Design of Tie Bars in Portland Cement
Concrete Pavement Considering Nonlinear
Temperature Variations
Seongcheol Choi and Moon C. Won
Tie bar design at longitudinal construction joints in portland cement
concrete pavement is based on the so-called subgrade drag theory.
According to this theory, the required maximum spacing between tie
bars is inversely proportional to the widths of the lanes that are tied
together. As the number of lanes increases to accommodate greater traffic
demand, tie bar spacing decreases. In a recent IH-10 project in Houston,
Texas, the width of pavement lanes tied together was great enough to
require 30-cm (1-ft) tie bar spacing. In Texas Department of Transporta-
tion design standards for continuously reinforced concrete pavement,
the same spacing is required for both tie bars and transverse steel. The
use of 30-cm spacing for both tie bars and transverse steel results in a
substantial increase in the cost of the project. The subgrade drag theory
assumes uniform temperature distribution through the concrete slab
depth and no curling effect is incorporated. This assumption needs
reconsideration. Field testing was conducted to investigate slab behavior
and to develop more rational designs for tie bars and transverse steel.
Concrete displacement gauges were installed at the free edge of the
concrete slab to measure transverse horizontal as well as vertical dis-
placements. Steel strain gauges were installed at different locations in
tie bars. The concrete slab showed curling behavior; the stresses in tie
bars clearly demonstrated the effects of curling. Theoretical analysis was
conducted, and the results verified the field data. A new design method
was proposed for tie bars.
In portland cement concrete pavement, tie bars are installed at longi-
tudinal construction joints (LCJs) primarily to keep the lanes together
and secondarily to provide load transfer. The design of tie bars is based
on subgrade drag theory (SGDT) (1). This theory assumes that no
temperature variations exist through the slab depth and therefore
the slab displacements in the transverse direction are the same at all
depths. Stresses in tie bars are computed from equilibrium between
frictional resistance provided by the subbase as the slab displaces due
to temperature variations and the forces in tie bars. The spacing for tie
bars is determined by limiting the maximum steel stress in tie bars
to a prescribed value, usually 75% of the yield strength. Because of the
assumptions made in SGDT, tie bar spacing is inversely proportional
to the widths of lanes tied together. SGDT is quite simple in concept
S. Choi, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX 78705. M. C. Won, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409. Corresponding author: S. Choi, chois@mail.
utexas.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2095, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2009, pp. 24–33.
DOI: 10.3141/2095-03
24
and easy to implement. However, a number of researchers have shown
that the basic assumption made in SGDT—uniform temperature
distribution throughout concrete slabs—is not valid (2, 3). Substantial
temperature variations exist through slab depth, which will induce dis-
placements in concrete slab in a vertical direction (curling). Figure 1
illustrates the decomposition of nonlinear temperature effects by
showing the three components that result in the equivalent behavior of
a concrete slab subjected to nonlinear temperature variations through
the slab depth. The first component is the axial strain, which SGDT
addresses. SGDT does not consider the other two components (curling
strain and nonlinear strain). Ignoring those two components could
result in inaccurate estimation of tie bar stresses and unreasonable tie
bar designs. To develop more rational tie bar designs, it is important
to include all three components in the analysis.
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate concrete displace-
ments in vertical and transverse directions at the free edge. Figure 2a
shows the gauge installed for the measurements of vertical slab dis-
placements, and Figure 2b illustrates the measured values for 6 days.
The slab was 38 cm (15 in.) thick. Figure 2b clearly illustrates the
curling behavior of the concrete slab. On the x-axis, the whole number
denotes midnight of the day after concrete placement. For example,
16 indicates midnight on Day 16 after concrete placement. The dis-
placements on the y-axis decrease if the slab is going down. The slab
curls down in late afternoon when top temperatures are higher than
bottom temperatures. On the other hand, it curls up in early morning
when top temperatures are lower than bottom temperatures. Figure 3a
shows gauges installed to evaluate horizontal displacements of the
concrete slab at the free edge. This slab was 38 cm thick. The dis-
placements were measured at three depths of the slab: top (2.5 cm;
1 in.), middle (19 cm; 7.5 in.), and bottom (35 cm; 14 in.). Figure 3b
illustrates the measurements. On the y-axis, as the slab moves toward
the free edge, the displacement number increases. For example, in
late afternoon, the top at the free edge moves toward the gauges,
whereas in early morning, it moves away from the gauges. The dis-
placements at the top and bottom are moving in nearly opposite
directions. The measured vertical and horizontal concrete displace-
ments clearly indicate the existence of curling components in the slab
movements. If the assumptions made in SGDT are correct, there
should be no variations in the vertical displacements in Figure 2b,
and the transverse displacements at three depths should be parallel
to each other in Figure 3b. This finding indicates that SGDT alone
may not be adequate to estimate accurately the stresses that develop
in tie bars due to temperature variations in concrete. More adequate
evaluation methods need to be used to estimate tie bar stresses accu-
rately and to develop rational tie bar designs. In this study, both
theoretical analysis and field evaluations were conducted to estimate
tie bar stresses.
Choi and Won 25

ϕ ϕ

ε0 = ε0 + +

(a) ε0 : axial strain ϕ : curvature (d)

(b) (c)

FIGURE 1 Decomposition of nonlinear temperature effects: (a) temperature gradient, (b) component causing axial
strain, (c) component causing curling strain, and (d ) component causing nonlinear strain.

(a)
(a)
0.2 3
-0.2 10
Top Middle Bottom
0.1 2
Movement (mm)

-0.3 0 Movement (mils)

Movement (mils)
Movement (mm)

0 1

-0.4 -10
-0.1 0

-0.5 -20 -0.2 -1

-0.3 -2
-0.6 -30 16 17 18 19 20 21
16 17 18 19 20 21 Time after placement of concrete (days)
Time after placement of concrete (days) (b)
(b)
FIGURE 3 Measurement of transverse movement:
FIGURE 2 Measurement of vertical movement: (a) crackmeter (a) crackmeter for transverse movement measurements
for vertical movement measurements and (b) measured data. and (b) measured data.
26 Transportation Research Record 2095

FIELD TESTING PROGRAM evaluate the effect of tie bar depth on tie bar stress, one tie bar was
installed 13 cm (5 in.) from the surface of the slab, instead of the
To evaluate tie bar stresses in response to concrete temperature normal 19-cm (7.5-in.) depth.
variations, field testing was conducted. The pavement section was
located on US-59 in Rosenberg in the Houston District of the Texas
Department of Transportation. The pavement type was continuously ANALYSIS OF MEASURED DATA
reinforced concrete pavement with a 38-cm-thick slab, and the con-
crete was placed on July 11, 2007. The existing slab was 7.3 m (24 ft) Measured Temperature and Distribution
wide. A new 5.5-m (18-ft)-wide slab was placed with a LCJ in between. of Tie Bar Strain
The tie bar spacing was 90 cm (3 ft). Subbase consists of a 2.5-cm
(1-in.) hot-mix layer over 15-cm (6-in.) cement stabilized base. Steel Figure 5 illustrates temperature variations at various depths from the
strain gauges were installed at various locations of a tie bar as were placement of the concrete. It shows that maximum concrete temper-
temperature sensors at a number of slab depths. Figure 4a shows the atures occurred at midnight on the day of concrete placement. It also
testing setup, and Figure 4b shows more detailed information on shows a relatively large difference in concrete temperatures at various
the locations of steel strain gauges and temperature sensors. Three depths, even though they diminish with time as the heat of hydration
steel strain gauges were installed near the LCJ, with one gauge at dissipates. The maximum temperature changes occur near the top of
the end of the tie bar. In Texas, two types of tie bars are used: single the slab, with the smallest temperature variations near the bottom of
piece and multipiece. The multipiece tie bar is more widely used, but, the slab. This information again demonstrates the deficiency of SGDT
in this construction project, the contractor decided to use single- in modeling real pavement behavior and the need for an improved
piece tie bars. Tie bars were manually inserted into fresh concrete after model to analyze tie bar stresses and design.
the paving machine passed. Before the next lane was paved, the sur- Figure 6 shows strains in a tie bar for 10 days after concrete place-
face of a tie bar at planned gauge installation locations was ground ment at different locations from the LCJ. The numbers in the key
with a grinder and then polished with sandpaper to develop a flat and indicate the locations of the steel strain gauges in terms of distance
smooth surface for the steel strain gauge installation. The accuracy from the LCJ. As expected, the maximum strains occur in a gauge
of the steel strain measurements largely depends on the smoothness installed near the LCJ, and very low strains are noted at the end of
of the surface. the tie bar. Maximum strains occur in mornings, and minimum strains
To investigate the effect of tie bar spacing on tie bar stresses, occur in late afternoon. There is also a rather rapid decrease in steel
two additional tie bars were inserted at 30-cm (1-ft) spacing between strain as it moves away from the LCJ, which implies potential bond-
two adjacent tie bars with normal 90-cm (3-ft) tie bar spacing. To slip failures in the region between 5 and 79 mm from the LCJ. How-
190 mm (7.5 in.)

