Load Transfer Characteristics of Dowel Bar System

in Jointed Concrete Pavement

Swati Roy Maitra1; K. S. Reddy2; and L. S. Ramachandra3

Abstract: In a jointed concrete pavement, the dowel bar system and the aggregate interlock are two mechanisms for transferring wheel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

loads from one panel to the adjacent panel. The aggregate interlocking load transfer mechanism is effective for narrow joints while the
dowel bar system works well for both narrow and wider joints. This paper examines the effects of different parameters on load transfer
efficiency of a joint with the help of a three-dimensional finite-element model for the analysis of a dowel-jointed concrete pavement. The
model was compared using experimental data available in the literature. The group action of the dowel bar system was also examined and
useful relationships have been developed for estimation of the relative load shared by the individual dowel bars. These relationships will
be useful in the design and evaluation of dowel jointed concrete pavements.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲TE.1943-5436.0000065
CE Database subject headings: Concrete pavements; Finite element method; Load transfer.

Introduction Mechanism of Load Transfer by Dowel Bar System

Load transfer across joints in a concrete pavement is accom-
plished mainly by: 共1兲 aggregate interlock; 共2兲 dowel bar action;
or 共3兲 by a combination of the two mechanisms. In the aggregate
interlocking mechanism, the load is transferred by shear interac-
tion between individual aggregates at a joint or crack. This type of
load transfer mechanism is effective for slabs having small joint
width 共艋1.0 mm兲 and with short joint spacing. For pavements
with heavy traffic volume, mild steel dowel bars are placed across
transverse joints to transfer load including those with joint open-
ings 艋1.0 mm. The dowel bars transfer load without restricting
the horizontal joint movement caused by thermal and moisture
contraction and expansion. They also help in maintaining the
horizontal and vertical alignments of slabs. In the present work, a
three-dimensional 共3D兲 finite-element 共FE兲 model was developed
for analyzing a dowel-jointed concrete pavement. The 3D model
was compared using experimental data available in literature. The
effect of different pavement and joint related parameters on the
load transfer characteristics of a joint has been evaluated using
the numerical model. Group action of the dowel bar system has
also been examined. Relationships were developed for estimating
the relative load shared by the individual dowels in a dowel group
for different combinations of slab and foundation parameters.
1
Research Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur, Pin 721 302, West Bengal, India 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: swati@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, Pin 721 302, West Bengal, India. E-mail: ksreddy@civil.
iitkgp.ernet.in
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, Pin 721 302, West Bengal, India. E-mail: lsr@civil.iitkgp.
ernet.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 5, 2008; approved on
April 28, 2009; published online on May 8, 2009. Discussion period open
until April 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Vol. 135, No. 11, November 1, 2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-947X/2009/
11-813–821/$25.00.
Dowel bars transfer the load across a pavement joint primarily by
shear action. When one panel of the pavement is loaded, the panel
is deflected along with the dowels connecting the loaded panel
with an adjacent panel and in the process the dowels transfer part
of the load to the unloaded panel. The load transfer mechanism
between the dowel and the concrete is a complex phenomenon.
This mechanism depends mainly on a parameter known as the
modulus of dowel support 共K兲, the value of which can be deter-
mined by load testing 共Yoder and Witczak 1975兲. A high modulus
of dowel support value indicates a good contact between the sur-
rounding concrete and the steel dowel. However, with repeated
application of wheel loads, the contact between the surrounding
concrete and the dowel deteriorates, particularly where the bar is
seated and in the vicinity of the face of the joint. At these loca-
tions, the concrete may be crushed over time and repeated loading
when subjected to high bearing stresses. As the crushed concrete
particles are displaced, voids are created around the dowels caus-
ing dowel looseness 共DL兲. The amount of looseness may vary
along the length of the dowel bars. However, near the joint face,
the looseness is generally more than those at the other locations of
the dowel bar. DL is generally composed of two parts—initial
looseness and looseness from enlargement of the socket under
repetitive loading 共Buch and Zollinger 1996兲. In real life pave-
ments, looseness in dowels may occur on any side of the joint due
to repeated application of wheel loads on both sides of the pave-
ment. The efficiency of a joint in transferring the applied wheel
load depends on a number of dowel-joint parameters like modulus
of dowel support, dowel diameter, embedded length of dowel,
dowel spacing, DL, joint opening, properties of both steel and
concrete, and also to a lesser extent on subgrade strength. In
experimental work reported by Guo et al. 共1995兲 on the perfor-
mance of dowels under repetitive loading, it was observed that
DL, produced by an imperfect fit or void between the dowel and
the surrounding concrete 共i.e., initial looseness兲, greatly affects
load transfer efficiency 共LTE兲, maximum deflection, critical
stresses, and the rate of pavement deterioration. A deteriorated
joint under repetitive loading ultimately leads to erosion under the

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009 / 813

J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.

 dowel. In another experimental study performed by Buch and
Zollinger 共1996兲, it was found that DL is affected by the type,
texture, and shape of the aggregate particles used in the concrete
slab, the bearing stress of concrete, and by the load magnitude
and number of load cycles.
Dowel bars were modeled in the past using a number of ap-
proaches within the framework of the finite-element method
共FEM兲 of analysis. In some of the early approaches, dowel bars
were modeled as linear elastic spring elements placed at the joint
connecting the adjacent slabs directly 共Huang and Wang 1973兲.
The stiffness of joint was represented by a shear spring constant.
In a subsequent attempt, Tia et al. 共1987兲 modeled the moment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
transferability of a dowel bar by introducing a series of shear and
torsional springs across the joint. Mahboub et al. 共2004兲 used
nonlinear springs to model the dowel bars. Tabatabaie and Baren-
berg 共1980兲 modeled dowel bar as an elastic beam element across
the joint. In this model, the relative deformation of the dowel bar
and the surrounding concrete was represented by the stiffness of a
vertical spring connecting the two. In these two approaches
共Huang and Wang 1973; Tabatabaie and Barenberg 1980兲, the
embedded portions of the dowel bar were not modeled and the
spring constants were derived by considering the embedded por-
tion of the dowel as an infinitely long beam resting on a Winkler
foundation. The model developed by Nishizawa et al. 共1989兲,
simulates dowel bar by considering its finite length. The two seg-
ments embedded in the concrete 共on either side of the joint兲 were
modeled as bending beams of finite length in an elastic medium.
The middle dowel bar segment 共across the joint gap兲 was mod-
eled by a standard bending beam. For very small joints, the
middle segment was ignored. Based on this idea, a component
dowel bar model was later developed 共Guo et al. 1995兲 consisting
of two bending beams embedded in concrete and connected by a
shear bending beam. Dowel-concrete interaction was modeled by
providing suitable stiffness to the springs connecting the dowel
bar and the concrete within the slab. Looseness, assumed to be
uniform for all dowels, was captured by using a bilinear stiffness
model 共Guo et al. 1994兲. It was also assumed that under load,
all dowels would come into contact with the surrounding concrete
at the joint face at the same time. Advancement to this model
was made by the introduction of contact elements at all possible
contact points between the dowel and the concrete 共Zaman and
Alvappillai 1995兲 to account for the effect of dowel-concrete
interaction along the dowel length and to model DL. Dowel
bars were modeled as bending elements. In another approach
共Ioannides and Korovesis 1992 and Brill and Guo 2000兲, a non-
dimensional composite joint stiffness was introduced to represent
the characteristics of a joint having both the dowel bar system and
the aggregate interlocking load transfer mechanism.
To represent the dowel bar system more realistically, many
researchers used three-dimensional finite-element models. In an
early attempt by Channakeshava et al. 共1993兲, dowel bars were
modeled as 3D beam elements. Dowel-concrete interaction effect
was captured by appropriately selecting the stiffness of the
springs around the dowels. The joint portion was analyzed sepa-
rately with refined mesh. The stiffness of the springs was selected
based on experimental observations. In a similar approach 共Bhat-
tacharya 2000兲, dowel bars were modeled by three-noded beam-
column elements. To represent the interaction between the dowel
bar and the concrete in the unloaded portion of the slab, the beam-
column elements were connected to the surrounding concrete by a
series of linear spring elements. In another study 共Dere et al.
2006兲, the beam elements were connected with the surrounding
concrete by vertical and horizontal springs both on the loaded and
814 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009
J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.
the unloaded sides. However, DL was not modeled. The two-
dimensional 共2D兲 FE model developed by Nishizawa et al. 共1989兲
was modified later 共Nishizawa et al. 2001兲 with the development
of a 3D combination element to represent the dowel bar. The
segments embedded in the concrete were represented by solid
elements while the middle portion, i.e., the segment between the
two slabs 共joint gap portion兲 was represented by 3D beam ele-
ments. William and Shoukry 共2001兲 presented a new approach by
representing dowel bars as eight-noded solid brick elements. The
modeling requires very fine mesh in order to account for the
mechanism of dowel contact with the surrounding concrete.
Dowel-concrete interaction was modeled by considering friction
between the two. Recently, embedded beam element formulation
was used for modeling dowel bars in the analysis of concrete
pavement 共Davids et al. 2003; Kim and Hjelmstad 2003兲. The
embedded element formulation has the advantage of allowing
dowels to be precisely located within the slab irrespective of the
slab meshing. Dowels were modeled as quadratic beam elements.
In the model proposed by Davids 共2000兲, dowel-concrete interac-
tion was captured either by specifying DL around the dowels or
by providing springs sandwiched between the dowel and the con-
crete. In this model, dowel misalignment, or dowel mislocation
could also be simulated.
The dowel bars placed across a joint act as a group to transmit
the applied wheel loads to the adjacent slab. The dowel bar placed
immediately below the load takes the major portion of the applied
load with the adjacent dowels transferring progressively smaller
loads. Friberg first analyzed the group action of the dowel bars
based on Westergaard’s work 共Yoder and Witczak 1975兲. The
analysis showed that for a group of dowel bars, the maximum
load is transferred by the dowel immediately below the load and
the load transferred by other dowels decreases linearly up to a
distance of 1.8l from the maximum loaded dowel, where “l” is the
radius of relative stiffness 共Westergaard 1926兲. In another study
by Tabatabaie et al. 共1980兲 reported by Kelleher and Larson
共1989兲, only the dowels within a distance of 1.0l from the center
of the load were considered to be effective in transferring the
major part of the load and a linear approximation was made to
estimate the individual dowel shear forces. Guo et al. 共1993兲 stud-
ied the dowel group action and concluded that the ratio of the
distance up to which the dowels are effective in transferring the
applied wheel load, termed as equivalent effective length 共EEL兲
to the radius of relative stiffness 共l兲, is not a constant but depends
on some of the dowel parameters. Recent analysis 共Bhattacharya
2000; Kim and Hjelmstad 2003兲 using 3D FEM showed that the
distribution of dowel shears is parabolic in shape.
As seen from literature, dowel bars in a jointed concrete pave-
ment have been modeled primarily as beam elements having finite
length. However, modeling dowel-concrete interaction and DL
