ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 84-83
Behavior of Dowels under Cyclic Deformations
by E. N. Vintzeleou and T. P. Tassios
Presents an experimental investigation of dowel-to-concrete shear
transfer. Emphasis is given to identifying dowel mechanisms under
cyclic actions. In addition, recommendations for the calculation of
dowel strength are proposed, both under monotonic and cyclic load-
ing conditions.
Kevwords: cyclic loads; deformation; dowels; earthquake resistant structures;
rei~forced concrete;shear properties; structural design.
The behavior of reinforced concrete structures sub-
jected to earthquakes may be greatly influenced by the
behavior of cracked critical zones. Therefore, for the
post-cracking design of an aseismic structure which
contains interfaces subjected to shear (e.g., interfaces
between old and new concrete in elements repaired and
strengthened by means of reinforced concrete jackets,
interfaces within precast-element connections, etc.), the
shear-transfer mechanisms (dowel action and concrete-
to-concrete friction) under cyclic actions should be
taken into account.
Research up to now was mainly focused on friction
(or aggregate interlock) which is considered to be the
main load-transfer mechanism along shear-flexural
cracks in monolithic reinforced concrete elements. Ac-
cording to Taylor, 1 the contribution of the dowel ac-
tion to the shear capacity across a shear-flexural crack
in a beam is equal to 9 to 20 percent. The remaining 80
to 91 percent of the shear force is transferred by means
of friction along the tensioned zone and through the
compressed zone.
However, the increase in the width of cracks during
an earthquake due to bond degradation under cyclic
actions, leads to a substantial decrease of concrete-to-
concrete friction along the tensioned zone.
On the other hand, in many other situations, such as
certain types of connections between precast concrete
elements or interfaces in some repair and strengthening
techniques, dowel action is considered as the main load-
transfer mechanism.
In order to investigate the dowel mechanism under
large cyclic actions, an extensive parametric experimen-
tal program has been carried out in the Laboratory of
Reinforced Concrete Structures at the National Tech-
18
TECHNICAL PAPER
nical University of Athens. The main findings of this
program are presented briefly.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
1. Experimental evidence concerning the dowel
mechanism under fully reversed deformations is pro-
vided.
2. Practical recommendations for the design of in-
terfaces that transfer monotonic or cyclic shear forces
by means of dowel action are proposed.
LITERATURE SURVEY
Several series of tests have been carried out at Cor-
nell University to investigate dowel action under cyclic
loading. Those tests are one of the main sources of ex-
perimental data on dowel behavior under cyclic load-
ing.
In Fig. 1 some typical shear stress-shear displace-
ment diagrams by Eleiott, 2 Stanton, 3 and Jimenez,
Gergely, and White 4 are shown. All specimens that
failed by concrete splitting have shown some common
features:
• increase of the maximum slip with cycling,
• substantial stiffness degradation,
• very pronounced pinching effect, and
• decreasing area of hysteresis loops with cycling.
It should be noted that in all the previously men-
tioned tests, the maximum cyclic shear stress was rela-
tively small compared to the bearing capacity of dowels
under monotonic loading. The aim of the tests per-
formed at Cornell University was to simulate the be-
havior of cracks in reinforced concrete nuclear con-
tainment vessels. Due to the high safety requirements
for this type of structure, earthquakes are considered a
variable, thus non-accidental, action. Consequently,
design shear forces have to be considerably lower than
the bearing capacity of interfaces.
Received Oct. 18, 1985, and reviewed u~der Instit~te publication. policies.
Copyright © 1987, American Col!cr.ete !nStltut.e. All nghts reserve~, mcludmg
the making of copies unless l?ermiSSIOn .1s obt.amed from the copynght propn·
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published m the November·December 1987
AC/ Structural Journal if received by July I, 1987.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987
 20.0 O(KN) 12 10 O(KN)
E. N. Vintze/eou is an assistant at the Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece. She is a
1200
member of CEB and CIB working groups and is the author of several papers
on the behavior of shear transfer mechanisms under monotonic and cyclic ac-
tions, as well as on the seismic behavior of reinforced masonry.

A CJ member T. P. Tass los is a professor of reinforced concrete structures at

the National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece. He is president
of the Euro-lnternationa/ Concrete Commillee (CEB) and the author of nu-
merous publications on the behavior of reinforced concrete under monotonic
and cyclic actions.
1200
-O(KN)
20.0
-D(KN)
Table 1-Experimental program: Combinations of
parameters*
•s(mml
Concrete
compressive Bar Loading Designation o.•
strength Cover, diameter level of
J:,, MPa mm d1: mm >.. specimens
40.0 14.0 M DA-40,14/M
20.0
40.0 14.0 0.80 DA-40, 14/0.80

20.0 14.0 M DB-20,14/M Fig. I- Typical hysteresis loops for cyclic dowel ac-
40.0 14.0 M DB-40,14/M tion: a) Eleiott, 2 b) Stanton, 3 and c) Jimenez et a/. 4 1
150.0 14.0 M DB-150,14/M
mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa = 145
40.0 8.0 M DB-40,8/M
40.0 18.0 M DB-40,18/M psi
20.0 14.0 0.80 DB-20, 14/0.80
30.0
40.0 14.0 0.30 DB-40,14/0.30 frlct ionless
40.0 14.0 0.55 DB-40,14/0.55 1 paraffin -~

40.0 14.0 0.80 DB-40,14/0.80

A
150.0 14.0 0.80 DB-150,14/0.80
40.0 8.0 0.80 DB-40,8/0.80
40.0 18.0 0.80 DB-40,18/0.80

40.0 14.0 M DC-40,14/M

45.0
40.0 14.0 0.80 DC-40,14/0.80 deformed
4 bars
*Two specimens have been tested for each combination of parameters. Total +-~ 300 . 1! -- 300. 300 ~ -l·
number of specimens is 32.
D = dowel force; A, B, C = concrete compressive strength (A = 20 MPa,
B = 30 MPa, and C = 45 MPa); M = monotonic loading. Hence, the name
of each specimen means dowel action, concrete grade-concrete cover, bar di- Fig. 2-Specimen for investigation of the dowel mech-
ameter /kind and level of loading.
I mm = 0.0394 in.; I MPa = 145 psi
anism. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

Tt;i
However, for usual reinforced concrete structures I i xc d
I
I
I
'
li X I d
_____L-=-..r-=-=--=-d __ --.
earthquakes are an accidental action, hence, much
higher levels of loading are accepted.
Therefore, the results of the previously mentioned l'J
ll,(!D)
tests are not directly applicable for normal reinforced
concrete structures under seismic conditions. On the
other hand, since structural elements are subjected to
large deformation reversals under cyclic seismic ac-
i X I d
tions, strain-controlled tests should be carried out.
5 6
HY dial gouges
1"6 transducers
TEST SETUP AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
The specimens used for investigation of the dowel
mechanism (Fig. 2) consisted of three concrete blocks, Fig. 3-Schematic of test setup and instrumentation for
each 12 in. (300 mm) long, 12 in. (300 mm) high, and 6 slip measurements
in. (150 mm) wide, cast simultaneously in a metal mold.
Metal sheets 0.16 in. (4 mm) thick were placed qetween two deformed bars crossing the interfaces. No trans-
adjacent concrete blocks. The metal sheets were re- verse reinforcement was provided to those bars.
moved before testing and the joints left between con- The test setup is shown schematically in Fig. 3. The
crete blocks were filled with paraffin. Thus, friction two end blocks were fixed; shear displacements were
along interfaces was eliminated and shear forces could imposed on the central block. Shear displacements and
be transferred only by means of dowel action of the shear forces were continuously recorded during testing.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987 19
 The following parameters were investigated:
1. Concrete compressive strength [f;.c = 2860, 4280,
or 6430 psi (20, 30, or 45 MPa)]
2. Bar diameter [db = 0.32, 0.56, or 0.72. in. (8, 14,
or 18 mm)]
3. Bottom concrete cover [c = 0.80, 1.60, or 6.0 in.
(20, 40, or 150 mm)], while the side cover was in all
specimens equal to 1.60 in. (40.0 mm)
4. Loading level (DmuxfDu, mou = 0.30, 0.55, or 0.80
where Dmax = maximum shear force for a loading cycle
and Du, man = dowel strength under monotonic loading).
Combinations of parameters for all 32 specimens are
given in Table 1. Fourteen specimens were subjected to
monotonically increasing load up to failure. The re-
maining 18 specimens were subjected to the following
fixed
© @
D
Fig. 4-Typical crack pattern of specimens reinforced with two No. 14 bars. Con-
crete cover = 40 mm. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips
20
loading histories: An initial dowel load equal to 30, 55,
or 80 percent of the dowel strength under monotonic
loading was applied; the corresponding value of trans-
verse displacement Ll 1 was measured and deformation
reversals to the same shear displacement were applied.
Stabilized response was reached after three to five full
reversals.
Then, a dowel load equal to the initial one, or greater
by 2.25 kips (10 kN), was applied to the specimen, the
corresponding shear displacement Ll 2 ( > Ll 1) was mea-
sured and held constant during the subsequent defor-
mation reversals. The same procedure was followed for
larger Ll values up to failure.
Two additional specimens were subjected to differ-
ent loading histories. The first was subjected to cyclic
f i xed
COON 1-1 SECTION II-II
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987
actions with a maximum shear displacement in the first
loading direction twice as large as the shear displace-
ment in the second loading direction (.::1 = 2.::1-, see Fig.
10). The second specimen was subjected to repeated
(not reversed) actions.

TEST RESULTS
Crack pattern
A typical crack pattern for specimens with a cover of ®
1.60 in. (40 mm) subjected either to monotonic or to
cyclic actions is shown in Fig. 4. Similar crack patterns
were found for concrete cover of 0.80 in. (20 mm). At
..--- - F=
load levels equal to 40 to 50 percent of the dowel
strength, longitudinal splitting cracks appear at the re-
inforcement level, both on the side and the upper faces
of the specimens.
For higher dowel loads and subsequent deformation
I, jo

~ ~
reversals, both the length and the width of splitting
cracks increase. In case of bottom cover of 6 in. (150
mm), splitting cracks appear only on the side faces of
the specimens (Fig. 5).
J.i a;
Monotonic loading
Results of monotonic tests are summarized in Fig. 6 loO(I'I
t150.0

to 8. Typical dowel force-dowel displacement curves are

given in Fig. 6, and the role of concrete cover on dowel
1
2.14

strength is also apparent. It was observed that an in-

crease of concrete cover from 0.80 to 1.60 in. (20 to 40 SECTION 1-1

mm) leads to a 60 percent increase in dowel strength.

Further increase of the bottom cover from 1.60 to 6 in.
(40 to 150 mm) did not cause any substantial increase Fig. 5-Typical crack pattern of specimens with bot-
of the dowel strength. Since the side cover was always tom cover of 150 mm, reinforced with two No. 14 bars.
1.60 in. (40 mm) in specimens with bottom cover of 6.0 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

I tee• 44.0~,..1
70.0 c .1!10"'"'
\tee • ., 1.0~f'!.l_-
, c•'-0~-----
---- {tec•ll.OMI'a.l_._-
---- e•l.O~---·-·-
60.0 ---·-·

50.0

40.0 e • 20mm I tee • 39.0MPal

30.0

20.0

ta!mm)

10 2.0 30 4.0

Fig. 6- Typical curves of mean values of dowel force vs. transverse displacement
under monotonic loading: Influence of bottom cover on dowel strength. 1 mm
0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa = 145 psi
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987 21
in. (150 mm) premature side splitting occurred, the ef- Cyclic loading
fectiveness of the large bottom cover being very small Some typical hysteresis loops are shown in Fig. 9 and
in this case. 10. The shear displacement imposed in the second
On the other hand, it was found that dowel strength loading direction was equal to that of the first loading
increases proportionally to concrete tensile strength direction ~-I~+ = 1.0 for the specimen in Fig. 9. The
(Fig. 7) and to bar diameter (Fig. 8). ratio~- I~+ was 0.50 for the specimen in Fig. 10.

Du (I< N) Du (KN/bar)
%0.0
40.0
0
0
70.0

30.0 lfc:c: c 32.0 M Pa

60.0 Sp&cimms:DI-40.1/Io4
DB-40.14/M
DC- 40.14
!10.0 DB-tso,14/
20.0 DC- 40.18/
// 0 DA-40,14/
40.0 /
/ /
/ /
30.0 /
/ 100 _,/
/ /
/ /
2014--t-'1....-.:::tL+--11~
20.0
/
/
/
--¥0 mm
.....__.....~ /
/
/

db(mm)
/ QO /
10 0 /
/ 00 8.0 14.0 18.0
/
/
fct (M11)
0.0 ~----'----....J... _ _ __.__ _ __._,..

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Fig. 8-/nfluence of bar diameter on monotonic dowel
Fig. 7-Influence of concrete tensile strength on dowel strength. I kN = 0.225 kips; I mm = 0.0394 in.; I
strength. I MPa = I45 psi; I kN = 0.225 kips MPa = I45 psi

+
D(KN)

·30.0

CS-20,W0.80

•10.0

Fig. 9- Typical hysteresis loops for fully reversed transverse displacements (~ · = ~- ). The characteristic asymme-
try of response (D+ = D-) is apparent. I mm = 0.0394 in.; I kN = 0.225 kips
22 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987
 60.0 /
/ /
/

1.00 +ll!mm)

Fig. 10-Dowel force-transverse displacement diagram for partially reversed

displacements (fj,.- I jj,. + = 0.50). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.,· 1 kN = 0.225 kips

Fig. 11-Dowel force-transverse displacement diagram for fully reversed dis-

placements. 1 mm = 0. 0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987 23
 Dn/D1 A~arage cur~•
- 1 -~
-
Dn=D 1C1-- vn-1)
7
0.9 ~=(0~ •Dji)/2
•enc 0.8
0
~t -.. i
a.
en
...• 0,7
I0 '

{:)
(t)
.. 0.~
•
~
0
"0 0.5
"0
~ 0.4 • DA- 40.11.10.80

..
E 0,3
o DB - l.O. 8 /1.00
• DB- 40.14/0.80
D =D (1-...!.... yn.-1'
n 1 14
)
... + DC - 40.18/0.80

®
0
o DB- 40.141 0.'30 0.9 0
c: 0.2 • DC - 40.141 0,80 DB-40,14/0.80
• DC-150.11.10.80 repeated loading
0.1 6 DB- 201410.80 n.
0.8, 3 n
2
o.o, 2 3 5 6
c y cl e s
'
Fig. 12-Force-response degradation due to cycling, normalized to the dowel force
at first cycle. a) Specimens subjected to reversed actions; b) specimen subjected to
repeated loading

In all specimens in which a cover equal to 0.80 or
1.60 in. (20 or 40 mm) was provided to the bars, it was
observed that dowel response in the second loading di-
rection is considerably lower than the response in the
first loading direction, even during the first deforma-
tion reversal. This feature was not observed in the case
of bars placed at midheight in the specimen (Fig. 11).
On the other hand, substantial response degradation
due to cycling was observed, even for specimens sub-
jected to relatively small cyclic deformations. The
pinching effect was very pronounced and, conse-
quently, the hysteresis loop area (hysteretic damping)
was very small.
DISCUSSION
Response degradation
The asymmetry observed in the hysteresis loops of
specimens with minimum cover of 0.80 or 1.60 in. (20
or 40 mm) (see Fig. 9 and 10) may be attributed to the
fact that during cycling, bottom covers were different
for each loading direction. During the first half of each
cycle, the bottom cover was 10.5 or 9.7 in. (266 or 246
mm), while during the second half of each cycle the
bottom cover was 0.80 or 1.60 in. (20 or 40 mm).
24
Thus, during the first half of the first cycle (and for
loading levels higher than 0.40 to 0.50}, a splitting crack
appeared at the side faces of the specimens (see Fig. 4)
because the side covers were critical [1.60 in. (40 mm)]
in both cases. During the second half of the cycle, the
splitting cracks that opened at the top face of the spec-
imens (see Fig. 4) caused a decrease in the response in
the second loading direction.
Response degradation due to cycling is shown in Fig.
12(a) for dowel-force levels higher than 0.30 of the ul-
timate value. This response degradation was more pro-
nounced during the second and third deformation re-
versals (decrease of response by approximately 20 per-
cent, while a tendency for response stabilization was
observed during subsequent reversals. After five full
reversals, a response equal to 75 percent of the initial
one was observed.
It should be noted that response degradation did not
seem to increase with increasing imposed deforma-
tions, at least for loading levels higher than 0.30 (which
were used in this program).
Additionally, response degradation due to cycling
was found to be practically independent of concrete
cover, bar diameter, and strength of concrete.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987
 n 1
i<dti<d
tnn "'DC-&0,18/0.80
'DB-40,14/0.80
'"'' oDA-40, 14/QBO
·~~ •DC-40,14/080
0.80 •DB-40,14/0.80(repeated)
~ t.OB-40, 1410.80 (tt u,• =0.50)
\
0.70
!1\. ~
+DB-20, 1410.80
•DB-&0,14/Q30(reload~j«bl 0
-
/:¥
0.61.
'"
a·~\
.~~150,1410.80
• • I
) ~n
I r<" j_
--

a.~ d ~..-
-~ • ~i<~ j
0.40

0.30

0.20
" '~ ;..........

@ ~. @
'i(

-. f"------.
~~i
-
• '"l) ''"'l:r .,.,..
0.10 ..,-..........,.-· ~Q
1\.
0.0 11
5 10 15 20 25 30

Fig. 13-Normalized stiffness degradation due to cycling.

No improvement of dowel behavior was observed in

the case of partially reversed shear displacements ~- =
0.50~ +. On the contrary, smaller response degradation 1.00
occurs when imposed shear displacements do not
change sign [repeated loading, Fig. 12(b)].

Stiffness degradation
Dowel stiffness of the nth cycle (determined as shown
in Fig. 13(b)), normalized to the stiffness observed in
the first cycle, is plotted against the number of cycles in
Fig. 13(a).
Considerable stiffness degradation is observed (ap-
proximately 50 percent after 10 reversals). Stiffness
degradation seems to be practically independent of
concrete compressive strength, concrete cover, and bar
diameter. Curves of stiffness versus number of cycles
for all specimens form a relatively narrow band (see
Fig. 13), with the exception of two specimens:
• The specimen subjected to repeated loading experi-
enced considerably lower stiffness degradation due to
cycling than specimens subjected to full reversals.
• Specimens initially cycled at low dowel-force levels
showed a stiffness degradation at a higher dowel-
force level larger than that occutring when a high
dowel force was immediately imposed to the speci-
men (lower curves in Fig. 13 and 14).

Hysteretic damping
A typical feature of shear-sensitive reinforced con- ~20 n
crete structural elements is that their hysteresis-loop 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
area is very small. The same feature was observed dur- Fig. 14-lnfluence of loading history on stiffness deg-
ing cyclic dowel tests [Fig. 15(a)]. The hysteretic damp- radation due to cycling; stiffness degradation is finally
r
ing for the first cycle of each group of full reversals more pronounced for specimens having previously been
at a given ~value, determined as shown in Fig. 15(b), subjected to a less intensive displacement reversal (dot-
was approximately 4.3 percent. A decrease of r by 20 ted line)
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987 25
 t•i,J i5
7.0 +
• + ®
60
+

5.0 • •
1st cycle •
4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0
n
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Fig. 15-a) Hysteretic damping decrease due to cycling; b) definition of equivalent

hysteretic damping

percent occurred in the second cycle and, finally, after for a characteristic compressive strength f.k instead of
three to five cycles (i.e., after response stabilization oc- the mean value fen this equation becomes
curred), hysteretic damping was equal to 60 percent of
the initial one. D.,= 1.30d~.JJcJsy (l)

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of physical models describing the dowel where the units are in mm and Nlmm 2 •
mechanism of shear transfer, analytical expressions for The design dowel-strength value may be obtained by
the calculation of dowel strength have been proposed substitution of f.k and fsY by their design values
by Vintzeleou and Tassios. 5
These expressions, the validity of which was checked (2)
by means of the experimental data presented in this pa-
per as well as by means of results reported in the liter- and
ature, allow the calculation of dowel strength under
monotonic and cyclic actions. (3)
In this section, by appropriate modification of the
previously mentioned expressions, some formulas for ('Yc = 1.50 and 'Ys = 1.15 are partial safety factors for
the calculation of the design values of dowel strength concrete and steel, according to the CEB-FIP Model
are derived. Code).
Hence
Monotonic loading
Failure mode I- When large cover c (;;;:: six to
eight times the bar diameter) is provided to the dowels, (Ia)
the mechanism fails due to yielding of the bar and
crushing of the concrete.* In general, where the dowel is simultaneously sub-
For the calculation of dowel strength, it is assumed jected to a tensile stress a, = cxf,y (ex ~ 1.0), the plastic
that the dowel behaves like a horizontally loaded free- moment of the bar decreases
headed pile embedded in cohesive soil (Fig. 16) and that
yielding of the bar and crushing of the concrete occur
simultaneously. It is also suggested by Vintzeleou and (4)
Tassios5 that the compressive stress of the concrete at
failurefc~ is equal to 5f.c (f.c being the strength of con-
Thus, the design dowel strength is calculated by the
crete under uniaxial compression). Thus, the equation equation
in Fig. 16 is derived for the calculation of dowel
strength. For zero eccentricity of the dowel force, and (lb)

Failure ,mode II - For concrete cover smaller than

•This failure mode does not exclude the appearance of secondary splitting
cracks. six to eight times the bar diameter, the dowel mecha-
26 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987
 Pla5tic
hinge

Htnct,

-+t;c+ -fM~J-;
t;c=Sfcc Mmax :0.17db t 5 y

80 Du,t~or.(kN)
2 4
Du•(lOfccdbelDu-1.7dbfccfsy=O
70

60

D~e
... ., ... ,·.
50
fs~ '\.. ~~cc
..
40
1tb
30
•utescher and Herrm:.mn'14l
OBennett and Banerjee(15)
+ Paulay,Park and Phillip5(l 6 l
1 Rasmussen(17)
e Vintzileou( 6l
Du,expe~kN)
30 40 50 60 70

Fig. 16-a) Prediction of the ultimate dowel force; failure due to yielding of the
bar and crushing of the concrete; b) comparison between theoretically predicted
dowel strengths and experimental D" values. 1 kN == 0.225 kips; 1 mm == 0.0394
in.

nism fails by concrete splitting. Side or bottom split- 17(b)], reaches its ultimate value. Thus, the dowel force
ting may occur, depending on the value of side-to-bot- causing bottom splitting is given by the equation
tom cover ratio.
For small values of this ratio, i.e., when side cover is
critical, it is assumed that a horizontal crack opens (6)
when the tensile stresses au (which equilibrate the com-
pressive stresses a,, under the bar) become equal to the
where the units are in mm and N/mm 2 , and c is the
concrete tensile strength f., [Fig. 17(a)].
bottom cover and 1/;' is a coefficient depending on the
Hence, the dowel force causing side splitting is given
bottom cover (see Vintzeleou and Tassios 5). For usual
by the equation
bottom cover values 0.80 to 1.60 in. (20 to 40 mm), 1/;'
(5)
= 5.0. Hence,

where the units are in mm and N/mm 2 , and b,, is the (6a)
net width of the section and .f., is the tensile strength of
concrete.
For large values of the side-to-bottom cover ratio, where the units are in mm and N/mm 2•
i.e., when bottom cover is critical, it is assumed that a Admitting a "f, factor of 1.50, the corresponding de-
vertical splitting crack opens when the bending mo- sign dowel strength values are obtained from Eq. (5)
ment at Section CD of the cantilever ABCDEA [Fig. and (6a)
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987 27
 SIDE SPLITTING
For long dowels. 10 1112.Sdb
~ § r
L=8db, 0 =0.314L
Hence, z.sdb
0
G.
0 lll~SO
fcc::~db/ acc<xl dx =1.220
N
G.
N
beam an llastic
a
foundation Fct =iict bet' 2.5db
and, at cracking (O~ocr .act =fct l
Fcc= 1. 22 0cr = Fct = fct bet 2·5 db-

jocr= 2.0dbbct tctl

U~acc
'--_+_cit;.::..+-_ __, bet =b-db

BOTTOM SPLITTING
External ultimate moment at
section CD:
Mu =0.25·1.22Dcr (0.66c•dbl
Resisting moment of the critical
section CD:
c -x 2x
Mu=lf'fct (c-x)(-2 - • "'3)2.5db
tllfctl!ll>tO):maximum nominal tensile stress
For small bottom cover it is assumed :ljl:l.SO
312 liZ
0 =9.02!11(!11 -2.0511!-1.35!11 +3.33l~c~ c
cr ( 2.7-111)2 0.66c•db
or, for 111=1.~
c
Dcr =SO fct cdb - - - -
0.66c+db

For eccentrically ~ied dowr.l force

Dcr=~'dbbct fct or
• Dcr=ll''cdbfct Q66~•db
•
• •
eHoude and MiruPl (S)
ol<reNld.and Thurston
x Taylorf1T(one 8:!int 1 ~ 34 specimens)
!~~n~~~\t':e 1~ Geraely( 4 l
lFenwickl~one pointf:gt"'36 specimens)
a Baumann and RUsch l1J
• Paschen and Schonhotr 12l

