Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home   |   Pavements Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-06-106
Date: September 2009

Design and Evaluation of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement With Fiber Reinforced Polymer Dowels

PDF Version (2.96 MB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

Table of Contents | Next

FOREWORD

This study evaluates fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) dowel bars as load transferring devices in jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) under HS25 static and fatigue loads and compares their response with JPCP consisting of steel dowels. Along with laboratory and field evaluations of JPCP with FRP and steel dowels, analytical modeling of dowel response has been carried out in terms of maximum bending deflection, relative deflection, and bearing stress of dowels

Response of concrete pavement with FRP dowels is investigated through laboratory experiments and field implementation. This research showed that JPCP with FRP dowels provided very good load transfer efficiency (LTE)JPCP with FRP dowels provided sufficient LTE after 5 million cycles of fatigue tests under HS25 loading conducted in the Major Units Laboratory of West Virginia University

Cheryl Allen Richter
Acting Director
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange The U.S Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S Government does not endorse products or manufacturers Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1 Report No FHWA-HRT-06-106

2 Government Accession No.

3 Recipient's Catalog No.

4 Title and Subtitle

Design and Evaluation of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement with Fiber Reinforced Polymer Dowels

5 Report Date

September 2009

6 Performing Organization Code

7 Author(s)

Vijay, P.V., Hota V.S., Ganga Rao, and Li, H.

8 Performing Organization Report No.

9 Performing Organization Name and Address
Constructed Facilities Center
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506

10 Work Unit No

11 Contract or Grant No

DTFH61-99-X-00078

12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Research and Technology Services
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296

13 Type of Report and Period

Final Report, November 1999 to July 2003

14 Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15 Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR): Peter Kopac, Pavement Materials and Construction Team

16 Abstract

This study evaluates fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) dowel bars as load transferring devices in jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) under HS25 static and fatigue loads and compares their response with JPCP consisting of steel dowels. Along with laboratory and field evaluations of JPCP with FRP and steel dowels, analytical modeling of dowel response was carried out in terms of maximum bending deflection, relative deflection (RD), and bearing stress of dowels. In addition, field rehabilitation of JPCP was carried out using FRP dowels to evaluate its long-term performance. Laboratory tests included static and fatigue load application corresponding to HS25 load and 1.5 times HS25 load on concrete slabs (27.94- and 30.48-cm (11- and 12-inch) depth) with 3.81- and 2.54-cm (1.5- and 1.0-inch) steel and FRP dowels at different spacings (30.48 and 15.24 cm (12 and 6inches)). Both 3.81- and 2.54-cm (1.5- and 1.0-inch)-diameter FRP dowels were installed in the field with 15.24-, 20.32-, 22.86-, and 30.48-cm (6-, 8-, 9-, and 12-inch) spacings. Load calibrated field tests were conducted on these pavements using a West Virginia Department of Transportation truck in 2002 and 2003. FRP dowel bars that were 1.5 inches in diameter were also used for pavement rehabilitation. Field data collected through an automatic data acquisition system included strain and joint deflections, which were used for assessing joint load transfer efficiency (LTE), joint RD, and pavement performance. Theoretical calculations are provided through different examples for JPCP with FRP and steel dowels by varying dowel diameters, spacing, dowel material properties, joint width, and base material properties. This research showed that JPCP with FRP dowels provided very good LTE up to and beyond 90 percent, which exceeds the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and American Concrete Pavement Association criteria. JPCP with FRP dowels also provided sufficient LTE after 5 million cycles of fatigue tests under HS25 loading.

17 Key Words: GFRP, Glass fiber reinforced polymer, FRP dowel, JPCP, Jointed plain concrete pavement, Relative deflection, Joint efficiency, Dowel

18 Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

19 Security Classif (of this report)

Unclassified

20 Security Classif (of this page) Unclassified

21 No. of Pages

160

22 Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized

Metric Conversion Chart

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

GENERAL REMARKS

OBJECTIVES

SCOPE

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

INTRODUCTION

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

FORMWORK

TEST SETUP

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

JOINT CRACK PATTERNS OBSERVED IN LABORATORY TESTS

PRELIMINARY TESTS

JOINT DEFLECTIONS AND JOINT LTE

CHAPTER 5 FIELD APPLICATIONS AND TEST RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

FRP DOWELS FOR NEW HIGHWAY PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION

FIELD TESTS

FRP DOWELS USED FOR HIGHWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION

FIELD TESTS

CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 6 ANALYTICAL EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

ANALYTICAL MODEL

THEORETICAL CALCULATION SAMPLES FOR FRP AND STEEL DOWEL GROUP

DISCUSSIONS ON 3.81-CM (1.5-INCH) AND 2.54-CM (1.0-INCH)-DIAMETER DOWELS

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS THEORETICAL DATA

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO FRP DOWEL- CONCRETE BEARING STRESS

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

CONCLUSIONS FOR LABORATORY TESTS

CONCLUSIONS FOR FIELD APPLICATIONS AND TEST RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS FOR ANALYTICAL EVALUATION

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS RESEARCH

RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A TEST OF TIMBER TIE WITH FRP DOWELS

APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF EFFECT OF FRP DOWEL SHEAR MODULUS ON PAVEMENT RD

APPENDIX C FIBER BURNOUT TESTS FOR DETERMINING FIBER WEIGHT FRACTION AND FIBER VOLUME FRACTION FOR FRP DOWELS

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Photo Exposed failures with rusted dowel bars (Washington State Department of Transportation Pavement Guide)

Figure 2 Typical pavement problems-faulting and pumping

Figure 3 Photo FRP dowels (2.54 and 3.81 cm (1.0 and 1.5 inches) in diameter)

Figure 4 Photo Steel dowels 3.81 and 2.54 cm (1.5 and 1.0 inches) in diameter

Figure 5 Photo Wood formwork

Figure 6 Diagram Dimensions of formwork

Figure 7 Diagram Trimmed dowel bar.

Figure 8 Photo Instrumented dowels and steel plate positioned in the wood formwork

Figure 9 Photo Placing concrete into the formwork.

Figure 10 Photo Dowel being covered by concrete

Figure 11 Photo Casting concrete cylinders

Figure 12 Photo Surface finished specimens

Figure 13 Diagram Concrete slabs for preliminary tests

Figure 14 Diagram Concrete slabs containing two dowels

Figure 15 Diagram Concrete slabs containing only one dowel

Figure 16 Photo Experimental setup

Figure 17 Photo LVDTs positioned on both sides of the joint

Figure 18 Photo Typical crack observed in slabs number 1, 4, and 5 (table 7)

Figure 19 Photo Crack observed in slab number 2 (table 7)

Figure 20 Photo Typical crack observed in slab number 3 (table 7)

Figure 21 Chart Joint RD for slab number 1 under static test.

Figure 22 Graph RDs under HS25 loading for slab number 1 at joint width of 0.635 mm (0.25 inch) (static and 1 million cycles).

Figure 23 Graph RDs for slab number 1 under fatigue tests (joint width increased from 0.635 cm (0.25 inch) to 1.016 mm (0.4 inch) from 2 to 5 million cycles)

Figure 24 Chart Joint RD for slab number 2 under static test.

Figure 25 Graph RDs for specimen 2 (0 to 2 million cycles).

Figure 26 Chart Joint RD for specimen 3 under static test

Figure 27 Graph RDs for specimen 3 (0 to 1.25 million cycles)

Figure 28 Chart Joint RD for specimen 4 under static test

Figure 29 Graph Pavement deflections under fatigue test for slab number 4 (0 to 5 million cycles, FRP dowel at 30.48 cm (12 inches) c/c).