needs more attention to understand the load transfer characteris-
tics. The relative contribution of individual dowels in a dowel
group has been modeled differently in the past. Variation of shear
transfer by successive dowel bars and the total number of effec-
tive dowels participating in the load transfer have been selected
using different sets of guidelines. The dowel group action and the
relative contribution of dowels depend on different pavement and
joint parameters and have to be explained by an appropriate ana-
lytical model. In the present paper, a 3D finite-element model has
been developed for a dowel jointed concrete pavement. The effect
of different pavement and joint related parameters on load trans-
fer characteristics of a joint has been examined. The effect of
modulus of dowel support and DL has been discussed in detail.
 Fig. 1. Dowel bar with uniform gap on the unloaded slab
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The effect of pavement and joint parameters on the dowel group
action has also been investigated using the FE model.
Finite-Element Modeling of Dowel-Jointed
Concrete Pavement
3D FEM has been chosen in the present study, to model the
mechanism of load transfer by dowel bar system. The structural
analysis package “ANSYS” 共ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, Pa.,
2002兲 was used for this purpose. Eight-noded 3D brick elements,
with three translational degrees of freedom per node 共in the nodal
x, y, and z directions兲, were used to model a concrete slab as well
as the base support layers. The subgrade was modeled as Winkler
foundation 共Westergaard 1926兲 in this analysis. A series of closely
spaced, independent, and linear spring elements were used for
modeling the Winkler foundation. The effective normal stiffness
of the spring element was calculated by multiplying the modulus
of subgrade reaction with the influencing area of that element.
The concrete slab and the base layers were assumed to be linear,
elastic and isotropic. In the present work, dowel bars were mod-
eled as 3D beam elements having six degrees of freedom per node
共translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about
the nodal x, y, and z axes兲. The interaction between the dowel and
the concrete, represented by modulus of dowel support 共K兲, was
modeled using contact elements. A series of zero-length contact
elements were placed between the concrete slab and the dowel
bars along the length of the dowel bars on the unloaded side of
the pavement. On the loaded side, the dowels are connected di-
rectly with concrete representing full bonding. The contact ele-
ments are capable of supporting only compression in the contact
normal direction and frictional force in the tangential direction.
The normal stiffness of this element was estimated by multiplying
the modulus of dowel support value with the effective bearing
area of the corresponding dowel. The tangential stiffness depends
on the frictional resistance between the dowel and the concrete.
The dowel-concrete friction value considered was 0.05 共William
and Shoukry 2001兲. The effect of DL was modeled by providing
a suitable gap around the dowel bar within these contact elements.
It was assumed that, when the slab is loaded, the dowel bars
deform and by overcoming the looseness 共gap兲, transfer the ap-
plied wheel load to the adjacent slab. Fig. 1 shows a typical dowel
bar with uniform looseness around it on the unloaded side of the
pavement and Fig. 2 shows its finite-element representation with
contact elements on the unloaded side.
Validation of the FE Model with Experimental Data
The 3D finite-element model of concrete pavement developed in
the present study was validated using the results from an experi-
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009 / 815
J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.
Fig. 2. FE Representation of dowel bar
mental study conducted by the U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Re-
search and Evaluation Laboratory 共Keeton and Bishop 1957兲 on
the load-transfer characteristics of dowels used in airfield pave-
ment expansion joints. The experimental setup is briefly discussed
here for the sake of completeness.
The concrete pavement considered for the experiment was
15.24 m 共50 ft兲 long, 4.572 m 共15 ft兲 wide and 254 mm 共10 in.兲 in
thickness. The pavement consisted of two 7.62 m 共25 ft兲 long
slabs separated by a 19 mm 共0.75 in.兲 wide expansion joint. A
transverse weakened plane joint was provided at the center of
each 7.62 m 共25 ft兲 long section without any dowels. The test
pavement was constructed on a compacted subgrade having a
modulus of subgrade reaction 共k兲 of 54.3 mN/ m3 共200 lb/ in.3兲.
Fifteen 28.6 mm 共1.125 in.兲 diameter steel dowel bars of length
508 mm 共20 in.兲 were placed across the expansion joint at a
spacing of 304.8 mm 共12 in.兲. The dowels used in the test slab
were greased and capped at one end and bonded or uncapped at
the other end. Capping was provided alternately at the end of the
dowels for the loaded and the unloaded slabs. A number of strain
gauges were used to measure the bending moment as well as the
shear forces developed in the dowels. Experimental results were
reported for a static load of 222.4 kN 共50,000 lb兲 and a tire pres-
sure of 1.38 N / mm2 共200 psi兲 having rectangular tire imprint of
size 396.24 mm⫻ 406.4 mm 共15.625 in.⫻ 16 in.兲. The properties
of concrete and steel, the instrumentation used and the nature of
load application device can be found in the paper by Keeton
共1956兲.
Examination of the test results presented by Keeton and
Bishop 共1957兲 showed that the vertical shear force in a dowel
beyond a distance of about 1.524 m 共5 ft兲 from the center of the
load was quite insignificant. Hence, a total of 3.3528 m 共11 ft兲
width of the test slab was considered for the present analysis 共2
⫻ 关5 ft+ half spacing兴兲. Also, the distance between the weakened
plane joint and the expansion joint was 3.81 m 共12.5 ft兲. There-
fore, the analysis has been carried out for an effective slab of
dimensions 3352.8 mm⫻ 3810 mm. Fig. 3 shows the schematic
arrangement of the test pavement with the expansion joint and the
weakened plane joint along with the load placed on the left panel.
The area within the dotted lines and the weakened plane joints
represents the effective slab area 共3 , 352.8 mm⫻ 3810 mm兲 con-
sidered for analysis.
Analysis was carried out in this study for two load cases: 共a兲
load placed near the joint face on the capped end of the central
dowel and 共b兲 load placed near the joint face on the uncapped/
bonded side of the central dowel bar. The modulus of dowel sup-
port considered for the analysis was 407.3⫻ 106 kN/ m3
共1,500,000 lb/cu. in.兲. This value has been selected on the basis of
earlier studies by Guo et al. 共1995兲 and Bhattacharya 共2000兲 who
also compared their analytical results with the same experimental
results. Bhattacharya 共2000兲 selected the K value by back calcu-
lation from the experimental data of Keeton and Bishop 共1957兲.
Therefore, this value has been selected, as for an existing pave-
 Table 2. Maximum Bending Moments in Different Dowels for Load
Case “b”

