materials

Article
Effectiveness of Dowels in Concrete Pavement
Jiri Grosek 1, * , Andrea Zuzulova 2 and Ilja Brezina 1
1 Transport Infrastructure Department, Transport Research Centre, 63 600 Brno, Czech Republic;
ilja.brezina@cdv.cz
2 Department of Transportation Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in
Bratislava, 810 05 Bratislava, Slovakia; andreazuzulova@gmail.com
* Correspondence: jiri.grosek@cdv.cz; Tel.: +42-0737-675-579




Received: 22 March 2019; Accepted: 20 May 2019; Published: 22 May 2019


Abstract: Dowels are located in transverse joints of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JPCP) and they
are used to provide load transfer between individual slabs, reduce faulting and improve performance.
Dowels and the concrete itself are under the highest stress in the vicinity of joints; thus, in terms of
pavement design, the joints are the weakest points of the whole structure. This study dealt with the
drawbacks of JPCP with dowels. The evaluation was based on direct measurements on real airport
and motorway pavements and highlights insufficient efficiency of load transfer and its possible
causes. The authors present a successful outcome with validation by using the finite element method
where high tensile stress values of the surrounding concrete were found.

Keywords: concrete pavement; dowel; load transfer; finite element method

1. Introduction
Jointed plain concrete pavement is typically composed of a Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
surface course constructed on top of either an underlying base course or in exceptional cases on the
subgrade. Joints of concrete pavement are stressed by the effects of overruns of heavy vehicles and
temperature and moisture gradient of concrete slabs. The dowels in transverse joints must allow
horizontal movement of slabs in the contracting time after the pavement is paved and during its further
use. In addition, they reduce vertical movements on slab edges and occurrence of vertical unevenness
along the pavement lifecycle. The monitored parameter is the transfer of load on joints expressed by
the value of LTE (Load transfer efficiency).
The loaded and adjacent unloaded slabs deflect when a wheel load is applied at a joint edge.
Deflections of jointed slab are directly coherent to joint performance. When the loaded and unloaded
slabs deflect equally, the joints performance is accomplished. Load transfer efficiency may be described
by the following equation:
du
LTE (%) = × 100 (1)
dl
where dl is the loaded slab and du is the adjacent unloaded slab deflection [1].
The LTE depends on a number of circumstances, including the base course or subgrade support,
aggregate interlock, joint width and spacing, temperature and moisture (which could affect joint
opening), number of passes and load intensity, and the methodology of measurement through the load
transfer devices (falling weight deflectometer, FWD). Several studies describe the most performance
problems with concrete pavement as a result of poor performance of transverse joints [2,3]. A poor
LTE may cause higher slab stresses, which may strongly contribute to distresses, such as faulting,
pumping, corner breaks and roughness. Thus, LTE requires checking to achieve long-term concrete
pavement performance.

Materials 2019, 12, 1669; doi:10.3390/ma12101669 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 1669 2 of 15

Long-term evaluation of the measurement results on tested concrete pavements of airport runways
and motorways shows that the LTE values range between 0.70 and 0.90. According to the current
Czech technical specification TP 92, efficient transfer should exceed 0.90, otherwise the structures
should be evaluated to decide whether a measure is necessary. This means that the majority of joints
fail to meet this criterion. The evaluation of the current study is based on direct measurements by
falling weight deflectometers (FWD) made by companies KUAB and Rodos [4].
The issue of LTE is dealt with by many authors and organizations [5,6]. The authors of [7–13]
described long-term monitoring of potential alternative dowels to be used in concrete pavements to
increase load transfer efficiency and to monitor resistance of dowels against defrosting agents mainly
related to steel dowels. However, long-term corrosion protection is provided by epoxy coatings along
the whole length of the dowel. A slab failure due to dowel corrosion has not been confirmed in the
Czech Republic.
In addition, the results show that in many cases LTE is low when different types of dowels
are used. The reasons include the behavior of dowels at overruns of heavy vehicles, the quality
of subbase and subgrade, and the quality of dowels, their coating and alignment. In Slovakia,
recommended dimensions of dowels (diameter and length) are applied to concrete slab thickness;
in the Czech Republic, a unified diameter (25 mm) and length (500 mm) of dowels are used for all
pavement thicknesses [14–18].
Some studies and recommendations also suggest that the position of dowels towards the transverse
joint significantly affects the performance. The alignment of dowel bars is important since significant
misalignment of dowels in a doweled joint may prevent that joint from opening/closing properly.
The occurrence of a single joint that does not open/close effectively will not necessarily result in a
mid-panel crack or another pavement defect, but the risk of mid-panel cracking and joint distress
increases with each successive joint with limited opening/closing capabilities. The vertical tilt is
particularly critical, as well as the vertical and longitudinal translation of the dowels [19].
Software based on the principle of the finite element method (FEM), such as SCIA Nexis, ANSYS,
etc., allow modeling of stress in concrete pavements, which can be used for making comparisons of
calculated and real values. The FEM calculation allows monitoring stress conditions of concrete in
terms of load and to compare different types of structures and used dowels (dimensions, coating,
placement, etc.). 3D FEM is an efficient and accurate method to calculate the interaction characteristics
in concrete pavements. Research activities tend to study tensile stress concentration of the surrounding
concrete around dowels and potential to cracking. A small diameter, high strength of dowels and their
position are considered the main reasons for failure [20–27].
The aim of the research activities of the authors from the Czech Republic and Slovakia was to
carry out measurements on test sections, present the experience with modeling in software based on
the principle of FEM and inform of new findings regarding dowels. In addition, we aimed to point out
and investigate the differences in tensile stress on the bottom part of concrete slabs and around dowels
with defectively installed dowels, which are crucial for design [28,29].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. LTE Measurement on Existing Pavements Methodology

The aim of the measurements was to evaluate bearing capacity and determine LTE of concrete
slabs on airport runways (RWY), taxiways (TWY) and aprons in Slovakia, and road sections complying
with motorway design standards in the Czech Republic.