Fig. 17-a) Theoretical prediction of the dowel force causing side splitting of the concrete sec-
tion,· b) theoretical prediction of the dowel force causing bottom splitting of the concrete section,·
c) comparison between theoretically predicted and experimental splitting force values. 1 kN =
0.225 kips,· 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
28 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987
 (Sa)
for side splitting and
(6b)
for bottom splitting.
When the dowel mechanism fails by concrete split-
ting, it was found by Vintzeleou 6 that the maximum
bending moment developed in the bar is considerably
lower than its plastic moment. This is also the case
when the dowel is simultaneously subjected to a tensile
stress as ( = a.f,y). However, even for a. values as large
as 0.80 to 0.90, the concrete remains the critical mate-
rial.
In fact, tests by Sharma, 13 Houde et a!., 7 Kemp et
a!., 9 and Vintzeleou6 have shown that no significant de-
crease of the splitting load occurred for as values up to
0.80/,Y"
Hence, a simple interaction curve as shown in Fig. 18
may be accepted. For as ;;.: 0.80/sy, Eq. (Sa) and (6b)
can be modified accordingly
(5b)
for side splitting and
(6c)
for bottom splitting where 0.8 ~a.= a//sy ~ 1.00
Cyclic loading for failure mode I
As shown by tests presented in this paper, substan-
tial dowel response degradation occurs under cyclically
imposed deformation. This degradation may be ex-
pressed by the empirical expression, valid for both
loading directions
1 tained by multiplying the design dowel-strength values
D,i = Di (1-7v'n-1) (7a)
(7b)
where n: and D; denote the dowel response to the nth
cycle for the first and second loading directions, re-
spectively, and Di and D! denote the dowel response
to the first reversal for the first and second loading di-
rections.
In all tests, response stabilization occurred after six
reversals. Therefore, a stabilized dowel response may
be estimated (by putting in Eq. (7a) and (7b), n = 6)
Ds~ab =. 0. 70D( (8a)
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987
0.8 .... - .,_
Du:Du
0 ·0o'-.o-------~,.o-•:.
Fig. 18-/nf/uence of axial stress of reinforcing bars on
their dowel capacity (interaction curve for Failure
Mode II)
(8b)
On the other hand, for the conditions of the current
tests, it was observed that, roughly speaking,
D; =: 0.70D; (9)
Therefore,
D; =: 0.70 · 0.70Di ::0.50Di (8c)
where Di is approximately equal to the dowel strength
under monotonic loading.
When calculating the design dowel strength of Mode
I under cyclic actions, the approximate expression
D,=O.SOD( (10)
may be used. Therefore, the design dowel force under
cyclic loading in case of Failure Mode I can be ob-
given in Eq. (1b) by O.SO.
CONCLUSIONS
Tests on dowel action under deformation reversals
indicated that:
1. Significant response degradation occurs, espe-
cially during the early loading cycles.
2. Stiffness degradation is pronounced, especially in
case of fully reversed deformations.
3. The hysteresis loop area is relatively small and de-
creases with cycling. Therefore, the hysteretic damping
is very small.
4. On the basis of the experimental results, a quanti-
fication of the influence of cycling on the dowel re-
sponse is possible by appropriate modification of for-
mulas proposed for monotonic loading.
29
 NOTATION 3. Stanton, J. F., "An Investigation of the Dowel Action of the
u/f,, normalized axial stress Reinforcement of Nuclear Containment Vessels and Their Non-Lin-
net width of the concrete section ear Dynamic Response to Earthquake Loads," MSc thesis, Cornell
c concrete cover University, Ithaca, 1977, 166 pp.
partial safety factor for concrete ( = 1.50) 4. Jimenez, R.; Gergely, P.; and White, R. N., "Shear Transfer
'Y· partial safety factor for steel ( = 1.15) across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete," Report No. 78-4, Depart-
D dowel force ment of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, Aug.
dowel-force response to the first loading direction during the 1978, 357 pp.
nth cycle 5. Vintzeleou, E. N., and Tassios, T. P., "Mathematical Models
D; dowel-force response to the second loading direction during for Dowel Action under Monotonic and Cyclic Conditions," Maga-
