Transportation

Kentucky Transportation Center Research

Report
University of Kentucky Year 1999

Laboratory Testing and Analysis of

Joints for Rigid Pavements
Chelliah Madasamy∗ Issam E. Harik†
David L. Allen‡ L. John Fleckenstein∗∗

∗ University of Kentucky
† University of Kentucky, harik@uky.edu
‡ University of Kentucky, dallen@engr.uky.edu
∗∗ University of Kentucky, leo.fleckenstein@uky.edu

This paper is posted at UKnowledge.

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc researchreports/362
 Research Report
KTC-99- 2 2

LABORATORY TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF

JOINTS FOR RIGID PAVEMENTS

by

Chelliah Madasamy
Visiting Research Professor

Issam E. Harik
Professor of Civil Engineering

David L. Allen
Transportation Research Engineer

and

L. John Fleckenstein
Principal Research Investigator

Kentucky Transportation Center

College of Engineering
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

in cooperation with
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Commonwealth of Kentucky

and

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are
responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the
University of Kentucky, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, nor the
Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation. The inclusion of manufacturer names
and trade names are for identification purposes and are not to be considered
as endorsements.

May 1999
 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. KTC-99-22 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. n1e and Subtitle 5. Report Date

May 1 999
Laboratory Testing and Analysis of Joints for Rigid
6. Performing Organization Code
Pavements

8. Performing Organization Report No.

7. Author(s)
Chelliah Madasamy, lssam E. Harik, David L. Allen, L. John Fleckenstein KTC-99-22

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Kentucky Transportation Center

11. Contract or Grant No.
College of Engineering
University of Kentucky KYSPR-96- 1 7 1
Lexington, KY 40506-0281 13. Type of Report and Period
Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
State Office Building
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Frankfort Kentucky 40622

15. Supplementary Notes

Publication of this report was sponsored by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

16. Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to analyze the concrete pavement system under nonlinear temperature distribution and vehicle wheel
loading. The jointed concrete pavement system consists of concrete slabs with transverse and longitudinal joints, dowel bars (across transverse joints), tie
bars (across longitudinal joints), subbase and subgrade soil. Under the loading conditions the pavement structural system may fail by cracking of the
concrete slab, loss-of·support of slab due to temperature induced curling, closing and opening of joints, and failure of load transfer devices such as dowel
bars, etc. In order to understand the cause of these failures or to achieve an economical design, the state of stress in the pavement system should be
determined. It is very difficult to predict the stresses accurately in the pavement system with discontinuities and complex support conditions using
conventional classical methods. Therefore, this project uses the ANSYS finite element software.
A literature review was performed to identify and evolve an accurate finite element model. It was found from this review that there were
difficulties in incorporating the dowel·concrete interface, loss·of·support, contact conditions at the joints, nonlinear temperature distribution, etc. Since
there has been no systematic comparison between the experiment and theoretical analysis in the past, the present study conducted the following laboratory
testing to detennine the respective stiffness quantities: (I) Doweled concrete blocks under bending and shear load, (2) Concrete blocks with tie bars under
bending and shear load, (3) Concrete blocks with aggregate interlock joints under shear load, and (4) Concrete blocks with sealed joints under shear load
The stiffness values derived from these testing procedures is to be used in the evolution of a finite element model for the concrete pavement system.
In addition to this, it is recommended that field measurement of temperature distribution through the thickness of the slab be performed. Finally,
a full·scale field testing using FWD is also recommended. The test results obtained from this full-scale testing could be used to assess the validity of the
finite element model.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Pavement Joints Unlimited

Rigid Pavements

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified

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

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . ii
1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . • . • 1
1. 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1
1. 2 Two Dimensional Analysis Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • 2
1. 3 Three Dimensional Analysis Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. 4 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.0 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1 Dowel Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. 1. 2 Tie Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. 1.3 Specimen Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . 10
2.2 Testing Under Shear Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 13
2. 2. 1a 1.25" Dowel Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2. 1b 1.75" Dowel Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1c 1" Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Testing Under Bending Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3. 1 Test Results . . . . ...... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..... ... . ... . 1 4
2.3. 1a 1. 25" Dowel Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. 3. 1b 1. 75" Dowel Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. 3. 1c 1" Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Aggregate Interlock Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 Testing Under Combined Bending and Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5. 1 1. 25" Dowel Bars . . . ..... .. .. ... . . . . . ...... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
2.5. 2 1. 75" Dowel Bars . ........ ... ..... . . . .......... .... ... ...... 19
2.5. 3 1" Rebars . .... . . . . ..... .. . . . . ..... . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.0 Proposed Field Testing . ............ ....................................... 2 2
3. 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � • . . . . 22
3. 2 Field Testing of Friction at the Interface of Slab and Subgrade ............. 22
3.3 Field Measurement of Temperature Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. 4 Field Testing on Plain Concrete Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.0 Recommendations .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .... .. . .. ..... . . . ....... .. ... ............ 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the concrete pavement system under
nonlinear temperature distribution and vehicle wheel loading. The jointed concrete pavement system
consists of concrete slabs with transverse and longitudinal joints, dowel bars (across transverse
joints), tie bars (across longitudinal joints), subbase and sub grade soil. Under the loading conditions
the pavement structural system may fail by cracking of the concrete slab, loss--of-support of slab due
to temperature induced curling, closing and opening of joints, and failure of load transfer devices
such as dowel bars, etc. In order to understand the cause of these failures or to achieve an economical
design, the state of stress in the pavement system should be determined. It is very difficult to predict
the stresses accurately in the pavement system with discontinuities and complex support conditions
using conventional classical methods. Therefore, this project uses the ANSYS finite· element
software.

A literature review was performed to identifY and evolve an accurate finite element model.
It was found from this review that there were difficulties in incorporating the dowel-concrete
interface, loss-of-support, contact conditions at the joints, nonlinear temperature distribution, etc.
Since there has been no systematic comparison between the experiment and theoretical analysis in
the past, the present study conducted the following laboratory testing to determine the respective
stiffness quantities. The stiffness values derived from these testing procedures is to be used in the
evolution of a finite element model for the concrete pavement system.

• Doweled concrete blocks under bending and shear load

• Concrete blocks with tie bars under bending and shear load
• Concrete blocks with aggregate interlock joints under shear load
• Concrete blocks with sealed joints under shear load

In addition to this, it is recommended that field measurement of temperature distribution

through the thickness of the slab be performed. Finally, a full-scale field testing using FWD is also
recommended. The test results obtained from this full-scale testing could be used to assess the
validity of the finite element model.

11
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is

currently developing a mechanistically-based rigid pavement design model. It is understodd that this
model is based on a three-dimensional finite element analysis. A design procedure based on this
model is to be published in the 2002 version of the "AASHTO Pavement Design Guide". It is
currently anticipated that Kentucky will adopt all or part of this design system for rigid pavements.
However, to adopt this system, it would be most beneficial if the model could be calibrated to
Kentucky conditions. Some of those conditions would be environmental, temperature distributions
in the slabs, soils, joint design and spacing, loading patterns, failure criteria as related to many of
these factors, and other parameters.

The analysis and modeling of rigid pavements in Kentucky has not advanced to the point
where the in-situ properties of the pavement structure can be determined. In addition, environmental
effects including temperature induced curling and warping which occur during the daily temperature
variations cannot be adequately evaluated. The present design procedures do not contain a
mechanism to evaluate the doweled joints. These areas are generally associated with the majority
of rigid pavement distresses and should be evaluated. This study was initiated to provide background
data (developed from a laboratory testing program) to determine many of the joint parameters
necessary to analyze rigid pavement behavior.

Pavement design may be defined as the determination ofstrnctural, material and drainage
characteristics and dimensions ofthe pavementlsubgrade strncture(including all components ofthe
pavement) through direct analytical consideration of the traffic and climatic loads that the
pavement/sub grade strncture is expected to be subjected to over a selected design period.

In general, a jointed plain concrete pavement system can be divided into a number of
components, namely, concrete slab, transverse and longitudinal joints, load transfer devices (dowel
bars) and tie bars, subbase and subgrade soil supporting the slab. This pavement system may be
subjected to the following loading conditions: vehicle wheel loads, self-weight of the slab, and
environmental loadings (temperature and moisture). Under the above loading conditions the
pavement system may experience cracking of the concrete slab, loss of support of slab due to
temperature induced curling, closing and opening of joints along transverse and longitudinal
directions, and failure of load transfer devices such as dowel bars.

Plain concrete pavement systems, as shown in Figure 1.1, are commonly constructed with
joints, dowel bars and tie bars. The presence of such structural discontinuities create difficulties
while analyzing the pavements using conventional methods. This is further complicated. by the
presence of nonlinear temperature distribution through the thickness, in addition to complex support
conditions. To analyze such complex systems, one has to adopt numerical technique such as the
finite element method (FEM) for an accurate prediction of behavior of jointed pavements. The
application of FEM for the analysis of pavements require a prior estimation of the stiffnesses of
dowel bars, tie bars, joints with aggregate interlock, and also the interface friction between slab and
subgrade. FEM has been applied to the analysis of pavements by many researchers in the past and
some of the works which are relevant to the present study are discussed in the following sections.

6'

I
12'

_[
-,
12'

\_____ Transverse Joint

1
24' 24'
--
-- ----

?
I
-c

Figure 7. 7 Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement

-- Subgrade support

Recently, some research works have been performed to apply fiber composite dowel bars as an
alternative to steel dowels in concrete pavements. The fiber composite dowels have been· found to
perform better in corrosive environments and also gives longer fatigue life. However, there was no
improvement in the shear load-transfer capacity with fiber composite dowels over steel dowels.

1. 2 Two Dimensional Analysis Models

Traditionally plain steel or epoxy coated steel has been used for dowel bars in concrete
pavements. Grieef (1996) conducted experiments to determine the feasibility of using Isorod®, a
glass fiber reinforced plastic, as dowels in concrete pavements. A total of eight push-off specimens
were tested with either steel or Isorod® dowels that were either partially bonded or not bonded to the
concrete. The tested specimens were designed to apply a pure shear load to the dowels to determine
their behavior and strength. From the experiments, it is found that the Isorod® dowels are not as stiff
as the steel dowels in the pre-kinking stage and also experienced a decrease in load-carrying capacity
after kinking began.
 Khazanovich and Ioannides (199*) described the incorporation of the two-parameter, Kerr
and Zhemochkin-Sinitsyn-Shtaerrnan subgrade models into finite element code ILLI-SLAB. The two
conventional idealizations, namely the dense liquid and elastic solid, are also available in the
program library. The size of the loaded area has been found as an important parameter.

Kukreti (1992) et a!. presented a finite element procedure for the dynamic analysis of rigid
airport pavements with discontinuities. The analysis procedure considers the dynamic interaction
between aircraft and a rigid pavement. The rigid pavement is modeled as a series of discontinuous,
thin-plate, finite elements resting on a viscoelastic foundation. At the discontinuities, load-transfer
devices are modeled as vertical springs, the stiffness of which depends on the dowel properties and
the dowel-concrete-interaction. The viscoelastic foundation is modeled by distributed springs and
dashpots. The moving aircraft loads are represented by masses supported by linear spring and
dashpot systems, which have specified horizontal velocities and accelerations.