Longitudinal Unit: mm (in. or ft)

Temperature sensor construction joint
381.0 mm (15 in.)

Steel strain gauge Longitudinal steel

Tie bar d=19 mm (3/4 in.)

610 mm (2ft) 610 mm (2ft)

New Existing
pavement pavement
Transverse steel

(a)
368 mm (14.5 in.)
254 mm (10.0 in.)

114 mm (4.5 in.)

190 mm (7.5 in.)
165 mm (6.5 in.)
89 mm (3.5 in.)

38 mm (1.5 in.)

Longitudinal
Unit: mm (in. or ft)
construction joint

Tie bar d=19mm

5 mm (3/16 in.)
Steel strain gauge
79 mm (3 1/8 in.)
Temperature sensor 165 mm (6 1/2 in.)
609 mm (23 15/16 in.)
(b)

FIGURE 4 Test plan and details for gauge installation: (a) test setup and (b) details on steel strain gauges
and temperature sensors.
Choi and Won 27

50 120
38 mm (1.5 in.)
89 mm (3.5 in.)
45 114 mm (4.5 in.) 100
165 mm (6.5 in.)
190 mm (7.5 in.)

Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°F)
40 254 mm (10.0 in.) 80
368 mm (14.5 in.)
35 60

30 40

25 20
Numerical
analysis
20 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (days)

FIGURE 5 Measured temperature.

ever, little difference is noted in steel strains in the region between
79 and 165 mm from the LCJ. For further theoretical analysis, the
data from the evening of Day 8 to early morning of Day 9 were
selected and detailed analysis results are presented later.
Figure 7 shows strains in tie bars spaced at 30 and 90 cm. In the
key, the first number, s, denotes tie bar spacing, and the second
number, d, is the distance of the measured steel strain from the LCJ.
Much greater steel strain was measured at the LCJ in a tie bar with
90-cm spacing than at the LCJ in a tie bar with 30-cm spacing. This
result was expected, as more closely spaced tie bars have more steel
cross-sectional area per unit length of concrete slab, which will result
in lower steel stress. Figure 8 shows strains in tie bars placed at two
depths. Steel strain gauges were installed 5 mm ( 3⁄16 in.) away from
the LCJ. One was placed 13 cm from the top of the slab, and the other
was placed 19 cm from the concrete surface. Strain values are larger
in a tie bar placed 13 cm from the concrete surface. These two bars
were within 3.6 m (12 ft), and the only difference was in the vertical
location of the tie bars.
The information in Figure 8 can be explained only when the curling
effect is taken into account and not by SGDT. As discussed later in
more detail, curling behavior at the LCJ could result in much higher
stresses in tie bars if they are placed closer to the slab surface.
Numerical Modeling
To investigate the effect of nonlinear thermal gradient on the stress
in tie bars, the finite element program DIANA (4) was used in the
numerical analysis. Figure 9a shows the finite element model of
concrete pavement with the tie bar at the LCJ. Plane strain and the
frame element were used to model the concrete and tie bar, respec-
tively. Bond–slip behavior was considered in terms of the relationship
between the relative traction and slip in the structural interface. Spring
elements in the horizontal and vertical directions were used to con-
sider the subbase restraining effect. The tie bar was horizontally and
rotationally fixed at one end near the LCJ, considering the symmetry

1500
5 mm (3/16 in.)
79 mm (3 1/8 in.)
1200 165 mm (6 1/2 in.) Numerical
609 mm (24 15/16 in.) analysis
Strain (10-6 mm/mm)

900

600

300

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (days)

FIGURE 6 Measured steel strain.

28
1250
Variation of strain (10-6 mm/mm)
1000
750
500
250
0
1.0
FIGURE 7 Effect of tie bar spacing on tie bar strain at different distances
from LCJ.
at the joint. Figure 9b illustrates the deformation at the LCJ when the
negative nonlinear temperature gradient was applied. As shown in Fig-
ure 1, the top and bottom portions of concrete may contract and
expand, respectively, depending on the degree of nonlinearity of the
temperature gradient. When the slab tries to expand at the bottom,
another slab restrains it. To consider this restraining effect, a tension-
less spring with sufficient stiffness in the compression was provided
to the one node located at the bottom of the concrete at the LCJ.
Figure 10a indicates the measured temperature profiles from
evening on Day 8 (6:00 p.m.; 8.75 days) to morning on Day 9
(8:00 a.m.; 9.33 days), as shown in Figure 5. As expected, the
temperature at the top surface of the slab decreased significantly and
the decrease declined as the depth increased. Figure 10b shows the
temperature gradient applied to the numerical analysis. This period was
selected in the analysis because the change in mechanical proper-
ties such as elastic modulus was relatively small compared with
the values in the early stages. For the analysis, it was assumed that the
2500
Variation of strain (10-6 mm/mm)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1.0
FIGURE 8
s = 90 cm (3 ft); d = 5 mm (3/16 in.)
s = 30 cm (1 ft); d = 5 mm (3/16 in.)
s = tie bar spacing; d = distance from LCJ
1.5 2.0
Time (days)
13 cm (5.0 in.) depth
19 cm (7.5 in.) depth
1.5 2.0
Time (days)
Effect of tie bar depth on tie bar strain.
Transportation Research Record 2095
s = 90 cm (3 ft); d = 57 mm (2 1/4 in.)
s = 30 cm (1 ft); d = 57 mm (2 1/4 in.)
2.5 3.0 3.5
changes in material properties during the analysis could be negligible
and the error associated with this assumption is quite small.
In the numerical analysis, coefficients of thermal expansion for
the concrete and tie bar were 7.2 × 10−6/°C (4.0 × 10−6/°F) and
11.5 × 10−6/°C (6.4 × 10−6/°F), respectively. The elastic modulus of
the tie bar was 200 GPa (29 × 103 ksi). On the basis of CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990, development of elastic modulus with time was
estimated from 28 days of compressive strength [34.5 MPa (5,000 psi)]
and the maturity function that considers the effect of temperature on
the process of development of hydration (5). Average temperature
was used to calculate the concrete’s maturity. Poisson ratios of tie
bar and concrete were assumed to be 0.3 and 0.15, respectively.
The vertical tensionless spring stiffness per unit area in this study
was 0.1 MPa/mm (400 psi/in.). Figure 11a indicates the frictional
stress–slip relationship between concrete and subbase (6). Horizontal
stiffness for the interface between the concrete and subbase was
assumed to be 0.04 MPa/mm (150 psi/in.). To predict the strain of the
2.5 3.0 3.5
Choi and Won 29

Longitudinal
Free edge construction joint
Plane strain element Structural interface Frame element
for concrete for bond-slip relation for reinforced bar

Tensionless spring
for horizontal restraint
at construction joint

Horizontal spring Vertical tensionless spring Fixed horizontal displacement

for underlying layers for underlying layers at construction joint
(a)

Additional stress at the tie bar due to

horizontal restraint of curling movement

Horizontal restraint due to symmetry

(b)

FIGURE 9 Numerical modeling of concrete pavement with tie bar at LCJ: (a) finite element modeling
of concrete pavement and (b) restraining effect at bottom of concrete slab in LCJ.

tie bar, the bond stress–slip relationship in Figure 11b was used (6).
Number 6 bar size and 90-cm spacing, respectively, were used.
Numerical Analysis Results
were no horizontal restraint. In real pavement, restraint exists at the
LCJ due to the symmetry condition shown in Figure 9b. Additional
stress was produced when the expansion at the bottom was restrained.
Figure 12b shows that the additional stress plays an important role
in the development of stresses in tie bars.

