Dowel Bars

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
Introduction
Pavement joints, dowels, and tie bars
Benefits of dowel and tie bars
Dowel and tie bar design
Construction
Summary

Presentation Outline

November 2, 2011

November 2, 2011
Transverse
joints
Longitudinal
joints
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

Dowel and Tie Bars

November 2, 2011

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

Dowel and Tie Bars

November 2, 2011
Dowels and Tie Bars

November 2, 2011
Transverse contraction
joint

Dower bars
Longitudinal construction
joint
Tie bars
Courtesy of Dr. Darter
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?

November 2, 2011
Lane separation
None or inadequate tie bar design

Effect of tie bars on pavement responses

November 2, 2011
Aggregate
interlocking
No tie bars
High stresses
High deflections
Pavement
distresses
Tie bars
Low stresses
Low deflections
Good joint
performance
ISLAB2000 Finite Element Model

November 2, 2011
80 kN single axle load
Deflection

0.0212
0.0194
0.0176
0.0158
0.0140
0.0122
0.0104
0.0086
0.0068
0.0050
0.0032
0.0014
-0.0004
-0.0021
Deflections without Tie Bars

November 2, 2011
Nontied joint
Max Deflection = 0.54 mm
Deflection

0.0128
0.0118
0.0107
0.0096
0.0085
0.0074
0.0064
0.0053
0.0042
0.0031
0.0020
0.0010
-0.0001
-0.0012
Effect of Dowels on Deflections

November 2, 2011
Tied joint
Deflections with Tie Bars
Effect of Tie Bars on PCC Stresses

November 2, 2011
Nontied joint
Max Stress = 2051 kPa
Tied joint
Principal Stresses at the Slab Bottom

X-direction

Y
-
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Stresses in Y-direction

293
269
245
222
198
174
151
127
103
80
56
33
9
-15

X-direction

Y
-
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Stresses in Y-direction

229
210
192
174
155
137
118
100
81
63
44
26
7
-11
Why do we need dowels?

November 2, 2011
Faulted Joint
None or inadequate dowel bar design

Effect of dowels on pavement responses

November 2, 2011
Traffic direction
Aggregate
interlocking
No dowels
High stresses
High deflections
Pavement
distresses
Traffic direction
Aggregate
Interlock

Loss of support
Rapid slab rebound
Rapid movement of
materials backward
Approach slab
Leave slab
Effect of dowels on pavement responses

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

November 2, 2011
ISLAB2000

November 2, 2011
Nondoweled joint

November 2, 2011
Deflection

0.0229
0.0210
0.0191
0.0171
0.0152
0.0133
0.0114
0.0095
0.0076
0.0057
0.0037
0.0018
-0.0001
-0.0020
Doweled joint
Effect of Dowels on Stresses

November 2, 2011

X-direction
Y
-
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Principal Stresses

160
142
125
107
89
72
54
37
19
2
-16
-33
-51
-68

X-direction
Y
-
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Principal Stresses

116
104
92
80
68
57
45
33
21
9
-3
-15
-26
-38
Nondoweled joint
Doweled joint
Principal Stresses at the Slab Bottom
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

Dowel and Tie Bars?

November 2, 2011
Effect on Load Transfer Efficiency

November 2, 2011
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Mean LTE, percentOOOO
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
a
s
s
e
s

Doweled Nondoweled
Good
Poor
nondoweled
doweled
Joint Load Transfer Efficiency, percent
Effect of Dowels on Faulting

November 2, 2011
Faulting (mm)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

Doweled
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Faulting, in
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Nondoweled Doweled
Nondoweled
2.0 4.0 6.0
8.0
Doweled
Good Poor Normal
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.

Benefits of Dowels

November 2, 2011
Introduction
Diameter
Length
Spacing
Construction
Summary


November 2, 2011
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
Dowel Diameter

November 2, 2011

November 2, 2011
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
AADTT in one direction
F
a
u
l
t
i
n
g

(
i
n
)
ND
D=1
D=1.25
D=1.5
Nondoweled
DD=25 mm
Design period: 20 years
Slab thickness: 200 mm.
DD=32 mm
DD=38 mm
F
a
u
l
t
i
n
g

(
m
m
)

Number of Trucks per days
2.50
5.00
Effect of Dowel Diameter on Faulting
Khazanovich et al. 2004
Effect of Dowels Diameter on Bearing
Stresses

November 2, 2011
Dowel Diameter, mm Concrete Bearing Stress, MPa
25 17.3
32 12.7
38 9.3
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
Dowel Length and Spacing