Ioannides and salsilli-murua (1989) presented a closed-form solution to the problem of a

slab-on-grade under combined temperature and wheel loading, derived on the basis of finite element
results. This solution is in the form of a multiplication factor to be applied to the Westergaard
equation to determine the maximum combined tensile stresses in the slab under edge loading. In
addition, a sound engineering approach to numerical, experimental, and field data interpretation is
proposed, founded on the principles of dimensional analysis.

Mirambell (1990) presented an analytical model capable of predicting temperature and

stress distributions due to thermal and mechanical loads in concrete pavements as well as thermal
actions to be considered in design. Temperature distribution in concrete pavements are, in general,
nonlinear and induce self-equilibrated stress distributions. Such stress distributions depend on the
physical and thermal properties of concrete, geographical location of the pavement and existing
environmental conditions (solar radiation, air temperature, wind speed, etc... ). On the other hand,
temperature gradients across slab depth, associated with thermal effects, also induce prescribed
curvatures to the slab, which can generate continuity stresses depending on boundary conditions.

Harik et at. (1994) developed an analysis technique to be used in conjunction with the finite
element programs for the study of rigid pavements subjected to temperature loading. The pavement
is idealized as a thin isotropic plate resting on a Winkler-type elastic foundation. Since two­
dimensional elements are limited to linear temperature distribution through the thickness, the
advantage of the proposed method lies in its capability to superimpose the effect of the nonlinear
temperature distribution on the finite element solution. Shi et at. (1993) developed a solution of
warping stresses in concrete pavement slabs resting on a Pasternak foundation. The solution is
derived using the classical thin-plate theory.

Channakesava et at. (1993) developed a finite element method for the nonlinear static
analysis of jointed concrete pavements. In this method, the pavement slab was modeled using 3D­
solid elements and subgrade was modeled using spring elements. They have analyzed pavements
under thermal gradient and wheel loadings. The nonlinearities due to cracking and yielding of
concrete, and loss of support have been properly accounted. The dowel bars were modeled using
beam elements and the interaction between dowel and concrete was modeled using interface spring
elements. The interface spring stiffness was computed using a detailed FEM model of a small
concrete block with one dowel bar under shear load. Although this model does not consider the
subgrade in detail, it can capture the stress patterns induced by nonlinear temperature conditions
through the thickness and cracking of concrete. This method does not account for the inertia effects
of wheel loading. The size of the finite element model by this method is less compared to Zaghioul
and White (1993).

Choubane and Tia ( 1995) have performed an experimental and analytical study to develop
a method for the analysis of pavements under nonlinear thermal loadings. They have indicated that
the temperature distributions were mostly nonlinear and can be represented fairly well by a
quadratic equation. The pavement system was analyzed using rectangular plate bending elements to
model slab, and linear and rotational springs to model the load transfer devices. The stresses due to
the nonlinear component of temperature were computed externally and superimposed on the results
from the other loading conditions by FEM. The measured strains were found to be close to the
computed results. Although the analytical method is simple and economical to use, it does not
account for the nonlinearities associated with cracking of concrete, loss of support. due to
temperature induced curling.

Zaman et a!. (1993) have developed a FEM algorithm for analyzing the dynamic response
of rigid airport pavements subjected to warping due to temperature gradients and traversing aircraft.
This pavement was modeled using thin plate elements supported on uniformly distributed springs
and dashpots representing the viscoelastic foundation. At the transverse joints, dowel bars were
modeled by grid elements. They have studied the effect of transverse joint, temperature gradient and
the modulus of subgrade. However the effect of a nonlinear temperature distribution can't be
accounted for using this method.

Zaman and Alvapillai (1995) have developed FEM for the dynamic analysis of jointed
concrete pavements. The concrete slab was modeled using plate bending elements and the subgrade
was modeled using spring and dashpot system. The dowel bars were modeled using plane frame
elements and the interaction between concrete and dowel bars was modeled by contact elements. The
results of the analysis have been compared with the analytical results available in the literature.
Although this method considers the dynamic interaction effects of aircraft and pavement, it does not
account for the nonlinearities due to cracking of concrete. Nonlinear temperature distribution
through the thickness can't be accounted for with the plate element.

Taheri and Zaman(l995) developed a dynamic analysis procedure based on a finite element
algorithm to study the response of rigid airport pavements to a traversing aircraft and a temperature
gradient along the depth. The rigid pavement is modeled as a thin plate finite elements. The subgrade
medium is idealized as a viscoelastic foundation. The traversing aircraft is modeled by spring and
dashpot suspension systems.

Nishizawa et a!. (1989) developed a refined dowel element for the linear static FEM analysis
of jointed concrete pavements. Aggregate interlocking was modeled using shear springs and plate
bending elements to model slabs. They have concluded that the refined dowel element performs
better than the spring and bar element for various dowel diameters. Results of the analysis have been
found to agree with model and full-scale experiments. This method does not consider the thermal
loadings and nonlinearity induced by cracking of concrete and loss of support due to curling.

Guo et a!. (1995) developed a component dowel bar model for the linear static analysis of
pavement by FEM. Plate bending element was used to model the pavement slab. The dowel bar was
modeled by three segments of beam: two bending segments embedded in concrete and one shear­
bending segment in the joint. A comparison of results of analytical and experimental results showed
that the component dowel bar model can be used to reasonably simulate the behavior of dowel load­
transfer systems. This method does not account for the thermal loadings, nonlinearities associated
with the cracking of concrete and loss of support due to curling.

The study of factors that affect dowel looseness in jointed concrete pavements was performed
by Such and Zollinger ( 1996). The laboratory investigation revealed the influence of aggregate type,
texture and shape, bearing stress (dowel diameter and crack width), load magnitude, and number of
load cycles on the magnitude of dowel looseness and the subsequent loss in load transfer efficiency
across saw-cut joints. A discussion is included on the development of an empirical-mechanistic
dowel looseness prediction model based on the experimental results. The sequential use of the dowel
looseness prediction model and its relationship to load transfer efficiency allows the design engineer
to predict load transfer characteristics of a joint, based on calculated ( or measured) dowel looseness.

A recent search of the archives at the Waterways Experiment Station revealed that shortly
before his untimely death in 1950, Westergaard had contracted with the Ohio River Division
Laboratories of the Corps of Engineers to develop an analytical solution to the problem of edge load
transfer in PCC pavements. A young Greek engineer, Mikhail S.Skarlatos, worked on the project
with Westergaard and produced an elegant formulation for this problem based on Westergaard's
1923 paper. The Skarlatos solution was never implemented in practical design, however, due to a
number of factors, including Westergaard's death and repatriation to Greece of Skarlatos, who
continues to practice civil engineering. Using the commercial mathematical software Mathematica
and statistical software SigmaStat and TBLCURVE, closed-form solutions akin to those by
Westergaard were derived in this study for the maximum responses on the unloaded side of a PCC
pavement slab edge capable of a degree of load transfer.

Nishizawa et a!. ( 1996) has developed a curling stress equation for transverse joint edge of
a concrete pavement slab based on an FEM analysis. In the design of concrete pavement, curling
stresses caused by the temperature difference between the top and bottom surfaces of the slab should
be calculated at the transverse joint edge in some cases. However, no such equation has been
developed in the past. Accordingly, a curling stress equation was developed based on stress analysis
using the finite element method. In this analysis, a concrete pavement and its transverse joint were
expressed by means of a thin plate-Winkler foundation model and a spring joint model, respectively.
Multiregression analysis was applied to the results of the FEM numerical calculation and,
consequently, a curling stress equation was obtained.

Lee and Lee (1996) used the ILLI-SLAB finite element program to analyze the critical comer
stresses of concrete pavements under different loading conditions. Subsequently, the effects of a
finite slab size, different gear configurations, a widened outer lane, a tied concrete shoulder, and a
second bonded or unbonded layer were considered. Based on the principles of dimensional analysis
and experimental designs, the dominating mechanistic variables were carefully identified and
verified. A new regression technique (Projection pursuit regression) was used to develop prediction
models to account for these theoretical differences and to instantly estimate the critical comer
stresses.
 Evaluation of the AASHTO rigid pavement design model using the long-term pavement
performance data base was performed by Darter et a!. (1996). The evaluation included determining
the adequacy of predicting the number of heavy axle loads required to cause a given loss of
serviceability. The results indicate that the original 1960 equation generally over predicts the number
of 18kip axle repetitions. Their work improves predictions considerably.

Jiang et a!. (1996) carried out a study on the analysis of current state rigid pavement design
practices in the United States. Pavement types, design methodologies, and reliability levels are
included, along with many design inputs. Ioannides and Korovesis {1990) conducted an FEM
investigation on the behavior of jointed or cracked pavement systems equipped with a pure-shear
load transfer mechanism, such as aggregate interlock. A dimensional analysis was used in the
interpretation of data, leading to a general definition of the relative joint stiffness of the pavement
system in terms of its structural characteristics. The investigation demonstrated that deflection load
transfer efficiency is related to stress load transfer efficiency and that this relationship is sensitive
to the size of the applied loading. Pure shear load transfer devices are shown to be particularly
desirable under a combined externally applied and thermal loading condition, since they offer no
additional restraint to longitudinal curling.

Ioannides et a!. (1990) developed mechanistic-empirical algorithms for more realistic

estimates of anticipated faulting in concrete pavements. A factor influencing faulting is the dowel­
concrete bearing stress, for which an improved method of determination is presented. Ioannides and
Korovesis {1992) provided an in-depth synthesis of knowledge acquired over the last several decades
pertaining to the analysis and design of doweled slab-on-grade pavement systems. This task relies
extensively on the application of dimensional analysis for the interpretation of finite element data
pertaining to the behavior of doweled joints. A design procedure is developed that follows, for the
first time, the determination of the dowel diameter and spacing required to achieve a desired level
of load transfer, or a threshold value of dowel-concrete bearing stress. An efficient and general
method for the backcalculation of the modulus of dowel reaction, K, from deflection data is also
suggested.

Hall et a!. (1995) developed improved guidelines for determining k value from a variety of
methods , including correlations with soil type, soil properties, and other tests; backcalculation
methods; and plate-bearing test methods. Guidelines for seasonal adjustment to k, and adjustments
for embankments and shallow rigid layers were also developed. Chou (1995) has established
relationships between joint efficiency and load transfer for jointed plain concrete pavements using
the finite element method ILLI-SLAB program. Efforts were made to show that the relationships
depend not only on all but also on L/1, where L is the size of the square concrete slabs. FEM have
been used to estimate load transfer from measured deflections of FWD tests.

Tabatabaie and Barenberg (1980) developed a finite element program ILLI-SLAB based on
the classical theory of medium-thick plates on a Winkler foundation for the analysis of one and two
layered concrete pavements with joints or cracks on a Winkler foundation, or both. The model is
capable of evaluating the effect of various load transfer systems such as dowel bars, aggregate
interlock, and keyways on the stresses and deflections in concrete pavements. Furthermore, the
model, which provides several options, can be used for analysis of a number of problems such as
jointed reinforced concrete pavements with cracks, continuously reinforced concrete pavements,
concrete slab with a stabilized base or an overlay, concrete shoulders, and slabs with varying
thicknesses and varying support conditions.