Figure 12a shows the distribution of tie bar stress variation from the
numerical analysis along the tie bar from the LCJ. The dotted line
represents predicted tie bar stress solely due to the axial component in
concrete slab displacements shown in Figure 1. The solid line shows
the predicted tie bar stress due to the combined effects of the three
components shown in Figure 1. There is good agreement between
the predicted and measured tie bar stresses that include the effects
of all three components of nonlinear temperature distribution.
Figure 12a also shows a rather rapid increase in tie bar stress
as it nears the LCJ. The information in this figure illustrates that tie
bar stresses predicted by SGDT are much lower than actual stresses,
indicating that SGDT may not adequately assess stresses in tie bars
and that including the other two components shown in Figure 1 should
be considered for proper design of tie bars. Figure 12b shows the
transverse movement of the slab at the LCJ when the temperature
gradient in Figure 10b was applied. It explains the mechanism of
tie bar stress development at the LCJ when all three components are
considered. The axial contraction caused frictional stress to develop
at the interface between slab and subbase, which induced stresses in
the tie bar. The concrete at the bottom of the slab would expand if there
NUMERICAL PARAMETRIC STUDY
ON TIE BAR DESIGN FACTORS
To investigate the various design factors that affect the tie bar stress
numerically, a third degree of polynomial for the temperature pro-
file along the depth was assumed as shown in Figure 13 (2). The
temperature differences between the top and the bottom of the
concrete slab were assumed to be 5°C (9°F), 10°C (18°F), and 15°C
(27°F) in the numerical analysis.
Figure 14a shows the effect of pavement width on the stresses in
tie bars. A temperature difference of 15°C between top and bottom
was assumed. As pavement width increases, tie bar stress due to the
restraint of axial movement by frictional stress increases almost
linearly as would be expected. This stress still fails to present ade-
quately the tie bar stress that exists due to axial and curling movements
that occur together in the pavement. Tie bar stress due to both frictional
resistance and curling is much greater than the tie bar stress resulting
solely from frictional resistance at the subbase interface. Therefore, tie
bar designs based on SGDT might not be adequate if pavement widths
30 Transportation Research Record 2095

0 0

76 3

Depth (mm)

Depth (in.)
152 6

229 9

6:00 PM
305 10:00 PM 12
2:00 AM
8:00 AM
381 15
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Temperature (°C)
(a)

0 0

76 3
Depth (mm)

Depth (in.)
152 6

229 9

305 12

381 15
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Variation of temperature (°C)
(b)

FIGURE 10 Temperature profile and gradient in numerical analysis:

(a) measured temperature profile at concrete slab from 8.75 to 9.33 days
and (b) applied temperature gradient in numerical analysis.

are not large, and failures and distresses might result in the form of joint
opening, intrusion of water in subbase, and loss of load transfer effi-
ciency at the LCJ. As pavement widths increase, the component of
tie bar stress due to frictional resistance will increase proportionally.
However, tie bar stress due to both frictional resistance and curling
will increase only modestly. This difference occurs because tie bar
stress due to curling is not linearly proportional to the width of the
pavement. The shape of the tie bar stress variation due to curling
will closely follow Bradbury’s curling coefficient curve (7). As the
pavement widths increase greatly, it is possible that tie bar stress
estimated from frictional resistance alone might surpass that due to
both frictional resistance and curling. Accordingly, tie bar design based
on SGDT might be more conservative for wider pavements. This
situation does not justify using SGDT for tie bar design. Accurate
tie bar design should be based on the utilization of both frictional
resistance and curling.
Figure 14b shows the effect of temperature difference between
the top and bottom of the slab and tie bar spacing on the tie bar stress.
As expected, tie bar stress increases as the spacing increases. Further-
more, the temperature differential between the top and bottom of the
slab had a substantial effect on the development of tie bar stress.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Tie bar design is based on SGDT. This study investigated the validity
of SGDT for tie bar design. Concrete slab displacement behavior was
evaluated at the free edge for vertical and transverse displacements.
Tie bar stresses were evaluated in the field and by theoretical analy-
sis considering both frictional resistance at the subbase and concrete
interface only and the effects of both frictional resistance and slab
curling. The following conclusions, based on field experiment and
theoretical analysis, were reached:
1. Concrete temperatures evaluated at various depths from the
concrete placement showed substantial variations through the slab
Choi and Won 31

Frictional stress
(MPa)

20.7

-0.508
Slip (mm)
0.508

-20.7

(a)

Bond stress
(MPa)

5.31
4.83

1.86

-0.203 -0.102 -0.051 -0.025

Slip (mm)
0.025 0.051 0.102 0.203

-1.86

-4.83
-5.31

(b)

FIGURE 11 Interface stress–slip relationships used in numerical analysis: (a) frictional stress–slip
relationship between concrete and subbase and (b) bond stress–slip relationship between concrete
and tie bar.

depth. This variation causes slab curling and does not support the
assumption made in SGDT, which is that there is no variation in
temperature along the slab depth.
2. Concrete slab displacement measurements at the free edge
exhibited daily curling behavior. This behavior violates one of the
assumptions made in SGDT, which is that the slab moves uniaxially
in a transverse direction due to temperature variations.
3. Quite different stresses occurred in tie bars placed at different
depths. Much higher stresses were obtained in a tie bar placed closer
to the slab surface than in a tie bar placed at the mid-depth of the slab.
This difference can be explained only if the curling effect is taken
into account and not by SGDT.
4. Comparison of the results from theoretical analysis and field
measurements in terms of tie bar stresses indicates a good correlation
between them when both frictional restraint and curling effects are
included in the analysis. On the other hand, when only frictional
resistance is included in the analysis, which is the case when SGDT
is applied, there was a large discrepancy between measured and
predicted values.
5. Because of inherent limitations in the assumptions made in
developing SGDT, tie bar designs based on SGDT might not be
adequate if the pavement widths are not large. This situation occurs
because curling effects, which could be significant, are not included.
As a result of the findings in this study, it is recommended that
tie bar designs consider not only frictional resistance at the interface
between concrete slab and subbase but also nonlinear temperature
effects. Tie bar designs thus developed are expected to provide better
performance in terms of keeping lanes together, minimizing the
intrusion of water through the joint, and providing good load transfer
efficiency at the LCJs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research study was sponsored by the Texas Department of
Transportation in cooperation with FHWA. The authors grate-
fully acknowledge the support provided by German Claros and
32 Transportation Research Record 2095

Distance from construction joint (ft)

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
12 100
Numerical analysis with actual temperature variation
10 80

Variation of stress (MPa)

Variation of stress (ksi)
Numerical analysis with uniform temperature variation
Measured data
8 60

6 40

4 20

2 0

0 -20
610 457 305 152 0
Distance from construction joint (mm)
(a)

Movement (mils)
-10 -5 0 5
0 0

64 2.5

127 5
Depth (mm)

Axial

Depth (in.)
movement
191 7.5
Additional movement
254 due to horizontal restraint 10
Horizontal
Actual movement due to horizontal restraint restraint
318 12.5
Virtual movement without horizontal restraint
Axial movement
381 15
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05
Movement (mm)
(b)

FIGURE 12 Tie bar strain and movement at construction joint:

(a) distribution of stress at tie bar and (b) movement of concrete at
construction joint in transverse direction.

0 0

76 3
Depth (mm)

6
Depth (in.)

152

229 9

305 12

381 15
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0
Factor for temperature gradient

FIGURE 13 Assumed temperature gradient in numerical analysis.

Choi and Won 33

Pavement width (ft)

12 18 24
160 23

Tie bar stress (MPa)

120 17

Tie bar stress (ksi)

Axial movement
Axial + curling movement

80 12

40 6

0 0
3658 5486 7314
Pavement width (mm)
(a)

Tie bar spacing (ft)

0 1 2 3 4
160 23
TD = 5°C
TD = 10°C
Tie bar stress (MPa)

120 17

Tie bar stress (ksi)

TD = 15°C

80 12

40 6

0 0
0 305 610 914 1219
Tie bar spacing (mm)
(b)

FIGURE 14 Effect of various parameters on stress of tie bar: (a) effect

of pavement width and (b) effect of tie bar spacing and temperature
difference (TD).

Dar Hao Chen of the Texas Department of Transportation for
this study.
REFERENCES
1. Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design, 2nd ed. Pearson Education,
Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2004.
2. Mohamed, A. R., and W. Hansen. Effect of Nonlinear Temperature Gradi-
ent on Curling Stress in Concrete Pavements. In Transportation Research
Record 1568, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997,
pp. 65–71.
3. Ghali, A., and R. Favre. Concrete Structures: Stresses and Deformations,
2nd ed. E&FN SPON, London, 1994.
4. DIANA, release 9.1. Division of Engineering Mechanics and Information
Technology, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, Netherlands,
2007.
5. Comité Euro-International du Béton, Fédération International de la Pré-
contrainte. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Design Code. Thomas Telford,
London, 1993.
6. Kim, S., M. Won, and B. F. McCullough. Three-Dimensional Nonlinear
Finite Element Analysis of Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements.
Research report 1831-1. Center for Transportation Research, University
of Texas, Austin, 2000.
7. Bradbury, R. D. Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Wire Reinforcement
Institute, Washington, D.C., 1938.
The Rigid Pavement Design Committee sponsored publication of this paper.