Figure 30 Graph RDs under fatigue test for specimen 4 (0 to 5 million cycles)

Figure 31 Chart Joint RD for specimen 5 under static test

Figure 32 Graph RDs under fatigue test for specimen 5 (0 to 5 million cycles)

Figure 33 Chart Joint LTE for slab number 1

Figure 34 Graph LTE corresponding to HS25 loading for slab number 1 (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter at 15.24 cm (6 inches) c/c), static and 1 million cycles

Figure 35 Graph LTE for slab number 1 under fatigue tests ( > 1 million cycles and joint width increased from 0.635 to 1.016 cm (0.25 to 0.4 inch))

Figure 36 Photo Dowel-concrete interface condition in slab number 1 after 5 million load cycles

Figure 37 Chart Joint LTE for slab number 2

Figure 38 Graph LTE under fatigue tests (HS25 loading) for slab number 2 (0 to 1 million cycles).

Figure 39 Graph LTE under fatigue test for slab number 2 (1 to 2 million cycles)

Figure 40 Chart Joint LTE for slab number 3

Figure 41 Graph LTE under fatigue test for slab number 3 (0 to 1.25 million cycles)

Figure 42 Chart Joint LTE for slab number 4

Figure 43 Graph LTE under fatigue test for slab number 4 (0 to 5 million cycles)

Figure 44 Photo Dowel-concrete interface condition in slab number 4 after 5 million load cycles.

Figure 45 Chart Joint LTE for slab number 5

Figure 46 Graph LTE under fatigue test for slab number 5 (0 to 5 million cycles)

Figure 47 Diagram Case one-60.96-cm (2-ft) base material removal under loaded side of slabs

Figure 48 Diagram Case two-30.48-cm (1-ft) base material removal under both sides of slabs

Figure 49 Chart RD for pumping tests (case one-60.96-cm (2-ft) base removal)

Figure 50 Chart LTE for pumping tests (case one-60.96-cm (2-ft) base removal)

Figure 51 Graph RD for pumping tests under 13.345 kN (3 kips) loading (case two- 30.48-cm (1-ft) base removal under both slabs).

Figure 52 Graph LTE for pumping tests under 13.345 kN (3 kips) loading (case two- 30.48-cm (1-ft) base removal under both slabs)

Figure 53 Graph Strain gauge reading in slab 1 (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter at 15.24-cm (6-inch) spacing c/c) from static test to 1 million cycles under HS25 loading)

Figure 54 Chart Strain gauge reading in slab number 4 (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter at 30.48-cm (12-inch) spacing c/c) from static test under HS25 loading

Figure 55 Photo Dowel installation at location 1 of corridor H, Route 250, Elkins, WV

Figure 56 Diagram FRP dowel positions at location 1 of corridor H, Route 250, Elkins, WV

Figure 57 Photo FRP dowel bars at location 2 of corridor H, Route 219, Elkins, WV

Figure 58 Diagram FRP dowel positions at location 2 of corridor H, Route 219, Elkins, WV

Figure 59 Photo FRP dowel bars bonded with strain gauges at loaded and unloaded sides

Figure 60 Photo Embeddable concrete strain gauge with dowels

Figure 61 Photo FRP dowels in dowel basket

Figure 62 Photo Paving operation in progress

Figure 63 Photo FRP dowel bars being covered by concrete

Figure 64 Photo Dial gauges for measuring pavement deflection under truck loading

Figure 65 Photo Data acquisition system used for field tests

Figure 66 Diagram Dowel A1 (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter, 22.86-cm (9-inch) spacing); refer to figure 58

Figure 67 Chart Strains in dowel during loading and unloading cases for gauge A1-LT (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter, 22.86-cm (9-inch) spacing)

Figure 68 Diagram Dowel A2 (3.81-cm (1.5 inch) diameter, 30.48-cm (12-inch) spacing); refer to figure 58

Figure 69 Chart Strains in dowel during loading and unloading cases for gauge A2-LT (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter, 30.48-cm (12-inch) spacing); refer to figure 58

Figure 70 Diagram Dowel C5 (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter, 15.24-cm (6-inch) spacing); refer to figure 58

Figure 71 Chart Strains in dowel during loading case for gauge C5-U1 (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter, 15.24-cm (6-inch) spacing); refer to figure 58

Figure 72 Diagram Dowel C6 (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter, 20.32-cm (8-inch) spacing); refer to figure 58

Figure 73 Chart Strains on dowel during loading case for gauge C6-U1 (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter, 20.32-cm (8-inch) spacing); refer to figure 58.61

Figure 74 Chart Strain from gauge A1-LT (3.81-cm (1.5-inch)-diameter FRP dowel at 22.86-cm (9-inch) spacing) from dynamic tests.

