U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
 |
| This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-06-106 Date: September 2009 |
PDF Version (2.96 MB)
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. |
|
1 Report No FHWA-HRT-06-106 |
2 Government Accession No. |
3 Recipient's Catalog No. |
|||
|
4 Title and Subtitle |
5 Report Date |
||||
|
6 Performing Organization Code |
|||||
|
7 Author(s) |
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 |
|||||
|
12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address |
13 Type of Report and Period |
||||
|
14 Sponsoring Agency Code |
|||||
|
15 Supplementary Notes |
|||||
|
16 Abstract |
|||||
|
17 Key Words: GFRP, Glass fiber reinforced polymer, FRP dowel, JPCP, Jointed plain concrete pavement, Relative deflection, Joint efficiency, Dowel |
18 Distribution Statement |
||||
|
19 Security Classif (of this report) |
20 Security Classif (of this page) Unclassified |
21 No. of Pages |
22 Price N/A |
||
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
Metric Conversion ChartCHAPTER 3 MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
JOINT CRACK PATTERNS OBSERVED IN LABORATORY TESTS
JOINT DEFLECTIONS AND JOINT LTE
CHAPTER 5 FIELD APPLICATIONS AND TEST RESULTS
FRP DOWELS FOR NEW HIGHWAY PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
FRP DOWELS USED FOR HIGHWAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
CHAPTER 6 ANALYTICAL EVALUATION
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
CONCLUSIONS FOR LABORATORY TESTS
CONCLUSIONS FOR FIELD APPLICATIONS AND TEST RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS FOR ANALYTICAL EVALUATION
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS RESEARCH
APPENDIX A TEST OF TIMBER TIE WITH FRP DOWELS
APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF EFFECT OF FRP DOWEL SHEAR MODULUS ON PAVEMENT RD
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
