Prepared by

Mark B. Snyder, Engineering Consultant to CP Tech Center

Maria Masten, Minnesota Dept. of Transportation

For
National Concrete Consortium Meeting
September 14, 2010
Sacramento, California
 Maria Masten, Minnesota DOT
Tom Cackler, CP Tech Center
Mark Brinkman, Construction Materials Inc.
Glen Eder, WG Block
Jenne Imholte-Decker, Simplex Construction Supplies
Mark Snyder, ACPA-Pennsylvania
John Staton, Michigan DOT
Matt Zeller, Concrete Paving Association of Minnesota
 Summarizes factors and design theories that should be
considered in dowel load transfer system design
Includes practical considerations and results of NCC surveys
and discussions concerning dowel basket design and
fabrication
Discusses alternate dowel materials
Presents recommendations for widespread adoption (i.e.,
standardization)
Basket wire sizes
Basket height as function of dowel diameter
Does NOT recommend dowel diameter for various pavement thicknesses
Dowel length and spacing
Appendices with additional support documentation
 Introduction
Dowel Load Transfer System Design Brief History
Dowel Load Transfer System Design Considerations
Recommendations
References
Additional Resources
Appendices
 Dowel Diameter/Cross-Section
Dowel Bar Length
Dowel Alignment Requirements
Vertical Translation
Longitudinal Translation
Dowel Spacing and Number of Dowels
Epoxy Coatings
Alternate Dowel Materials and Coatings
Stainless Steel
Microcomposite Steel
Zinc Alloy-Sleeved Steel
GFRP and FRP
Dowel Bar Lubrication/Bond-breaker Materials
Use of Expansion Caps/Joint Forming Materials
 Dowel Bar Material
Dowel Bar Diameter
Dowel Bar Length
Dowel Basket Height (Vertical Location of Dowel in Slab)
Corrosion Protection
Recommendations for Standardized Basket Frame Design
Basket Stake Requirements and Other Anchor Approaches
Use of Bond-breakers and Precoating (post-fabrication)
 The Mechanics of Joint Faulting
Design Factors Affecting
Dowel-Concrete Bearing Stress (and Faulting)
Use of FWD Measurements in
Measuring Dowel Effectiveness
Evaluating Dowel Load Transfer Systems
Concepts for Optimizing Dowel Load Transfer System Design
 Not a standard, not tied to pavement thickness
A part of concrete pavement system design
Impacts faulting, IRI and other performance measures through
resulting bearing stress, differential deflection, deflection
energy, etc.
Manufacturers of all products should produce standard
diameters (to facilitate use of standard basket sizes)
 15 inches for new construction
Includes dowel placement and joint sawing variability
Shorter for retrofit and full-depth repairs
Dowel placement and joint location are known more precisely
Shorter embedment lengths are supported by research
dating to the 1950s
This recommendation has no necessary impact on
basket standardization or state practices (i.e., any
reasonable length dowel can be specified for use in
standard baskets).
Teller and Cashell, 1959

Khazanovich et al, 2009

Dowel Bar Diameter, in 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Height to Dowel Center, in 2.5 3 4 5 6 6
Intended Slab Thickness, in 56 68 8 10 >10 >12 >12
Distance Between Dowel 0 0.5 0-1 0-1 0-? 0-? 0-?
Center and Slab Mid-Depth, in

In-range or upsize placements within 1 inch

of mid-depth
Downsize use placements within 2 inches of
mid-depth (closer to bottom than top)
Vertical translation tolerances supported by
testing and experience
Odden et al, 2004

Khazanovich et al, 2009

 Many materials are suitable
Selection should consider environmental conditions, design
requirements (performance life), cost considerations
Metallic products require no design adjustments
(dowel diameter, spacing)
In long-life applications, stainless steel (316L) and zinc-sleeved
products offer the best combination of predictable structural
behavior and corrosion resistance
Microcomposite steel is less corrosion-resistant; epoxy coating
may be appropriate for long-life applications
 FRP, GFRP are low-modulus products (<20% of steel)
Same diameter as steel will result in much higher bearing
stresses, higher deflections, lower initial LTE values, more
rapid loss of LTE under repeated loads
Theory is borne out by lab tests and field experience
 Dowel
Diameter Dowel Modulus, E Applied Shear Force Deflection Bearing
Dowel Type
(in) (psi) (lb) at Joint Stress (psi)
Face (in)
Metallic 1.5 29,000,000 1940 (12 spacing) 0.0009 1421.4
FRP 1.5 5,600,000 1940 (12 spacing) 0.0015 2185.8
FRP 1.92 5,600,000 1940 (12 spacing) 0.0009 1405.5
FRP 1.5 5,600,000 1260 (8 spacing) 0.0009 1419.7
Odden et al, 2004

Unpublished Ohio
Demo Project Data
 FRP, GFRP are low-modulus products (<20% of steel)
Same diameter as steel will result in much higher bearing
stresses, higher deflections, lower initial LTE values, more
rapid loss of LTE under repeated loads
Theory is borne out by lab tests and field experience
GFRP and FRP are not recommended for use in
highway pavement dowels at this time.
 Remains least expensive option for corrosion
protection of carbon steel (and microcomposite steel)
Only effective if durable and applied with sufficient
and uniform thickness
10-mil nominal minimum thickness meets or exceeds
requirements of all surveyed states
Excessive thickness might affect dowel behavior (soft
support)
Could specify upper limit (e.g., 10 14 mils)
Probably self-limiting due to production costs
 Basket/frame wire diameter = 0.306 in
(standard)
Side rail wire diameter = 0.243 in (standard)
Spacer wires
minimum of 3
standard diameter = 0.177 in
U or V legs
Standard frame length for a full 12-ft paving
lane: nominally 10 ft, to accommodate 11
dowels on 12-in centers
 Task Force Review
Finalize ASAP (end of September?)