Distance Max. positive BM Max. negative BM

from On loaded side On unloaded side
central 关kN-m 共kip-in.兲兴 关kN-m 共kip-in.兲兴
dowel
关mm 共ft兲兴 Analysis Experiment Analysis Experiment
0 共0兲 0.244 0.288 共2.550兲 0.153 0.189 共1.680兲
304.8 共1兲 0.232 0.259 共2.300兲 0.049 0.184 共1.630兲
609.6 共2兲 0.117 0.174 共1.540兲 0.027 0.122 共1.085兲
914.4 共3兲 0.103 0.185 共1.640兲 0.015 0.052 共0.460兲
1219.2 共4兲 0.071 0.128 共1.135兲 0.010 0.059 共0.530兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to the uncertain support conditions of the dowels with the capped

Fig. 3. Schematic arrangement of the test pavement 共Keeton and
Bishop 1957兲
ment, K can be better estimated by comparing the measured and
computed responses. It is also possible to verify the value of K
experimentally by conducting laboratory tests, though it is not
practiced routinely 共Final Report 2006兲.
Table 1 gives a comparison of the deflection values of the
loaded and the unloaded slabs under the dowels due to the applied
load for Load Case “a.” No deflection data were provided for
Load Case “b.” Keeton and Bishop 共1957兲 reported that there was
a void below the center of the slab at the joint and the void was
about 1.016 mm 共0.04 in.兲 in size 共possibly due to slab warping兲.
Hence, the size of the gap 共1.016 mm兲 was added to the computed
deflections to compare with the measured deflection values. The
deflections thus obtained are found to be comparable to the mea-
sured deflections.
Table 2 shows the comparison of experimental and analytical
maximum positive and negative bending moments for different
dowels for Load Case “a.” For bending moments also, no experi-
mental data were provided for Load Case “b.” Fig. 4 shows the
bending moment diagram of the central dowel bar obtained from
the analysis as well as from the experiment for Load Case “a.” It
is seen from Table 2 that the maximum positive and negative
bending moments obtained from the analysis for the central dowel
bar compare fairly well with the experimental values. However,
for the other dowels, though the maximum positive bending mo-
ment values are in reasonable agreement with the experimental
values, the maximum negative bending moment values are found
to be quite different. The reason for this discrepancy may be due
end on the loaded side and also due to the nonuniformity of the
subgrade support.
Table 3 gives a comparison of the maximum shear forces in
different dowels at the joint face for load positions “a” and “b.”
The experimental shear force values reported in Table 3 are the
average values of the shear forces measured in the two symmetri-
cally placed dowels. The shear forces obtained from the analysis
and the experiment compare well for both the load positions.
However, for Load Case “b,” the experimental shear force value
of 10.48 kN in the central dowel seems to be erroneous. The total
percentage of the applied load carried by the dowels is nearly the
same for the two loading cases. Fig. 5 shows the shear force
diagram for the central dowel bar obtained from the analysis as
well as from the experiment for Load Case “a.” From the above
discussion, it may be observed that, the present FE results are in
reasonable agreement with the experimental values.
The present FE model has also been compared with two other
numerical models proposed by Guo et al. 共1995兲 and Davids et al.
共2003兲. The results are given in Table 4. It is observed from the
table that, the present model predictions are better than the other
numerical predictions when compared to experimental results
共Keeton and Bishop 1957兲.
Effect of Different Parameters on Load Transfer
Efficiency
The LTE of a jointed pavement is expressed as a percentage of the
ratio of the maximum deflection of the unloaded slab 共␦ul兲 to that
of the loaded slab 共␦l兲. That is

Table 1. Slab Deflections at Different Locations for Load Case “a”

Loaded slab deflection Unloaded slab deflection
关mm 共in.兲兴 关mm 共in.兲兴
Distance from Analysis Experiment Analysis Experiment
central dowel
关mm 共ft兲兴 共Computed兲 共Computed+ void兲 共with void兲 共Computed兲 共Computed+ void兲 共with void兲
0 0.98 2.00 2.26 共0.089兲 0.91 1.93 1.85 共0.073兲
304.8 共1兲 0.95 1.97 2.21 共0.087兲 0.90 1.92 1.83 共0.072兲
609.6 共2兲 0.86 1.88 2.08 共0.082兲 0.84 1.85 1.78 共0.070兲
914.4 共3兲 0.78 1.80 1.95 共0.077兲 0.77 1.79 1.73 共0.068兲
1219.2 共4兲 0.70 1.72 1.70 共0.072兲 0.70 1.72 1.67 共0.066兲

816 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009

J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Bending moment diagram for the central dowel bar 共Load Fig. 5. Shear force diagram for the central dowel bar 共Load Case
Case “a”兲 “a”兲

␦ul • The looseness is assumed to be uniform throughout the length

LTE = ⫻ 100 共1兲
␦l of the dowel and also is the same for all dowels.
• On the loaded side of the slab, the looseness is overcome by
LTE depends upon a number of dowel-joint parameters such as
the applied vehicle load.
diameter, length and spacing of dowels, modulus of dowel sup-
• The slab is fully supported by the subgrade.
port, DL, concrete slab thickness, joint opening, and properties of
Different DL values ranging from 0–0.10 mm and different
concrete and subgrade. In a comprehensive field study, reported
modulus of dowel support values ranging between 610 MPa/mm
by Khazanovich and Gotlif 共2003兲, deflection measurements car-
共2,250,000 lb/cu. in.兲 and 81 MPa/mm 共300,000 lb/cu. in.兲 were
ried out using falling weight deflectometer 共FWD兲 over a period
considered for the analysis. A standard wheel load of 40 kN
of time, revealed that LTE depends on many factors including
共9,000 lb兲 was considered to be acting on one panel of the pave-
testing time and seasonal variation. Jeong and Zollinger 共2001兲
ment and the LTE of the joint was calculated using Eq. 共1兲.
expressed LTE in terms of total stiffness ratio 共J factor兲, which is
A relationship has been developed using the numerical results
a function of dowel and aggregate interlocking parameters.
to estimate the LTE of a dowel-jointed pavement as a function of
Modulus of dowel support 共K兲 and DL play important roles in the
different pavement and joint parameters. The relationship, given
load transfer mechanism of a jointed pavement. Estimation of
by Eq. 共2兲, shows that LTE depends strongly on dowel as well as
these parameters is generally done by back-calculating from the
pavement parameters. In this work, different pavement combina-
measured load transfer efficiencies of the joint. Literature review
tions were represented by the parameter radius of relative stiff-
reveals that though some attempts were made to model DL, its
ness, and are expressed as Eq. 共3兲. The pavement may consist of
effect on LTE has not been studied thoroughly. In the present
dry lean concrete 共DLC兲 base, bonded or unbonded with the con-
work, the effects of pavement and joint related parameters on LTE
crete slab at top. In Eq. 共3兲, effective slab thickness 共he兲 was
have been examined using the 3D FE model.
considered to take care of the effect of bonded or unbonded layers
A number of numerical runs were made for analysis of differ-
of the pavement 共Zollinger et al. 2005兲
ent pavement configurations and dowel bar system to estimate the
LTE. The major assumptions considered for the model are
• Load transfer is only through dowel bar interaction. The con-
tribution of aggregate interlocking is not modeled.
Table 4. Comparison of Results Obtained from Different Models
• The dowels are in full contact with the concrete slab on the
loaded side and were capped on the unloaded side. Experimental
• Looseness around the dowels is considered only on the capped Distance from Present Guo Davids Keeton and
side of the dowel 共unloaded slab兲. central dowel model modela model Bishop
关mm 共ft兲兴 共2008兲 共1995兲 共2003兲 共1957兲
0 共0兲 Max共+兲BM 0.244 0.446 0.444 0.288
kN-m 共kip-in.兲 共3.95兲 共2.55兲
Table 3. Joint-Face Shear Forces in Different Dowels
Max 共⫺兲 BM 0.153 0.288 0.300 0.189
Max. shear force Max. shear force kN-m 共kip-in.兲 共2.55兲 共1.68兲
kN 共kips兲 kN 共kips兲
Av Max SF 29.405 18.648 19.512 16.675
Distance from Load Case “a” Load Case “b” kN 共kip.兲 共4.20兲 共3.75兲
central dowel
609.6 共2兲 Max共+兲BM 0.117 0.277 0.262 0.174
关mm 共ft兲兴 Analysis Experiment Analysis Experiment
kN-m 共kip-in.兲 共2.45兲 共1.54兲
0 共0兲 27.99 22.87 共5.15兲 30.82 10.48 共2.36兲 Max 共⫺兲 BM 0.027 0.124 0.140 0.122
304.8 共1兲 19.72 15.65 共3.53兲 18.24 18.29 共4.12兲 kN-m 共kip-in.兲 共1.10兲 共1.08兲
609.6 共2兲 8.43 10.88 共2.45兲 9.64 8.21 共1.85兲 Av Max SF 9.035 9.324 10.580 9.546
914.4 共3兲 3.49 4.46 共1.01兲 3.50 5.13 共1.16兲 kN 共kip.兲 共2.10兲 共2.15兲
1219.2 共4兲 1.29 2.68 共0.61兲 1.95 1.84 共0.42兲 a
Read from graph.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009 / 817

J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.

 100
LTE =
1 + 15.678 ⫻ exp共21.215DL兲 ⫻ 共s/l兲1.541/共␤s兲1.418

共R2 = 0.91, Fstat = 92 ⬎ Fcritical = 4.93, tstat of DL

共s/l兲 and 共␤s兲 ⬎ tcritical = 1.94兲 共2兲
where

l= 冑
4
Ech3e
12共1 − ␮2兲k
= Radius of relative stiffness 共RRS兲 in mm 共3兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

k = modulus of subgrade reaction in MPa/mm; Ec = elastic modu-

lus of PCC layer in MPa; ␮ = Poisson’s ratio of PCC layer; and
Fig. 6. Variation of LTE 共%兲 with DL for different K values
he = effective thickness of PCC layer in mm.
The expressions for the effective thickness of PCC layers are
given by Eqs. 共4兲–共6兲 共Ioannides et al. 1992兲. For fully-bonded conveniently used for estimating the LTE in the back-calculation
layers process instead of solving the FEM based models.
he = he−b

再
= h31 +
E2 3
h + 12
E1 2
冋冉 xna −
h1
2
冊 2
h1 +
E2
E1
冉h1 − xna +
h2
2
冊 册冎
2
h2
1/3
Dowel Group Action

Considering that the dowel group action and the relative contri-
共4兲
bution of individual dowels in a dowel group has been modeled
xna = neutral axis distance from top of PCC layer in mm in different ways in the past, the group action of the dowel bar

冉 冊
system has been examined in the present study via use of the
h1 h2 FE model developed for the analysis of dowel-jointed concrete
E 1h 1 + E 2h 2 h 1 +
2 2 pavement. Group action of dowel bar system in a typical jointed
xna = 共5兲
E 1h 1 + E 2h 2 concrete pavement was evaluated by performing a parametric
study. Concrete slabs of dimension 4,500 mm⫻ 3,500 mm, laid
For unbonded layers over 100-mm thick DLC base and 150 mm thick wet mix mac-

he = he−u = 冋冉 h31 +
E2 3
h
E1 2
冊册 1/3
共6兲
adam 共WMM兲 layer placed over a compacted subgrade were con-
sidered for analysis. The layers were assumed to be fully bonded
with each other. 600-mm long steel dowel bars of 32-mm diam-
E1 and E2 = elastic moduli of PCC and DLC layers, respectively, eter with zero looseness were considered at a spacing of 300 mm.
in MPa; h1 and h2 = thicknesses of PCC and DLC layers, respec- Various combinations of pavements with different values of slab
tively, in mm thickness, elastic modulus of concrete, and modulus of subgrade

