Structures and Buildings Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 166 Issue SB5 Structures and Buildings 166 May 2013 Issue SB5
Pages 257–267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.10.00071
An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced Paper 1000071
concrete beams Received 25/11/2010 Accepted 15/02/2012
Published online 13/06/2012
Singh and Chintakindi Keywords: beams & girders/buildings, structures & design/concrete
structures
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

An appraisal of dowel action

in reinforced concrete beams
Bhupinder Singh PhD Saikrushna Chintakindi MTech
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Formerly Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Technology Roorkee, India Institute of Technology Roorkee, India

The purported mechanism of dowel action in the shear capacity of longitudinally reinforced concrete beams has been
revisited, and the results of an experimental investigation of the effect of bar size and amount of tension
reinforcement on the load-carrying capacity of such beams designed to fail in shear are discussed. Both the test
results, as well as an analysis using the compressive-force path concept, indicate that, for a given grade of steel and
concrete, cover and the amount of tension reinforcement, the bar diameter has an insignificant effect on load-
carrying capacity, which implies that dowel action is unlikely to be a significant mechanism in the shear capacity of
longitudinally reinforced concrete beams. The observed nominal increase in shear strength of the beams with higher
amounts of tension reinforcement is attributed to the better control of flexural cracking associated with larger steel
ratios, which can increase the component of aggregate interlock in the shear transferred across inclined cracks.

Notation C
Ast area of tension reinforcement Vc
a shear span
Va Vs
b width of beam
D overall depth of beam Vax Vay
d effective depth
T
Fc compressive chord force
Vd
fc , óc compressive stress field intensities R
fcu compression strength of concrete
ft maximum value of transverse tensile stress Figure 1. Internal forces in a cracked beam with stirrups showing
pt percentage of tension reinforcement the various mechanisms of shear transfer
Pu ultimate load
Vay vertical component of aggregate interlock force
Vc shear resistance of uncracked concrete
Vd dowel strength of longitudinal reinforcement The two shear transfer mechanisms in cracks are the aggregate
Vs tensile force in transverse reinforcement interlock and the dowel action, with the latter being defined as the
Vu ultimate shear strength capacity of reinforcing bars to transfer forces perpendicular to
x, x1 neutral axis depths their axis. Dowel action is induced due to the counteraction of the
longitudinal bars bridging a crack to slip off the crack surfaces
1. Introduction relative to each other, and is taken to consist of the following three
The prominent mechanisms by which shear is generally assumed mechanisms: bending, shear and kinking, Figure 2. Although
to be transmitted between two adjacent planes in a cracked when seen in context of the other mechanisms, the contribution of
reinforced concrete beam are shear resistance of the uncracked
concrete in the compression zone, Vc , vertical component of
aggregate interlock force, Vay , dowel action of longitudinal
reinforcement, Vd , and, if web reinforcement is provided in a Fd M
beam, then the tensile force in the transverse reinforcement, Vs , (a) (b)
Figure 1. The relative importance of these shear transfer mechan-
isms depends on many factors such as geometry of member,
arrangement of applied loads, reinforcement layout and crack
(c)
pattern. Further, as the applied loads are incremented, the
contribution of these components keeps changing owing to Figure 2. Mechanisms of dowel action: (a) bending; (b) shear;
internal stress redistribution because of cracking of concrete and (c) kinking (adapted from Jelic et al., 1999)
yielding of reinforcement bars.

257
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
dowel action to the shear resistance can be relatively small
(Hassan et al., 2008), it has been argued (He and Kwan, 2001) that
dowel action can, nonetheless, play an important role if the other
contributions to the shear resisting mechanisms become insignif-
icant. This may happen, for example, in the case of a beam with a
small amount of web reinforcement, or during the post-peak
loading stages when, due to widening of cracks, the contribution
of aggregate interlock may decrease rapidly. It has also been
suggested (He and Kwan, 2001) that dowel action may contribute
significantly to the post-peak resistance, as well as enhancement
of the shear ductility of reinforced concrete members.
The shear transfer mechanisms in cracks, particularly dowel
action, have been subjected to considerable debate and discussion
in the literature. In spite of the many theories (Dulacska, 1972;
Vintzeleou and Tassios, 1986; Walraven, 1978) that have been
advocated and the plethora of formulae (Bauman and Rusch,
1970, Houde and Mirza, 1974; Jiminez et al., 1978; Krefeld and
Thurston, 1966; Paschen and Schonhoff, 1983; Taylor, 1969) that
have been proposed for estimating the dowel force, consensus
continues to elude with respect to the factors that are supposed to
influence dowel capacity. According to Vintzeleou and Tassios
(1986), concrete cover is the main parameter which influences the
two failure-mode mechanisms associated with dowel action in
beams: (a) yielding of the tension reinforcement and crushing of
concrete under the dowel and (b) splitting of concrete. However,
it has also been proposed (Jelic et al., 1999) that, in addition to
concrete cover, bar diameter and concrete strength are the other
two parameters on which the failure mechanism (b) above –
more usual in reinforced concrete beams with a relatively small
cover – may also depend. In this context it may be mentioned
that, of the three mechanisms of dowel action, viz. bending, shear
and kinking, Figure 2, the contribution of the bending mechanism
is considered to be proportional to the cube of the bar diameter,
whereas the contributions of the kinking and shear mechanisms
are taken to be proportional to the square of the bar diameter
(Paulay et al., 1974). Therefore, although higher dowel strengths
should be associated with larger bar diameters, especially in the
flexural mode of dowel action, Jelic et al. (1999) have pointed
out that many of the formulae (Houde and Mirza, 1974; Krefeld
and Thurston, 1966; Taylor, 1969; Paschen and Schonhoff, 1983)
for dowel strength in the literature ignore the effect of bar
diameter altogether.
According to Jelic et al. (1999), the controversies related to
dowel action are attributable to two reasons, the first one being
the apparent lack of consensus among researchers as to whether
or not it is a substantial component of shear transfer, especially
when there is a significant loss in aggregate interlock due to
opening of cracks. The second one owing to confusion about the
effect of bar diameter on dowel strength.
In this investigation, the effect of reinforcement characteristics
such as size and the amount of rebars on dowel action has been
revisited by testing longitudinally reinforced concrete beams
258
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi
designed to fail in shear. Shear failure was ensured in the critical
regions of the beams by the complete absence of transverse
reinforcement. The effect of bar diameter on the mechanism of
dowel action has been studied for different amounts of tension
reinforcement. This investigation is based on the premise that if
parameters such as grade of concrete and steel, concrete cover
and the amount of tension reinforcement are kept nominally
constant in a beam failing in shear, then the ultimate collapse
load triggered by a shear type of failure should be influenced by
the diameter of the rebars, if dowel action as defined in terms of
the three mechanisms of Paulay et al. (1974) is to be considered
a substantial component of shear transfer. Therefore, on the basis
of this postulate for a given amount of tension reinforcement as
the diameter of the rebars is progressively increased, the larger
sized bars will have all the characteristics of a beam on their own
accord, so that their dowel strength must be substantial. On the
other hand, if relatively thin wires are used for the same amount
of reinforcement, then their dowel strength, whether in bending,
kinking or shear, must be inferior to the beams with the larger
sized rebars.
In addition to the experimental investigation, the load-carrying
capacity of the beams was also estimated analytically by using
the compressive-force path concept (Kotsovos and Pavlovic,
1999) and the predictions compared with the experimental results.
According to the compressive-force path concept (Kotsovos and
Pavlovic, 1999), a non-flexural failure in a reinforced concrete
(RC) beam without transverse reinforcement is considered to
occur due to the development of transverse tensile stresses within
the region of the path along which the compressive chord force is
transmitted to the supports. It is shown in this concept that the
loss of flexural bond over a finite length of the beam gives rise to
transverse tensile stresses in the compressed concrete. The
resultant compressive chord force, Fc , in the unbonded length of
the beam subjected to a shear Vu is given by
1: Fc ð x  x1 Þ=2 ¼ Vu (x=2)
Between two consecutive sections in the unbonded length of the
beam, the neutral axis depth, x1 , at the section of the larger
moment is given in terms of the neutral axis depth, x, at the
section of the smaller moment by
2: x1 ¼ xð f c =ó c Þ
The intensities of the compressive stress fields, fc and óc , at the
sections of the smaller and the larger moments, respectively, in
the beam, are taken to be connected to each other by
3: óc ¼ f c þ 5 f t
where ft is the maximum value of the transverse tensile stress, ót ,
 Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
before the occurrence of the failure inducing horizontal splitting
of the compressive zone.
According to the compressive force path concept, the shear force,
Vu , that can be sustained by the beam just before failure is given by
4: Vu ¼ Fc ½1  1=ð1 þ f t = f c Þ
Further details of the above procedure may be seen in Kotsovos
and Pavlovic (1999).
It was reckoned in this investigation that if, for a given amount of
tension reinforcement the load-carrying capacities of the beams
were insensitive to the bar diameter, then it would imply that
dowel action is unlikely to be a significant factor in the internal
mechanism leading to failure. On the other hand, any significant
change in the load carrying capacity between beams reinforced
with the same amount of longitudinal reinforcement of different
diameters may be attributed to the effect of bar diameter and, in
turn, to dowel action, other parameters remaining nominally
constant. It may be noted that changing the bar diameter between
identical beams reinforced with the same steel ratio may result in
sections having rebars in several layers. Although for routine
analysis it is usual to consider the stress at the centroid of the
tension steel area, a more exact moment capacity analysis may be
desirable in some cases. Ideally, such an analysis would take into
account the differences that may exist between stress levels in the
various layers which in turn will yield differences in the flexural
capacities of beams otherwise having the same amount of
longitudinal reinforcement. However, in the present investigation,
the effect of bars at various levels in a beam section on the load
carrying capacity has been conservatively neglected.
The amount of longitudinal reinforcement is known to affect the
width as well as the height of cracks in beam-like elements.
Crack width controls the maximum values of the shear compo-
nents of dowel action and aggregate interlock that can be
transferred across inclined cracks (Muttoni and Ruiz, 2008).
Therefore, an analysis of the relationship between load-carrying
capacity and the amount of longitudinal reinforcement would be
indicative of the relative significance of these two components in
the internal load-transfer mechanism of a shear dominated fail-
ure.
2. Experimental programme
Singly reinforced simply supported beam specimens were used in
this investigation. The effective span of the beams having a cross
section of 100 3 150 mm was 1150 and 1740 mm for the two a/d
of 3 and 4.5, respectively, and other details of the specimens are
summarised in Table 1. Nominally identical companion beams
were cast for each of the specimens in Table 1 to ensure
repeatability of results. Since in an overwhelming majority of the
cases the test results of the companion beams were comparable,
the average of the pair was taken for the purpose of analysis.
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi
Three 150 mm size cubes were also moulded along with each
beam as control specimens for determining the compressive
strength of concrete at the time of testing of the beams. Besides
a/d, the other variables investigated areas.
(a) Amount of tension reinforcement, which in the beams with
a/d of 3 was varied in terms of reinforcement percentages, pt ,
(¼ 100Ast /bd ), of 1.25, 1.88 and 2.5% corresponding to an
under-reinforced, a balanced and an over-reinforced section,
respectively, when evaluated as per provisions of the Indian
concrete code IS 456:2000 (BIS, 2000). In the beams with
a/d of 4.5, only the balanced reinforcement content of 1.88%
was investigated.
(b) For each amount of tension reinforcement, suitable numbers
of 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 mm diameter steel bars with nominal
yield strength of 415 MPa were used to study the effect of bar
diameter on dowel strength. The reinforcement details of the
beams are also presented in Table 1 and the typical
reinforcement arrangement in the beam cross-sections for
pt ¼ 1.25, 1.88 and 2.5% is shown in Figure 3. In each case,
care was taken to ensure that the effective cover to the
tension reinforcement, whether provided in a single layer or
in multiple layers near the beam soffit, was nominally kept
equal to 30 mm.
The beams were cast using normal-weight concrete with a maxi-
mum aggregate size of 8 mm in order to achieve good compac-
tion. The composition of the concrete mixture is given in Table 2.
Prior to casting of the beams the reinforcement cages were
fabricated with the required number of longitudinal bars placed at
an effective cover of 30 mm with the help of suitable spacer bars
which were also used to separate multiple layers of rebars. The
longitudinal reinforcement was provided with sufficient L-shaped
hooked extensions at their ends to satisfy codal (BIS, 2000)
anchorage requirements. As a precaution, minimum shear rein-
forcement as per provisions of IS 456:2000 (BIS, 2000) was
provided in the form of 6 mm diameter closed 2-legged rectan-
gular stirrups at a spacing of 48 mm centres and 60 mm centres
in the flexural span of the beam specimens with a/d of 3 and 4.5,
respectively. No transverse reinforcement was provided in the
shear spans. For the purpose of illustration, the assembled
reinforcement cages for one set of beam specimens with a/d of 3
and reinforced with 1.88% tension reinforcement are shown in
Figure 4. The beams and the control specimens were cast in the
laboratory using steel forms and were demoulded 24 h after
casting, followed by moist curing for a period of ten days.
Subsequently, the specimens were air-cured in the laboratory until
testing, which was carried out after a nominal interval of 28 days
from casting. The control specimens were tested on the same day
as the corresponding beam specimens.
The beams were tested under a symmetrical four-point loading
configuration. Figure 5 shows the test set-up configuration for the
beams with a/d of 3 and a similar configuration was adopted for
the beams with a/d of 4.5, except that the lengths of the shear
259
 Structures and Buildings An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
Volume 166 Issue SB5 concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi

S. no. Specimen ID Cross-section, Overall av /d Ast : mm2 pt ¼ 100Ast /bd : Rebar details fcu : MPa
b 3 D: mm length: mm %

1 B-1.25-21-3 100 3 150 1200 3 148 1.25 21 nos of 3 mm ø bars 40.24

2 B-1.25-12-4 100 3 150 1200 3 151 1.25 12 nos of 4 mm ø bars 43.23
3 B-1.25-5-6 100 3 150 1200 3 141 1.25 5 nos of 6 mm ø bars 40.24
4 B-1.25-3-8 100 3 150 1200 3 151 1.25 3 nos of 8 mm ø bars 33.48
5 B-1.25-2-10 100 3 150 1200 3 157 1.25 2 nos of 10 mm ø bars 32.15
6 B-1.88-32-3 100 3 150 1200 3 226 1.88 32 nos of 3 mm ø bars 34.11
7 B-1.88-18-4 100 3 150 1200 3 226 1.88 18 nos of 4 mm ø bars 30.64
8 B-1.88-8-6 100 3 150 1200 3 226 1.88 8 nos of 6 mm ø bars 40.09
9 B-1.88-4-8 100 3 150 1200 3 201 1.88 4 nos of 8 mm ø bars 38.21
10 B-1.88-3-10 100 3 150 1200 3 236 1.88 3 nos of 10 mm ø bars 38.17
11 B-2.5-40-3 100 3 150 1200 3 283 2.5 40 nos of 3 mm ø bars 31.82
12 B-2.5-24-4 100 3 150 1200 3 302 2.5 24 nos of 4 mm ø bars 39.28
13 B-2.5-10-6 100 3 150 1200 3 283 2.5 10 nos of 6 mm ø bars 39.72
14 B-2.5-6-8 100 3 150 1200 3 302 2.5 6 nos of 8 mm ø bars 36.21
15 B-2.5-4-10 100 3 150 1200 3 314 2.5 4 nos of 10 mm ø bars 38.54
16 B-1.88-32-3* 100 3 150 1800 4.5 226 1.88 32 nos of 3 mm ø bars 35.73
17 B-1.88-18-4* 100 3 150 1800 4.5 226 1.88 18 nos of 4 mm ø bars 38.10
18 B-1.88-8-6* 100 3 150 1800 4.5 226 1.88 8 nos of 6 mm ø bars 38.69
19 B-1.88-4-8* 100 3 150 1800 4.5 201 1.88 4 nos of 8 mm ø bars 42.97
20 B-1.88-3-10* 100 3 150 1800 4.5 236 1.88 3 nos of 10 mm ø bars 38.10

Effective cover to tension reinforcement in all beams ¼ 30 mm. In the specimen ID nomenclature, the alphabet B in the first place holder stands
for beam, the numeral in the second place holder represents percentage of tension reinforcement, the numeral in the third place holder
represents the number of bars used as tension reinforcement and the numeral in the fourth place holder denotes the nominal diameter of the
steel rebars. The specimens with av /d ratio of 4.5 are identified with *. Nominally identical companion specimens were also cast for each of the
beams in this table.

Table 1. Details of the beam specimens

and the flexural spans were 540 and 660 mm, respectively, so that
the effective span of the beams was 1740 mm. The monotonically
increasing load was applied in load-controlled mode using a
hydraulic ram in 10–15 increments until failure. At each
increment, the load was held constant for approximately 2 to
3 min to trace the growth of cracks in the beams. The load-points
and mid-span deflections were recorded with the help of digital
dial gauges. The failure modes and crack patterns were carefully
noted for each specimen.
3. Results and discussion
The ultimate loads and the corresponding ultimate shear capa-
cities of the beams are presented in Table 3. As expected, the
beams with a/d of 3 as well as 4.5 failed in shear by the
formation of a dominant diagonal tension crack. In general, for
all the beams during the early stages of loading, fine vertical
cracks were formed in the flexural span and with an increase in
load new flexural cracks were observed in the adjacent shear
spans. As the load was further incremented, these cracks started
to propagate diagonally towards the loading point at an angle in
the range of 358 to 508, accompanied by the formation of new
diagonal cracks in the shear spans. The principal failure mode of
the beam specimens was diagonal tension with a combination of
shear–compression and shear–tension. For the purpose of illustra-
tion, Figure 6 shows beam specimens in which all the three
failure modes can be identified. Shear–tension failure is indicated
in Figure 6 by the formation of a splitting crack along the tension
reinforcement which can be attributed to the action of a nominal
dowel pressure in combination with a certain degree of bond
failure at the reinforcement level. For both the a/d values and
across all the reinforcement ratios under investigation, debonding
was more evident in the beams reinforced with the relatively
large diameter bars (8 and 10 mm) as opposed to the smaller ones
(3 and 4 mm).
It was noted that in spite of significant inclined cracking, the
beams with a/d of 3 were able to carry additional loads partly by
arch action apparently after a redistribution of internal forces
whereas in the specimens with a/d of 4.5, the inclined cracking
disrupted equilibrium to such an extent that the beams failed at
the inclined cracking load.
In Figure 7, the measured ultimate shear capacities, Vu , reported
in Table 3 have been normalised with respect to the square root

260
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
Volume 166 Issue SB5 concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi

100 100 100 100 100

120

120

120

120

120
12

8
7

7
2 nos 10 ∅ 3 nos 8 ∅ 5 nos 6 ∅ 12 nos 4 ∅ 18 nos 3 ∅
30 30 30 30 30
(a)

100 100 100 100 100

120

120

120

120

120
12

8 7

8 7
3 nos 10 ∅ 4 nos 8 ∅ 8 nos 6 ∅ 18 nos 4 ∅ 21 nos 3 ∅
30 30 30 30 30
(b)

100 100 100 100 100

120

120

120

120

120
16

12

8 7

8 7
4 nos 10 ∅ 6 nos 8 ∅ 10 nos 6 ∅ 24 nos 4 ∅ 40 nos 3 ∅
30 30 30 30 30
(c)

Figure 3. Detailing of reinforcement in the beam cross-section:

(a) pt ¼ 1.25%; (b) pt ¼ 1.88%; (c) pt ¼ 2.5% (dimensions
in mm)

of the respective cube compression strengths, fcu , and the result-

Ingredient Weight per :
ing parameter, Vu /( fcu )0 5 , designated as the normalised shear
m3 strength for the purpose of this investigation, has been plotted
with respect to the bar diameter for various amounts of tension
Ordinary Portland cement 401 kg
reinforcement. Keeping in mind the scatter usually associated
Coarse aggregate, 8 mm down crushed gravel 1204 kg
with experimental data generated from a brittle mode of failure
Fine aggregate (clean river sand) 602 kg
such as shear, the relationships between the normalised shear
Water 193 kg
strength and the bar diameter represented by the best fit lines in
Table 2. Concrete mixture composition Figure 7 consistently indicate the insignificant effect of the latter
on the former. In all the cases presented in Figure 7, only a

261
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
Volume 166 Issue SB5 concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 4. Assembled reinforcement cages for specimens with

pt ¼ 1.88% (a/d ¼ 3.0): (a) specimen B-1.88-32-3, Ast ¼ 32 nos
of 3 mm bars; (b) specimen B-1.88-18-4, Ast ¼ 18 nos of 4 mm
bars; (c) specimen B-1.88-8-6, Ast ¼ 8 nos. of 6 mm bars;
(d) specimen B-1.88-4-8, Ast ¼ 4 nos of 8 mm bars; (e) specimen
B-1.88-3-10, Ast ¼ 3 nos of 10 mm bars

marginal increase in load-carrying capacity was observed as the
bar diameter was increased more than three-folds from 3 to
10 mm. The flexural and shear stiffnesses of the rebars used in
this investigation, especially the smaller ones, are expected to be
insignificant and, therefore, kinking, Figure 2, is the only
probable mechanism of the purported dowel action. However,
according to Jelic et al. (1999), for a substantial mobilisation of
the kinking mechanism, large shear displacements of the crack
surfaces are essential, which, however, were not observed in any
of the beam specimens.

262
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
Volume 166 Issue SB5 concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi

Mild steel bearing plate, P

typical Stiff spreader
beam
Test specimen, 100
A
100 ⫻ 50 ⫻ 1200

150
αv ⫽ 360 430 αv ⫽ 360

A
Dial gauge,
375 typical

1150

1200

Figure 5. Front elevation of test set-up configuration for a/d ¼3

(dimensions in mm)

S. no. Specimen ID fcu : MPa Ultimate loada Ultimate shear strength Average inclination Mode of failure
Pu : kN Vu ¼ Pu /2: kN of dominant
diagonal crack:
degree

1 B-1.25-21-3 40.24 39.29 19.65 37 Diagonal tension

2 B-1.25-12-4 43.23 48.22 24.11 34 Diagonal tension
3 B-1.25-5-6 40.24 46.07 23.03 31 Diagonal tension
4 B-1.25-3-8 33.48 47.14 23.57 38 Diagonal tension
5 B-1.25-2-10 32.15 46.07 23.03 38 Diagonal tension
6 B-1.88-32-3 34.11 43.21 21.60 41 Diagonal tension
7 B-1.88-18-4 30.64 50.2 25.1 46 Diagonal tension
8 B-1.88-8-6 40.09 50.35 25.2 35 Diagonal tension
9 B-1.88-4-8 38.21 37.85 18.92 33 Diagonal tension
10 B-1.88-3-10 38.17 61.07 30.54 37 Diagonal tension
11 B-2.5-40-3 31.82 40.71 20.35 33 Diagonal tension
12 B-2.5-24-4 39.28 41.43 20.71 33 Diagonal tension
13 B-2.5-10-6 39.72 50.72 25.36 34 Diagonal tension
14 B-2.5-6-8 36.21 71.43 35.71 37 Diagonal tension
15 B-2.5-4-10 40.43 57.86 28.93 48 Diagonal tension
16 B-1.88-32-3b 35.73 31.42 15.71 37 Diagonal tension
17 B-1.88-18-4b 38.10 38.58 19.29 31 Diagonal tension
18 B-1.88-8-6b 38.69 37.14 18.57 33 Diagonal tension
19 B-1.88-4-8b 42.97 40.2 20.1 36 Diagonal tension
20 B-1.88-3-10b 38.10 42.14 21.07 36 Diagonal tension
a
Average of the two companion specimens
b
Specimens with av /d ¼ 4.5

Table 3. Summary of the experimental results

263
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 6. Failure mode of some of the beam specimens: (a) beam
B-1.25-2-10, diagonal tension, shear compression and shear
tension; (b) beam B-1.88-3-10, diagonal tension, shear
compression and shear tension; (c) beam B-2.5-4-10, diagonal
tension, shear compression and shear tension
The experimental as well as the predicted ultimate capacities of
the beams obtained from the compressive-force theory as per the
procedure recommended in Kotsovos and Kotsovos (2009) are
plotted as functions of the rebar diameter in Figure 8. The
relationships in Figure 8 show a reasonable agreement with each
other in terms of the relatively insignificant effect of bar diameter
on the load-carrying capacity and by implication the role of
dowel action in the internal load transfer mechanism leading to
final collapse. This is shown more conclusively in Figure 9
:
wherein the normalised shear strength, Vu /( fcu )0 5 , has been
plotted against the rebar diameter for the beams with a/d of 3 and
4.5. In Figure 9, the relatively higher shear strengths of the beams
with a/d of 3 compared to 4.5 can be attributed to the contribu-
tion of a nominal arch action in the former. The findings of this
investigation with respect to the insignificant effect of bar
diameter on dowel action are similar to those of Jelic et al.
(1999), Figure 10.
The relationships in Figure 11 between normalised shear strength
and the amount of tension reinforcement for the beams with
a/d ¼ 3 indicate a nominal increase in the load-carrying capacity
with increase in the steel ratio. When the steel ratio is small,
flexural cracks extend higher into the beam and open wider than
264
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi
would be the case for larger steel content. This effect is
qualitatively illustrated in the failure crack patterns shown in
Figures 6(a), (b) and (c) of the beams with 1.25%, 1.88% and
2.51% of 10 mm diameter rebars, respectively. The flexural
cracks in the specimen B-1.25-21-3 (Figure 6(a)) extend higher
into the compression zone and open wider compared to those in
the other two beams (Figures 6(b) and (c)) containing larger
amounts of tension reinforcement of the same diameter. An
increase in crack width causes a decrease in the maximum values
of the loads that can be transferred by the mechanism of
aggregate interlock through shear stresses on the crack surfaces.
The nominal increase in the load-carrying capacity of the beams
indicated in Figure 11 is attributed to the increase in the sliding
resistance along the crack surfaces due to relatively smaller crack
widths associated with higher amounts of tension reinforcement.
4. Conclusion
(a) For a given amount of longitudinal reinforcement and with
other parameters like concrete and steel grade and the cover
remaining nominally constant, the load-carrying capacities of
the beams were insignificantly affected by the bar size.
Further, the absence of large experimentally observable
shearing displacements of the crack surfaces indicates that
 Structures and Buildings An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
Volume 166 Issue SB5 concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi

5 60

4 50

Ultimate load, Pu: kN

40
Vu /(fcu)1/2

30
2
Pt ⫽ 1·25%
20
1 a/d ⫽ 3
10 Prediction
0 Experiment
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
Bar diameter: mm 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Bar diameter: mm
6
70
5
60
Ultimate load, Pu: kN
4
Vu /(fcu)1/2

50
3
40
2
30
Pt ⫽ 1·88%
1
20 a/d ⫽ 3
0 Prediction
0 2 4 6 8 10 10
Experiment
Bar diameter: mm
0
(b) 2 4 6 8 10
7 Bar diameter: mm

6 80 Pt ⫽ 2·55%
5 a/d ⫽ 3
70
Vu /(fcu)1/2

Prediction
4
Ultimate load, Pu: kN

60 Experiment
3 50
2
40
1
30
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 20
Bar diameter: mm
(c) 10
0
5 2 4 6 8 10
Bar diameter: mm
4
45
40
Vu /(fcu)1/2

3
35
Ultimate load, Pu: kN

2 30
25
1 Pt ⫽ 1·88%
20
a/d ⫽ 4.5
15
0 Prediction
0 2 4 6 8 10 10 Experiment
Bar diameter: mm 5
(d)
0
2 4 6 8 10
Figure 7. Effect of rebar diameter on normalised shear strength
Bar diameter: mm
for different amounts of tension reinforcement: (a) pt ¼ 1.25%
and av /d ¼ 3; (b) pt ¼ 1.88% and av /d ¼ 3; (c) pt ¼2.5% and Figure 8. Experimental and predicted relationships between
av /d ¼ 3; (d) pt ¼ 1.88% and av /d ¼ 4.5 ultimate load and bar size

265
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
Volume 166 Issue SB5 concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi

25

20
6

Total failure load: kN

5
15

4
Vu /(fcu)0·5

10
3

2 a/d ⫽ 3
Individual failure loads
a/d ⫽ 4·5 5
Average failure loads
1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Bar diameter: mm Reinforcement diameter: mm

Figure 9. Effect of a/d on the normalised shear strength for Figure 10. Effect of rebar diameter on total failure load (Jelic et
different rebar diameters (pt ¼ 1.88%) al., 1999)

4 3 mm dia. rebars 5 4 mm dia. rebars

4
3
Vu /(fcu)0·5

Vu /(fcu)0·5

3
2
2
1
1

0 0
0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
Pt: % Pt: %
5 6 mm dia. rebars 7 8 mm dia. rebars
6
4
5
Vu /(fcu)0·5

Vu /(fcu)0·5

3 4
2 3
2
1
1
0 0
0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
Pt: % Pt: %
6 10 mm dia. rebars

4
Vu /(fcu)0·5

0
0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
Pt: %
Figure 11. Effect of amount of tension reinforcement on the
normalised shear strength for different rebar diameters (a/d ¼ 3)

266
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
Volume 166 Issue SB5
the kinking mechanism of dowel action was not mobilised.
The insignificant effect of bar size on the measured shear
strengths and the absence of the kinking mechanism imply
that dowel action was not a significant mechanism in the
shear capacity of the longitudinally reinforced concrete
beams.
(b) Trends in the ultimate shear capacities obtained analytically
from the compressive-force path concept were similar to
those observed experimentally and, therefore, the analytically
obtained results also discount any contribution from the
dowel mechanism to the shear capacity of the longitudinally
reinforced beams.
(c) For a given amount of longitudinal reinforcement and across
all the bar sizes under investigation, the beams with an a/d of
3 had an almost 30% higher strength compared to those with
an a/d of 4.5. This attributed to a more significant contribution
of arch action in the former when compared to the latter.
(d ) Irrespective of the rebar diameter, the shear capacities of the
beams were seen to increase with an increase in the amount
of tension reinforcement. This is attributed to the relatively
smaller crack widths associated with higher steel ratios which
resulted in an increase in the sliding resistance along the
crack surfaces.
REFERENCES
Bauman T and Rusch H (1970) Versuche zum Stadium der
Verdubelungswirkung der Biegezugbewehrung eines
Stahlbetonbalkes. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton,
Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, Germany, Vol. 210 (in
German).
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) (2000) IS 456:2000, Indian
standard, plain and reinforced concrete – code of practice
(fourth revision). BIS, Delhi, India.
Dulacska H (1972) Dowel action in reinforcement crossing cracks
in concrete. ACI Journal, Proceedings 69(12): 754–757.
Hassan AAA, Hossain KMA and Lachemi M (2008) Behaviour of
full-scale self-consolidating concrete beams in shear. Cement
and Concrete Composites 30(7): 588–596.
He XG and Kwan AKH (2001) Modeling of dowel action of
reinforcement bars for finite element analysis of concrete
structures. Computers and Structures 79(6): 595–604.
Houde J and Mirza MS (1974) A finite element analysis of shear
strength of reinforced concrete beams. Shear in Reinforced
Concrete. ACI, Detroit, MI, USA, Special Publication 42,
vol. 1, pp. 103–128.
Jelic I, Pavlovic MN and Kotsovos MD (1999) A study of dowel
action in reinforced concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete
Research 51(2): 131–141.
Jiminez R, Gergely P and White RN (1978) Shear Transfer across
Cracks in Reinforced Concrete. Department of Structural
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, Report 78-4.
Kotsovos MD and Pavlovic MN (1999) Ultimate Limit-state
Design of Concrete Structures: A New Approach. Thomas
Telford, London, UK.
Kotsovos GM and Kotsovos MD (2009) Flat slabs without shear
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal de Uberlandia] on [10/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
An appraisal of dowel action in reinforced
concrete beams
Singh and Chintakindi
reinforcement: criteria for punching. The Structural Engineer
87(1): 2–8.
Krefeld W and Thurston CW (1966) Contribution of longitudinal
steel to shear resistance of reinforced concrete beams. ACI
Journal, Proceedings 63(3): 325–344.
Muttoni A and Ruiz MF (2008) Shear strength of members
without transverse reinforcement as function of critical shear
crack width. ACI Structural Journal 105(2): 163–171.
Paschen H and Schonhoff T (1983) Untersuchungen uber in
Beton Eingelassene Scherbolzen aus Betonstahl. Deutscher
Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Wilhelm Ernst and Sohn, Berlin,
Germany, vol. 346, pp. 105–149 (in German).
Paulay T, Park R and Phillips MH (1974) Horizontal construction
joints in cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Shear in
Reinforced Concrete, ACI, Detroit, MI, USA, Special
Publication 42, vol. 2, pp. 599–616.
Taylor HPJ (1969) Investigation of Dowel Shear Forces Carried
by the Tensile Steel in Reinforced Concrete Beams. Cement
and Concrete Association, London, UK, Technical Report
431 (publication 42.431).
Vintzeleou EN and Tassios TP (1986) Mathematical models for
dowel action under monotonic and cyclic conditions.
Magazine of Concrete Research 38(134): 13–22.
Walraven JC (1978) Mechanisms of shear transfer in cracks in
concrete – A survey of literature. Stevin Laboratory, Delft
University of Technology, the Netherlands, Report 5-78-12.
WH AT DO YO U T HI NK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.
267