Figure 75 Chart Strain from gauge A2-LT (3.81-cm (1.5-inch)-diameter FRP dowel at 30.48-cm (12-inch) spacing) from dynamic tests

Figure 76 Photo WVDOT truck used for field tests

Figure 77 Photo WVDOT truck positioned near a joint for the test

Figure 78 Photo Two LVDTs measuring pavement deflections across a joint.

Figure 79 Photo Measuring distance from tire to LVDTs (when loading is away from the selected dowel)

Figure 80 Chart Deflection on pavement joint 3 (with 3.81-cm (1.5-inch)-diameter and 30.48-cm (12-inch)-spacing FRP dowels) under loading.

Figure 81 Chart Deflection on pavement joint 2 (with 3.81-cm (1.5-inch)-diameter and 22.86-cm (9-inch)-spacing FRP dowels) under unloading

Figure 82 Chart Deflection on pavement joint 2 (with 3.81-cm (1.5-inch)-diameter and 22.86-cm (9-inch)-spacing FRP dowels) under loading.

Figure 83 Chart Deflection on pavement joint 5 (with 2.54-cm (1.0-inch)-diameter and 20.32-cm (8-inch)-spacing FRP dowels) under loading

Figure 84 Chart Deflection on pavement joint 6 (with 2.54-cm (1.0-inch)-diameter and 15.24-cm (6-inch)-spacing FRP dowels) under loading

Figure 85 Graph Comparison of LTE from field test (average value was used for joint 2)

Figure 86 Graph Comparison of RD from field test (average value was used for joint 2)

Figure 87 Photo Locations of FRP and steel-doweled pavement joints

Figure 88 Photo Drilling holes for inserting dowels

Figure 89 Photo FRP dowels in position.

Figure 90 Photo Steel dowels in position.

Figure 91 Photo Concrete placement and vibration

Figure 92 Photo Data acquisition recording strain readings

Figure 93 Chart Strain from FRP dowels in rehabilitated pavement

Figure 94 Chart Strain from steel dowel in rehabilitated pavement

Figure 95 Diagram Semi-infinite beam on an elastic foundation

Figure 96 Diagram Slope and deflection of dowel at joint face

Figure 97 Diagram Load transfer distribution proposed by Friberg

Figure 98 Diagram Load transfer distribution proposed by Tabatabaie et al

Figure 99 Diagram. Most critical dowel at the edge of a slab.

Figure 100 Diagram. RD between concrete slabs (Porter and Guinn)

Figure 101 Diagram. Expansion joint model used for theoretical calculation

Figure 102 Diagram. Steps for calculating critical dowel load, joint RD, and bearing stress in JPCP

Figure 103 Diagram. Generalized effective dowels for load distribution

Figure 104 Diagram. Most critical load distribution on effective dowels

Figure 105 Diagram. Pavement contraction joint model.

Figure 106 Diagram. Expansion joint model used for theoretical calculation

Figure 107 Diagram. Most critical load distribution on effective dowels

Figure 108 Chart. Dowel deflected shape (2.54-cm (1.5-inch) diameter)

Figure 109 Chart. Dowel deflected shape

Figure 110 Photo. Lab test of timber tie with FRP dowel bar as the load transfer device

Figure 111 Diagram. Four timber test cases

Figure 112 Diagram. Rosette strain gauges

Figure 113 Chart. Plot for longitudinal strain gauges (case I-A and case I-B)