冑
4
reaction were evaluated. These combinations have been repre-
Kd sented by corresponding values of the “radius of relative stiffness
␤=
4EI 共l兲.” Four different slab thicknesses—250, 300, 350, and 400 mm,
with three different elastic modulus values 共E兲 of concrete—
= Relative stiffness between embedded dowel and concrete
25,000, 30,000, and 35,000 MPa and five modulus of subgrade
共7兲 reaction 共k兲 values ranging from 0.05–0.20 MPa/mm were
where E = elastic modulus of steel dowel in MPa; I = moment of adopted for the study. A dual wheel load of 60 kN was considered
inertia of dowel bar in mm4; K = modulus of dowel support in to be acting at the edge of the pavement. Rectangular tire imprints
MPa/mm; d = diameter of dowel bar in mm; s = spacing of dowel of size 234.4 mm⫻ 160 mm corresponding to a single wheel load
bars in mm; and DL= dowel looseness in mm. 共30 kN load and 0.75 MPa contact pressure兲 were considered.
Fig. 6 shows the variation of LTE with DL for different values Dimensions of a dual wheel load configuration obtained for typi-
of modulus of dowel support 共K兲, when other parameters remain cal commercial vehicles in an earlier study 共Reddy 1993兲 were
constant. It can be seen from the figure that, for a given K, LTE used for the analysis. Fig. 7 shows a schematic diagram of the
decreases significantly with increase in DL. Also, for a given DL, concrete pavement with dowel bars along with the dual wheel
LTE increases with increase in K. Buch and Zollinger 共1996兲 also
noted similar trend in their experiments conducted on jointed con-
crete pavements.
Direct measurement of DL in in-service pavements, though
uncommon, can be done using suitable nondestructive testing.
However, it is possible to back-calculate pavement parameters
such as elastic modulus of slab, modulus of subgrade reaction and
DL by carrying out deflection measurements using FWD. For this
purpose, it is necessary that different pavement systems are
solved for computing LTE with the help of FE based models in
which DL is considered. Eq. 共2兲, developed in this study, can be Fig. 7. Dual wheel load position on the pavement

818 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009

J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.

 Table 5. Properties of Concrete, DLC, WMM, and Subgrade Used in the
Parametric Study
Material property Concrete DLC WMM Subgrade
Thickness 共h in mm兲 250, 300 100, 150 150 —
350, 400 — — —
Elastic modulus 25,000 10,000 500 —
共E in MPa兲 30,000 14,000 — —
35,000 17,500 — —
Poisson’s ratio 共␷兲 0.15 0.15 0.35 —
Modulus of subgrade — — — 0.05, 0.08, 0.12,
Fig. 8. Typical variation of shear force transferred by different dow- Reaction 共k in MPa/mm兲 0.15, 0.20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

els for a 350 mm thick pavement slab

load on one panel. The dual wheel set was placed adjacent to the
joint and close to one longitudinal edge of the slab panel.
Fig. 8 presents typical variation of the shear force transferred
by different dowel bars. This trend was obtained for a slab thick-
ness of 350 mm with 32-mm diameter dowel bars. The dowel just
below the load carries the maximum shear force and the shear
force carried by other dowels gradually decreases to zero follow-
ing a parabolic shape. The distance 共D兲 at which the shear be-
comes zero was found to depend on the radius of relative stiffness
共l兲. However, the relationship between D and l is not linear, since
n is a function of l and is expressed as follows:
D = n共l兲 ⫻ l 共8兲
where n is
n = 130.56 ⫻ l−0.6661 共R2 = 0.87兲 共9兲
Therefore
D = 130.56 ⫻ l0.333 共10兲
where l is expressed in mm.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of n with l. Eq. 共10兲 was obtained
by varying only the radius of relative stiffness 共l兲. However, the
shear force taken by different dowel bars and the distance 共D兲 up
to which the dowels participate in load transfer depend also on the
dowel parameters and the applied wheel load. To examine these
aspects, pavements with different configurations 共slab thickness,
elastic modulus of concrete and modulus of subgrade reaction兲
with different dowel bar systems subjected to different wheel
loading were considered. Three different diameters of the dowel
bars, 25, 32, and 36 mm, with three different spacing, 250, 300,
and 350 mm, were used for the sensitivity analysis. All the dowels
were assumed to have zero looseness and perfectly aligned. The
diameter of dowel bars is normally chosen to be about one tenth
of the concrete slab thickness. The value of the modulus of dowel
support between dowel bars and concrete 共K兲 was selected in the
range of 350–650 MPa/mm. The elastic modulus and Poisson’s
ratio of steel were taken as 200,000 MPa and 0.3, respectively.
The properties of different layers of pavement considered for
analysis are given in Table 5. The configurations and properties of
the two-panel concrete pavement system shown in the table con-
firm to those generally followed in the construction of pavements
on the national highways in India 共IRC: 58 2002兲. Five different
dual wheel loads, 40, 60, 80, 100, and 120 kN, were used for the
present analysis. The loads were selected as representative of the
typical axle load spectrum observed on Indian highways. In this
case also, it was assumed that, load transfer is accomplished
solely by dowel bar system and the contribution of aggregate
interlocking has been neglected.
A number of finite-element simulations were carried out with
different pavement configurations, dowel bar system and wheel
loadings and the group action of the dowel bar system was inves-
tigated. The shear forces in the participating dowels decreased
gradually with distance from the load position. The distance 共D兲
at which the shear in the dowel becomes zero is found to depend
not only on the radius of relative stiffness 共l兲, but also on the
spacing of the dowel bar system. The shear in the first dowel 共P1兲
can be estimated from Eq. 共11兲 developed in the present study
P1 = P ⫻ 关0.0262 ⫻ 共l/s兲 + 0.0166 ⫻ 共␤ ⫻ s兲兴
共R2 = 0.92, Fstat = 163 ⬎ Fcritical = 4.93,
tstat of 共l/s兲 and 共␤s兲 ⬎ tcritical = 1.94兲 共11兲
where P=applied dual wheel load in N; and s = spacing of dowel
bars in mm. The other parameters were previously defined.
Dowel shear ratio 共DSR兲 is expressed as the ratio of shear
force in any dowel to that in the dowel immediately below the
wheel load. DSR gives an idea of the relative contribution of
individual dowels in transferring load across a joint or crack. In
practical situations, a number of wheel loads may be present on
the pavement. The load shared by the individual dowels will
therefore be calculated by superimposing the effect of all the ap-
plied loads. The DSR can be used in the design of dowel bar
system. The following relationship has been developed for the
estimation of DSR on the basis of the sensitivity analysis carried
out in the present study:

共dn兲 0.7652

Fig. 9. Variation of n with l DSRn = 1 −

共s兲 0.6833
⫻ 共l兲0.2130

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009 / 819

J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.