2.1.1. Bratislava Airport

An example of a “heavy loaded” area of concrete pavement includes an airport runway.
Deformations measured by dynamic load on the slab edge (at the joint) and recorded on the adjacent
slab depend mainly on the construction design of joints. The transverse joints were reinforced with
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 3 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15
dowels
dowels while
while the
the longitudinal
longitudinal joints
joints were
were without
without any
any reinforcement
reinforcement on on aa RWY
RWY section
section selected
selected for
for
dowels while
experimental the longitudinal joints were without any reinforcement on a RWY section selected for
measurements.
experimental measurements.
experimental
Dynamic measurements.
Dynamic load
load tests
tests with
with the
the aim
aim to
to measure
measure LTE
LTE between
between slabs
slabs were
were carried
carried out
out by
by FWD
FWD KUAB
KUAB
(KUAB Dynamic load tests withAB,
the Rättvik,
aim to measure LTE between slabs were carried out bykNFWD KUABthe
(KUAB Konsult & Utveckling AB, Rättvik, Sweden) with the average load force of 150 kN and with
Konsult & Utveckling Sweden) with the average load force of 150 and with the
(KUAB Konsult
load & Utveckling AB, Rättvik, Sweden) with the average load force of 150 kN and inwith the
load duration
duration ofof 6060 ms.
ms. According
According to to the
the differences
differences in
in the
the pavement
pavement structure—mainly
structure—mainly in the the slab
slab
load
thicknessduration
(220, of
240 60
andms.
300According
mm)—the to the differences
runways were in the
divided pavement
into structure—mainly
sections. A configurationin the slab of
scheme
thickness
thickness(220,
(220,240
240 and
and300
300mm)—the
mm)—the runways were divided into sections. A configuration scheme of
five
five tested
tested slabs
slabs is
is shown
shown in Figure
in Figure 1.1. runways were divided into sections. A configuration scheme of
five tested slabs is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Locations of falling weight deflectometer (FWD) load plate on runway (RWY).
Figure 1. Locations
Locations of
of falling
falling weight
weight deflectometer
deflectometer (FWD) load plate on runway (RWY).
(RWY).
LTE on transverse joints was higher than 80% and, on some paths of RWY (JPCP thickness 300
LTE
LTE
mm), iton
on
wastransverse
transverse joints
higher thanjoints
92%was
was higher
higher
(Figure than
2a). LTE80%
than and,
80%
on on some
and, paths
on some
longitudinal of RWY
paths
joints was of (JPCP
RWY
low, thickness
(JPCP
on RWY 300 on
thickness
only 32% mm),
300
it was
mm), ithigher
average was than 2b).
higher
(Figure 92%
than(Figure
This92% 2a). be
(Figure
should LTE onLTE
2a).
taken longitudinal joints was
onconsideration
into longitudinal low,was
joints
in the on low,
RWYon only
reconstructionRWY32%only
designonofaverage
32%
this on
(Figure
average
runway.2b). This should
(Figure 2b). Thisbe should
taken intobe consideration in the reconstruction
taken into consideration design of thisdesign
in the reconstruction runway. of this
runway.

(a)

2. Cont.
Figure(a)
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 4 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

(b)
Figure 2.2. (a) (b)
Figure (a) Load
Load transfer
transfer across transverse
transverse joints of RWY 13-31;13-31; and (b) load
load transfer
transfer across
across
longitudinal
longitudinal joints
joints
Figure 2. (a) Load (without
(without any
any
transfer reinforcement)
reinforcement)
across for
transverse for RWY
RWY
joints 13-31 13-31; and (b) load transfer across
of 13-31
RWY
longitudinal joints (without any reinforcement) for RWY 13-31
2.1.2.
2.1.2. Highway
Highway D1 D1 andand R1 R1
2.1.2.
The Highway D1 and R1
The evaluation
evaluation of of LTE
LTE onon edges
edges ofofsixsixslabs
slabswithwiththe theFWD/HWD
FWD/HWDRODOS RODOS10001 10001(Ing.(Ing. Pavel
Pavel
Herrmann—RODOS,
The evaluation Prague,
of LTE onCzech
edges Republic)
of six slabs waswithperformed.
the
Herrmann—RODOS, Prague, Czech Republic) was performed. Low values of load transfer FWD/HWD Low values
RODOS of load
10001 transfer
(Ing. Pavelonon
transverse joints
joints reinforced
Herrmann—RODOS,
transverse reinforced with
Prague, dowels
withCzech
dowels (slab
(slab thickness
Republic) 250
250 mm)
was performed.
thickness mm) Low were found
found on
were values of two
on two sections
load transfer on
sections ononR1
R1
and
andtransverse
D1.
D1. The joints
effectreinforced
Theeffect ofofdifferent with
different load dowels
load(40, 70,(slab
(40, 70,
90 90 thickness
and and
120120
kN) 250
kN)mm)
and and were found(gradient
temperature
temperature on two −0.10−0.10
sections
(gradient on R1
and and
+0.43
+0.43
and ◦ C/10
D1. The
mm) effect
were of different
also studiedload (40,
(Figure70, 90
3). and
The 120 kN)
measurements and temperature
used
°C/10 mm) were also studied (Figure 3). The measurements used a load plate of 300 mm diameter a load (gradient
plate of −0.10
300 mm and +0.43
diameter
°C/10 mm) were also studied (Figure 3). The
and
and the
the evaluation
evaluation of of LTE
LTE was
was considered
considered as as aameasurements
ratio
ratio of used aon
of deflections
deflections load
on plate of 300
geophones
geophones in mm diameter
in distances
distances of
of 300
300
andand
200 the
mm evaluation
from the of LTE
center was
of considered
load, while as
the a ratio of
transverse deflections
joint is on geophones
located in in
between distances
these of 300
geophones
and 200 mm from the center of load, while the transverse joint is located in between these geophones
and 200 mm from
(transverse the center ofof load, while the transverse joint is located in betweenlow these geophones
(transverse joint
joint at
at the
the distance
distance of 250
250 mm
mm fromfrom the the load
load point).
point). TheThe results
results show
show low values
values andand the
the
(transverse
reason is joint
difficult at
to the
find.distance of 250
Nevertheless, mm it from
is the
probably load a point).
combinationThe results
of show
several low values
unfavorable and the
factors
reason is difficult to find. Nevertheless, it is probably a combination of several unfavorable factors
reason is difficult
which to find. such
Nevertheless, it is probably a combination of several unfavorable factors
which influence
influence LTE LTEvalue,
value, suchas aseffect
effectofofquality
qualityofofsubbase
subbaseand andsubgrade
subgradeon ondowels.
dowels.
which influence LTE value, such as effect of quality of subbase and subgrade on dowels.

Figure 3. Evaluation
Figure of LTE
3. Evaluation on Highway
of LTE D1—comparisons
on Highway of different
D1—comparisons load and
of different temperature
load gradients.
and temperature
Figure 3. Evaluation of LTE on Highway D1—comparisons of different load and temperature
gradients.
gradients.
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 5 of 15

The measurement results from the test sections can be used for modeling in software based on the
finite element method and can be focused on specific and problematic parts of the structure.