Figure 114 Chart. Load versus deflection (inches) of timber tie for case I-A

Figure 115 Chart. Load deflection (arm with regular gauge) for case I-B

Figure 116 Graph. Components of RD for dowel types A (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter) and B (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter), with k = 11.072 kg/cm3 (400 pci), fc' = 31.026 MPa (4,500 psi), joint width = 0.635 cm (0.25 inch), and Gd = 2.8 x 103 MPa (0.4 x 106 psi)

Figure 117 Graph. Components of RD for dowel types A (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter) and B (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter), with k = 11.072 kg/cm3 (400 pci), fc' = 31.026 MPa (4,500 psi), joint width = 0.635 cm (0.25 inches), and Gd = 5.17 x 103 MPa (0.75 x 106 psi)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Modulus of elasticity (MOE) test results of FRP rod specimens-ASTM D3916

Table 2. Shear test results of FRP rod specimens-single-shear fixture

Table 3. Dowel details in specimens.

Table 4. Details of static testing.

Table 5. Details of fatigue testing.

Table 6. Parameters of dowel groups

Table 7. Cracks in the tested slabs

Table 8. Static load applied for specimen 1

Table 9. Load applied for fatigue tests on slab number 1

Table 10. Load applied for fatigue tests on specimen 2

Table 11. Load applied for fatigue tests on slab number 3

Table 12. Load applied for fatigue tests on slab number 4

Table 13. Load applied for fatigue tests on slab number 5

Table 14. RD of group 1 from static tests

Table 15. RD of group 1 from fatigue tests

Table 16. RD of group 2 from static tests

Table 17. RD of group 2 from fatigue tests

Table 18. LTE of group 1 from static tests

Table 19. LTE of group 1 during fatigue tests

Table 20. LTE of group 2 from static tests under corresponding HS25 load

Table 21. LTE of group 2 from fatigue tests.

Table 22. Evaluation of pumping issue under 44.482 kN (10 kips) loading

Table 23. Evaluation of pumping issue under 13.345 kN (3 kips) loading

Table 24. Parameters of the field test at location 2, July 2002

Table 25. Joint details used for analysis

Table 26. Summary of FRP dowel strain during loading and unloading

Table 27. Parameters of the field test, June 2003

Table 28. Pavement joint for deflection analysis

Table 29. Summary of joint deflection under maximum loading force

Table 30. Values for LTE Comparison from field test

Table 31. Comparison of RD values from field test

Table 32. Comparing joint 2 and joint 3

Table 33. Calculation summaries for 3.81-cm (1.5-inch)-diameter dowel (k = 11.072 kg/cm3 (400 pci), fc' = 31.026 MPa (4,500 psi))

Table 34. Peak bearing stress and average bearing stress in dowel (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter at 30.48 cm (12 inches) c/c) downward area

Table 35. Peak bearing stress and average bearing stress within 2.54-cm (1-inch) dowel (3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter at 30.48 cm (12 inches) c/c) length from joint face

Table 36. Calculation summaries for 2.54-cm (1.0-inch)-diameter dowel (k = 11.0719 kg/cm3 (400 pci), fc' = 31.026 MPa (4,500 psi))

Table 37. Peak bearing stress and average bearing stress in dowel ((2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter at 15.24 cm (6 inches) c/c) downward area

Table 38. Peak bearing stress and average bearing stress within 2.54-cm (1-inch) dowel (2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter at 15.24 cm (6 inches) c/c) length from joint face

Table 39. Comparison of experiments versus theory for slab RD in static testing under HS25 loading

Table 40. Strains during loading and unloading on case I-A

Table 41. Strains during loading and unloading on case I-B

Table 42. Strains during loading and unloading on case II-A

Table 43. Deflections of timber tie on case I-A

Table 44. Deflections of timber tie on case I-B

Table 45. RD with low dowel shear modulus (Gd = 2.758 x 103 MPa (0.4 x 106 psi))

Table 46. RD with high dowel shear modulus (Gd = 5.17 x 103 MPa (0.75 x 106 psi))

Table 47. FWF and FVF for FRP dowel with 2.54-cm (1.0-inch) diameter

Table 48. FWF and FVF for FRP dowel with 3.81-cm (1.5-inch) diameter

 

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration