Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Dowel action and shear strength contribution of high strength rebar

embedded in ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
Jun Xia a, Yulin Xiao b, Kevin R. Mackie b,⇑, Munaf Al-Ramahee b, Amir Mirmiran c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, XJTLU111 Ren’ai Road, Suzhou Dushu Lake Higher Education Town, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province 215123, PR China
b
Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-2450, USA
c
College of Engineering and Computing, Florida International University, 10555 W Flagler St, Miami, FL 33174, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The influence of dowel action is usually ignored during normal reinforced concrete beam designs since
Received 10 January 2014 vertical shear reinforcing bars always offer significant shear resistance. However, for ultra-high
Revised 4 August 2014 performance concrete (UHPC) beams without shear reinforcement, the dowel action contribution to
Accepted 2 November 2014
the shear strength becomes considerable and is important in assuring a non-brittle type of shear failure.
Available online 24 November 2014
The embedded longitudinal rebar transfers the shear force by concrete core bearing and UHPC support in
tension on alternate sides of the shear crack. A series of notched UHPC dowel specimens were tested to
Keywords:
verify the contribution from dowel action. The interfacial bond between UHPC and rebar was eliminated
Beam on elastic foundation
Beam on nonlinear foundation
by covering plastic tubes on the embedded rebar. Important dowel action contribution parameters were
Dowel force obtained and the load versus displacement curves were used to calibrate beam on elastic foundation
Tension modulus (BEF) and beam on nonlinear foundation (BNF) theoretical models. The experimental and analytical esti-
mates of the peak dowel force are compared with existing equations calibrated for normal strength
concrete.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Due to maintenance, operational, and safety concerns with open
grid steel deck systems that are commonly used in moveable
bridges in Florida, USA, several alternative deck systems were
previously investigated [1,2]. One of them utilized ultra-high per-
formance concrete (UHPC) in passively-reinforced beams without
shear reinforcement to lower the deck self-weight. Several simply
supported beams were tested to investigate the load capacity and
the results indicated that most of beam specimens failed due to
diagonal shear cracks. Some existing formulas were used to esti-
mate the ultimate shear capacity [3]. However, these estimations
did not correctly reflect the capacity due to the lack or inaccuracy
of input parameters. Hence, more experimental and analytical
investigations are required to determine these important parame-
ters before accurately predicting the shear strength.
1.1. Dowel action in normal strength concrete
The shear force upon cracking in normal strength concrete (NSC)
beams without stirrups is mainly resisted by the combination of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 407 823 2857.
E-mail address: kmackie@mail.ucf.edu (K.R. Mackie).
three mechanisms (Fig. 1), namely the shear stress from the un-
cracked concrete compression zone, inclined shear stress due to
aggregate interlocking, and the dowel force from the tension rein-
forcement. The contribution of each component to the total shear
resistance was estimated approximately as 20–40%, 25–50% and
15–25%, respectively [4]. Obviously, the dowel action contribution
is comparable to the other two contributions in this case. However,
in most NSC design situations, adequate shear reinforcement is pro-
vided such that flexural failure occurs first without any shear
cracks. When shear reinforcement is provided, the dowel action
contribution is not even activated before the flexural failure and
the shear capacity of the steel greatly exceeds the concrete
contribution; therefore, the dowel action contribution is usually
not considered in the design equations.
In situations where the dowel action contribution was significant,
several analytical and experimental studies have been previously
performed. The contribution of dowel action on the shear strength
is usually difficult to measure during the experiment because it
always combines with other shear resistance mechanisms. Several
test setups aimed at obtaining the dowel action behavior were con-
ducted by previous researchers. For example, a double L-shaped
specimen was used to investigate the dowel action against the con-
crete cover by Soroushian [5]. Bush and Mannava [6] used single
shear block specimens to evaluate the dowel action contribution,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.11.004
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
224 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232
and the deflected shape of the dowel rebar was measured using mul-
tiple LVDTs. Tanaka and Murakoshi [7] applied transverse loads to
dowel bars embedded in concrete to examine dowel behavior
beyond yield, bar deformation slope, and concrete spalling, with
comparisons made to beam on elastic foundation (BEF) theory. How-
ever, the real in-situ condition of longitudinal rebar embedded in a
flexural member with diagonal shear cracks are not represented in
the previous attempts.
The simplified model from Friberg [8] is widely used to predict
elastic dowel action response. The model treated the rebar as a
semi-infinite BEF under a concentrated dowel load. The foundation
properties were calculated based on concrete properties. This elas-
tic model can calculate the elastic stiffness and predict the peak
elastic dowel response. For beam on nonlinear foundations (BNFs)
considering the post-cracking strength of concrete, the dowel force
and displacement relation are usually assumed to be polynomial
[5] or exponential [9]. Knowing the stiffness of the foundation
and peak dowel force, the complete load versus displacement rela-
tion can be obtained with these assumed curve types. The peak
dowel force, according to Ince et al. [10], is influenced by four
design parameters: compressive strength of concrete, yielding
strength of steel, inclination angle of transverse reinforcement,
and size of dowel rebar. Kim and Park [4] stated that the dowel
action contribution is largely dependent on the flexural rigidity
of the reinforcing rebar and the strength of surrounding concrete.