2.2. Modeling of Stress on Slab Edges by FEM Methodology

The modeling included an analysis of stress on concrete slab edges while using findings from
field measurements on the test sections. The software allows modeling of stress at the bottom part of
slabs by traffic and temperature load and can account for the interaction of pavement and subgrade.

2.2.1. Software SCIA Nexis

Different degrees of interaction of concrete slabs were considered for the selected pavement
structure. The result of such modeling is a numeric and graphic representation of concrete slabs
behavior (stress and deflections).
The calculation was made by FEM method with the use of SCIA Nexis software. The modeling
of the interaction of concrete slabs and subbase is reduced to a 2D model, whose special case is the
Pasternak model. Pasternak’s characteristics of subbase properties with two parameters (C1 and C2)
describe the behavior of slabs better, particularly on solid subbase. The authors of the software, Kolar
and Nemec, produced a multi-parameter 2D model, which is equivalent to half-space. Selecting proper
constants of C1 and C2, it is possible to draw close to the real deformation of slabs.
The constant C parameters influence the stress and the distribution stress has an effect on the
settlement of the base (subbase). Therefore, an iterative equation is used for the constant C. For the
calculation module Soilin and the relationship between the constants of the model (3D) and surface
model (2D) the following equations were used:

ZH
∂ f (z) 2
!
CS1z = Ez dz (2)
∂z
0

ZH
CS2x = CS2y = G f 2 (z)dz (3)
0

where Ez is the deformation modulus of soil, G is the shear modulus, and H is the depth of deformed
zones of the spatial model “damping function” f (z), which is defined by the slump ratio at a given
depth w(x,y,z) for settlement surface w0 (x,y) in the form:

w(x, y, z)
f (z) = (4)
w0 (x, y)

Unlimited slide is considered between the slabs and the subbase, which helps to get the most
unfavorable stress values in the slab. This phenomenon usually occurs in practice, particularly
regarding the dilation of slabs and warping of slabs due to temperature gradient.
Another step is the modeling of transverse and longitudinal joints which break the integrity of
the pavement. The selected 2D macro can be assigned with a constant thickness (constant isotropy),
variable thickness (variable isotropy) and orthotropy. In the cases when the constant isotropy is
assigned, 2D macros will be assigned with a constant thickness and material (quality). In the case
orthotropy is considered, macros will be assigned with thickness parameters using the values of
stiffness matrix elements. This is method allows modeling any joint.

2.2.2. Software ANSYS

The calculation included an analysis of static stress at the bottom part of the concrete slab while
considering defective positions of dowels. Software ANSYS, with the use of detail spatial calculation
 Materials 2019, 12, 1669 6 of 15

models, modeled pavement structure, which consisted of a mechanically compacted aggregate layer
with the thickness of 250 mm and concrete slabs fitted with dowels and tie bars. Tie bars are made of
construction steel of 20 mm diameter and 800 mm length, and their central part is covered with a plastic
coating. Steel dowels, 25 mm diameter and 500 mm length, are smooth on the surface. The sliding
of dowels
Materials 2019, is
12,allowed
x FOR PEER byREVIEW
the plastic coating of an average width of 0.4 mm. The global calculation 6 of 15
model covers an area formed by 3.0 m × 3.0 m slabs. The detailed, more accurate, model includes
calculation
a transverse model
joint covers
with fivean dowels.
area formed
The by 3.0 m
global × 3.0 m slabs.
calculation model The detailed,
includes more accurate,
boundary model
conditions for
includes a transverse joint with five dowels. The global calculation model
the detailed model, global displacement and stress of the area. The cross cut of the concrete slab at includes boundary
conditions
the place of fortransverse
the detailed andmodel, global joints
longitudinal displacement and stress
is considered basedofonthethearea. The crossthat
assumption cutatofthese
the
concrete slab atthe
weaker spots theslabs
placewill
of transverse
be split intoand longitudinal
separate jointssegments
rectangular is considered
of 5.5based on m.
m × 4.5 theThe
assumption
thickness
that at these weaker spots the slabs will be split into separate rectangular segments
of concrete slabs is 240 mm, which is a similar value as the standard used thickness of concrete of 5.5 m × 4.5slabs
m.
The thickness of concrete slabs is 240 mm, which is a similar value as the standard
in the Czech Republic (Table 1). The dowels and tie bars are vertically placed so that the upper part used thickness of
concrete
of a steel slabs
dowelin the Czech
aligns withRepublic (Table
the central 1).ofThe
axis thedowels and horizontal
slab. The tie bars areplacement
vertically placed so that
is symmetrical
the upper part of a steel dowel aligns with the central axis of the slab. The horizontal
around the joint, whose parameters are shown in Figure 4. Seventeen dowels in total are placed in this placement is
symmetrical around the joint, whose parameters are shown in Figure 4. Seventeen
way (spacing 250 mm) for a single transverse joint and four tie bars (spacing 1500 mm) for a single dowels in total
are placed in this
longitudinal jointway (spacing
of the segment.250 mm) for a single transverse joint and four tie bars (spacing 1500
mm) for a single longitudinal joint of the segment.
Table 1. Material parameters and thickness of concrete pavement.
Table 1. Material parameters and thickness of concrete pavement.
Modulus E
No.
No. Layer
Layer Thickness (m)
Thickness (m) Modulus E (MPa)
Poisson Ratio (-)
Poisson Ratio (-)
(MPa)
1 Concrete slab 0.24 37 500 0.20
1 Concrete slab 0.24 37 500 0.20
2 Subbase (crushed aggregate) 0.30 600 0.25
2 Subbase (crushed aggregate) 0.30 600 0.25
3 Subgrade 2.50 120 0.33
-
3 Subgrade
Dowel -
2.50 210 000
120 0.33
0.27
-
- Dowel
Dowel coating -
- 200
210 000 0.27
0.40
- Dowel coating - 200 0.40

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure4.4.(a)
(a)Global;
Global;and
and(b)
(b)detailed
detailednumeric
numericmodel.
model.

Thecalculation
The calculation used
used a boundary
boundary condition
conditionofofthe thefixed
fixedplacement
placementin in
thethe
horizontal direction
horizontal and
direction
flexible
and placement
flexible (Winkler’s
placement model)
(Winkler’s in the in
model) vertical direction.
the vertical This boundary
direction. conditioncondition
This boundary was appliedwasto
the bottom part of the subbase aggregate layer. Winkler’s model of subgrade
applied to the bottom part of the subbase aggregate layer. Winkler’s model of subgrade works with works with modeling
of subgrade
modeling soil. Linear
of subgrade changes
soil. Linearinchanges
temperature along the concrete
in temperature along theslab thickness
concrete slabwere assigned
thickness werein
such way
assigned in that
suchthe
waytemperature of the bottom
that the temperature of thewas 0 ◦ C was
bottom and 0the and the−7
°Csurface ◦ C. The external load by
surface −7 °C. The external
dualby
load wheel
dualaxle of 50
wheel axlekNofforce,
50 kNrepresenting load by the
force, representing loadstandard design axle
by the standard (Czech
design axledesign
(Czechaxle), was
design
entered
axle), wasinto the numeric
entered model apart
into the numeric modelfrom its from
apart own itsweight and temperature
own weight load. The
and temperature load.axis
Theofaxis
one
ofwheel axle intersects
one wheel the axis
axle intersects ofaxis
the a dowel. The axis
of a dowel. The ofaxis
the second wheel axle
of the second wheelis located 344 mm344
axle is located apart
mmin
the Yin
apart direction. The diameter
the Y direction. of the contact
The diameter of theareas
contactis 240 mm.
areas These
is 240 areas
mm. are located
These areas areright next right
located to the
transverse
next joint edge joint
to the transverse of theedge
monitored slab (Figure
of the monitored 5). (Figure 5).
slab
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 7 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

(a)

(b)
Figure 5. (a) 5.
Figure Temperature gradient;
(a) Temperature and (b) dual
gradient; and wheel axlewheel
(b) dual on concrete
axle onpavement.
concrete pavement.

Spatial
Spatial models
models of theofpavement
the pavement
allowallow performing
performing different
different variants
variants of solutions
of solutions with with the
the inclusion
inclusion of dowels in different positions. Non-linear calculations were performed for 17 variants.
of dowels in different positions. Non-linear calculations were performed for 17 variants. A certain A
certain variant models the precise position of a dowel according to the project design. Another
variant models the precise position of a dowel according to the project design. Another variant models
variant models the missing dowel. Six variants model different vertical translations of dowels.
the missing dowel. Six variants model different vertical translations of dowels. Another six variants
Another six variants model different vertical tilts of dowels. Three variants model different
model different vertical
longitudinal tiltsof
translations ofdowels.
dowels.Each
Three variants
of the model
variants different
of defective longitudinal
dowels translations
was described by a of
dowels. Each of the variants of defective dowels was described by a calculation:
calculation:

• 
GlobalGlobal numeric
numeric modelmodel
ZS1 ZS1 (pavement
(pavement weight,
weight, temperaturefield);
temperature field);
•  Global numeric model ZS2 (load by
Global numeric model ZS2 (load by axle); axle);
 Local numeric model ZS1 (pavement weight, temperature field); and
• Local numeric model ZS1 (pavement weight, temperature field); and
 Local numeric model ZS2 (load by axle).
• Local numeric model ZS2 (load by axle).
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 8 of 15

Materials
Materials2019, 12,12,
2019, xx FOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 8 of 1515
8 of

TheThegoalgoal
of the calculation was to observe whether
whether a defective dowel position has an impact on
The goalofofthethecalculation
calculationwaswastotoobserve
observe whethera adefective
defectivedowel
dowelposition
positionhas
hasananimpact
impacton on
the stress
the at the bottom part of concrete slab and cracking potential of concrete in the vicinity of the
thestress
stressatatthe
thebottom
bottompart
partofofconcrete
concreteslab
slaband
andcracking
crackingpotential
potentialofofconcrete
concreteininthe
thevicinity
vicinityofofthe
the
dowel. Figure
dowel. 6 shows global positions of paths on which the resulting stress at
dowel. Figure 6 shows global positions of paths on which the resulting stress at the bottompart
Figure 6 shows global positions of paths on which the resulting stress at the
the bottom
bottom part of the
partofof
pavement
the was assessed.
thepavement
pavement was
wasassessed.
assessed.

Figure 6. 6.Global
Figure
Figure 6.Globalpositions
Globalpositions ofofpaths
positionsof paths
pathsatat bottom
atbottom parts
bottomparts
parts ofconcrete
concrete
ofofconcrete slabs.
slabs.
slabs.

AnAnanalysis
An analysis analysis ofofstress
of stress ofofthe
stress ofthe concrete
concrete
the around
arounddowels
concretearound dowelswas
dowels wasperformed
was performed
performed asaswell.
as Figure
well.
well. 7 7shows
Figure
Figure the
7 shows
shows the the
position
position
position of
of paths paths which
whichwhich
of paths were
were were evaluated
evaluated for stress.
for stress.
evaluated The
The The
for stress. paths
paths were
werewere
paths in
in the the close
in close vicinity
vicinity
the close of default
of default
vicinity dowels.
of default
dowels.
The paths
dowels. The
were paths
pathswere
Thealways always
in the
were ininthe
direction
always direction
theof ofofthe
the dowel.
direction dowel.
The
the path
dowel. The path
pathalways
always
The alwaysstarted
started at the at
started atthe
edge theedgetheofof
ofedge dowel
the dowel
the dowel onona anon-loaded
non-loaded concrete
concrete slab.
slab.The
Theend
end ofofthe
thepath
path was
was always
always located
located atatthe
the distance
distance ofof
on a non-loaded concrete slab. The end of the path was always located at the distance of 500 mm from
500
500mmmm from
from the front, i.e., at the other
otheredge
edgeofofwas
the
thedowel, which was
wason another concrete slab
the front, i.e., at the the
otherfront,
edge i.e.,
ofatthethedowel, which dowel,
on which
another concrete onslab
another
loaded concrete
by dual slab
wheel
loaded
loaded byby dual
dual wheel
wheel axle.
axle.Four
Four paths
paths were
were applied:
applied: two
two totoget
getcompressive
compressive stress
stressand
and two
two totoget
get
axle.tensile
Four stress.
paths were applied: two to get compressive stress and two to get tensile stress.
tensile stress.

Figure
Figure 7. 7.Position
Figure 7.Position
Positionofof
of paths
pathsled
paths ledin
led inconcrete
in concreteslab
concrete near
slab
slab defective
near
near dowel.
defective
defective dowel.
dowel.

