Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF JOINTED PLAIN CONCRETE PAVEMENT Everfe2.2 PDF
3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF JOINTED PLAIN CONCRETE PAVEMENT Everfe2.2 PDF
University of Maine
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
5711 Boardman Hall
Orono, ME 04469-5711
University of Washington
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Box 352700
Seattle, WA 98195-2700
Word count: 7,490 (text @ 5,240 words including Abstract and References + 1 table @ 250
words + 8 figures @ 250 words each)
ABSTRACT
The features and concepts underlying EverFE2.2, a freely available 3D finite element
program for the analysis of jointed plain concrete pavements, are detailed. The functionality of
EverFE has been greatly extended since its original release: multiple tied slab/shoulder units can
be modeled, dowel misalignment and/or mislocation can be specified on a per-dowel basis,
nonlinear thermal or shrinkage gradients can be treated, and nonlinear horizontal shear stress
transfer between the slabs and base can be simulated. Improvements have also been made to the
user interface, including easier load creation, user-specified mesh refinement, and expanded
visualization capabilities. This manuscript details these new features and explains the concepts
behind the implementation of EverFE2.2. In addition, the results of two parametric studies are
reported. The first study considers the effects of dowel locking and slab-base shear transfer, and
demonstrates that these factors can significantly affect the stresses in slabs subjected to both
uniform shrinkage and thermal gradients. The second study examines transverse joint mislocation
and dowel looseness on joint load transfer. As expected, joint load transfer is greatly reduced by
dowel looseness. However, while transverse joint mislocation can significantly reduce peak
dowel shears, it has relatively little effect on total load transferred across the joint for the models
considered here.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 2
INTRODUCTION
The use of three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) methods for analyzing rigid
pavements subjected to mechanical and environmental loadings has grown significantly over the
past decade. The increased use of 3D FE analysis has provided pavement researchers and
designers with a better understanding of critical aspects of pavement response that cannot be
captured with analytical solutions, such as joint load transfer (1, 2), the effect of slab support on
stresses (3), and pavement response under dynamic loads (4, 5).
However, there are many aspects of rigid pavement behavior that have not been
thoroughly studied with 3D FE analysis. This can be attributed to several factors, including the
complexity of concrete pavement structures (especially joint load transfer mechanisms), the need
to consider both environmental and mechanical load effects, the difficulty of model generation
and result interpretation, and the relatively long solution times required for large 3D FE analyses.
These factors become especially challenging for the analyst when general-purpose FE programs
are used. To circumvent these issues, 3D FE analysis packages have been developed specifically
for analyzing rigid pavements (6, 7). EverFE1.02, which was first made available in 1998 (7),
addressed these difficulties through the use of an interactive graphical user interface allowing
easy model definition and visualization of results, specialized techniques for modeling both
dowel and aggregate interlock joint load transfer (2, 8), and fast iterative solution strategies that
allow the inclusion of inequality constraints for modeling slab-base separation and material
nonlinearity (9).
Recently, EverFE2.2 has been developed, which retains the original capabilities of
EverFE1.02 while incorporating the following features that substantially extend its usefulness:
• The ability to model tied adjacent slabs and shoulders. Multi-slab-shoulder
systems can be modeled, and transverse tie bars are explicitly incorporated.
• Extended dowel modeling capabilities. Dowel-slab interaction can be captured
via either the specification of dowel looseness or springs sandwiched between the
dowels and slabs, and the effect of dowel misalignment/mislocation can be
simulated.
• Modeling of nonlinear thermal gradients. Bilinear or trilinear thermal gradients
through the pavement thickness can be specified.
• Simulation of slab-base interaction. Separation of the base and slab under tension
is handled via inequality constraints, and intermediate degrees of horizontal slab-
base shear transfer can be captured.
• Expanded post-processing capabilities. In addition to visualizing slab stresses
and displacements – as well as retrieving precise stress and displacement values
at specific coordinates – the user can view shears and moments in individual
dowels.
• Expanded library of axle loads. Loads ranging from single wheels to dual-wheel,
tandem axles can be quickly created, positioned and deleted as shown in Figure
1(a).
