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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Dowels and Tie Bars
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Transverse contraction joint
Dower bars Longitudinal construction joint Tie bars Courtesy of Dr. Darter Introduction Benefits of dowel and tie bars Theory Mechanism of load transfer Effect on deflections and stresses Effect on performance Practice Cost Dowel and tie bar design Construction Summary
Presentation Outline
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Why do we need tie bars?
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Lane separation None or inadequate tie bar design
Effect of tie bars on pavement responses
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Tied joint Max Deflection = 0.33 mm Deflections with Tie Bars Effect of Tie Bars on PCC Stresses
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Nontied joint Max Stress = 2051 kPa Tied joint Max Stress = 1603 kPa Principal Stresses at the Slab Bottom
229 210 192 174 155 137 118 100 81 63 44 26 7 -11 Why do we need dowels?
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Faulted Joint None or inadequate dowel bar design
Effect of dowels on pavement responses
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements ISLAB2000 Effect of Dowels on Deflections
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Nondoweled joint Max Deflection = 1.02 mm Effect of Dowels on Deflections
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 Max Deflection = 0.6 mm Effect of Dowels on Stresses
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
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 Max Stress = 1120 kPa Doweled joint Max Stress = 812 kPa 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Effect on Load Transfer Efficiency
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Introduction Benefits of dowel and tie bars Dowel and tie bar design Diameter Length Spacing Construction Summary
Presentation Outline
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements FHWA Tie Bar Spacing
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 Benefits of dowel and tie bars Dowel and tie bar design Construction Installation Common problems Evaluation Fixing Summary
Presentation Outline
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Installation
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Dowel Bar Inserter
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements NHI Dowel Bar Inserter
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements NHI Tie Bar Installation
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Tie bar chairs Drilled Common Installation Problems
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation A tie bar is too far from the mid-depth. Concrete cover is too low. Vertical Position Problem
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation If a bar is too close to the top surface Vertical Position Problem
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation Cracking occurred near the joint the next morning Common Problems
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation Common Problems
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation The tie is too close to the dowel Common Problems
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation The tie is too close to the dowel Common Problems
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation The tie is too close to the dowel Poor Consolidation of Concrete
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements NDT for Bar Placement
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Non-destructive Methods for Bar Location Magnetic (MIT SCAN) Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) Ultrasound tomography
MIT SCAN
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Advantages Determines not only bar position but also condition of concrete around dowel/tie bar Disadvantages Relatively slow
Ultrasound Tomography
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Lane 3 Shoulder Longitudinal Joint Measurement Point 18 in. Pavement-Base Interface Dowels Ultrasound Tomography
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements Crack Reflection D e p t h ,
m m
0
150
300 dowels joint Alignment Tolerances
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Washington DOT tolerances for tie bars Vertical translation: 25-mm Horizontal translation: 25-mm Vertical tilt: 25 mm Horizontal skew: 25 mm Alignment Tolerances
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
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 Alignment Tolerances
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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
Alignment Tolerances
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements
Dowel Installation
Joint Plane of Symmetry 60 180 8 Exaggerated joint opening Analytical and Laboratory Results
November 2, 2011 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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 2nd International Conference on Best Practices for Concrete Pavements 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