) Evaluation of Crack and Joint Load Transfer Final
Report. FHWA Technical Report, RD-02-088, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington D. C., USA.
4. Pickett, G and Ray, G. K. (1951) Influence Charts for Concrete Pavements. Transactions,
ASCE, Vol. 116, American Society of Civil Engineers, USA.
5. Shi, X. P., Tan, S. A., and Fwa, T. F. (1994) Rectangular Thick Plate with Free Edges on
Pasternak Foundation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 120, No. 5, pp. 971 –
988.
6. Shi, X. P., Fwa, T. F., and Tan, S. A. (1996) Three-Slab Model for Concrete Pavements.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 5, pp. 449 – 455.
7. Westergaard, H. M. (1926) Stresses in Concrete Pavements Computed by Theoretical
Analysis. Public Roads, Vol. 7, pp. 25 – 33.

1273