3. Results andand
3.3.Results
Results Discussion
Discussion
and Discussion

3.1. SCIA
3.1. Nexis
3.1.SCIA
SCIA Results
Nexis
NexisResults
Results
The mentioned assumptions were applied for the calculation of a set of six slabs. The pavement
structure consisted of a concrete layer of 250 mm thickness, laid on a layer of asphalt concrete AC of
50 mm thickness, a cement bound granular mixture CBGM of 180 mm thickness, and a protection
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Materials
Materials The2019,
2019, 12, x FORassumptions
mentioned
12, 1669 PEER REVIEW were applied for the calculation of a set of six slabs. The pavement
9 9ofof
1515
structure consisted of a concrete layer of 250 mm thickness, laid on a layer of asphalt concrete AC of
50 mmThe mentioned
thickness, assumptions
a cement bound were applied
granular for the
mixture calculation
CBGM of 180 of
mm a set of six slabs.
thickness, and aThe pavement
protection
structure
gravel course
gravel consisted
courseof 270 mm
of 270 ofmm
a concrete
thickness. layer
TheThe
thickness. of scheme
250 mm
scheme ofthickness,
of the set set
the oflaid on aslabs
of concrete
concrete layer isof
slabs isasphalt
shown in concrete
shown Figure 8,AC
in Figure 8, of
which
50 mmalso
alsowhich
shows thickness,
theshows
load anda cement
the bound
evaluated granular
joint. mixture
the load and the evaluated joint. CBGM of 180 mm thickness, and a protection
gravel course of 270 mm thickness. The scheme of the set of concrete slabs is shown in Figure 8,
which also shows the load and the evaluated joint.

Figure 8. Scheme of concrete slabs.

Figure 8. Scheme of concrete slabs.

The calculations of LTE show the impact of load transfer values on the evaluated parameters.
The calculations of LTE show Figure the impact of load
8. Scheme transferslabs.
of concrete values on the evaluated parameters.
Figure 9 shows a comparison of deflections on the evaluated transverse joint at different degrees
Figure 9 shows a comparison of deflections on the evaluated transverse joint at different degrees of
of interaction.
interaction.
The calculations of LTE show the impact of load transfer values on the evaluated parameters.
In the
Figure 9first
In the shows case,
first orthotropy
case, orthotropyof
a comparison was
was considered
considered
deflections for evaluated
for
on the the evaluated
the evaluated transverse
transverse
transverse jointjointjoint
at without
without
different reduced
reduced
degrees of
stiffness
stiffnessmatrix
interaction.matrix elements (Figure 9a). In this case, stress had a value of 0.630 MPa on the loaded partpart
elements (Figure 9a). In this case, stress had a value of 0.630 MPa on the loaded
of the slab
of the and
Inslab
the and0.329
first 0.329MPa
case, MPa ononthe
orthotropy theadjacent
adjacent
was slab, which
slab, which
considered for the was
was around50%
around
evaluated 50% ofof
transversethethe value
value
joint on on
withoutthethe loaded
loaded
reduced
slabslab
part. The deflection here reached the value of 0.070 mm on the loaded
stiffness matrix elements (Figure 9a). In this case, stress had a value of 0.630 MPa on the loadedthe
part. The deflection here reached the value of 0.070 mm on the loaded partpartand and
0.0680.068mm mmon on the
part
non-loaded
non-loaded slabslab part,
part, therefore
therefore the
the interaction
interaction can
can be regarded
regarded asas very
of the slab and 0.329 MPa on the adjacent slab, which was around 50% of the value on the loadedvery good
good (97%).
(97%).
slab In another
In another
part. Thecase, case, when
when
deflection hereorthotropy
orthotropy
reached the wasvalue
was considered
of 0.070for
considered for
mm theonevaluated
the evaluated
the loaded transverse
part and joint,
transverse but
joint,
0.068 mmbut with
on with
the
reduced
reduced stiffness
stiffness
non-loaded slab matrix
matrix elements,
elements,the
part, therefore the values
theinteraction of parameters
values of parameters
can be regarded of subbase
of subbase
as very C1 C1 and
goodand C2 near the evaluated
C2 near the evaluated
(97%).
transverse
transverse joint
joint
In another were
were reduced
reduced
case, as well
as
when orthotropywell(Figurewas 9b).
(Figure TheThe
9b).
considered results
for show
results
the show that stress
evaluated on the on
that transverse
stress loaded
the
joint,slabbutpart
loaded slab
with
increased
partreduced
increased to the
stiffness value
to thematrix of 1.157
value elements, MPa,
of 1.157 MPa, but only
the values to the value
of parameters
but only to the value of 0.429
of subbase
of 0.429 C1MPa MPa on
andonthe
C2thenon-loaded
near part,
the evaluated
non-loaded part,
which was joint
transverse only were
aboutreduced
35%. Even though
as well the deflection
(Figure on this pavement structure
on the was higher in
which was only about 35%. Even though the 9b). The results
deflection show
on this that stress
pavement structure loaded
was slab partin
higher
comparison
increasedwith towith
the the previous example, reaching
only 0.260 themm on the loaded slabon part and 0.236 mm on
comparison thevalue
previousof 1.157 MPa, reaching
example, but to
0.260 value
mm onofthe 0.429
loadedMPa slab partthe non-loaded
and 0.236 mm part,
on
the non-loaded part, it was possible to regard the interaction as very good (90%).
which was only about 35%. Even though the deflection
the non-loaded part, it was possible to regard the interaction as very good (90%). on this pavement structure was higher in
In addition, a situation was modeled when the parameters of the transverse joint were reduced
comparison with the previous example, reaching the0.260 mm on the loaded slab partjoint and were
0.236 reduced
mm on
inIn addition,
greater degree a situation
and somewas modeled
of the parameterswhen had parameters
zero value. As of in the
the transverse
previous case, the values of
the non-loaded
in greater degree part,some
and it wasofpossible
the to regard the
parameters had interaction
zero value. as very
As ingood
the (90%).
previous case, the values
parameters of subbase C1 and C2 near the evaluated transverse joint were reduced, the values
In addition, a situation was modeled when the parameters of the transverse joint were reduced
of parameters
equaled zeroof subbase
under C1 and
the joint C2 9c).
(Figure near thecalculated
The evaluated transverse
stress on the loaded joint were
slab part reduced,
had a valuethe values
of
in greater degree and some of the parameters had zero value. As in the previous case, the values of
equaled
1.597 MPa and zero on the non-loaded part. No stress condition occurred on the adjacent slab adue
zero under the joint (Figure 9c). The calculated stress on the loaded slab part had value
to of
parameters of subbase C1 and C2 near the evaluated transverse joint were reduced, the values
1.597
thisMPa
load. and
Thezerostressoninthe
thisnon-loaded
case was nearly part.1.5Notimes
stress condition
higher than the occurred
stress inon thethe adjacent
previous caseslab due to
when
equaled zero under the joint (Figure 9c). The calculated stress on the loaded slab part had a value of
thisthe structure
load. behaves
The stress as acase
in this whole wasunit. The 1.5
nearly deflection reachedthan
times higher 0.391 the mm on the
stress loaded
in the slab part
previous caseand
when
1.597 MPa and zero on the non-loaded part. No stress condition occurred on the adjacent slab due to
0.106 mm on the non-loaded part, which was up to four times higher
the structure behaves as a whole unit. The deflection reached 0.391 mm on the loaded slab part and than in the first case. Therefore,
this load. The stress in this case was nearly 1.5 times higher than the stress in the previous case when
themm
0.106 interaction was really poor
on thebehaves
non-loaded part,(27%).
which wasdeflection
up to fourreached
times higher thanoninthe theloaded
first case.
the structure as a whole unit. The 0.391 mm slab Therefore,
part and
the 0.106
interaction was really poor (27%).
mm on the non-loaded part, which was up to four times higher than in the first case. Therefore,

(a)
(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 10 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

(c)

(d)
Figure
Figure 9. Comparison
9. Comparison ofof deflectionon
deflection ontransversal
transversaljoint
joint of
of concrete
concrete pavement
pavementatatdifferent
differentdegrees
degreesofof
interaction: (a) load diagram of transverse joint; (b) stiff subbase/good interaction; (c) soft
interaction: (a) load diagram of transverse joint; (b) stiff subbase/good interaction; (c) soft subbase/good
subbase/good
interaction and (d)interaction and (d) soft
soft subbase/poor subbase/poor interaction.
interaction.

TheThe adverse
adverse effect
effect of temperature
of temperature gradient
gradient on slab
on slab stress
stress can can be reduced
be reduced [28].[28].
ThisThis can occur
can occur when
designing concrete pavement for inside conditions, e.g., a tunnel. Stress was caused by an axleanload
when designing concrete pavement for inside conditions, e.g., a tunnel. Stress was caused by axleof
100load
and of 100
115 kNand 115the
and kNtemperature
and the temperature
gradientgradient inside
inside was 10 was
◦ C −10 °C◦ C
2.2 − 2.2 °C ◦=C7.8
= 7.8 °C (marked
(marked as Kas K
INT),
INT), compared to that in the outer area, which was 35 °C◦− 6.6 °C =◦28.4 °C (marked as K EX).
compared to that in the outer area, which was 35 C − 6.6 C = 28.4 C (marked as K EX).
◦
Tables 2 and 3 show an overview of calculated load stress for these two temperature gradients
Tables 2 and 3 show an overview of calculated load stress for these two temperature gradients
at the bottom of the slab. The stresses induced by the temperature gradient alone are shown in
at the bottom of the slab. The stresses induced by the temperature gradient alone are shown in
Figure 10a,b.
Figure 10a,b.
Table 2. Calculated stress in concrete slab structure K EX.
Table 2. Calculated stress in concrete slab structure K EX.
Position Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)
Structure Position Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)
Structure of of
the Load
the Load
Load 100 kN
Load 100 kN
Load 115
Load 115 kN
kN Temperature
Temperature
1
1

center
center
0.781
0.781 0.881
0.881 1.753
1.753
K EXK EX longitudinal
longitudinaledge
edge 1.237
1.237 1.4091.409 1.468 1.468
transverseedge
transverse edge 1.272
1.272 1.4461.446 1.404 1.404
11 Temperature gradient ◦
Temperature gradient0.3
0.3C°C
per mm.
per mm.

Table 3. 3.Calculated
Table Calculatedstress
stressin
inconcrete
concrete slab
slab structure K INT.
structure K INT.

Structure Position
Position Stress
Stress (MPa) Stress
(MPa) Stress
(MPa)(MPa) StressStress
(MPa) (MPa)
Structure of the Load Load 100 kN Load 115 kN Temperature 1
of the Load Load 100 kN Load 115 kN Temperature 1
center 0.757 0.854 0.588
center 0.757 0.854 0.588
K INT longitudinal edge 1.232 1.337 0.482
K INT longitudinal edge
transverse edge 1.232
1.170 1.3891.337 0.499 0.482
transverse1edge 1.170 0.1 ◦ C per mm. 1.389
Temperature gradient 0.499
1 Temperature gradient 0.1 °C per mm.
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 11 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

For the given conditions, the calculations of stress were made on the K EX and K INT structures.
For the given conditions, the calculations of stress were made on the K EX and K INT structures.
Regarding both structures, the length of slabs was 5.0 m and the width was 3.5 m. The stress at the
Regarding both structures, the length of slabs was 5.0 m and the width was 3.5 m. The stress at the
bottom of the slab calculated while taking into account the temperature effect inside (K INT) was
bottom of the slab calculated while taking into account the temperature effect inside (K INT) was
lower than when dealing with the pavement outside (K EX). This difference was based on lower
lower than when dealing with the pavement outside (K EX). This difference was based on lower
temperature gradient and the fact that the structure (K INT) was designed for the central part of the
temperature gradient and the fact that the structure (K INT) was designed for the central part of the
tunnel. In contrast to the point of maximum load-induced stress, the temperature-induced maximum
tunnel. In contrast to the point of maximum load-induced stress, the temperature-induced
stress was in the center of the slab.
maximum stress was in the center of the slab.

(a)

(b)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Stress
Stress distributions
distributions(σ(σx,x ,σσ in concrete slabs: (a) temperature gradient 0.3 C ◦per mm (K
y) )
y in concrete slabs: (a) temperature gradient 0.3 C per mm
INT); and (b) temperature gradient
(K INT); and (b) temperature gradient 0.10.1 C◦per mm
C per mm(K (K
EX).
EX).

3.2. ANSYS Results

3.2. ANSYS Results

3.2.1. Stress at
3.2.1. Stress at Bottom
Bottom Part
Part of
of Concrete
Concrete Slab
Slab
The
The calculation
calculation results
results of
of horizontal
horizontal tensile stress at
tensile stress at the
the bottom
bottom part
part of
of the
the slab
slab joint
joint under
under the
the
dowels were only slightly influenced by the investigated misalignment positions
dowels were only slightly influenced by the investigated misalignment positions of dowels, of dowels, and they
and
nearly always
they nearly ranged
always 0.94–1.05
ranged MPa for
0.94–1.05 slabs
MPa forofslabs
300 mm thickness
of 300 and 1.2–1.3
mm thickness and MPa forMPa
1.2–1.3 slabsfor
of 250 mm
slabs of
thickness, which are low values (Table 4). In addition, with the typical increase by 50%,
250 mm thickness, which are low values (Table 4). In addition, with the typical increase by 50%, the the tensile stress
at the bottom
tensile stress atslab
the (reinforced
bottom slabby dowels) did
(reinforced not exceed
by dowels) didthe
notvalue
exceedrequired
the valueforrequired
concretefor
pavement
concrete
class I, i.e., 4.5 MPa.
pavement class I, i.e., 4.5 MPa.
 Materials
Materials 2019,
2019, 12,12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
1669 12 of
1215
of 15

Table 4. Results of stress at bottom part of concrete slab.