Larralde and Chen ( 1986) presented a method to estimate the mechanical deterioration of
highway rigid pavements caused by repetitive traffic loading. In the method, erosion, fatigue, and
joint faulting are recognized as mechanisms of failure in highway rigid pavements. A nonlinear
analysis with finite elements is used to calculate the repetitive stresses and strains caused by traffic.
Decay of slab stiffuess and load transfer efficiency, as well as pumping and amount of damage, are
obtained as a function of traffic volume and pavement properties.

Krautharnmer and Western ( 1988) presented a procedure for analyzing joint shear transfer
effects on pavement behavior, based on the finite element method. This approach employed an
explicit-shear/stress-shear slip relationship for defining the shear transfer across a pavement joint,
and the model was subjected to simulated FWD loads for the analyses. The pavement systems were
classified according to four material quality groups and several shear transfer levels across the joint.

1.3 Three Dimensional Analysis Models

Zaghioul and White (1993) performed a nonlinear analysis of concrete pavements under
static and dynamic loading conditions using the well-known finite element software ABAQUS. In
this study, the pavement slab and subgrade were modeled using 3-D solid elements. Longitudinal
and transverse joints were modeled using gap elements in which the initial joint opening was
specified. The dowels and tie bars across the joints were modeled as rebar elements located at the
mid-thickness of the slab. For dowel bars, the bond stress at one side was assumed to be zero to
allow a relative horizontal movement between the slabs. The nonlinearity of concrete and subgrade
were considered using the nonlinear material model provided in the ABAQUS software. Though it
is possible, the nonlinearities due to temperature induced curling have not been taken into account
in their analysis. The static and dynamic analysis results have been compared with the experimental
results. They have studied the effects of moving load speed, load position, subbase course, dowel
bars, joint width, axle loads and slab thickness. This method of modeling requires a very large FE
mesh and hence leads to larger computer storage and more time.

Kuo et a!. (1995) developed a three-dimensional finite element model for the analysis of
concrete pavement support to analyze the many complex and interacting factors that influence the
support provided to a concrete pavement, including foundation support (k value), base thickness,
stiffuess, and interface bond and friction; slab curling and warping due to temperature and moisture
gradients; dowel and aggregate interlock load transfer action at joints; and improved support with
a widened lane, widened base, or tied concrete shoulder. The ABAQUS general purpose software
was used to develop a powerful and versatile 3-D model for analysis of concrete pavements. The 3-D
model was validated by comparison with deflections and strains measured under traffic loadings and
temperature variations at the AASHTO road test, the Airlington road test, and the Portland Cement
Association's slab experiments.

Uddin et al. (1995) conducted a research study using the finite element code ABAQUS to
investigate the effects of pavement discontinuities on the surface deflection response of a jointed
plain concrete pavement-subgrade model subjected to a standard falling weight deflectometer load.
Transverse joints with dowel bars are modeled using gap and beam elements for an uncracked
section, a section with cracked concrete layer, and a section with cracked concrete and cracked
cement-treated base layers.

In almost all linear elastostatic programs used in backcalculation procedures, a uniform

pressure distribution is assumed for the applied load. As such, the loading system of any falling
weight deflectometer should be designed so that the load transferred to the pavement is uniform.
This is difficult because the pressure distribution under the FWD is also affected by the pavement
profile being tested. The other aspect of the FWD testing that is typically ignored is the dynamic
nature of the load. The dynamic effects are related to the pulse width as well as the variation in the
stiffness of the subgrade. A finite element study has been carried out by Nazarian and Bodapati
( 1995) to investigate the significance of these parameters on the determination of the remaining lives
of pavements.

1.4. Scope of the Work

In all the previous the finite element models generated for parametric studies were not
properly validated using laboratory and experimental studies. Therefore, in this work, a systematic
experimental and theoretical (FEM) investigations on jointed plain concrete highway pavement
systems will be conducted. The results of this study will be presented in the form of design aids for
practical use.

In this present project, testing was performed on small concrete blocks in the laboratory.
Futhermore, it is recommended that the following tasks be performed in the future: (!)Field testing
on full pavement systems and measurement of temperature, (2) Development of structural finite
element model , (3)Finite element model calibration, (4) Parametric studies, and (5) Preparation of
design aids.

The laboratory work includes testing on doweled concrete blocks under bending moment
and shear load to derive the respective stiffness. One end of the dowel bar is free to slide and the
other end is fully bonded. The concrete blocks joined by tie bars will be tested under bending
moment and shear load to derive the stiffness of tie bar embedded in the slab. Both ends of the tie
bar is fully bonded to the concrete blocks, in this case. Testing will also be done on concrete blocks
with aggregate interlock joints under shear load to derive their stiffness. The axial stiffness of joint
sealants between the concrete blocks will be determined under axial loading.

The further field testing should include the measurement of day and night-time temperature
profile along the thickness of the pavement slab. Testing on pavement slab to determine the frictional
resistance provided by the subgrade to the slab under thermal deformations. Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) testing on the full pavement system to calibrate a possible finite element
model.

The structural modeling should include a global finite element model using layered shell
elements, beam elements, compression only elements for sub grade support and contact elements for
modeling joints should be developed. A local model using 3-D solid elements and beam elements
to study the results of!aboratory testing should be developed. A feasibility analysis has already been
performed using the ANSYS finite element software to solve pavement problems reported in the
literature.

The model calibration should include the derivation of stiffness quantities for dowel bars,
tie bars, aggregate interlock joints, interface friction from the load deflection obtained from
laboratory and field testing, incorporating the stiffness values in the global finite element model, and
calibrating the model with the falling weight deflectometer test results.

The parametric studies would involve an analytical study to determine the influence of the
following parameters on the structural performance of pavements: (I) size and spacing of dowel and
tie bars, (2) thickness of concrete pavement slab, (3) temperature profile along the thickness of slab,
(4) joint width, (5) wheel loading position, (6) subgrade modulus, and (7) shoulder width and
thickness.

Upon completion of those tasks, design curves could be prepared based on the parametric
studies.
 2.0 LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 General

2.1.1 Dowel Bars

Dowel bars are commonly used as major load-transfer devices at transverse joints of plain
concrete pavements. In practice, the size, length and spacing of dowels vary depending upon the
thickness of pavements, wheel loading, etc. However, most highway pavements use a steel dowel
of diameter of 1 .2 5 " to 1 .75", spaced at !-foot intervals with a length of each dowel from 18" to 24".
The width ofjoints with dowels commonly used in highway pavements is around 3/8". Dowels are
embedded in the concrete slab with full bond (non-greased) at one end and other end is unbonded
(greased) and coated with epoxy to allow longitudinal movement during· thermal ·

expansion/contraction.

A dowel bar in pavements can undergo shear and bending deformations under wheel loading.
Although, shear is the dominant mode of deformation, evaluation of bending stiffness of doweled
systems will result in a complete description of the deformation field. Theoretical evaluation of
stiffness of dowels becomes difficult due to the interaction of concrete and dowel. Therefore, in this
work, independent testing was performed to estimate the stiffnesses of dowel bars, tie bars and
aggregate interlock.

2.1.2 Tie Bars

Tie bars are mainly used in longitudinal joints to simulate a hinged joint. These joints relieve
stresses developed due to thermal warping. Unlike dowel bars, the tie bars are usually constructed
with full bond on both ends of the bar. The tie bars used in highway pavements have diameter 112"
to 5/8", with a length of20" to 3 3 " and a spacing of 23" to 48". The width of the longitudinal joint
is approximately 3/8". These tie bars are fully bonded to both concrete slabs, and therefore, the
connected slabs are not allowed to undergo thermal expansion/contraction. The tie bars are not
designed as a load-transfer device. However, they may create local tensile stresses around the bar
under wheel load or thermal warping and this can lead to cracking of the concrete. Therefore, the
study of the state of stress in concrete around the tie bar is very important. Also, the measurement
of relative deflection at joints, and shear and bending strain distribution along the length of the tie
bar can be used for accurate modeling of tie bars. A similar experimental setup as explained earlier
for dowel bars, and as shown in Figs.2a-b and 3a-b, was adopted for testing concrete blocks with tie
bars.

2.1.3 Specimen Preparation

The mold for casting concrete pavement specimens is shown in figure A. l . A closer look at
the arrangement of dowel bar, strain gages, and filler for the joint is shown in figure A.2. The filler
is removed before testing. Figure A.3 shows the molds for doweled concrete specimens without
strain gages. The arrangement of the tie bar is shown in figure A.4. Concreting of the mold is shown
in figure A.S. The cylinder compressive strength of the concrete after 3 1 days was determined to
be 4,52 1 psi. From the stress-strain curve, the modulus of elasticity of the concrete was calculated
to be 4,464,276 psi. The specimen sizes and identification numbers for different loading situations
are presented in the following sections.

2.2 Testing under shear load

In this testing, the doweled concrete blocks were subjected to shear load as shown in Fig. 2.
The deflection at the dowel bar and at several locations in the concrete block was measured by
LVDTs. By attaching strain gages along the dowel bar, bending strains were obtained. This testing
is conducted to determine the shear stiffness of the dowel bar when one end of the bar is fully
bonded to the concrete slab and the other end is free to move due to thermal loading. The moving
end of the dowel bar is coated with epoxy paint to prevent locking due to corrosion. Similar testing
was performed to determine the shear stiffness of the tie bar embedded in concrete. Both ends of
the tie bar were fully bonded to the concrete. Tie bars are deformed bars of diameter ranging from
1 12" to 5/8". Displacements at the joint and strains in the vicinity of the dowel bar were measured.
Table 2 . 1 describes the specimen designation for testing under shear load and Table 2.2 lists the
geometric properties of the specimen measured before testing. In the test setup, shown in figure S3,
springs were placed to prevent rotation of the loaded block. In figure S3, the labels for LVDT
locations are as follows:

bfe =beam fixed end jj =joint jack side

js =joint spring side ec =edge near comer
ej = edge on jack side

Table 2.1 Specimen Designation (S-1 to S-9)

Loading : Shear
Size: 36" x 12" x 1 0 " ; Joint Width= 1 "
Half length of the Dowel bar should be greased; Rebar should not b e greased.

Dowel - 1 .25" dia. Dowel - 1 . 7 5" dia. Rebar - 1 " dia. Total
Number of
SG* No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Specimens

SIN** S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S- 7 S-8 S-9 9

*SG- Stram Gage
**SIN-Specimen Identification Number
 LOADING POSITION

3
<0(
- 18" �

�
LVDTs

---,.--

: __l_
1011

�
� 18tl
A -�.
9"

5.5" I
--·

3/8"
18" LONG
'�
DOWEL BAR -

3 . 5"

FIXED REACTION

Figure 2. 7 Setup for Shear Load Testing

Table 2.2

Geometric properties of shear loaded specimen (in)

Beam Greased End Non-Greased End·

Height Length Width Height Length Width
Sl 12.000 17.500 9.813 12.250 17.500 9.750

S2 12.063 17.500 1 0.000 1 2.063 17.500 10.000

S3 12.000 17.563 9.875 12.063 17.500 9.875

S4 12.000 17.375 10. 125 1 2 .000 1 7.625 10.063

ss 12.125 17.625 10.125 12.188 17.375 10.000

S6 1 2.000 17.875 10.000 12.000 17.250 10.063

S7 12.000 17.500 10.000 12.000 17.625 10.125

S8 12.063 17.375 10.000 1 2.063 17.750 10.000

S9 12.000 17.438 10.000 12.000 1 7 .563 9.750

2.2.1 Test Results

2.2.1a 1.25" Dowel Bars

Three specimens were tested for each dowel bar size. Every third specimen was instrumented
with strain gages. The picture of the test setup for specimen S 1 is shown in Figure A.6a. The load­
displacement relationship for S 1 is shown in Figure 1. 1 . Displacements are plotted for locations
described in Figure S3 for load levels up to 5,000 pounds. Maximum displacement of approximately
0 . 1 9 " occurs at the sliding end of the pavement.

The testing arrangement for specimen S2 is shown in Figure A.6b. Figure 1.2 shows the load­
displacement behavior for specimen S2. Displacements at several locations as described in the figure
S3 are plotted in this figure. Loading was applied to approximately 5,500 pounds. Maximum
displacement at the edge near the joint was approximately 0.65", and at the joint-jack side, displacement
was 0.2".

The load-displacement relationship for specimen S3 is shown in Figure !.3. The test setup is
shown in Figure A.6c. Displacements at different locations, as shown in Figure, S3 are plotted.
Maximum displacement at the edge near the comer is 0.475", at a failure load of 1 0,000 pounds. The
axial strains at the top and bottom sides of the bar as described in Figure S3 is shown in Figure I.3b.

2.2.1b 1.75" Dowel Bars

The arrangement of testing for specimen S4 is shown in Figure A.7a-b. The load-displacement
relationship for this specimen is shown in Figure 1.4. Displacements at different locations (Fig. S3) are
plotted in Figure 1.4 for various loads until failure at 8,500 pounds.

The test setup for specimen S5 is shown in Figure A.7c. Figure I.5 shows the load-displacement
relationship for this specimen. Displacements are plotted in this figure at various locations (Fig. S3) and
loads until failure at 1 6,000 pounds.

The load-displacement relationship for specimen S6 is shown in Figure 1.6a. Figure A.7d-e
shows the arrangement of testing for this specimen. Displacements at different locations (Fig. S6)and
loads are plotted in Figure I.6a until failure at 1 7 ,000 pounds. Figure I.6b shows the load-strain
relationship for specimen S6 for the strain gages described in Figure 1.6b.

2.2.1c 1" Rebars

The test setup for specimen S7 is shown in Figure A.8a. Figure I.7 shows the load-displacement
relationship for this specimen. Displacements at different locations (Fig. S6) and loads are plotted in
Figure I.7 up to failure at 8,500 pounds. Maximum displacement of 0.35" occurs at the edge-near joint.

The arrangement of testing for specimen S8 is shown in Figure A.Sb. The load-displacement
behavior for this specimen is shown in Figure !.8. Displacements at different locations (Fig. S6) and
loads are plotted in Figure I.8 up to failure at 1 0,000 pounds. Maximum displacement of about 0.6"
occurs at the edge-near joint.

Figure I.9a shows the load-displacement behavior for the specimen S9. Displacements at
different locations (Fig. S9) and loads are plotted in Figure I.9a up to failure at 7,500 pounds. Figure
I.9b shows the load-strain relationship for specimen S9 , for the strain gages described in figure S9.

2.3 Testing under Bending Moment

Dowel bars may experience bending moments at the joints due mainly to thermal gradients
and/or wheel loading. This testing was performed to determine the flexural stiffness of the dowel bar
when one end of the bar is fully bonded to concrete and other end is free to move due to thermal loading.
In the testing, the doweled concrete blocks were subjected to bending moment as shown in Figure 2.2.
The deflection at the dowel bar level and at various locations on the concrete block were measured by
L VDTs. By attaching strain gages along the dowel bar, bending strains were obtained.

Tie bars were also tested. Both ends of the tie bars were fully bonded to the concrete. Tie bars
are deformed bars ranging from 112" to 5/8" in diameter. Displacements at the joint and strains near the
bar were measured. Table 2.3 describes the specimen designation for testing under bending moment and
Table 2.4 lists the geometric properties of the specimen measured before testing. Three specimens were
tested for each dowel bar size and every third specimen is instrumented with strain gages. Only one size
of tie bar was tested.

2.3.1 Test Results

2.3.1a 1.25" Dowel Bars

The photograph of the test setup for specimen B 1 is shown in Figure A.9a. The load­
displacement relationship for B1 is shown in Figure Ill.1a for various loads at the non-greased side, up
to approximately about 2,000 pounds. Maximum displacements of approximately 1" was noted at the
greased joint. Figure Ill. ! b shows the load-displacement relationship for specimen B1 at the greased side.

The arrangement of testing for specimen B2 is shown in Figure A.9b. Figure III.2a shows the
load-displacement relationship for B2 for various loads at the non-greased side up to approximately
2,500 pounds. Maximum displacement of approximately 1" was observed at the greased joint. Similarly,
Figure ll1.2b shows the load-displacement relationship for the greased side.

Figure A.9c shows the test setup for specimen B3. The load-displacement behavior for this
specimen is shown in Figure III.3a for loads at the non-greased side to approximately 2,000 pounds.
Maximum displacement was approximately 1.25" at the greased joint. Figure III.3b shows the load­
displacement relationship for loads at the greased side. Figure III.3c shows the load-strain relationship
for this specimen for the load at the non-greased side and Figure III.3d shows the same for the load at
greased side.
2.3.1b 1.75" Dowel Bars

The test setup for specimen B4 is shown in Figure A. I Oa. Figure III.4a shows the load­
displacement behavior for this specimen for loads at the non-greased side up to approximately 9,500
pounds. Maximum displacement of about 1.1" occurs at the greased joint. Similarly, Figure III.4b shows
the same for loads at the greased side.

Figure A. !Ob shows the testing arrangement for specimen BS. The load-displacement
relationship for this specimen is shown in Figure III.Sa for loads at the non-greased side up to
approximately I 0,000 pounds. Maximum displacement of about 0. 7" occurs at the greased joint. A
similar relationship for loads at the greased side is shown in Figure III.Sb.

The arrangement of testing for specimen B6 is shown in Figure A . ! Oc. Figure III.6a shows the
load-displacement behavior for specimen B6 for loads at the non-greased side. Maximum displacement
of 0.55" occurred at the non-greased joint for a load of approximately 7,500 lbs. Similarly, Figure III.6b
shows the graph for loads at the greased side. The strain-displacement relationship for specimen B6 for
loads at the non-greased side and greased side are shown in Figures III.6c and III.6d, respectively.

2.3.1c 1" Rebars

Figure A. l l a shows the test setup for specimen B7. The load-displacement relationship for this
specimen for loads at the non-greased and greased sides are shown in Figures III.7a and III.7b,
respectively. A maximum displacement of 0.55" was observed at approximately 900 pounds.

The test setup for specimen BS is shown in Figure A. I I b. Figures III.8a and III.8b show the
load-displacement relationship for this specimen for loads at the non-greased and greased sides,
respectively. A maximum displacement of 0.8" occurred at a load of approximately 1, I 00 pounds.

The arrangement of testing for specimen B9 is shown in Figures A. l l c-d. The load-displacement
relationship for specimen B9 for loads at the non-greased and greased sides is shown in Figures III.9a
and III.9b, respectively. A maximum displacement of 1.5'' occurs at a load of approximately 1,600
pounds. The strain-displacement behavior for the this specimen for loads at the non-greased and greased
sides is shown in Figures III.9c and III.9d, respectively for the strain gages shown in Figure B9.
 1 8"

1 011

3.5" 3.5 "

..o:c-------�
18"
A
DOWEL BAR • 1 8 " LONG

3/8 " --

Figure 2.2 Setup for Bending Moment Testing

Table 2. 3 Specimen Designation (B-1 to B-9)

Loading : Bending
Size : 36" x 1 2 " x 1 0" ; Joint Width = 1 "
Half length of the Dowel bar should be greased; Rebar should not b e greased.

Dowel - 1 .25" dia. Dowel - 1 .7 5" dia. Rebar - 1 " dia. Total
Number of
SG* No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Specimens

SIN** B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 9

*SG- Strain Gage

**SIN-Specimen Identification Number
 Table 2. 4 Geometric properties of the bending specimens (in)

Beam Greased End Non-Greased End

Height Length Width Height Length Width
Bl 12.000 17.750 9.938 1 2.000 17.250 9.875

B2 12.063 17.750 10. 000 1 2.063 17.250 10.000

B3 12.000 17.563 10.000 12.000 17.625 10.000

B4 12.000 17.375 10.000 12.000 17.438 10.000

B5 12.000 17.500 10.000 12.000 17.250 9.938

B6 12.000 1 7 .500 10.000 1 2.000 17.500 10.000

B7 1 2.000 17.500 10.000 1 2.000 17.625 1 0.000

B8 12.000 17.563 10.000 12.000 1 7 .000 9.875

B9 1 2.000 17.500 10.000 1 2.000 17.500 9.875

2.4 Aggregate Interlock Testing

Many joints, whether it is a doweled or undoweled, are commonly finished with a groove cut
partially at the top of slab as shown in Figure 2.3. The width of joints generally used in highway
pavements is approximately 114" to 3/8". Part of the uncut joint can offer shear resistance due to an
aggregate interlock effect. This testing was performed to determine the shear stiffness due to aggregate
interlock of the cracked joint. The depth of the initial cut was approximately 2.5" (i.e. 1/4 of the slab
thickness). Partially sawn joints are provided in pavements to permit free thermal expansion and
contraction when crack has fully developed through the thickness of the slab. Table 2.5 describes the
specimen designation for aggregate interlock testing under shear load, and Table 2.6 lists the geometric
properties of the specimen measured before testing.

The shear stiffness of this aggregate interlock effect at the joint can be determined by applying
a lateral load as shown in Figure 2.3. The stiffness can be derived from the relative deflection of the two
blocks.

The photograph of test setup for the specimen AI is shown in Figures A.l 2a-c. Figure II . ! shows
the load-displacement relationship for specimen A l for load levels up to failure at 16,000 pounds. A
maximum displacement of 0.7" occurs at the edge-near end.

The arrangement of testing for specimen A2 is shown in Figures A . l 2d-e. Figure II.2 shows the
load-displacement behavior of specimen A2 for load levels up to approximately 16,000 pounds. A
maximum displacement of about 0 . 5 5 " occurs at the edge-near end.