 共R2 = 0.91, Fstat = 399 ⬎ Fcritical = 4.93
tstat of dn, s and l ⬎ tcritical = 1.94兲
where DSRn = dowel shear ratio for the nth dowel and dn
= distance of the nth dowel from the dowel just below the load
in mm.
The distance “D” where DSR becomes zero can therefore be
estimated from Eq. 共12兲 and is given in Eq. 共13兲
D = n ⫻ 共l兲 0.2783
where n⫽function of the dowel bar spacing and can be expressed
as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
n = 共s兲0.8930
As mentioned earlier in this paper, DL plays an important role
in the load transfer mechanism. Looseness in bars reduces the
LTE and so the load transferred by the dowels also decreases
accordingly. To account for the effect of looseness in estimating
the load carried by different dowels, Eq. 共11兲 needs to be ad-
justed, since it was developed for zero DL. The revised form of
Eq. 共11兲 is given as Eq. 共15兲 accounting for the adjustment to be
made for DL
冉 冊
LTEDL
P1 = P ⫻ 关0.0262 ⫻ 共l/s兲 + 0.0166 ⫻ 共␤ ⫻ s兲兴
LTE0
where LTE0 = load transfer efficiency for zero DL. LTEDL = load
transfer efficiency for a given amount of dowel looseness. The
load carried by other dowels can be estimated using Eq. 共12兲.
The present model for estimating the load transferred by
the critical dowel has been compared with the model proposed
by Ioannides and Korovesis 共1992兲. The following data used
in a numerical example given in the reference paper has been
considered for analysis. Concrete slab: thickness= 250 mm,
E = 27,590 MPa, ␷ = 0.15; subgrade: k 0.0543 MPa/mm; dowel
bar: diameter= 25 mm, spacing= 250 mm, Esteel = 200,000 MPa,
␷steel = 0.3; wheel load= 40 kN and deflection LTE⫽70%. In the
reference paper, the load distribution factor 共f dc兲 obtained is 0.32
which corresponds to a load of 5,250 N carried by the critical
dowel. The same pavement has been analyzed using the present
model 关using Eqs. 共2兲 and 共11兲兴 and the load shared by the critical
dowel is estimated as 5,840 N. The f dc for the critical dowel is
found to be 0.46 of the total transferred load. The load on the
critical dowel obtained from the present model varies within 11%
of that obtained from the model given by Ioannides and Korove-
sis 共1992兲.
The dowel bar model used by Ioannides and Korovesis 共1992兲
is based on a 2D FE analysis 共Tabatabaie and Barenberg 1980兲,
which considers dowel bar as a thick beam element connecting
the adjacent slab panels. The embedded portions of the dowel
within the concrete are not modeled and the support provided by
the concrete is modeled as a single spring that acts at the joint
face. The composite stiffness parameter 共D兲 used in the model
is estimated by combining the stiffness of the thick beam ele-
ment 共representing dowel兲 and the stiffness of support spring
representing the modulus of dowel support 共K兲. The proposed
dowel bar model in the present study is based on a 3D FE analy-
sis. The dowel bars are modeled as 3D beam elements of finite
length. The interaction between dowel and concrete is represented
by a series of contact elements along the dowel bar, whose stiff-
ness is represented by the modulus of dowel support 共K兲. Thus
the actual stiffnesses of the beam elements as well as the spring
elements are considered in the FE model. In addition, the present
820 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009
J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.
model is capable of accounting for the influence of DL on LTE.
The 3D FE model is therefore expected to be more realistic and
共12兲 versatile to represent a jointed concrete pavement with dowel bar
system.
Conclusions
The following major conclusions have been drawn from the
共13兲 present study:
• A 3D finite-element model has been developed for the analysis
of a dowel-jointed concrete pavement. A comparison of the
model prediction with experimental data reported in literature
showed reasonable agreement between the predicted and the
共14兲 measured values.
• A generalized expression has been developed for estimating
the LTE of a doweled-joint. The equation shows that LTE is a
function of radius of relative stiffness, dowel size, dowel spac-
ing, DL and modulus of dowel support. However, the model
assumes that the looseness around the dowels is uniform and
same for all the dowels, and the concrete slab is fully sup-
ported by the subgrade. These may be considered as the major
limitations of the model.
• The effects of DL and modulus of dowel support on LTE are
quite significant. It is observed that LTE decreases with in-
共15兲
crease in DL and increases with increase in modulus of dowel
support. However, as it is difficult to measure/estimate DL in
field and modulus of dowel support in laboratory, an attempt
can be made to combine these two parameters in future stud-
ies. More theoretical as well as field investigations are needed
for this purpose.
• The group action of the dowel bar system has been examined
using the numerical model developed in this study. A relation-
ship has been developed to evaluate the load shared by the
dowel immediately below the load. It is found that, the maxi-
mum shear taken by the dowel just below the load depends
upon pavement configuration 共expressed in terms of radius of
relative stiffness兲, dowel spacing and relative stiffness of
dowel and concrete.
• Relationship was also developed to estimate the load shared by
other dowels in the group. This is expressed in terms of DSR.
These relationships are useful in the design of dowel bar sys-
tem in a jointed pavement.
• It is found that the distance up to which the dowels are effec-
tive in sharing the applied wheel load depends on the radius of
relative stiffness and the spacing of the dowel bars.
Acknowledgments
The writers thank all the reviewers for their valuable comments
and suggestions. The writers also thank Professor D. G. Zollinger,
Dr. M. B. Snyder, and Dr. E. Guo for providing useful references
relevant for the present study.
References
ANSYS, Inc. 共2002兲. User’s manual, ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, Pa.
Bhattacharya, K. 共2000兲. “Nonlinear response of transverse joints of air-
field pavements.” J. Transp. Eng., 126共2兲, 168–177.