Table 4. Results of stress at bottom part of concrete slab.
Stress σy (MPa)
Variant Description
on SlabσBottom
Stress y (MPa)
Variant Description
V1 1.386
on Slab Bottom Basic variant
V1 V2 1.527
1.386 Missing adjoining dowel
Basic variant
V2 V3 1.387
1.527 Vertical Translation
Missing adjoining dowel
V3 V4 1.387
1.387 Vertical Translation (upwards)
Vertical Translation40 mm
V4 V5 1.387
1.386 VerticalVertical Translation
Translation (upwards)
(upwards) 60 mm40 mm
V5 V6 1.386
1.397 Vertical Translation (upwards)
Vertical Translation (downwards) 20 mm 60 mm
V6 V7 1.397
1.412 Vertical Translation (downwards)
Vertical Translation (downwards) 40 mm 20 mm
V7 1.412 Vertical Translation (downwards) 40 mm
V8 1.425 Vertical Translation (downwards) 60 mm
V8 1.425 Vertical Translation (downwards) 60 mm
V9 V9 1.387
1.387 Vertical Tilt (away
Vertical from the
Tilt (away fromforce) 20 mm
the force) 20 mm
V10 V10 1.390
1.390 Vertical Tilt (away from the force)
Vertical Tilt (away from the force)40 mm40 mm
V11 V11 1.392
1.392 VerticalVertical
Tilt (away from the
Tilt (away fromforce) 60 mm
the force) 60 mm
V12 V12 1.385
1.385 VerticalVertical Tilt (towards
Tilt (towards the force)
the force) 20 mm20 mm
V13 V13 1.383
1.383 VerticalVertical Tilt (towards
Tilt (towards the force)
the force) 40 mm40 mm
V14 1.380 Vertical Tilt (towards the force) 60 mm
V14 1.380 Vertical Tilt (towards the force) 60 mm
V15 1.405 Longitudinal Translation (away from the force) 20 mm
V15 1.405 Longitudinal Translation (away from the force) 20 mm
V16 1.402 Longitudinal Translation (away from the force) 40 mm
V17 V16 1.402
1.478 Longitudinal Translation
Longitudinal (away(away
Translation from from
the force) 40 mm
the force) 60 mm
V17 1.478 Longitudinal Translation (away from the force) 60 mm

3.2.2. Stress around Dowel of Concrete Slab

3.2.2. Stress around Dowel of Concrete Slab
TheThecalculation helped
calculation to obtain
helped the field
to obtain the of displacement,
field deformation,
of displacement, and stress
deformation, andfor individual
stress for
models (global and detailed), steps (ZS1 and ZS2) and variants. The FEM analysis
individual models (global and detailed), steps (ZS1 and ZS2) and variants. The FEM analysis determined tensile
stress of the surrounding
determined concrete
tensile stress of the for each dowelconcrete
surrounding positionfor
(5.5–14
each MPa)
doweland initiated
position a potential
(5.5–14 MPa) andrisk of
cracking
initiated(approximated
a potential risktensile strength
of cracking (approximated fct = 2.3
of concretetensile MPa) of
strength (Table 5). The
concrete fct = course
2.3 MPa)of (Table
stress in
surrounding concrete (V1) is shown in Figure 11.
5). The course of stress in surrounding concrete (V1) is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Main tensile stress in concrete for variant V12, Path 4.
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 13 of 15

The lowest values of tensile stress were identified in Variants V10 and V11, when the dowel was
tilted towards the load by the axle. The highest value of tensile stress was identified in Variant V14,
when the dowel was tilted out of the load by the axle. Therefore, it was possible to see the highest
sensitivity of tensile stress to the tilt of the dowel position.
The calculated extreme values of compressive stress had a similar trend (regarding the variants) to
the one of tensile stress. In no variants did compressive stress (11–30 MPa) reach compressive strength
of the material (fct = 32 MPa)—in accordance with the requirements of standard CSN EN 13877-1.
Consequently, concrete cracking will not occur.

Table 5. Results of stress around dowel.

Tensile Stress σy Compressive

Variant Description
(MPa) Stress σy (MPa)
V1 10.2 26.7 Basic variant
V2 11.5 30.3 Missing adjoining dowel
V3 9.2 26.4 Vertical Translation
V4 9.4 27.0 Vertical Translation (upwards) 40 mm
V5 9.0 26.8 Vertical Translation (upwards) 60 mm
V6 10.9 26.5 Vertical Translation (downwards) 20 mm
V7 12.0 27.1 Vertical Translation (downwards) 40 mm
V8 12.4 25.1 Vertical Translation (downwards) 60 mm
V9 9.0 23.3 Vertical Tilt (away from the force) 20 mm
V10 5.7 17.6 Vertical Tilt (away from the force) 40 mm
V11 5.5 14.8 Vertical Tilt (away from the force) 60 mm
V12 10.2 23.4 Vertical Tilt (towards the force) 20 mm
V13 11.5 25.1 Vertical Tilt (towards the force) 40 mm
V14 14.2 26.6 Vertical Tilt (towards the force) 60 mm
V15 9.6 23.1 Longitudinal Translation (away from the force) 20 mm
V16 9.7 26.2 Longitudinal Translation (away from the force) 40 mm
V17 8.0 21.2 Longitudinal Translation (away from the force) 60 mm