The test setup for specimen A3 is shown in Figure A. l 2f. Figure II.3 shows the load­
displacement relationship for specimen A3. Displacements at different locations are shown for loads up
to approximately 1 3 ,000 pounds. A maximum displacement of approximately 0. 75" was observed at the
edge-near end.
 LOADING POSITION

3.5" �
- ��� Cracked Partially Cut Joint

10"

+'
�
18" 9''

5.5"

· '
�-
5
3. " �=
FIXED REACTION

Figure 2.3 Setup for Aggregate Interlock Testing

Table 2.5 Specimen Designation (AI-l to AI- 3)

Loading : Shear
Size : 36" x 12" x 10" ;
Cut only at Surface; No thmugh Joint
No dowel bars; No Rebars

Total Number of Specimens

SIN* I AI-l I AI-2 I AI-3 3

*SIN - Specimen IdentificatiOn Number
 Table 2.6 Geometric properties of the aggregate interlock specimen

Loaded Side Spring Side

Height Length Width Height Length Width
AI 12.000 17.875 10.000 1 2.000 1 8.000 10.063

A2 12. 1 25 1 8 .000 10.125 1 2.000 18.000 10.250

A3 12.000 1 8 . 1 25 10.000 12. 125 17.875 9.875

2.5 Testing under Combined Bending and Shear

This testing was performed to check the stiffness derived from independent loading situations. The
setup shown in Figure 2.4 was to simulate the actual wheel load on the pavement. Subgrade is simulated by
a set of springs with a spring stiffness of5.75 pounds/inch. Table 2.5 describes the specimen designation
for aggregate interlock testing under shear load, and Table 2.6 lists the geometric properties of the specimen
measured before testing.

2.5.1 1.25" Dowel Bars

The test setup for specimen C l is shown in Figure A . l 3a. The load-displacement behavior of the
specimen is shown in Figure IV. ! for load levels up to 9,500 pounds. A maximum displacement of 1 . 1 "
occurs at the non-greased joint. The photograph of the test arrangement for specimen C 2 i s shown in Figure
A. l 3b. Figure IV.2 shows the load-displacement relationship for that specimen. A maximum displacement
at a load level of approximately 1 1 ,000 pounds is almost 1 " . For specimen C3, the load-displacement
behavior is shown in Figure IV.3a for load levels up to approximately 23,000 pounds. A maximum
displacement of approximately 1 " was observed at the greased center. The load-strain relationship for this
specimen is shown in Figure IV.3b for the strain gages shown in Figure C3.

2.5.2 1.75" Dowel Bars

The arrangement of testing for specimen C4 is shown in Figure A . l 4a-b. Figure IV.4 shows the load­
displacement behavior of that specimen for load levels up to approximately 23,000 pounds. A maximum
displacement of 1 " occurs at the greased center. The test setup for specimen C5 is shown in Figure A.l4c.
The load-displacement relationship for that specimen is shown in Figure IV.5. A maximum displacement
of about 1 " occurs at a load of approximately 2 1 ,000 pounds. The photograph of the testing arrangement
for specimen C6 is shown in Figure A. l 4d. Figure IV.6a shows the load-displacement relationship for
specimen C6 for load levels up to approximately 25,000 pounds. A maximum displacement of
approximately I " occurs at the bar. The load-strain relationship for this specimen is shown in Figure IV.6b
for the strain gages shown in Figure C6.
2.5.3 1" Rebars

The test setup for specimen C7 is shown in Figure A. l 5a. Figure N.7 shows the load-displacement
relationship for specimen C7 for load levels up to failure at approximately 3,000 pounds. A maximum
displacement of approximately 0.9" was observed at the non-greased joint. The arrangement of testing for
specimen C8 is shown in Figure A. l 5b. The load-displacement relationship for specimen C8 is shown in
Figure N.8. A maximum displacement of approximately 1" at a failure load of 7,500 pounds was observed
at the non-greased joint. Figure N.9a shows the load-displacement behavior of specimen C9. A maximum
displacement of approximately 1 .25" was observed at the non-greased joint spring. Loads were increased
until failure at the load of about 1 0,000 pounds. The load-strain relationship for specimen C9 is shown in
Figure IV.9b for the strain gages described in Figure C9.

DOWEL BAR • 18" LONG

3 .5 " �
2.5'

-
C:1 �LVDTs
A

10"

2.5' A - Rubber with known stiffness va!u

--
3/8 "

Figure 2.4 Setup for Testing under combined Loading

 Table 2.7 Specimen Designation (C- 1 to C-9)

Loading : Combined Shear and Bending

Size : 5' x 1 2" x 1 0" ; Joint Width = 1 "
Support: Rubber, whose modulus should be between 5 0 pci to 300 pci
Half length of the Dowel bar should be greased; Rebar should not be greased.

Dowel - 1 .25" dia. Dowel - 1 .75" dia. Rebar - 1 " dia. Total
Number of
SG* No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Specimens

SIN ** C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 9

*SG- Strain Gage

**SIN-Specimen Identification Number

Table 2.8 Geometric properties of the combined load specimen

Greased End Non-Greased End

Height Length Width Height Length Width
Cl 1 1 . 875 29.500 10.000 1 1 .875 29.563 10

C2 1 1 . 875 29.375 10.250 1 2.000 29.500 10

C3 12.125 29.500 1 0.000 12.250 29.500 10

C4 12.875 29.750 12.000 1 2.000 29.250 10

C5 1 2.000 29.500 1 0.000 1 1 .875 29.500 10

C6 12.000 29.563 1 0.000 1 2.000 29.625 10

C7 12.000 29.375 10.000 12.000 29.500 10

cs 1 2.000 29.750 1 0.000 1 2.000 29.375 10

C9 1 2.000 29.500 1 0.000 1 2.000 29.625 10

 3.0 PROPOSED FIELD TESTING

3.1 General

Although this study does not include field testing, it is recommended that the following field
tasks be performed in the future as funding is available. Results from these field tasks would be used
in conjunction with the results of this study to validate a finite element model to predict rigid pavement
behavior.

3.2 Field Testing of Friction at the Interface of Slab and Subgrade

Due to the presence of rough surfaces at the interface of slab and subgrade, friction is developed
during thermal expansion/contraction. To account for the stresses developed under such conditions, the
·

coefficient of friction should be determined through field testing.

Dial gage
D i� ga
r ,C oncrete Slab

L::-'"--...L-------"71 1
4' Subgrade

(/:
Load
v

·
· · · · · )-----····--····--------·--··�/
//-- �
.
•
.

--t:·�:.:;;. : ;:�:�: .L.i.;

d
Loa
�
': . 7:3:. :

Dia:l gage 3
Diii' gage

Figure 3 . 1 Testing Arrangement to determine Interface

Friction Between Slab and Subgrade

The displacement of the concrete slab and subgrade can be measured in the field by· applying
( Figure 3. 1 ) an in-plane load to a discrete slab which is not connected to adjacent slabs by dowels or
tie bars. The resulting coefficient of friction could be used as a spring constant in the finite element
model.
3.3 Field Measurement of Temperature Distribution

In practice, the temperature distribution in the concrete pavement slab is found to be nonlinear
through the thickness direction. Due to this variation, the stress distribution through the thickness of
the slab is nonlinear. To determine the stresses using the finite element method, the temperature
distribution through the thickness of slab should be measured. This could be accomplished by installing
thermocouples at various locations (approximately 6 to 8 locations) through the thickness of slab
(Figure 3.2).

-
-

10" -
-

-.

( 6 no.
� Thermocouples
of thermocouples placed at 1 .9 " clc
and 0.25" from top and bottom)

Figure 3 . 2 Thermocouple Locations i n the Thickness

3.4 Field Testing on Plain Concrete Pavements

This testing would be required to validate the finite element model created from the stiffness
parameters determined from the laboratory tests performed in this study. Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD) could be used to measure the deflection at various locations adjacent to the joint, when a load
is applied very near the joint. This test must be performed at doweled joint (Figure 3.3) and also at a
tied joint (Figure 3.4). Deflection sensors and strain gages should be placed on the concrete slab to
obtain the displacements and stress distribution. The results of deflection and stresses obtained from
that effort would be used for validation of the finite element model results.
 !Ill Load at Dowelled Joint
[! Deflection sensor locations
;- Dowelled Transve se oint � �
j .

I
,------ Tied Long1tud1nal Jomt

12'

¢ Ir================ �\==�=·=============l
9
� 9

�--c--�--1'!
.

c.�
<::- - c- - s- .q
.

12'
C! . q.
c . t

-·l 24' 24'

10"

;;
Plan View
;.

I� 1r-----=if�-----
u

u
.,
;;;
Dowel ba:r----- Side View

Figure 3.3 FWD Test on Dowelled Joint

9 Load at Tied Joint

-- Dowelled Transverse Joint
r..:J Deflection sensor locations
--Tied Longitudinal Joint

y
12'

�
�==���-,-�-�- �==� :�======l -.ro<
'

-.-
C;-·-C..·-V. ·--G-·-c
6
I

12' "

'
24 ' 24
10"
Plan View

� lL_----;-
--::----: +
JL_�
--- ;;--
--
u

>
::!
u

Dowel bar Side View "'

Figure 3 . 4 FWD Test on Tied Joint

 4.0 REcoMMENDATIONS

1. It i s recommended that the information and data developed in this study be used in future studies
in the development of a finite element model for rigid pavements.

2. It is further recommended that future studies be conducted to collect field data for calibrating the
finite element model.
 REFERENCES

1. N.Buch and D.G.Zollinger( 1 996), Development of dowel looseness prediction model for
jointed concrete pavements, TRR, 1 525, pp 2 1 -27

2. C.Channakesava, F.Barzegar and G.Z.Voyiadjis(l 993), Nonlinear FE analysis of plain

concrete pavements with dowelled joints., J. Trans. Engrg. 1 1 9(5), pp763-78 1 .

3. Y.T.Chou( l 98 1 ), Structural analysis computer programs for rigid multi-component

pavement structures with discontinuties-WESLIQUID and WESLAYER, Technical reports
1 -3, U.S. Army Engrg. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

4. Y.T.Chou( J 995), Estimating load transfer from measured joint efficiency in concrete
pavements, TRR No. l 482, pp1 9-25

5. B.Choubane and M.Tia(J 993) Analysis and verification of thermal-gradient effects on

concrete pavement, J.Trans. Engrg., 1 2 1 ( 1 ), pp75 . 8 1

6. M.I.Darter, E.Owusu-Antwi and R.Ahmed( l 996), Evaluation of AASHTO rigid pavement

design model using long-term pavement performance data base, TRR No. 1525, pp57-71

7. S.L.Grieef( J 996), GFRP dowel bars for concrete pavement, Master Thesis, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg.

8. H . Guo, J.A.Sherwood and M.B.Snyder( J 995), PCC pavements, J. Trans. Engrg., 1 2 1 (3),
pp289-298.

9. K.T.Hall, M.I.Darter and C.M.Kuo( J995), Improved methods for selection of K value for
concrete pavement design, TRR No. l 505, pp l 28 - 1 3 6.

10. LE.Harik, P .Jianping and D.Allen( J 994), Temperature effects on rigid pavements, J : Trans.
Engg., V. 1 20, N. l , pp 127-143 .

II. A.M.Ioannides and R.A.Salsilli-murua( J 989), Temperature curling in rigid pavements: An

application of dimensional analysis, TRR No.l227, pp l - 1 1 .

12. A. M. loannides( 1 9 84), Analysis of slabs-on-grade for a variety of loading and support
conditions, Ph.D thesis, Univ. of Illinois , Urbana, Ill.

13. A.M.Ioannides and M.I.Harnmons(1 996) Westergaard-type solution for edge load transfer
·

problem, TRR, 1 525, pp28-35

14. A.M.Ioannides and G.T.Korovesis(1 990), Aggregate interlock: A pure shear load transfer
 mechanism, TRR No. l 286, pp l 4-24.
15. A.M.Ioannides, T.H.Lee and M.I.Darter( l 990), Control o f faulting through joint load
transfer design, TRR No. l 286, pp49-56

1 6. A.M.loannides and G.T.Korovesis(l 992), Analysis and design of doweled slab-on-grade

pavement systems, J. Trans. Engg., V. l l 8, No.6, pp745-768

17. Y.Jiang, M.l.Darter and E.Owusu-Antwi( 1 996), Analysis of current state rigid pavement
design practices in the United States, TRR No. l 525, pp72-82

18. J.R.Keeton( l 957), Load-transfer characteristics of a doweled joint subjected to aircraft

wheel loads, Proc.HRB, Vol.36

1 9. L.Khazanovich and A.M.loannides ( 1 9 ), Finite element analysis of slabs-on-grade using

higher order subgrade soil models, ppl6-30

20. T.Krautharnmer and K.L.Western( 1 988), Joint shear transfer effects on pavement behavior,
J.Trans.Engg, V . l l4, N.5, pp505-529

21. A.R.Kukreti, M.R.Taheri and R.H.Ledesma( l992), Dynamic analysis of rigid airport
pavements with discontinuties, J. Trans. Engg., V. l l 8, N.3, pp3 4 1 -360

22. C.M.Kuo, K.T.Hall and M.l.Darter( l 995), Three-dimensional finite element model for
analysis of concrete pavement support, TRR No. l 505, ppl l 9- 1 27.

23. J.Larralde and W.F.Chen( l 987), Estimation of mechanical deterioration ofhighway rigid
pavements, V. l l 3 , N.2, ppl 93-207

24. Y.H.Lee and Y.M.Lee( l 996), Comer stress analysis ofjointed concrete pavements, TRR
No. l 525, pp44-56

25. Mirambell(l 990), Temperature and stress distributions in plain concrete pavements under
thermal and mechanical loads, Proc. 2 nd Int. workshop on the Desing and Rehabilitation
of Concrete pavements, Siguenza, Spain.

26. S.Nazarian and K.M.Boddapati( l 995), Pavement-falling weight deflectometer interaction

using dynamic finite element analysis, TRR No.l482, pp33-43

27. T.Nishizawa, T.Fukuda and S.Matsuno(l 989), A refined model of doweled joints for
concrete pavement using FEM analysis, Proc. of 4 th Int. Conf. on concrete pavement
design and rehabilitation, pp735-745, Purdue Univ.

28. T.Nishizawa, T.Fukuda, S.Matsuno and K.Himeno(l 996), Curling stress equation for
transverse joint edge of a concrete pavement slab based on finite element method analysis,
TRR No. l 525, pp 35-43
29. X.P.Shi, T.F.Fwa and S.A.Tan( l 993), Warping stresses in concrete pavements on
pastemak foundation, J. Trans. Engg., V. 1 19, N.6, pp 905-9 1 3 .

30. A.M.Tabatabaie and E.J.Barenberg( 1980), Structural analysis of concrete pavement

systems, J.Trans. Engg., V . 1 06, N.TES, pp493-506

31. A.M.Tabatabaie and E.J.Barenberg( l 978), Finite element analysis of jointed or cracked
concrete pavements, Trans. Res. Record 67 1 , TRB, Washington D.C., pp l l - 1 9

32. M.R.Taheri and M.M.Zaman( l 995), Effects of a moving aircraft and temperature
differential on response of rigid pavements, Computers & Structures, V.57, N.3, pp503-5 1 1

33. S.P.Tayabji and B.E.Colley( l98 !), Analysis of jointed concrete pavements, FHWA, Nat.
Tech. Information Service, Washington D.C.

34. M.Tia, J.M.Armaghani, C.L.Wu. S.Lei and K.L.Toye(1 987), FEACONS Ill: computer
program for the analysis of jointed concrete pavements, Trans. Res. Record 1 1 36, TRB,
Washington D.C. 1 2-22.

35. W.uddin, R.M.Hackett, A.Joseph, Z.Pan and A.B.Crawley(l 995), Three-dimensional finite
element analysis ofjointed concrete pavement with discontinuties, TRR No. l 482, pp26-32

36. S.Zaghioul and T.White(1 99), Nonlinear dynamic analysis of concrete pavements

37 . M.Zaman and A.Alvapillai ( 1 995), Contact-element model for dynamic analysis ofjointed
concrete pavements, J.Trans. Engrg., 1 2 1 (5), pp425-433.

38. M.Zaman, M.R.Taheri and V.Khanna( 1 993), Dynamics of concrete pavement to

temperature induced curling, TRB, 72nd Annual meeting, Jan. ! 0- 1 4, Washington, D.C.

39. M.Zaman, A.Alvapillai and M.R.Taheri( I993), Dynamic analysis of concrete pavements
resting on a two-parameter medium, Int. J. for Num. Meth. in Engg., V.36, ppl 465-1486
 Figure A. 1 Concrete Mold Figure A.2 Mold with Dowel bar, Strain
gages, and Joint filler

Figure A . 3 Molds for Dowelled Figure A.4 Mold for Concrete

concrete Blocks Blocks joined by Tie Bar (Rebar)

Figure A.5 Concrete Blocks

Casting
 Figure A.6a Specimen Sl Figure A.6b Specimen S2

Figure A.6c Specimen S3 Figure A.7a Specimen S4

Figure A 7b Specimen S4 - Failure Figure A.7c Specimen S5

Figure A.?d Specimen S6 Figure A.?e Specimen S6 - Failure

Figure A.8a Specimen S7 Figure A.8b Specimen S8

Figure A.9a Specimen B l Figure A.9b Specimen B2

 Figure A.9c Specimen 83 Figure A. l Da Specimen 84

Figure A . 1 Db Specimen 85 Figure A . l De Specimen 86

Figure A. 1 1 a Specimen 87 Figure A l l b Specimen 88

Figure A. 1 1 c Specimen B9 Figure A. 1 1 d Specimen B9-Fa lure

Figure A. 1 2a Specimen A 1 Figure A. 1 2b Specimen A 1 -Another

view

Figure A. 1 2c Specimen A 1 - Figure A. 1 2d Specimen A2

Cracked joint
Figure A. 1 2e Specimen A2 - Figure A. 1 2f Specimen A3 -
Cracking of Joint Cracking of Joint

Figure A. 1 3a Specimen C 1 Figure A. 1 3b Specimen C2

Figure A. 1 4a Specimen C4 Figure A. 1 4b Specimen C4 - Failure

Figure A . l 4c Specimen C5
Figure A. l 4d
Specimen C6

Figure A. 1 5a Specimen C7 Figure A. 1 5b Specimen C8

 A1
c
Spring
--<; white
EJ

II �·· EE JR

1 1 .
•
� I I Lvdt's

� ll
JL BEAM

l oad
3.5"
I� I
A2
;;.
r-
--

Spring

white
EE
JR

I--
EJ

.� � I I
.

l�
�
1 1 '11 111111lilil Lvdt's
mmllill11

JL BEAM
�
l oad
3.5"
t- � 1 1
I
A3
c

w hi te
EE
EJ
JR

13
I I I
·
Lvdt's

�-- - -
� ---

l oad
3.5" 1 1
h·� 14 1 1
 83
bar bar

-
J
4 1 0

U n-G reased

5 1
G reased

2 6
i TT ec
Lvdt's

I'!·' '.
I

l oad Ii
�·i•'

>---< S pring 86
bar bar
5 1

I i TT
2 6

U n-G reased G reased

ec
9 7 3 4 8 10 Lvdt's

l oad �
89
bar bar
2 6

U n-G reased
......
G reased
i TT Lvd1:'s

l l jl"j r���1
9 7

ej j s
l oad
 83
nge ge

bar
Ingj
I LVDT's
9J
_

l oad l oad
3.5'
I I I
I I
9" 9"
---

86
nge ge
0 8 4 3 7

2"
G reased
bar
I
ngj
I - LVDT's
6 9J

l oad
3.5'

9"
1
9"
l oad
··· ·-1
I I I
-

89
5 1 2 nge ge

2"
G reased

7
2"

bar
Ingj
I - LVDT's
9J

l oad
9"
1- -
9"
l oad
--
3.5"

1
I I I
 �1 �
be� t��1 �1 t�
t� �� ce
--'--"
g;
=' "'= }
•• ::.::
•::::: :.:.:.-
� I 1
J

ge gc gj

,. ·u�· n- �r�ase� �- ·1 ·�1· re

,..75"rromou<sldaof

G ·G ,�s:: ·1· ,
<o =n<a•of eOa<a

'1
1=- bar

1 , : '"I
.
� I I �
gsj ngsj ngj ngc nge
s s J
�
t
l oad I I I I I
 ----�---r--�--r--,--�
0.2 r-
0.18

0.16

0.14 l �--T�:��;�:���nd J
�

.s
"l:l
�
0.1 2

Q)

I
0.1

'a
.;!l 0.08
�

0.06

0.04

0.02

o� I I ; :I ; =-::-r I I I
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Load (lbs)

Figure I.l Load - Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 81

 0.30

�
0.20

0.10
�
.-/
0.00
-

� ::::::::-
�

·�
.,: -0.10
�

�
s -0.20
�
"a
�
0
.
g
-0.30

-0.40
--+-joint-opposite jack
--a- bar-fixed end

__,_ bar-free end

� edge-near joint
f\
--ll(- joint-jack side
-0.50 --+-- edge-near end

-0.60

-0.70
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Load (lbs)

Figure 1.2 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 82

 0.2

0.1

:s
�
-0.1

1:l
� -0.2
"'

'a
"'

CIJ
-�
Q -0.3

-.tr- beam-fixed end

�joint-spring
-0.4
-llf- edge-joint end
-e- edge-corner
joint-jack side
-0.5 -

- bar-free end
-e- bar-fixed end

-0.6
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Load (lbs)

Figure 1.3 a Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 83

 16000
-- strgage 1
-- strgage 2
--6- strgage
14000 3
--strgage 5

-+- strgage 7
12000 -liE- strgage 6

-+- strgage 8
10000
- strgage 9
""
0 - strgage 10
0
<::< 8000 -- strgage 11
0
:>< -- strgage 12

�
�

6000

�·�
�
"Ol
�

.l:l
4000
rn

2000

-2000

-4000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Load (lbs)

Figure L3b Load-Strain Relationship for the Specimen S3

 400
'
-.- strgage 5
-ll!- strgage 6
-e-- strgage 7

3oo 1 -I- strgage 8

I
- strgage 9
-strgage 10
-e-- strgage

I I
11

200 -- strgage 12

��
�

. ....
100
1:1
. ....
....
0!
...,
C/1

-100

-200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Load (lbs)

Load-Strain Relationship for the Specimen S3

 I
0.05

.A
�

0 -

��
-

�
----

-0.05

""2
-�
�-0.1
� -..
r---..
�

-...
1'----
""1111

'-"l((

....

s
-...
�
�
�
-
gll . 15
.....