Brill, D. R., and Guo, E. H. 共2000兲. “Load transfer in rigid airport
pavement joints.” Proc., 26th Int. Air Transportation Conf., ASCE,
Reston, Va.
 Buch, N., and Zollinger, D. G. 共1996兲. “Development of dowel looseness
prediction model for jointed concrete pavements.” Transportation Re-
search Record. 1525, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 21–27.
Channakeshava, C., Barzegar, F., and Voyiadjis, G. Z. 共1993兲. “Non-
linear FE analysis of plain concrete pavements with doweled joints.”
J. Transp. Eng., 119共5兲, 763–780.
Davids, W. G. 共2000兲. “Effect of dowel looseness on response of jointed
concrete pavements.” J. Transp. Eng., 126共1兲, 50–57.
Davids, W. G., Wang, Z., Turkiyyah, G., Mahoney, J. P., and Bush, D.
共2003兲. “Three-dimensional finite element analysis of jointed plain
concrete pavement with EverFE2.2.” Transportation Research
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 07/24/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Record. 1853, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 92–
117.
Dere, Y., Asgari, A., Sotelino, E. D., and Archer, G. C. 共2006兲. “Failure
prediction of skewed jointed plain concrete pavements using 3D FE
analysis.” Eng. Failure Anal., 13, 898–913.
Final Report. 共2006兲. “Laboratory study of structural behavior of alterna-
tive dowel bars.” Rep. No. FHWA DTFH61-01-X-00042, National
Concrete Pavement Technology Centre, Iowa State Univ.
Guo, H., Larson, R. M., and Snyder, M. B. 共1994兲. “A nonlinear mecha-
nistic model for dowel looseness in PCC pavements.” Proc., 3rd Int.
Conf. on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue
Univ., West Lafayette, Ind., 359–371.
Guo, H., Pasko, T. J., and Snyder, M. B. 共1993兲. “Maximum bearing
stress of concrete in doweled portland cement concrete pavements.”
Transportation Research Record. 1388, Transportation Research
Board, Washington D.C., 19–28.
Guo, H., Sherwood, J. A., and Snyder, M. B. 共1995兲. “Component dowel-
bar model for load transfer systems in PCC pavements.” J. Transp.
Eng., 121共3兲, 289–298.
Huang, Y. H., and Wang, S. T. 共1973兲. “Finite element analysis of con-
crete slabs and its implications on rigid pavement design.” Highw.
Res. Rec., 466, 55–79.
Ioannides, A. M., Khazanovich, L., and Becque, J. L. 共1992兲. “Structural
evaluation of base layers in concrete pavement systems.” Transporta-
tion Research Record. 1370, Transportation Research Board, Wash-
ington D.C., 20–28.
Ioannides, A. M., and Korovesis, G. T. 共1992兲. “Analysis and design of
dowelled slab-on-grade pavement systems.” J. Transp. Eng., 118共6兲,
745–768.
IRC: 58. 共2002兲. “Guidelines for the design of plain-jointed rigid pave-
ments for highways.” Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
Jeong, J. H., and Zollinger, D. G. 共2001兲. “Characterization of stiffness
parameters in design of continuously reinforced and jointed pave-
ments.” Transportation Research Record. 1778, Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington D.C., 54–63.
Keeton, J. R. 共1956兲. “Investigation of load transfer characteristics of
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2009 / 821
J. Transp. Eng. 2009.135:813-821.
dowels.” Proc., 35th Annual Meeting, Highway Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 147–151.
Keeton, J. R., and Bishop, J. A. 共1957兲. “Load transfer characteristics of
a dowelled joint subjected to aircraft wheel loads.” Proc., Highway
Research Board, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 190–
198.
Kelleher, K., and Larson, R. M. 共1989兲. “The design of plain doweled
jointed concrete pavement.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Concrete Pave-
ment Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.
Khazanovich, L., and Gotlif, A. 共2003兲. “Evaluation of joint and crack
load transfer final report.” Technical Rep. No. FHWA-RD-02-088,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Kim, J., and Hjelmstad, K. D. 共2003兲. “Three-dimensional finite element
analysis of doweled joints for airport pavements.” Transportation Re-
search Record. 1853, Transportation Research Board, Washington
D.C., 100–109.
Mahboub, K. C., Liu, Y., and Allen, D. L. 共2004兲. “Evaluation of tem-
perature responses in concrete pavement.” J. Transp. Eng., 130共3兲,
395–401.
Nishizawa, T., Fukuda, T., and Matsuno, S. 共1989兲. “A refined model of
doweled joints for concrete pavement using FEM analysis.” Proc., 4th
Int. Conf. on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue
Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.
Nishizawa, T., Koyanagawa, M., Takeuchi, Y., and Kimura, M. 共2001兲.
“Study on mechanical behavior of dowel bar in transverse joint of
concrete pavement.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Concrete Pavements,
Orlando, Fla.
Reddy, K. S. 共1993兲. “Analytical evaluation of bituminous pavements.”
Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.
Tabatabaie, A. M., and Barenberg, E. J. 共1980兲. “Structural analysis of
concrete pavement systems.” J. Transp. Eng., 106共5兲, 493–506.
Tia, M., Armaghani, J. M., Wu, C. L., Lei, S., and Toye, K. L. 共1987兲.
“FEACONS III computer program for analysis of jointed concrete
pavements.” Transportation Research Record. 1136, Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C., 12–22.
Westergaard, H. M. 共1926兲. “Stresses in concrete pavements computed by
theoretical analysis.” Public Roads, 7, 25–35.
William, G. W., and Shoukry, S. N. 共2001兲. “3D finite-element analysis of
temperature-induced stresses in dowel jointed concrete pavements.”
Int. J. Geomech., 1共3兲, 291–307.
Yoder and Witczak. 共1975兲. Principles of pavement design, 2nd Ed.,
Wiley, New York.
Zaman, M., and Alvappillai, A. 共1995兲. “Contact-element model for dy-
namic analysis of jointed concrete pavements.” J. Transp. Eng.,
121共5兲, 425–433.
Zollinger, C., Zollinger, D. G., Dallas, L., and Godiwalla, A. 共2005兲.
“Innovative approach to pavement rehabilitation analysis and design
of runway 15L-33R at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Hous-
ton, TX.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Concrete Pavements, Colorado
Springs, Colo., Vol. 3, 1101–1119.