the nth cycle zine of Concrete Research (London); V. 38, No. 134, Mar. 1986, pp.
D. average dowel response during the nth cycle ( = [D: + 13-22.
D;]/2) 6. Vintzeleou, E. N., "Mechanisms of Load Transfer along Rein-
D. dowel strength (Failure Mode I) forced Concrete Interfaces under Monotonic and Cyclic Actions,"
design dowel strength (Failure Mode I) PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National Technical
dowel force causing splitting of concrete (Failure Mode II) University of Athens, Dec. 1984, 549 pp.
design dowel force causing concrete splitting (Failure Mode 7. Houde, J., and Mirza, M. S., "A Finite Element Analysis of
II) Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Shear in Reinforced
Dsr.b average dowel response after response stabilization has oc- Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp.
curred 103-128.
d. bar diameter 8. Krefeld, William J., and Thurston, Charles W., "Contribution
.1 shear displacement of Longitudinal Steel to Shear Resistance of Reinforced Concrete
.1. maximum shear displacement imposed during the hth full Beams," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 63, No. 3, Mar. 1966, pp.
reversal 325-344 .
.1• shear displacement in the first loading direction 9. Kemp, E. L., and Wilhelm, W. J., "An Investigation of the Pa-
.1- shear displacement in the second loading direction rameters Influencing Bond Behavior with a View towards Design
frr concrete compressive strength measured on cylinders Criteria," Report No. WYDOH 46-2, Department of Civil Engineer-
.f! strength of concrete under triaxial compression ing, West Virginia University, Morgantown, Nov. 1977, 389 pp.
J;, characteristic compressive strength of concrete 10. Fenwick, R. C., "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
fa~ design compressive strength of concrete Beams," PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 1966,
J;, tensile strength of concrete 335 pp.
f,_. yield stress of steel II. Baumann, Theodor, and Riisch, Hubert, "Versuche zum Stu-
f,d design yield stress of steel dium der Verdiibelungswirkung der Biegezugbewehrung eines Stahl-
! hysteretic damping betonbalkens," Bulletin No. 210, Deutscher Ausschuss fiir Stahlbe-
K dowel stiffness ton, Berlin, 1970, pp. 43-83.
Mp1 plastic moment of a steel bar = Mm., 12. Paschen, Heinrich, and Schiinhoff, Theodor, "Untersuchun-
n number of cycles gen iiber in Beton eingelassene Scherbolzen a us Betonstahl," Bulletin
u, tensile stress of a bar No. 346, Deutscher Ausschuss fiir Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1983, pp. 105-
1/t' coefficient depending on the bottom concrete cover pro- 149.
vided to a dowel 13. Sharma, N. K., "Splitting Failures in Reinforced Concrete
Members," PhD thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Cor-
nell University, Ithaca, 1969.
14. Utescher, Giinter, and Herrmann, Hubert, "Versuche zur Er-
CONVERSION FACTORS mittlung der Tragfiihigkeit in Beton eingespannter Rundstahldollen
I mm = 0.0394 in. a us Nichtrostendem austenitischem Stahl," Bulletin No. 346,
I kN = 0.225 kips Deutscher Ausschuss fiir Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1983, pp. 49-104.
I MPa = 145 psi 15. Bennett, E. W., and Banerjee, S., "Strength of Beam-Column
Connections with Dowel Reinforcement," The Structural Engineer
REFERENCES (London), V. 54, No.4, Apr. 1976, pp. 133-139.
I. Taylor, H. P. J., "Investigation of the Dowel Shear Forces 16. Paulay, T.; Park, R.; and Phillips, M. H., "Horizontal Con-
Carried by the Tensile Steel in Reinforced Concrete Beams," Tech- struction Joints in Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete," Shear in
nical Report No. TRA-431, Cement and Concrete Association, Lon- Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
don, Nov. 1969, 24 pp. 1974, pp. 599-616.
2. Eleiott, A. F., "An Experimental Investigation of Shear Trans- 17. Rasmussen, B. H., "The Carrying Capacity of Transversely
fer across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete," MSc thesis, Cornell Uni- Loaded Bolts and Dowels Embedded in Concrete," Bygningsstatiske
versity, Ithaca, June 1974, 115 pp. Meddelelser (Copenhagen), V. 34, No.2, 1963, pp. 39-55.

30 ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1987