� �� -......
� �
-�
�

�
-- fixed end(beam)
-0.2 -II- dowel bar-fixed end

�f'.
-k-- edge-near end
--- joint-spring side
-llf- edge-near joint
-0.25
--joint-jack side

-0.3
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Load (lbs)

Figure I.4 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 84

 0.10

-0.10

-;::

�
·�
�

�"
-0.20

i
A
·�

-0.30 -- edge-near joint

-e-joint-jack side
-+-- bar-fixed end
�bar-free end
-0.40 -e-joint-spring side
-l- edge-near end
- beam-fixed end

-0.50 l-----t-----+---1---!
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Load (lbs)

Figure 1.5 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 85

 0. 1

0.0 5

-0.05

� -0. 1
p
....
.�
...,

s
ffi -0.15

Ql
'-' --+-joint-spring side
t<! -0. 2
0.

A -0.25
.-<
edge-near joint
tll
-e-

. ....
--- bar-fixed end
__,._joint-jack side
-+-beam-fixed end
-0.3
--+- edge-near corner

- 0.35

-0.4

-0.45
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Load (lbs)

Figure I.6a Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 86

 4000

2000

,
0
0 -2000
�
0
><
�
1'1 -4000
�
-�
�

1'1
00

'"
-�

... -6000
r:JJ
+>

-8000
-+- strgage 1
a strgage 2
-o.- strgage 3

X strgage 4
-10000 -11- strgage 5
-- strgage 6
-+- strgage 7

j_ ___
-- st.r"""" R
-12000 �--------�- --+----+------+---+---1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Load (lbs)

Figure L6b Load-Strain Relationship for the S6 Specimen

 0.5

0.4 .
--joint-spring side
--11-- bar-free end

0.3 I I __,._beam-fixed end

-- edge-near end

_,._joint-jack side
--+- edge-near joint
0.2
I I --+- bar-fixed end
I
�
�

-�
�

s
1:l"' 0.1

"'
'"
"

<P � tooo ""><f

�

p..
0
-� 4000 .
(I]
2000 �a =-=-- 5@0 7000 8000 9®0
�

-0.1

-0. 2

-0.3

-0.4
Load (lbs)

Figure 1.7 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 87

 0.4

�int-jack side
-+-- bar-fixed end --joint-spring side
---..-- _,_edge-joint end
-ll!- ar-free end -- edge-near end
--+- beam-fixed end
0.2

.::
�

·�
�

s -0.2
�Q)

!
Q)
til
"

p.,
...-<

rll
·�
Q

-0.4 -- - · · - --1

-0.6 - - - - - - - - -

-0.8
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Load (lbs)

Figure I.8 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 88

 0.5

0.4
-+- edge-near end
-E- edge-near joint
0.3 _...,..._ bar-fixed end
-+- oint-S rin
j J! � siqe
0.2

0.1
1'1
�

-�
�

s
1'1
..., 0
"'

"'

oj
" -0.1
p.
-

"'
-�

� -0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0. 6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Load (lbs)

Figure I.9a Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen 89

 25000

20000 -- strgage 1 R strgage 2

-.Ar- strgage
3 -- strgage 4
:1: strgage
5 • strgage 6

15000 + stnm��:e 7 - . .strll:<.�l!e 8

10000
lQ
0
0
0
0
5000
>:

>:1
�

0
�
�
. .... )I(

"Ol
>:1

b
"'

-5000

rn

-10000

-15000

-20000

-25000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Load (lbs)

Figure I.9b Load-Strain Relationship for the S9 Specimen

 0.4 I I I
-+- beam-fixed end

--..o--
--e-- joint-spring side
edge-near joint
_...,._ edge-near end
0.2 --joint-jack side

��
�

·�

�
�
;.>

Q)

-0.2
Ol
()

""
-

UJ
·�
Q

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Load (lbs)

Figure II.l Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen Al

 0. 1

o r ,� :t : : : :f : ::�l: : : 1:: : : 1= � · 1·
-0.1

E
';:;' -0.2
�
!
� -0.3
-

·�
�

-0.4 -+- beam-fixed end

-111-joint-spring side
___,_ edge-near end
---M- P.iJP'P.:-nP.::Jr ioint.

-0.5

-0.6
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Load (lbs)

Figure II.2 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen A2 - Run 1

 0.1
I
o t � � · · · t
· · · · · 1 · ·
. ·
1 . . 1: : : : I
.
: : �

-0.1

-0.2

-;:;;
·�

�
�

s
-0.3
Q)

'P.. -0.4
Q)
CJ
0!

. rll
....
Q

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7
I
-+-
� - o n n n a r p
edge-near joint -e- edge-nea� end

� I
=- · =
-.o-jo!nt-jac� sid� ....,._ beam-fixed end

-0.8
0
-· 2000
-L
4000
- -- --

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Load (lbs)

Figure II.3 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen A3

 0.6

0.4

0.2

�
0 ...

"2
"'iJ -0.2
·�
�

�
.�
A
_.. greased joint _,._ nongreased joint
-0.6
_,._ nongreased end -+-bar

-0.8

-1

- 1 . 2 1--- - -- - -·-- - -- --·- -·-··- · · - · · · --+--·

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (lbs)

Figure UI.la Load (at Nongreased side)-Displacement Relationship for the Bl Specimen
 0.6

0.4

0.2

ol
-a
� �,
.....
�
�

--=
;
I
.
� I�
, I !
�
'a -0.4
. ....
"'
-+- greased end
� • greased joint
-..- nongreased joint
-0.6 � non!YTP.ASP.rl e:nrl

-0.8

-1

-1.2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (lbs)

Figure III.lb Loadl (at Greased Side) -Displacement Relationship for the B l Specimen
 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

�
�

.�
.... 0
�Q)
� -0.2
til
"

�
p..
i5
"'
-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
-11- greased end ---..- greased joint

- 1 � nongreased joint ----- nongreased end

---e-- bar

-1.2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Load (lbs)

Figure III.2a Load (nongreased side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B2 - Load at
Non-greased side
 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

.s
� 0
1:l
8 -0.2
Q)

�
0..
<IS

-� -0.4
1=4

-0.6
---a- greased end _.._ greased joint

-0.8 � nongreased joint -II- nongreased end

---e-- bar

-1

-1.2 --------

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Load (lbs)

Figure III.2b Load (at Greased Side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B2
 1 .------,

0.5

::: �
]?f::�
E
�
:
�

L,
-1

• greased end
-- greased joint
.......a-- nnnarP��:PN ln-int.

-1.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (lbs)

Figure IIII.3a Load (at Nongreased Side) -Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B3
 1

0.5

, ,r
l � ¥ ¥ ¥ � � ¥ � � � � �
P..
"
t'j

i5
"'
-0.5

-1
• greased end -- greased joint
-+-nongreased joint --*- nongreased end
-l!E-- bar

-1.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Load (lbs)

Figure III.3b Load (Greased Side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B3

 12000

10000 � '

�
8000
-

6000
lQ

�
0
0
� 4000
0 ::>-:111
><

""i:l
� 2000
�

·�

·�
�

·a
�
Ul
0
li I
;
•
UJ •
-2000 Ill
• --......

___5
-4000 B strgage 1 __._ strgage 2
--*- strgage3 -- strgage 4
• strgage 5 + strgage 6
- strgage 7 - strgage 8
-6000 • (,l.t_ra�IJ'P. Q • §lt.ra� crP. 1 11

I
----- --
-8000 -� �- �--- �--

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Load (lbs)

Figure III.3e Load (at Non-greased Side)-Strain Relationship for the Specimen B3
 12000

10000

I
8000
L,
,...J
/ ..__

�:..r
'

/
6000
tn
0

�
0
"=< 4000
0
>< ...,.�

f
1"i
�

2000
�
....,."!'" •• �··
-�
�

.n=. I I
1"i
"'
... •

'
"til 0 • • •
--
.0
[JJ

�
L .. -
-2000
.. .T

I
-......::- -
-4000 ----- strgage 1 -lr- strgage 2
--M- strgage 3 .....- strgage 4
• strgage 5 + strgage 6
- strgage 7 - strgage 8
':!'ra!;lm:• Q • al).a.o - -
.. t:t 1n
-6000 . ·····--

-8000 - --- -----

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Load (lbs)

Figure III.3d Load (at Greased Side)-Strain Relationship for the Specimen B3
 0.6
I
0.4

0.2

"2
.�
...

l:l -0.2

w�
'a -0.4
-�
----

q
-0.6
-- greased end __.._ greased joint

-0.8 -- nongreased joint -liE- nongreased end

--- bar • greased end

I
-1 + greased joint - nongreased joint .. . .. �--

- nongreased end • bar

-1. 2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Load (lbs)

Figure III.4a Load (at Non-greased Side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B4
 0.6

0.4

0.2

'?:
·�
�
1:l -0.2
s
�
'a
Ql

-0.4
·�
"'

-0.6 - . ---------

-0.8
-- greased end -...- greased joint
� nongreased joint __._ nongreased end
-1
-- bar

-1.2 _____ _L___j_ L __

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Load (lbs)

Figure III.4b Load (at Greased Side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B4
 0.4

0.2

�
�

·�
�

s
�
...,

Q)
-0.2
Q)
til
"

p.
-

·�
"'

-0.4

Ill greased end __..._ greased joint

� nongreased joint -llf- nongreased end

-0.6
-- bar

-0.8
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Load (lbs)

Figure III.5a Load (at Non-greased side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B5
 0.4

0.2

0 *'== •• f1'
6000 8000 10@00 12�00
�
�

·�
�

s
�"'
"'
-0.2

'a
"
as

00
·�
Q

-0.4

-0.6 Ill greased end _...._ greased joint

� nongreased joint -ll!- nongreased end

-+- bar
-0.8
Load (lbs)

Figure III.5b Load (at Greased Side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B5
 0.3

0.2

0.1

0 ... ll( ll( ll( -r-

"2
....
�
� -0.1
"'

I
P. -0.2
. ...
(/j

-0.3

-0.4

-+- greased end --- greased joint

--.-- nongreased joint --*- nongreased end
-0.5
-liE-bar

-0.6 �------+---+---�--4---4---4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Load (lbs)

Figure III.6a Load (Nongreased Side)-Displacement reh1.tionship for the Specimen B6

 0.3

0.2

0.1

�
0 L * lK I )K I
* ------
liE
I � r--
E
::;-o 1
>::
"'
•

� -0.2
�
p.
:!J
p
.