November 2, 2011

November 2, 2011
Non-uniform Dowels Spacing
5 @ 300 MM 5 @ 300 MM 900 MM
Dowels in the wheel paths only
Tie bar diameter
Austria: 14 mm
Germany: 20 mm
USA: 12.5 and 16 mm
Tie bar Diameter

November 2, 2011
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
Tie Bar Length and Spacing

November 2, 2011
FHWA Tie Bar Spacing

November 2, 2011
PCC
thickness (mm)
Distance to free edge (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
Bar diameter: 12.5 mm
Steel yield strength: 280 MPA
FHWA Tie Bar Spacing

November 2, 2011
PCC
thickness (mm)
Distance to free edge (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
Bar diameter: 16 mm
Steel yield strength: 280 MPa)
Introduction
Construction
Installation
Common problems
Evaluation
Fixing
Summary


November 2, 2011
Installation

November 2, 2011
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
Dowel Baskets

November 2, 2011
Dowel Bar Inserter

November 2, 2011
NHI
Dowel Bar Inserter

November 2, 2011
NHI
Tie Bar Installation

November 2, 2011
Tie bar chairs
Drilled
Common Installation Problems

November 2, 2011
Happy families are all alike;
every unhappy family is unhappy in its
own way.
Todas as famlias felizes so iguais.
Todas as famlias infelizes so diferentes.

Lev Tolstoy Anna Karenina

Common Installation Problems

November 2, 2011
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)
Common Problems Problems

November 2, 2011
Dowel and tie bar misplacement
Dowel and tie bars are too close to each other
Poor consolidation of concrete around dowels
and tie bars
Vertical Position Problem

November 2, 2011

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
Common Problems

November 2, 2011

Dowel Installation
Common Problems

November 2, 2011

Dowel Installation
The tie is too close to the dowel
Common Problems

November 2, 2011

Dowel Installation
Common Problems

November 2, 2011

Dowel Installation
Poor Consolidation of Concrete

November 2, 2011

Dowel Installation
Dowel bar
Entrapped air
The PCC mix was way too stiff
due to paving delays.
300 meters had to be
removed and replaced.
Three Ways to Achieve Good
Placement
Inspection
Inspection
Inspection

How to Avoid Problems

November 2, 2011
NDT for Bar Placement

November 2, 2011
Non-destructive Methods for Bar Location
Magnetic (MIT SCAN)
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
Ultrasound tomography

MIT SCAN

November 2, 2011
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

MIT SCAN

November 2, 2011
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)

November 2, 2011
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
Ultrasound Tomography

November 2, 2011
Advantages
Determines not only bar
position but also condition of
concrete around dowel/tie bar
Disadvantages
Relatively slow


November 2, 2011
Lane 3
Shoulder
Longitudinal Joint
Measurement Point
18 in.
Pavement-Base Interface
Dowels

November 2, 2011
Crack Reflection
D
e
p
t
h
,

m
m

0

150

300
dowels
joint
Alignment Tolerances

November 2, 2011

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
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_637.p
df

NCHRP 10-69 Study
University of Minnesota
(Prime Contractor)

Lev Khazanovich
Kyle Hoegh
Mark Snyder


November 2, 2011
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.

Laboratory Testing

November 2, 2011

Pullout Test
Shear Test
Dowel Installation
16 beams ,64 dowels with
precise misalignments
Pullout test
Shear test
Ultimate one time load
application
Repeated load application
Analytical Modeling

November 2, 2011

Dowel Installation

Joint
Plane of Symmetry
60
180
8
Exaggerated
joint opening
Analytical and Laboratory Results

November 2, 2011
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 greasing is very important!
Dowel alignment

Dowel misalignment has the same apparent effect
on joint performance as a reduction in dowel
diameter

Equivalent Dowel Diameter Concept

November 2, 2011
0
d r r r r d
hs vt cc emb eq

r
emb
<1 if longitudinal translation is greater than 50 mm
r
cc
<1 if vertical translation is greater than 12.5 mm
r
vt
< 1 if vertical tilt is greater than 12.5 mm
r
hs
<1 if horizontal skew is greater 12.5 mm
d
0
= nominal dowel diameter
Predicted Faulting
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Pavement age, years
F
a
u
l
t
i
n
g
,

i
n
Equivalent dowel diameter=1.32 in
Nominal dowel diameter=1.5 in
Faulting Limit
D=38 mm
D=33 mm
1
1 mm
2 mm
3 mm
MEPDG Faulting Prediction, mm
If the Bars Misplaced ..

November 2, 2011
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
If the Bars are Misplaced ..

November 2, 2011
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

Summary

November 2, 2011
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

Dowel Bars

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dowel Bars

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dowel and Tie Bars in

Concrete Pavement Joints:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen