See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250071878

Mathematical Models for Dowel Action under Monotonic Conditions

Article  in  Magazine of Concrete Research · January 1986

DOI: 10.1680/macr.1986.38.134.13

CITATIONS READS

97 1,269

2 authors, including:

Elizabeth Vintzileou
National Technical University of Athens
103 PUBLICATIONS   1,127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New Integrated Knowledge based approaches to the protection of cultural heritage from Earthquake-induced Risk-NIKER View project

INSYSME: INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT MASONRY ENCLOSURES IN R.C. BUILDINGS (http://www.insysme.eu) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elizabeth Vintzileou on 22 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mathematical models for dowel action under
monotonic andcyclic conditions
E. N. Vintzeleou and T. P.Tassios

NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS*

S Y N OP S I S
On the basis of physical modelsdescribing the behav-
iour of dowels embedded in concrete, formulae forthe
prediction of dowel strength under monotonic actions
are derived. In addition, formulaefor calculating
transverse displacements corresponding to the dowel
strength are given. Theoretical values of dowel strength
calculated according to equations given in this paperare
compared with experimental dowel strengths reported
in the literature. It is found that the proposed formulae
givegoodpredictions for both failure mechanisms
(concrete crushing andyield of the bar or concrete
splitting). Additionally, a formalistic model for full
displacementreversals, based on the results of an
experimental programme,is proposed.
Notation
foundation modulus= (k,db/4EsJs)1/4
width of concrete section
net width of concrete section
bottom concretecover
bar diameter
dowel force
dowel force causingsplitting of concrete
dowel strength under monotonicactions
dowel response for the first displacement reversal
dowel response for the nth displacement reversal
transverse displacement at the end of the elastic
stage
transverse displacement at cracking
plastic transverse displacement
transverse displacement at failure
eccentricity of dowel force
Young's modulus of elasticity of concrete
Young's modulus of elasticity of steel
*Laboratory of Reinforced ConcreteStructures, 42 Patission
Street, Athens, Greece
fcc concrete compressive strength
pc, concrete strength under triaxial compression
f,, concrete tensile strength
f,, yield stress ofsteel
J, inertia moment of bar
k, coefficientof subgrade reaction
L dowel length
n number of cycles
x distance from the concrete face
Introduction
Dowel action is one of the main mechanisms of
load transfer along reinforced concrete interfaces.
Such interfaces are very often formed in reinforced
concrete elements, e.g. flexural-shear cracks in beams,
construction joints in pavements, interfaces between
old and new concrete in columns repaired or
strengthened by means of reinforced concrete jackets,
interfaces within precast elements connections and so
on.
The behaviour of reinforced concrete structures
may be strongly influenced by the behaviour of
interfaces at some critical regions; this is especially the
case when structures are subjected to earthquakes.
Therefore, appropriate predictions of force-displace-
ment characteristics, describing the load transfer by
means of dowel action,are needed. The failure
mechanisms of a dowel embedded in concrete and
subjected to monotonic actions are described below
and formulae for the prediction of the dowel strength
(when failure is due either to concrete crushing and
yield of the bar or to concrete splitting) are proposed.
Furthermore, formulae for calculating transverse
deformations corresponding to the dowel strength are
given. As far as the dowel mechanism under cyclic
actions is concerned, a formalistic model for full dis-
placement reversals is proposed. This model is based
13

Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Magazine of Concrete Research : Vol. 38, No. 134 :March 1986

on the resultsof an extensive experimental investi- at a distance, e, from the concrete face, the following
gation carried out at the Laboratory of Reinforced equation (Rasrn~ssen'~)) is to be used:
Concrete Structures, National Technical University of
Athens. D,, = k[Jlt-cEk>'

Short literature survey where

There are two possible failure modes of the dowel
mechanism:
(1) yield of the bar and concrete crushing under the
dowel (Failure mode I);
(2) concrete splitting (Failure mode11). For the predictionof the dowel strength when
Concrete cover, c, is the main parameter upon which failure is due to splitting of concrete, only empirical
the mode of failure of the dowel mechanism depends. formulae are available. In most of these formulae, the
In fact, tests have shown (see Utescher et al.")) that, dowel strength is given as a function of one or two
when c is greater than 6 to 7 times the bar diameter, of the main parameters whichinfluence D,, (bar
failureis produced by crushing of concrete and diameter, bottom and side concrete cover, concrete
yielding of the bar. For smaller concrete cover, the tensile strength). In Table 1, the results of a compari-
mechanism is governed by splitting of the concrete, son betweenseveralempirical formulae predicting
splitting cracks being opened either at the bottom or dowel strength D,,by splitting are summarized. The
at the side faces ofa section. following empiricalformulae have been used.
For the predictionof the dowel strength when
(1) Krefeld and T h u r s t ~ n ' ~ ) :
failure is due to simultaneous crushing of concrete
and yielding of the bar, several formulae have been
proposed-see, for example, Dulacska'*) and Milld3).
Rasm~ssen'~) has proposed the following formula:

D,=k d b 2 a . . . . . . . . . . . , . (1)
where p = percentage of reinforcement;
where k is a constant to be determined by testing. For c =concrete cover;
Rasmussen's tests, k is equal to 1.30. d=distance from extreme compressed fibre in
This formula can satisfactorily predict
dowel beam to the centroid of the dowel;
strength, when the dowel force isapplied at the face of x1=distance of diagonal crack from beam
concrete (zero eccentricity). For dowel forces applied support.

TABLE 1 : Accuracy of prediction of dowel strength, D,,, by splitting: ratio T=D,, pred/Dcr
exp and corresponding
standard deviations S.

I Predictive formula of

14
Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Mathematical modelsfor dowel action under monotonic and cyclic conditions

(2) Taylor"? distance, a, from the soil surface a plastic hingeis

formed. Simultaneously, the soil reaches its strength
under local compression.
According to Prandtl"", when a concentrated load
where c, = side cover; is imposed on the horizontal surface of an infinitely
ci= horizontal distance between consecutive extending homogeneous and isotropic body, the bear-
bars. ing capacity of the loaded material isseveraltimes
higher than its uniaxialcompressive strength. The
(3) Baumann and R u ~ c h ' ~ ' : bearing capacity of cohesive materials under surface
local compression is equal to 5 . 1 4 ~(c=cohesion).
This strength value corresponds to rupture surfaces as
in Figure 2a. When the compressive force is applied
where b, =net width of beam. on an internal small area, included withina large body
(4) Houde and Mirza? (Figure 2b), failurelines are extendedaround the
loadedarea; the corresponding bearing capacity is
D,, = 37bnf,c'/3(N, mm) expected to be twice as high as the previous one.

(5) Jimenez, Gergely and White'g':

l' ] 1 1 cohesive soils

failure
lines

where nb = number of bars atone layer; - la)

c, =minimum cover(side or bottom). -- I -

( 6 ) Paschen and Schonhoff"o):

1 DC,
-= 190+ 0 . 2 3 ~(%
N)
Cl fcc2/3
sin 0.91-
c11

where cl = cover perpendicularto the loading Figure 2: ( a ) Bearing capaciryof a cohesive soilunder a local surface
direction; load (Prandtl(12').
( b ) Failure lines in a concrete surface loaded about its centre
cIl =cover parallel to theloading direction. by a concentrated loaddue to do we1 action.

Crushing of concrete and yielding of the bar

(failure mode I) In fact, according to Br~ms'"*'~),the compressive
DOWEL STRENGTH stress imposed on the soil by a horizontally loaded pile
has a maximum value equal to (8 to 12)c. Assuming
Let us consider the bar as long,
a free-headed pilein that concrete is a cohesive material (and therefore,
cohesive soil. The failure mechanism of such a pile c = 0.50f,,, where l,, =concrete uniaxial compressive
(Broms'")) is shown in Figure 1. The pile failsand at a strength), the maximum concrete compressive stress
at failure, f*,,, should be equal to IOc, or

f*,,= Sf,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

The ultimate bending moment of the dowel-pile

(equal to its plastic moment) is given by the following
expression:

M,,, .M,, .3n16 -Ly

nd:
32
- = 0.1 7d3bf,, . . . .( 4 )

On the other hand(see Figure 1)

M,,,,,=Mo+D~0~5a=DuefDu0~5a-r
+
M,,, = D,(e 0.54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 )
15
Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Magazine of Concrete Research: Vol. 38, No. 134 :March 1986

By putting shear force equal to zero at the cross-

section of maximum moment, the distance, a, may be
determined. Finally, combining the two previous
equations, onefinds
+
. .. . . . (6)
D ,l . 7 d ~ f c C f , , = O
D~+(lOfc,edb) -

For e = 0, equation 6 coincides withequation 1.

The
comparison of theoretical values of D,
calculated by using equation 6 with experimental
dowel strengths reported by Ra~mussen'~), Paulay
et al.(14),Bennett et al.(15),Utescher et al.'" and
VintzE1eou'"j'ispresentedin Figure 3. Reasonable 0 the plastic rotation of the plastic hinge is given by
agreement is observed. the expression (see Figure 4):

tan 6, = 2 ( ~ ,- ,E , ~ ) ............ (9)

where E,, = rupture strainof steel

csY=yield strain of steel.
On the basis of these data, the totaldisplacement at
+
failure A , = A,, A,,, is givenby

>p Utescher and Herrmann(') 1

20
OBennett and Banerjee(15)
1
+Paulav. Park and P h i l l i ~ s " ~ )

There is an alternative approach which can be used

for a rough estimate of A,. It is assumed that the
concrete thickness, near the dowel, influenced by the
shear force is approximately equal to 2db. Therefore,
Duexper-kN
the total transverse displacement at failure is
Figure 3: Comparison between theoretical values of dowel strength,
calculated by using equation 6 , and experimental dowel strengths
(crushinglyielding failure).

where &*cu is the average strain of concrete at failure

under the bar.
For fully triaxial conditions, experimental ac-Ec
TRANSVERSE DISPLACEMENT AT FAILURE
curves from Blume et al.(17),as well as from Richart
Thetotal displacement, A,, of the dowel on a er al.(18),
allow for the approximate prediction
concrete surface at the ultimate stage may becalculated
as a sum of the elastic deflection, A,,, at yield of the
steel
2 4 B(eP + 1)
4 ,= . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) However, in order to accountfor the non-triaxial
Ecc conditions on the concrete surface (which are more
critical for displacements measured onthe surface), an
and its plastic deflection (seeFigure 4)A,, = a0,. average value should be taken. Thus
In calculating this plastic deflection, the following
data aretaken intoaccount:
0 the length of concrete influencedby the dowel
shear force is approximately equal to 2db;
0 thedepth of the plastichingeisgiven by the where E,, = 2 % ~is the ultimate strain under uniaxial
expression (VintzEleou('6)): compression. Thus, for f*,,= SS,, and E:, m 25%0, the
following expressionis found:
a= d b [ ( l - i % ) / & ] . . . . . . (8) A, 0*05db. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)

16
Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Mathematical models for dowel action under monotonic and cyclic conditions

11)
Concrete splitting (Failure mode
SIDE SPLITTING
When the cover, c, is large enough in comparison
with the width, b (see Figure 5), the compressive
stresses, g,,, on the concrete under a,bar loaded by a
shear force, D , are equilibrated by tensile stresses g,,,
in a horizontal section 1-1. The distribution of tensile
stresses, g,,, within the cross-section, as well as.along
the bar, is unknown. Therefore, in what follows, the
mean value of tensile stresses, a,,, will be used. When,
for increasing shear force, D , the tensile stress, a,,,
becomes equal to the concrete tensile strength, a.
longitudinal splitting crack opens at the levelof
reinforcement and the mechanism starts failing.
Letus again consider the barasa beam on an
elastic foundation, loaded by a shear force at its end
(Figure 5). The compressive stresses (Hettnyi'"))
along the bar are (Figure 6):

- 2pD
dba,,(x) = - = PL
[sin cosh px
sinh2pL- sin2pL
l
cos p ( L - x) - sinh pL cos Px cosh p ( L - x)] Figure 6: Diagram of concrete stresses
under a dowel,due to abending
moment De acting a distance from
e the concreteface.

= - 2pDKD . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (15)

where L = 8db, the length of the barforadequate

dowel action (see Marcudzo') and x is the distance F,, = F , , - +1.22D,, =f,,b,,2.5db
from the concrete surface. For usual concrete
qualities, DL is equal to 5.0 to 6.0. Approximately, for Therefore
x m0.3 14 (8db)m 2 3 d b = (d,, and BL = 5.0, g,, is equal
to zero. f,, . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
D,, W 2.0bC, db
Therefore, the totalconcrete compressive force, F,,,
to be equilibrated by a tensile force, F,,, maybe The validity of such an approximation depends upon
roughly estimated as follows: a certaintensile ductility of concrete.
2.5db
For the more general case of a shear force, D ,
Fcc=dbJ o,,(x)d~W1.22D=CD . . . (16) applied at a distance, e , from the concrete face, there
0 is an additional diagram of concrete compressive
On the other hand, stresses along the bar (Figure 7). In that case, the
splitting force, D,,, is given by the following equation
F,, =O, b,, 2. 5db. . . . . . . . . . . .(17) (Vintzdeou(16)):

where b,, is the net width of the section ( =b-ndb, n r

D,,= - b,, dbf,, =('be,dbf , , (where (' 2.0) . . . . . ( l 9)
being the numberof bars). C
When the concrete splits up, a,, =f,,
where ( d , is the distance from the concrete face at
which the concrete compressive stress is equal to zero
and CD,, is the total compressive force under the bar.

BOTTOM SPLITTING
When the cover, c, is small enough in comparison
with the net width, b,, (see Figure S ) , concrete com-
pressive stresses acting underneath a dowel are also
equilibrated by tensilestresses along ahorizontal
-t
'
0 +- I
section 1-1. But, in this case, we should consider the
(a1 b) stresses acting on the vertical long-section CD (Figure
Figure 5: Stresses in the concrete around a dowel( a ) in transverse 8 ) . Owing to the fact that there cannot be horizontal
section, ( b ) along the bar. displacements along the axis (11-II), the part
17

Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Magazine of Concrete Research:Vol. 38, No. 134 :March 1986

moment due to 'this force may cause cracking along

the fixed end, CD, of the cantilever.
To allow for the prediction of the ultimate bending
moment of this cantilever, the following additional
assumptions are made.
(1) Plane sections before bending remain plane after
bending.
(2) The stress diagram at the critical section is tri-
angularfor compressive and rectangular for
tensile stresses.
(3) For the extreme compressed concrete fibre,
fJcc = E , , %c.
(4) Taking into account the plasticity of concrete in
tension, the maximum tensile deformation of
concrete is taken equal to 6 x (see Evans
et d.(*')).
( 5 ) Fracture mechanics predicts the maximum
nominal tensile stress as a function of the height of
the beam (the bottom cover, c, in this case). For
a plain concrete beam subjected to bending, the
maximum tensile stress normalized to the concrete
tensile strength is given in Figure 9, as a function
Figure 7: Diagram of concrete stresses under a dowel,due to a dowel of the ratio d/lch ( d = beam height and IC,,= a
force D acting at the concreteface. characteristic length) (Gustaffson et
Hence, rsCtmax= yL,,where > 1 .O.
(6) For wide sections with small bottom cover, where
bottom splitting is expected to occur, the assump-
tion is made that the concrete area in which

plastic
3

2
I
v.
2-

-+ bi2 (b)

Figure 8: Stresses in the concrete around a dowel.

0.01 0.1
c/lch
1 10

Figure 9: Theoretical ratio betweenflexural and tensile strengths

of concrete (Gustafssonet

ABCDEA of the cross-section may be roughly

simulated to a cantilever, fixed along CD, having a
length equal to (6,,+db)/2. Its height is equal to the
t
bottom cover, c, whilst its width is equal to the length
over which vertical tensile stresses, G,,, are developed
( ~ 2 . 5 4in case of dowel forces imposed at the
concrete face).
In the previous paragraph, it has been found that
the total tensile force, F,,, is equal to the CD.There-
L *fcl

fore, a force equal to 0.54Dis imposed the cantilever Figure 10: Stresses and strains at
the critical section ofthe cantilever
ABCDEA. For small bottom cover, the bending ABCDE (Figure 8 ) .

18
Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Mathematical models.for dowel action
under monotonic and cyclic conditions

stresses are 'developed is a circlewith diameter

equal to 2c+db (Figure 1 1). Furthermore, trian-
b p
gular distribution of tensile stresses is assumed.
(ccritical)
Therefore, the lever arm, a, of the force 0.55D is
equal to c/3 + d b / 2 . Hence, the external ultimate
moment at the critical section is

+
M,, =0.25<Ocr( 0 . 6 6 ~ db) . . . . . . . . (20)

Thismoment is equal to the ultimate resisting

moment of the critical section (Figure 10): I 1 ,
/
l 1
Figure 11: Effective area of the cross-section inJuenced by a dowel,
when bottom cover is critical.

Finally, from equations 20 and 21, the dowel force

which causes bottom splitting of concrete is calculated In Figure 12,theoreticalvaluesofdowelforces
(Vintzdeou(16)): causing concrete splittingcalculated by means of
equations 19 and 22, are compared with experimental
values or Dcr. Agreement seems to be rather
satisfactory.
C

c db 0 . 6 6 ~ db + DISPLACEMENT AT FAILURE
or It is assumed again that up to the opening of split-
ting cracks, the theory of beams on elastic foundation
is valid. Therefore, the transverse displacement which
corresponds to the cracking dowel force, D,,, is given
by the following equation:
According to Gustafsson et al.(22),for a normal
concrete, ich=200 to 400 mm. Ifwe assume that
lch_N 300 mm and for c = 20 to 40 mm, cy = 1.80. For
zero eccentricity ofthe dowel force, L= 1.22 and
(=2.50 (see equation 22). Therefore the splitting The validityof this equation has beencheckedby
force is means of comparison with experimental values of A,,
reported by F e n w i ~ k ' ~ ~Krefeld
', and T h u r ~ t o n ' ~ ) ~
C
D,, 5.0 f , , c d b . . . . . . . (23) Baumannand Riisch'".Reasonable agreement is
0 . 6 6 ~ db+ observed.

Failure mode 11:

130
120 [ I D c , = <'dbbdfctor D,, =

110

100
z
x
90
'L 80
4
f 70 0 Houde and Mirza"'
0 Krefeld and Thurston'"
a" 60
xTaylor@' (onepoint for 34 specimens)
50 + Kemp and Wilhelm1241
A Jimenez White and Gergely"'
40
A Fenwickb3' (one point for 36 specimens1
30 0 Baumann and Rusch"'
Q Paschen and Schonhoff''o'
20
10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140
Dcrexper -kN

values of dowel strength.calculated according to equations 19 and223 and experimental values Of D,,
Figure 12: Comparison between theoretical
(splitting failure),

19
Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Magazine of Concrete Research: Vol. 38, No. 134 :March 1986

Formalistic predictions of dowel response to

earthquakes
Up to now, research on dowel action under cyclic
loading has been limited to a small number of exper-
imental investigations. Furthermore, most cyclic tests
reported in the literature concern the behaviour of
dowels under cyclically imposed loads. Usually, the
maximum shear load applied to the specimen at each
loading cycle has beena small percentage of the dowel
bearing capacity under monotonic loading.
However, under realcyclic actions induced by
earthquakes, structuralelements are subjected to large
deformation reversals; therefore, strain-controlled
tests should be carried out to provide information
on response, stiffness and hysteretic damping degra-
dation of the dowel mechanism.
An extensive parametric experimental investi-
gation ,ofdowel action under large fullyreversed
deformations has been carried out in the Laboratory
of Reinforced Concrete Structures of the National
Technical University of Athens. On the basis of the
experimental results obtained, a formalistic model for
fully reversed shear displacements is proposed (Figure
13). This model is valid for the nth loading cycle
(n 2 2 ) andfora dowel response in the first cycle
greater than 30% of the monotonic dowel strength
(for the case in which failure is due to yield of the bar
and to concrete crushing). The response of the nth
cycle (smaller than the first cycle response) is a
function of the number of cycles,n.
In what follows, an approximate derivation of this
degradation is attempted for the particular case of a
dowel bar having large concrete covers around it.This
dowel will fail due to yielding of the bar and crushing
Figure 13: Dowel mechanism.
of concrete (Failure mode I). As previously said, the
( a ) Typical hysteresisloopsfor fullyreversed shear displacements
dowel strength under monotonic actions (for zero ( vintzdeou'' 6))
eccentricity of the dowel force) is expressed as follows: ( b ) A,/ormalistic modelfor fullyreversed shear displacements
(A' = A - )

D U = k d 2 , m . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Cycling of imposed transverse displacements would
be expected to cause a decrease of the dowel response,
due to response degradation of both concrete and
steel. The decrease of dowel response may be
predicted by the differential of the equation (I):
1 L, A f c c + f c c
AD,=k& -
a,,. . . . . . (25)
2 JLCL,
or
compressive strength duringthe nth cycle, normalized
to the concrete compressive strength under monotonic
action and (Afy/Ly)n is the decrease of the response of
steel after n loading cycles, normalized to the first-
cycle-yield stress. The concrete under a bar subjected
to cyclic actions is submitted to repeated loading
(compression)*. For this type of loading, the concrete
response during the nth cycle, normalized to the first-
cycle response, is given in Figure 14 for several values
of &,/E, (&,=maximum deformation during the first
loading cycle, held constant during subsequent cycles,
and E, =deformation corresponding to the monotonic

*As is well known, concrete under a dowel is subjected to triaxial

where (AD,/D,), is the dowel response degradation compression. Experimental data on response degradation of con-
crete under multiaxial repeated loading are few and far between. It
for the nth cycle, normalized to the monotonic is assumed that the response degradation law for monotonic
strength, (Afccrcc)nis the decrease of the concrete loading applies alsoto triaxial compression.

20
Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Mathematical models,for
models,fordowel action under monotonic and cyclic conditions

f,,
7- .. _-+-_m_onotonic envelope
i 1.00
curves: on/uo = 1 - kl G

x
- '\
4 \

0.86 -

0
I 0.82 . I I I I
0 1 2 3 4
CC
(n-1)
(a) (bl
Figure 14: Response degradation of concrete under repeated compressive strains(based on Karsan et

concrete strength). From this Figure, one can observe case, the dowel strength may be predictedby consider-
that ing the dowel as a horizontally loaded pile embedded
incohesivesoil and assuming that yielding of the
bar and crushing of concrete occur simultaneously
(equation 6).
(2) The transverse displacement at failure maybe
where (da/ao)is the concrete response degradation for considered equal either to the shortening of the
the nth cycle, normalized to the response for the first concrete underneath the bar at the moment the com-
cycle, and k, depends upon the ratio &,/E,. pressive stress on concrete reaches its strength under
As far as steel is concerned, tests have shown (see triaxial compression, or to thedisplacementwhich
Kat0 et that there is no
substantial response corresponds to the maximum plastic rotation of the
degradation due to cycling. Therefore, the response plastic hinge formed in the dowel (equations 10 and
degradation of the dowel will be mainly due to the 14).
response degradation of concrete under cyclic actions. (3) When the concrete cover to a dowel is small
On the basis of equation 27, the dowel response (<6d,,), failure is due to horizontal or vertical
degradation due to cycling may be roughly estimated longitudinal splitting cracks. The vertical tensile
by means of equation 26, as follows: stresses on a horizontal section (which equilibrate the
verticalcompressivestresses acting on the concrete
($), = nl&Z . . . . . . . . . . (28) under the bar) are supposed to cause splitting of the
side cover by direct tension and of the bottom cover
by local bending (equations 19 and 22).
Denoting by D,,,
= D, and D,=D,,we obtain: (4) The transverse displacementwhich corresponds
to the splitting dowel load may be predicted by con-
D,
-= 1 - .. . . . .. . . . sidering the bar as a beam on an elastic foundation
Dl (equation 24).
(5) A theoretical physical modeldescribing the
In fact, tests have shown(VintzEleou('6))that: behaviour of the dowel action under cyclic actions is
stillmissing. In this paper, a formalistic model for
fully reversed shear displacements is proposed for the
case of failure due to yield of steeland crushing of the
concrete (Failure mode I, Figure 13).
This approximation is incorporated in the formalistic
model shown in Figure 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Conclusions Partial support of thisresearchwas provided by the
Greek Associationof Cement Manufacturing.
Onthe basis of the data reported in this paper
regardingthebehaviour of the dowel mechanism
undermonotonicand cyclic actions, the following REFERENCES
conclusions maybe drawn. 1. UTESCHER, G . and HERRMANN, M. Versuche zur Ermittlung der
Tragfahigkeit in Beton eingespannter Rundstahldollen aus
(1) When the concrete cover to a bar is large ( 26 to nichtrostendem austehitischem Stahl. Deutscher Ausschuss
7 db),the dowel mechanismfails due toyielding of the fur Stahlbeton, Berlin, Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, 1983. Heft
bar and crushingof the concrete underneath it.In this 346. pp. 49-104.
21

Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Magazine of Concrete Research :Vol. 38, No. 134 :March 1986
2 DULACSKA, H. Dowel action of reinforcement crossing cracks
in concrete. Journal of the AmericanConcreteInstitute,
Proceedings Vol. 69, No. 12. December 1972. pp. 754757.
3 MILLS, G. M. A partial kinking yield criterion for reinforced
concrete slabs. Magazine of Concrete Research. Vol. 27, No.
90. March 1975. pp. 13-22.
4 RASMUSSEN, B. H. The carrying capacity of transversely loaded
bolts and dowels embedded in concrete. Bygningsstatiske
Meddelser. Vol. 34, No. 2, 1963.
5. KREFELD, W. and THURSTON, c. W. Contribution of longitudinal
steel to shear resistance of reinforced concrete beams. Journal
of the American Concrete Institute. ProceedingsVol. 63, No. 3.
March 1966. pp. 325-344.
6. TAYLOR, H. P. I. Investigation of the dowel shear forces carried
by the tensilesteel in reinforcedconcretebeams. London,
Cement and Concrete Association, November 1969. pp. 24.
Technical Report 431 (publication 42.431).
7. BAUMANN, T. and RUSCH, H. Versuche zum Studiumder
Verdubelungswirkung der Biegezugbewehrung eines Stahl-
betonbalkes. Berlin, Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, 1970.
Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton. Heft 210.
8. HOUDE, J. and MIRZA, M. S. A finite element analysis of shear
strength of reinforced concrete beams. Shear in reinforced
concrete. Detroit, American Concrete Institution, 1974. ACI
Special Publication 42. Vol. I.pp. 103-128.
9. JIMENEZ, R., GERGELY, P. and WHITE, R. N. Shear transfer across
cracks in reinforced concrete. Ithaca, New York, Department
of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, August 1978.
Report 78-4.
IO. PASCHEN, H. and SCHONHOFF, T. Untersuchungen uber in
Beton eingelassene Scherbolzen aus Betonstahl. Deutscher
Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton. Berlin, Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn,
1983. pp. 105-149. Heft 346.
11. BROMS, B. B. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils.
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol.
90, No. SM2. 1964. pp. 27-63.
12. PRANDTL,L. fjber die Harte plastischer Korper. Nachrichten
von der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gottingen (Mathematischphysikalische Klasse aus dem Jahre
1920.) Berlin. pp. 7 4 8 5 .
13. BROMS, B. B. Design of laterally loaded piles. Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers.Vol. 91, 1965, pp. 77-99.
14. PAWLAY, T., PARK, R. and PHILLIPS, M. H. Horizontal construc-
tion joints in cast in place reinforced concrete. Shear in
reinforcedconcrete. ACI Special Publication 42. Vol. 2.
Detroit, American Concrete Institution, 1974. pp. 599-616
22
Downloaded by [ York University] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
View publication stats
15. BENNETT, E. W. and BANERJEE,S. Strength of beam-column con-
nections with dowel reinforcement. The Structural Engineer.
vol. 51, NO.4. April 1976. pp. 133-139.
16 VINTZELEOU, E. N. Mechanisms of load transfer along reinforced
concrete interfaces under monotonic and cyclic actions. Thesis
submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, National
Technical University of Athens, forthe degree of PhD.
December 1984. (In Greek.)
17. BLUME, I. A., NEWMARK, N. M. and CORNING, L. H. Designof
multistorey reinforced
concrete
buildings for earthquake
motions. Chicago, Portland Cement Association. 1961.
18. RICHART, F. E., BRANDTZAEG, A. and BROWN, R. L. Thefailure of
plain and spirally reinforced concrete in compression. Urbana,
University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, 1929.
pp. 74. Bulletin No. 190.
19. H E T ~ N Y I , M. Beams on elastic foundation. Ann
Arbor,
University of Michigan Press, 1946.
20. MARCUS, H. Load carrying capacity of dowels at transverse
pavement joints. Journal of the American Concrete Institute.
Proceedings Vol. 48, No. 2. October 1951. pp. 169-184.
21. EVANS, R. H. and MARATHE, M. S. Microcracking and stress-
strain curves for concrete in tension. Materials and Structures:
Research and Testing. Vol. 1, No. I , January-February 1968.
pp. 61-64.
22. GUSTAFSSON, P. J. and HILLERBORG, A. Improvements in
concrete design achieved throughtheapplication of frac-
ture mechanics. ARWFracture Mechanics in concrete,
Northwestern University, September 1984.
23. FENWICK, R. c . Theshearstrengthofreinforcedconcrete
beams. Thesis submitted to the University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand for the degree of PhD. 1966.
24. KEMP, E. L. and WILHELM, W. I. An investigation of the
parameters influencing bondbehaviourwithaviewtowards
establishing design criteria.Morgantown, Department of Civil
Engineering, West Virginia University, November 1977.
Report WVDOH 46-2.
25. KARSAN, I. D. and JIRSA, J. 0. Behavior of concrete under com-
pressive loadings. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Vol. 95, No. ST12. December 1969. pp. 2543-2563.
26. KATO, B., AKIYAMA, H. and YAMANOUSHI, Y. Predictable proper-
ties of materials under incremental cyclic loading. Symposium
on resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted
on by well-defined repeated loads. Lisbon, International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 1973.
Reports of the Working Commissions. Vol. 13. pp. 119-124.