-0.3

-+- greased end ---- greased joint

-0.4
---.-- nongreased joint --*""- nongreased end
-liE- bar

-0.5

-0.6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Load (lbs)

Figure Hl6b Load (Greased Side)-Displacement Relati<>l!llship for the Specimen B6

 4000

3000
I!J.
I!J.
I!J. -
2000 I!J.
I!J.
I!J.

"
I!J.
.&
�
1000

.......-::::
..

i II
� +
•
+
�
+ + +
+ + + -
tt:> iii • • ...
0
0 i - - -
II ' I
0
.. - - - -
=
-
•
-
i
I!J.
:&: -
'=<
0 • .& I!J. I!J. I!J.
-1000
:><
�
�
�
�

-2000
�
�

.s -3000
·�
�
"'

.t3 I
<11

00
-4000
-- strgage 1
-- strgage 3
I!J. strgage 2
-llr- strgage 4 �
-5000

-6000
•

•
-
strgage 5
strgage 7
strgage 9
+ strgage 6
-

•
strgage 8
strgage 10
��
I!J. strgage 1 1 -- strgage 12
I I
-7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Load (lbs)

Figure III.6c Load (at Nongreased Side)-Strain Relationship for the Specimen B6
 4000

3000
&
&
2000 &
&

1000

lO + + +
0 0 • • •
0 - - -
"' 3000 4®0 8 0
0
& &
X -1000
�
�

� -2000
�

·a
�
rn

J5 -3000

-4000
-- strgage 1 & strgage 2
� strgage 3 -- strgage 4
-5000
• strgage 5 + strgage 6
. strgage 7 - strgage 8
-6000 • strgage 9 • strgage 10
& strgage 1 1 � strgage 12
-7000
Load (lbs)

Figure UUid Load (Greased Side)-Strain Relati«mship for the Specimen B6

 0.2 r------,--r--�--,

0.1

o r-------r=====r===���

-0.1
�
�

....
.�

s
�0)

al
0) -0.2

15..
q -0.3
....
. "'

II greased end
_.,.._ greased joint
--*- nongreased joint
-0.4 -- nongreased end
--bar

-0.5

-0.6 �------�---+--+--4--�
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Load (lbs)

Figure III.?'a Load (Nongreased Side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B7

 0.2

0.1

0 t--==1===�

.s
-0.1
�
�

§
s
�
"'
-0.2

"a
-�
"'

p -0.3

-0.4

-11- greased end ......__ greased joint

-0.5 -- nongreased joint --nongreased end

-e-bar

-0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Load (lbs)

Figure III.7b Load (greased side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B7

 0.6

0.4

0.2

0
�
I
�

s -0.2
l:l"'

�
'a
�

00
·�
� -0.4

-0.6
II greased end _._ greased joint
X nongreased joint -ll!- nongreased end
-0.8 -e-- bar • greased end
+ greased joint - nongreased joint

--� ���
J I
gr ed end • bar
T
____ · --

-1 . --- --
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Load (lbs)

Figure III.8a Load(Nongreased side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B8

 0.6

0.4

0.2
.......

�
"2
--

��
0
�

�
s -0.2
...,

!
. ....
Ul
...... � �
......
�
-0.4

-0.6

t
-- greased end __._ greased joint
-0.8 � nongreased joint --ll!- nongreased end

-e-bar

-1 I I
0 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400
Load (lbs)

Figure IIL8b Load (greased side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B8

 0.2

!
0 ;!;

�
-0.2

-0.4

'2
.....
�
+'� -0.6

®�
P. -0.8
....
. "'
C1

-1

-1.2

-+- greased end ---- greased joint -

- 1.4 __.._ nongreased joint """*""" nongreased end
"'
-- bar
-1.6 _ _ _ _ _ _L I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Load (lbs)

Figure UI.9a Load (Nongreased side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B9

 0.2

0
-r1
...... 1
-0.2
�
'2
·�
-0.4 � !

�
+'
p -0.6
I

�
"'

al
I
15.. -0.8 I

·�
"'

� '

-1

�
-1.2

-......
-+- greu!:ied end ---- greased joinl

.......,_ nongreased joint

r---...
� nongreased end
-
-1.4 -i!E-bar
-

-1.6
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Load (lbs)

Figure III.9b Load (Greased Side)-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen B9

 4000

2000
X

I .

Ill
0 •
Ill
U":l i
0
0 -.

�
0
-2000
><

'il
1'1
�

·�

·�
�
-4000
0

b
til

"'
·�

r:n

-6000 Ill strgage 1 ,. strgage 2

X strgage 3 � strgage 4
• strgage 5 + strgage 6
-8000 - strgage 7 - strgage 8
-+--- strgage 9 Ill strgage 10

I I
___...._ strgage 11 � strgage 12 :1:

-10000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Load (lbs)

Figure III.9c Load (Nongreased Side)-Strain Relationship for the Specimen B9

 4000 !

2000

.. ...
X X X X X X
X �
X X X X �

! dl !
-
1
�

I
i
• • • ' ' " .
I
0
-- ��
lD • I I I I I I I
0 (!)_
0
0
0
-2000
:><

. ....
�
�

�
.�L1l.... �
�
"' -4000

�
+'
...

fj)

Ill strgage 1 A strgage 2

-6000
X strgage 3 -liE- strgage 4
e strgage 5 + strgage 6 I
- strgage 7 - strgage 8
-8000 I
-+- strgage 9 Ill strgage 10
--.�<-- strgage 1 1 � strgage 12
I

-10000 I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Load (lbs)

Figure III.9d Load (Greased side)-Strain Relationship for the Specimen B9

 0.8

0.6

0.4 �-:::

'2
0.2

�
NI
- �

....V
0
t"""-�� ..
�

s
�Q)
...-.

'i�
-0.2

� -0.4
Q)

'"
"

......

�---- '\
� ��
-�
�

I ;-'j:..
""'"!--
e

-+- greased join� .

-0.6 ...,.1--
..:;: 1\
-11- nongreased Jmnt
�
\
-+-.:::::-..;:
-- nongreased center
-x
...._

-- nongreased end "IJ--.

""'-.
-0.8 '""'-
· ·

-- greased center
-+-greased end
�

...,.
1

-+-bar
-1

- ' ' '

' 1
I I I
�

-1. 2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Load (lbs)

Figure IV. l Load-Displacement Relationship for the C l Specimen

 1.5

��--�--�--r-�--�
1

0.5

>::
�

:.::'-
+'

s
>::
"'

�
0

P..
al

<IJ
·�
�

-0.5

• greased joint • nongreased joint

-1 _....__ nongreased
center � nongreased end
-liE- greased center __.,_ greased end
-I- bar - greased joint spring

- nongr.joint spring

-1.5
I
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Load (lbs)

Figure IV.2 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen C2

 1

• greased joint -II- nongreased joint

-+- nongreased center --M-- nongreased end

0.5
-- greased center __._ greased end
--t- bar - greased joint spring
- nongr.joint spring

'2
l:l
0
:.=-

�
�
�
� -0.5 • • • •
• • • • •
• •

-1

-1.5
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Load (lbs)

Figure IV.3a Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen C3

 25000

20000

15000

10000
>0
0
0
0
0 5000
>:

:.: ::e: ::e: x x

�

]
�

00
�

.':I
..... -5000
OS

w
- 10000
-- strain gage 1 • strain gage 2
.......- strain gage 3 X strain gage 4
-15000 ::e: strain gage 5 e strain gage 6
+ strain gage 7 - strain gage 8
-20000 - strain gage 9 -- strain gage 10

I
-11- strain gage 1 1 .......- strain gage 12

-25000 - l
- ----�-�- ---+ -��

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Load {lbs)

Figure IV.3b Load-Strain Relationship for the Specimen C3

 1

• greased joint -- nongreased joint

__..__ nongreased center -- nongreased end
-- greased center -- greased end
0.5
-t-bar • greased joint spring
- nongr.joint spring

'2
� 0

]
i5t; -0.5

-1

-1.5
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Load (lbs)

Figure IV.4 Load-Displacement Relationship for the C4 Specimen

 1.5

0.5

"2
·�

1
�

0
"
al
p.,
-

(/]
·�
Cl

-0.5

• • • • • • • • • • • •

-1 + greased joint -- nongreased joint

__.._ nongreased center X nongreased end
-liE- greased center -- greased end
-+- bar - greased joint spring

- nongr.joint spring
-1.5
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Load (lbs)

Figure IV.5 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen C5

 1

-+- greased joint II nongreased joint

& nongreased center X nongreased end
0.5
-- greased center -+- greased end
-+- bar - greased joint spring
- nongr.joint spring

'2 0

�
·�
�

s
� ,
.
'a ,,
-�
A -0.5 ,,
,,,

-1

�8£8q!bs)
-1.5
0 5000 10000 20000 25000 30000

Figure IV.6a Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen C6

 10000

5000
I
0
tO
0
0
�
0 A
-5000 • a
>I &
t::
�

�
I
. ...
�
"' -10000
t::
'til
!::
rn • strain gage 1 -- strain gage 2
-15000 A strain gage 3 --- strain gage 4

--llf-- strain gage 5 • strain gage 6

+ strain gage 7 - strain gage 8

-20000
-
strain gage 9 -- strain gage 10

1111 strain gage 1 1 _.,._ strain gage 12

-25000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Load (lbs)
Figure IV.6b Load-Strain Relationship for the Specimen C6
 1
• greased joint -- nongreased joint
........- nongreased center """*- nongreased end
0.8
-liE- greased center -- greased end
-+-bar - greased joint spring
0.6 - nongr.joint spring

0.4

.s 0.2
�

+'
�

s
>::
"'
"' 0
t)
'"
�
p.
"'
i5 -0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Load (lbs)

Figure IV.7 Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen C7

 I I I I
1.5

-- greased joint ----- nongreased joint

__..__ nongreased center � nongreased end
-llr- greased center -- greased end
1
+ bar - greased joint spring
- nongr.joint spring
-

�
>:1
·�
�
0.5
� ...

�
s
/
v-
al 0
Q)
-

'a �
_a.

�
·�
"' ""

-0.5
� :!:
� .:!: ±
_:!:
�
-

v
�
� :!:
-
-1

-1.5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Load (lbs)

Figure IV.S Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen CS

 1.5
I

-- greased joint -11- nongreased joint

�
1
_.... nongreased center """*""" nongreased end
-e-- greased
I
-- greased center end
-+-bar - greased joint spring
0.5

'a
- nongr.joint spring

§
-�

s 0
iiit--... \
"a
"
Q)

td

� 1\
Ul
-�
>=I

"\
\� .....,.
-0.5

L
�.....
�
/
- -

-1

-1. 5 '-- - ·-··-- __ -J,.....__,._

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Load (lbs)

Figure IV.9a Load-Displacement Relationship for the Specimen C9

 25000

20000 • strgage 1 -- strgage 2

... strgage3 X strgage4
X strgage 5 • strgage 6
+ strgage 7 -
strgage 8
., 15000
0
0 strgage9 • strgage 10
0
-

0 -- strgage 1 1 .....- strgage12

><

� 10000
'5....
.
�

I':
"til
.b
rn 5000

-5000 ---

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Load (lbs)

Figure IV.9b Load-Strain Relationship for the Specimen C9