This manuscript details the features of EverFE2.2 and the concepts underlying the
implementation, with a primary focus on the modeling of the dowels and ties, treatment of
nonlinear thermal gradients, and simulation of slab-base interaction. In addition, the results of
parametric studies that consider the effects of dowel locking, slab-base shear transfer, and
transverse joint mislocation on pavement response are reported to illustrate the flexibility and
modeling cababilities of EverFE2.2.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 3
FEATURES OF EverFE2.2
EverFE2.2 employs several element types to discretize concrete pavement systems
having from one to nine slab/shoulder units. Up to three elastic base layers can be specified below
the slab, and the subgrade is idealized as either a tensionless or tension-supporting dense liquid
foundation. Twenty-noded quadratic hexahedral elements are used to discretize the slabs and
elastic base layers (10), and the dense liquid foundation is incorporated via numerically
integrated, 8-noded quadratic elements that are meshed with the bottom-most layer of solid
elements. Linear or nonlinear aggregate interlock joint load transfer as well as dowel load transfer
can be modeled at transverse joints. Load transfer across longitudinal joints via transverse tie bars
can also be modeled. Figure 1b is a screen shot of the EverFE2.2 meshing panel, showing many
of the basic elements (the user can selectively refine the number of elements used to discretize the
slabs and base/subgrade layers). The remainder of this section highlights significant features that
are new to EverFE2.2; see (2, 8, 11) for detailed discussions of the basic components, including
the nonlinear aggregate interlock modeling capabilities.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 4
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 5
stresses in slabs that are simultaneously subjected to a uniform temperature change and a negative
thermal gradient (1). Prior studies (14,15) have also concluded that shear transfer at the slab-base
interface can significantly affect slab stresses. Here, we will use EverFE2.2 to simulate the effect
of dowel locking on a rigid pavement system subjected to a variety of thermal and self-weight
loadings. The degree of slab-base interaction will also be varied to study the effect of this
important parameter on response.
Model Description
A three-slab system was modeled to capture the effect of the restraint provided by
adjacent slabs. The 250 mm thick slabs were 4600 mm long and 3600 mm wide, with a modulus
of elasticity, E, of 03DD3RLVVRQ¶VUDWLR RIDFRHIILFLHQWRIWKHUPDOH[SDQVLRQRI
1.1x10-5 per 0C, and a density of 2400 kg/m3. The slabs were founded on a 150 mm thick asphalt-
treated base having E 03D DQGDGHQVLW\RINJP3. The dense liquid
foundation was assumed to have a modulus of subgrade reaction of 0.03 MPa/mm. Each
transverse joint had eleven 32 mm diameter, 450 mm long dowels spaced at 300 mm on center.
The finite element mesh is shown in Figure 4, and had 3024 solid elements. The center slab was
meshed with 18x18 elements in plan, and the outer slabs were meshed more coarsely as they are
of secondary interest.
The analyses considered dowels that were both locked and unbonded (free slip). In all
cases the locked and unbonded dowels were assumed to have no looseness (i.e. provided
maximum vertical joint load transfer). No tensile bond stresses were allowed between the slab
and base, but three levels of slab-base shear transfer were considered in the analyses to capture
the effect of this important parameter. The “low” degree of slab-base interaction corresponded to
a slab-base interface shear stiffness kSB of 0.0001 MPa/mm, which is the minimum value used by
EverFE2.2; this value might be expected when a bond-breaker such as polyethylene sheeting is
placed on the base prior to the slab pour. (We note that kSB cannot be taken as zero as the slabs
would be horizontally unrestrained, giving an unstable model.) The “intermediate” slab-base
shear transfer parameters were kSB = 0.035 MPaPPDQG o = 0.60 mm, which correspond to an
asphalt-treated base (15). The “high” slab-base shear transfer parameters of kSB = 0.416 MPa/mm
DQG o = 0.25 mm are reported in (15) for a hot-mix asphalt concrete base.
Five load cases were considered: (1) a uniform temperature change of -10 0C (DL – T);
(2) a positive thermal gradient of 0.032 0C/mm (DL T); (3) a negative thermal gradient of -
0.032 0C/mm (DL – T); (4) a positive thermal gradient of 0.032 0C/mm plus a uniform
temperature drop of -10 0C (DL T – T); (5) a negative thermal gradient of -0.032 0C/mm plus a
uniform temperature change of -10 0C (DL – T – T). The term “DL” refers to model self-weight.