4. Conclusions
This paper presents main findings of FWD measurements on airport and road concrete pavements
with used dowels in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The results of the measurements show the low
values of load transfer efficiency at transverse joints.
It is shown that software SCIA, ANSYS, etc. can be used for designing and assessment of concrete
pavements. The causes were investigated with using the finite element method for modeling of stress
on concrete pavement edges. The calculations were made in SCIA Nexis software. Modeling of
stress conditions in the vicinity of in-built dowels was carried out by the FEM method in ANSYS
software. The results were used for analyzing the importance of correct positions of dowels in concrete
pavements and determining technological tolerances for their positions. In the Czech Republic, the
permitted misalignment of dowel positions from the position designed in the documentation are
defined in standard CSN 73 6123-1. Further research with laboratory tests (importance of position,
diameter and quality of dowel coating) and measurements of deformations on real road pavements
structures with the use of strain gauges will support theoretical results. Based on the performed
experiments and modeling results, revision of allowed misalignment of the dowels could lead to
updates of this standard.
The world research of dowels and experience with their application lead to using bigger diameter
of dowels in relation to JPCP thickness and number of load applications. Therefore, the research results
were applied in the revision of standard TP 098 Design of Road Concrete Pavements in Slovakia where
30 mm dowel diameter needs to be used for highways and allows designing and assessment of roads
by the finite element method.
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 14 of 15

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.G. and A.Z.; methodology, A.Z.; software, J.G and A.Z.; validation,
J.G. and A.Z.; formal analysis, A.Z.; investigation, J.G., A.Z. and I.B.; resources, A.Z. and I.B.; data curation, J.G.,
A.Z. and I.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.; writing—review and editing, J.G. and A.Z.; visualization,
J.G.; supervision, A.Z.; project administration, J.G. and I.B.; and funding acquisition, J.G. and A.Z.
Funding: The article was written with the financial support of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports within
the National Sustainability Programme I, project of Transport R&D Centre (LO1610), on the research infrastructure
acquired from the Operation Programme Research and Development for Innovations (CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0064) and
VEGA 1/0351/13: Traffic areas structures in integrated transport space.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. AASHTO. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures; American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
2. ACPA. Stitching Concrete pavement cracks and joints, Special Report SR903P; American Concrete Pavement
Association: Skokie, IL, USA, 2001.
3. ACPA. Guide Specification: Dowel Bar Alignment and Location for Placement by Mechanical Dowel Bar Insertion;
American Concrete Pavement Association: Skokie, IL, USA, 2013.
4. TP 92. Design maintenance and repair of concrete pavement; Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing:
Prague, Czech Republic, 2010.
5. COST 336. Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer in Pavement Evaluation (final report), 2nd ed.; COST: Brussels,
Belgium, 2005.
6. BAST HEFT S65: Untersuchungen von Dübel lagen zur Optimierung des Betondeckenbaus, Berichte der Bundesanstalt
für Straßenwesen; Federal Highway Research Institute: Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, 2010.
7. Larson, R.; Smith, K. Evaluation of alternative dowel bar materials and coatings; Applied Pavement Technology
Inc.: Columbus, OH, USA, 2011.
8. Khazanovich, L.; Neeraj, B.; Alex, G. Evaluation of Alignment Tolerances for Dowels and their Effects on Joint
Performance; Michigan State University: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2001.
9. Shoukry, S.N.; William, G.W.; Riad, M. Evaluation of Load Transfer Efficiency Measurement; West Virginia
University College of Engineering and Mineral Resources: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2005.
10. NCC. Recommendations for Standardization of Dowel Load Transfer Systems for Jointed Concrete Roadway Pavements;
Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2011.
11. NCHRP. Report 637: Guidelines for Dowel Alignment in Concrete Pavements; National Cooperative Highway
Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
12. Villaret, S. Imperfektionen der Dübellage—Einfluss auf die Dauerhaftigkeit der Betondecke. In Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference of Concrete Pavements, Prague, Czech Republic, 17 May 2012; pp. 79–83.
13. Zuzulova, A. Efficiency of Dowels in Concrete Pavement. In Research and technical development in road
construction, XIXth Seminar of Ivan Poliacek with International Participation; Kongres STUDIO: Bratislava,
Slovakia, 2014; pp. 179–184.
14. EN 13877-1. Concrete pavements—Part 1: Materials; Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing:
Prague, Czech Republic, 2006.
15. EN 13877-2. Concrete pavements—Part 2: Functional requirements for concrete pavement; Czech Office for
Standards, Metrology and Testing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2006.
16. EN 13877-3. Concrete pavements—Part 3: Specification for dowels to be used in concrete pavements; Czech Office
for Standards, Metrology and Testing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2006.
17. ČSN 736123-1. Road building—Concrete pavements—Part 1: Construction and conformity assessment; Czech
Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2014.
18. Stryk, J.; Herrmann, P.; Chupik, V. Certified methodology: Technical regulation for measurement and evaluation of
bearing capacity of pavements using FWD equipment; Transport Research Centre: Brno, Czech Republic, 2013.
19. FHWA 2007. Best Practices for Dowel Placement Tolerances, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-HIF-07-021. Available online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/07021/ (accessed
on 1 June 2007).
Materials 2019, 12, 1669 15 of 15

20. Li, L.; Tan, Y.; Gong, X.; Li, Y. Characterization of Contact Stresses Between Dowels and Surrounding Concrete
in Jointed Concrete Pavement. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Concrete Pavements,
Québec, Canada, 8–12 June 2012.
21. Nishizawa, T.; Ozeki, T.; Kawano, H. Surface Stresses of Thick Concrete Pavement Slabs Due To Traffic Loads
and Non-Linear Temperature Distributions. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Concrete
Pavements, Québec, Canada, 8–12 June 2012.
22. Shoukry, S.N.; William, G.W.; Riad, M. Application of LS-DYNA in Identifying Critical Stresses Around
Dowels. In Proceedings of the 8th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, Detroit, MI, USA, 2–4 May 2004.
23. Mackiewicz, P. Analysis of stresses in concrete pavement under a dowel according to its diameter and load
transfer efficiency. Can. J. Transp. Eng. 2015, 141, 845–853. [CrossRef]
24. Mackiewicz, P. Thermal stress analysis of jointed plane in concrete pavements. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 73,
1167–1174. [CrossRef]
25. Channakeshava, C.; Barzegar, F.; Voyiadjis, G.Z. Non-linear FE analysis of plain concrete pavements with
doweled joints. J. Transp. Eng. 1993, 119, 763–781. [CrossRef]
26. Sii, H.B.; Chai, G.W.; van Staden, R.; Guan, H. Effect of dowel looseness on response of jointed concrete
pavements using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 900, 435–444. [CrossRef]
27. Davids, W.G. 3D finite element study on load transfer at doweled joints in flat and curled rigid pavements.
Inter. J. Geomech. 2001, 1, 309–323. [CrossRef]
28. Salajka, V.; Čada, Z. Final Report: Variant calculation of the influence dowel position on the concrete slabs stress, first
series; FCE VUT Brno: Brno-střed, Czech Republic, 2013.
29. TP 098. Design of concrete pavements on motorways; Slovak Road Administration: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2015.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).