7KHXQLIRUPWHPSHUDWXUHFKDQJHLVHTXLYDOHQWWRDXQLIRUPVODEVKULQNDJHRI
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 6
DL T – T load case with intermediate slab-base shear transfer (although the overall stresses
are higher than for DL T – T). This difference can be attributed to the fact that under DL T
– T, the bottom of the slab is shrinking under a net temperature change of –14 0C. This causes
shear stresses at the slab-base interface that are concentrated near the edges of the slab and act
away from the slab center which tend to increase tensile stresses in the bottom of the slab
significantly more than dowel locking alone. In contrast, under DL – T – T the net temperature
change at the bottom of the slab is only –6 0C, and the resulting shear stresses, which are
concentrated near the center of the slab, tend to reduce the peak tensile stress which occurs at the
top of the slab. Further, the ends of the slab are not in contact with the base due to slab lift-off
(see Figure 5). As a result, the increase in tensile stress arising from the restraining effect of the
dowels is more pronounced.
One counter-intuitive result is the 28% decrease in slab stresses due to dowel locking
under DL + T – T with a high degree of slab-base shear transfer. This can be explained by the
fact that dowel locking tends to prevent contraction of the bottom of the slab, reducing the
relative displacements between the slab and base and thus the shear at the slab-base interface near
the transverse joints. In fact, the maximum relative x-direction displacement between the central
slab and base predicted by EverFE, which occurs at the slab ends, is 0.078 mm when dowel
ORFNLQJH[LVWVJLYLQJ 03D,QFRQWUDst, when there is no dowel locking, the x-direction
UHODWLYHGLVSODFHPHQWVDWWKHVODEHQGVDUHPPLPSO\LQJWKDWWKHSHDNYDOXHRI 0 =
0.104 MPa. As discussed above, this reduction in slab stress with dowel locking was not observed
for the intermediate degree of slab-base interaction, where the reduced stiffness kSB of the slab-
base interface allows a relative x-direction displacement of 0.208 mm when the dowels are locked
and 0.308 mm when the dowels are unbonded. These values result in relatively low slab-base
interface shear stresses of 0.0073 MPa and 0.011 MPa, respectively. This explanation was further
verified by running simulations where the effect of the degree of bond between the dowels and
slabs on slab stress was simulated by varying the dowel-slab axial restraint modulus. Figure 6
shows the results of these analyses for models with both high and intermediate degrees of slab-
base shear transfer subjected to DL T – T. We note the increase in slab stresses with
increasing dowel-slab restraint modulus for the case of intermediate slab-base shear transfer.
Conversely, slab stresses decrease with increasing dowel-slab restraint modulus assuming a high
degree of slab-base shear transfer. For both degrees of slab-base shear transfer, the limiting
stresses given in Table 1 bound the results shown in Figure 6.
Increasing slab-base shear transfer tends to increase slab stresses significantly for most
loadings. As expected, when kSB = 0.0001 MPa/mm there are no slab stresses for the DL – T load
case, as shrinkage is effectively unrestrained; however, significant tensile stresses are observed
for DL – T loading with intermediate slab-base shear transfer for both locked and unlocked
dowels. The effect of increasing slab-base shear transfer is also dramatic for the model with
locked dowels subjected to DL – T – T, where slab stresses increase 44% as slab-base shear
transfer increases from low to high. Only the DL – T – T loading with unbonded dowels shows a
decrease in slab stresses with increasing slab-base shear transfer. This decrease results from the
increased shear stresses between the slab and base under uniform temperature shrinkage that tend
to reduce the peak tensile stress at the top of the slab.
In general, the results of the simulations indicate that there is a complex interaction
between dowel locking, slab-base interaction, and thermal loading. The need for 3D analysis (as
opposed to 1D or 2D) when simulating both thermal gradients and shrinkage is evident: even
under uniform shrinkage the slab-base shear stresses acting at the bottom of the slab result in
slab-base separation and a non-uniform distribution of stresses over the slab thickness due to the
eccentricity of the shear stress with respect to the center of gravity of the slab. However, it must
be noted that creep of both the slab and base, which is not considered by EverFE2.2, will mitigate
these stress increases.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 7
Model Description
The finite element model used in this parametric study has the same slab dimensions and
material properties assumed in the previous parametric study. However, only two slabs are
modeled as the focus is joint load transfer, and the slab-base shear transfer parameters were fixed
at kSB 03DPPDQG 0 = 0.60 mm. The only load case considered is an 80-kN dual-wheel
axle located at the joint and centered transversely on the left-hand slab combined with a negative
thermal gradient of -0.032 0C/mm. Each slab was discretized with 18x18 elements in plan, and
the slab and base each had 2 elements through their thickness.
Two primary parameters are considered in the analyses: dowel mislocation (simulated
through specification of xDVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHDDQGGRZHOORRVHQHVV9DOXHVRI x ranged
from –PPWRPPZKHUH x = 0 corresponds to a perfectly located sawn joint; note that a
QHJDWLYHYDOXHRI x corresponds to a joint sawn too far to the right (i.e. more of the dowel is
located in the loaded slab than in the unloaded slab). Dowel looseness was simulated by explicitly
modeling gaps between 0 mm to 0.2 mm between the dowels and slabs, which can have
significant effects on joint load transfer (8, 17, 18). The gaps were assumed to vary parabolically
along the embedded portions of each dowel, with no gap at the dowel start/end and the maximum
gap at the joint. To ensure sufficient potential points of nodal contact between the dowels and
slabs, 24 three-noded flexural elements were used to discretize each dowel.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 8
may produce high, localized stresses in the concrete surrounding the dowels that the models
employed here cannot capture. However, the need for 3D analysis to simulate these effects is
evident.
• Slab stresses can be highly affected by shear transfer between the slab and base. In
turn, the degree of slab-base shear depends on base type and the particular
environmental loading (combination of temperature gradient and uniform shrinkage)
considered in an analysis. The complex interaction between the effect of slab-base
shear transfer and dowel locking is best captured with 3D finite-element analysis.
• Dowel locking can have an effect on pavement stresses. The effect of dowel locking
on stresses due to pure shrinkage and combined shrinkage and thermal gradients is
significant for the range of slab-base shear transfer values considered here. The effect
of dowel locking was most pronounced for a combined negative thermal gradient and
shrinkage, producing an increase in peak tensile stress of 81% when there is a high
degree of slab-base shear transfer.
• Mislocation of transverse doweled joints can affect joint load transfer. When
moderate degrees of dowel looseness exist (0.05 – 0.10 mm), peak dowel shears can
be reduced significantly by joint mislocation. However, due to equalization of dowel
shears, the total load transferred across the joint remains relatively constant even with
a mislocation of the transverse joint approaching half the embedded length of the
dowel.
• Dowel looseness has a large effect on joint load transfer. Parabolically varying gaps
around the dowels as small as 0.20 mm can reduce joint load transfer by a much as
73% under a combined 80 kN axle load and negative thermal gradient.
These parametric studies have not fully explored the features of EverFE2.2, and we
expect it to be a valuable tool for a wide range of problems in the forensic analysis of pavements
as well as pavement design. EverFE2.2 is freely available, and documentation and details for
obtaining EverFE2.2 can be found at http://cae4.ce.washington.edu/everfe/.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EverFE2.2 was developed with financial support from the Washington and California
State Departments of Transportation. The authors would particularly like to thank Ms. Linda
Pierce of WSDOT and Dr. John Harvey of the University of California at Davis for their valuable
advice and input during the development of EverFE2.2.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 10
REFERENCES
1. William, G.W. and Shoukry, S.N. 3D Finite Element Analysis of Temperature-Induced
Stresses in Dowel Jointed Concrete Pavements. International Journal of Geomechanics,
1(3):291 – 308, 2001.
2. Davids, W. and J. Mahoney. Experimental Verification of Rigid Pavement Joint Load
Transfer Modeling with EverFE. Transportation Research Record 1684, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 81 – 89.
3. Kuo, C., K. Hall, and M. Darter. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Model for Analysis of
Concrete Pavement Support. Transportation Research Record 1505, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 119 – 127.
4. Shoukry, S.M. Backcalculation of Thermally Deformed Concrete Pavements. Transportation
Research Record 1716, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 64 –
72.
5. Vepa, T.S. and K.P. George. Deflection Response Models for Cracked Rigid Pavements.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 123(5)377 – 384, 1997.
6. Brill, D.R. and Parsons, I.D. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis in Airport
Pavement Design. International Journal of Geomechanics, 1(3):273 – 290, 2001.
7. Davids, W., G. Turkiyyah, and J. Mahoney. EverFE: Rigid Pavement 3D Finite Element
Analysis Tool. Transportation Research Record 1629, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 44 – 49.
8. Davids, W.G. “Effect of Dowel Looseness on Response of Jointed Concrete Pavements.”
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 126(1):50-57, 2000.
9. Davids, W. and G. Turkiyyah. Multigrid Preconditioner for Unstructured Nonlinear 3D FE
Models. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 125(2):186 – 196, 1999.
10. Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.L. The Finite Element Method, Volume 1 (4th Ed.). McGraw
Hill Book Company, London, 1994.
11. Davids, W. and Turkiyyah, G. Development of Embedded Bending Member to Model Dowel
Action. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 123(10):1312 – 1320, 1997.
12. Masad, E., R. Taha, and B. Muhunthan. Finite Element Analysis of Temperature Effects in
Plain-Jointed Concrete Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE,
122(5):388 – 398, 1997.
13. Pane, I., W. Hansen, and A.R. Mohamed. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Study on
Effects of Nonlinear Temperature Gradients in Concrete Pavements. Transportation
Research Record 1629, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 58 –
66.
14. Rasmussen, R.O. and Rozycki, D.K. Characterization and Modeling of Axial Slab-Support
Restraint. Transportation Research Record 1778, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 26 – 32.
15. Zhang, J. and Li, V.C. Influence of Supporting Base Characteristics on Shrinkage-Induced
Stresses in Concrete Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 127(6);455 –
642, 2001.
16. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. Guide to Developing Performance-Related
Specifications. Federal Highway Administration Report Nos. FHWA-RD-98-155, -156, -171,
Vol. III, Appendix C. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/pccp/pavespec/
17. Zaman, M. and Alvappillai, A. Contact-Element Model for Dynamic Analysis of Jointed
Concrete Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 121(5):425 – 433, 1995.
18. Guo, H., Larson, R.M. and Snyder, M.B. A Nonlinear Mechanistic Model for Dowel
Looseness in PCC Pavements. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
April 20-22, 1993.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 11
*All values in MPa; letter in parentheses indicates either top (T) or bottom (B) of slab
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 12
Solid elements
Dowels
Ties
Plan
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 13
x
∆x
Original
position
α
Misaligned r
Gap between position q
dowel and slab
Plan View
Slab
C.L. Original
x
position
z
∆z
β
s Misaligned q
Dowel-slab springs
position
Elevation
(a) Dowel-Slab Interaction (b) Dowel Misalignment
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 14
kSB
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 15
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 16
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 17
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Dowel Axial Restraint Modulus (MPa)
FIGURE 6: Variation in Peak Slab Stress Due to Dowel Axial Restraint (DL + T – T).
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 18
10
8 x = -100 mm
x=0
6 x = 100 mm
4
2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Magnitude of Gap (mm)
Total Shear Transferred Across Joint
40
Total Shear (kN)
x = -100 mm
30 x=0
x = 100 mm
20
10
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Magnitude of Gap (mm)
FIGURE 7: Variation in Dowel Shear with Joint Location and Dowel Looseness.
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Davids et al. 19
10
7 Gap = 0 mm, [
Dowel Shear (kN)
*DS PP [
6 *DS PP [ PP
*DS PP O[ -100 mm
5
0
-1500
-500-1000 0 500 1000 1500
Dowel Location Across Joint (mm)
FIGURE9DULDWLRQLQ'RZHO6KHDUDFURVV-RLQWZLWK x (Gap Fixed at 0.10 mm).
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.