Both the strength of concrete and size of the cover will affect the
strength of surrounding concrete. Ince et al. [10] concluded that
the contribution of the dowel action to the total shear capacity of
a cracked reinforced concrete specimen increases with the value
of qf y , in which q is the reinforcement ratio and f y is the yield
stress of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Several curve fitting equations have been proposed to estimate
the ultimate dowel load. The equation proposed by Dulacska [11]
includes the compressive strength of concrete and the yielding
stress of the dowel rebar, while other equations [5,12] use the ten-
sile strength of the concrete explicitly. The peak dowel action force
against concrete cover can be estimated using the following equa-
tion proposed by Soroushian [5] as shown in Eq. (1). The maximum
dowel action force governed by the yielding strength of rebar f y is
also presented in Eq. (1) [11]; however, it appears that this
restraint is not critical when the concrete cover is relatively small
and failure happens due to concrete cracking. The equation coeffi-
cients were fitted based on the test results of NSC specimens;
therefore, the expansion of these equations to UHPC beams needs
further verification.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p 2 0
V du ¼ cft beff 6 1:27db f cf y
2b
0
where f t and f c are the tensile and compressive strengths of the sur-
rounding concrete, db is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing
Concrete in compression
Concrete in compression
NSC case (Italic)
UHPC case (Bold)
Vc
ock
erl
Int
gate
gre
Ag
Fiber Contribution
T
Steel Tension
Vc
V Dowel Force
Dowel Force
Fig. 1. Mechanism of shear transfer.
rebar, beff is the effective width of the supporting concrete founda-
tion, and 2bp is the effective length of foundation from BEF theory.
The constant c was proposed as 0.83 for NSC.
One-dimensional finite element analysis using beam elements
usually does not account for shear deformation; therefore, cannot
be used to explore the effect of dowel action. A two-dimensional
plane stress model with quadrilateral elements was used by He
and Kwan [13]. To avoid the detailed modeling of contact between
rebar and concrete, this method smeared the dowel action effect
into all elements by adding an additional shear modulus term after
concrete cracking, which follows a similar approach for dealing
with the aggregate interlocking effect. This method can be used
to predict the flexural response considering the dowel action
effect; however, the corresponding shear modulus due to dowel
action needs calibration from experimental results. Maitra et al.
[14] performed three-dimensional dowel action analyses on the
dowel bar between two adjacent traffic panels loaded in pure
shear. Linear elastic spring elements were used to reflect the dowel
action effect between rebar and concrete while contact elements
were used to take care of the possible compressive and interfacial
stresses between the rebar and surrounding concrete. This type of
model involves detailed modeling of the rebar and surrounding
concrete, and makes calibration with global responses (such as
deflection of the beam and the strain of rebars) difficult, particu-
larly when extrapolating for design purposes. Furthermore, the cal-
ibrated dowel action parameters using this approach might be
sensitive to the stress state of the concrete that surrounds the
rebar, which is different under pure shear condition than that
under the flexural bending condition.
1.2. Dowel action in ultra-high performance concrete
For the case of UHPC beams without any shear reinforcement,
considering the absence of the coarse aggregates and the existence
of fibers, the situation of shear resistance at the crack is different.
The three primary mechanisms to resist shear are the concrete
shear stress from the uncracked compression zone, fibers crossing
the crack, and the dowel force from the tension reinforcement
(Fig. 1). Since UHPC has considerable tensile strength, very high
post-cracking strength, and good bond strength with the longitudi-
nal reinforcement, the flexural crack widths are usually very small
while the shear cracks are free to develop due to the lack of
restraints crossing the inclined cracking plane. Under this circum-
stance, the dowel action contribution is important, because the
dowel force can be fully activated due to the localized deformation
at the shear cracks. Generally speaking, the total shear resistance
ð1Þ can be expressed as follows in Eq. (2), in which the dowel action
contribution towards the total loading capacity is considered
explicitly. The estimation of peak dowel force is essential for a bet-
ter estimation of the shear strength in flexural reinforced UHPC
beams without shear reinforcement.
V ¼ Vc þ Vd þ Va ð2Þ
The objective of this paper is to investigate the dowel action
behavior of longitudinal high strength reinforcement in UHPC
beams by means of mechanical tests, theoretical analyses, and
finite element simulations. Finite element models were used to
interpret the previous experimental results, and the dowel action
contribution to shear resistance was extracted explicitly. Subse-
quently, an experimental program was developed to quantify the
complete force–displacement responses of dowel action bearing
on concrete cover. These experimental results were used to cali-
brate theoretical BEF and BNF models. Such models can be used
to estimate dowel stiffness and strength contributions for future
analyses and design without any complicated finite element
modeling.
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232
2. Dowel action contribution verification
A series of T-shaped deck strips made of UHPC and high
strength steel rebars were tested in a simply-supported configura-
tion in previous experimental studies [15]. The dimensions, rebar
placement, and the loading configuration are shown in Fig. 2. Most
of the beam specimens failed in shear and it was observed that the
dowel action effect is an important component of the total shear
resistance according to the deformation shapes of the specimens.
To investigate the percentage of the dowel action contribution, a
two-dimensional finite element model was built in OpenSees
(http://opensees.berkeley.edu/). The UHPC material was modeled
using a plane stress low-tension material model that enables crack
formation in the direction of the peak principal tensile strain. The
post-cracking tension hardening and softening behaviors were
included in the model. The high strength steel was modeled based
on experimental uniaxial stress and strain relationships. Discrete
two-node beam elements were used to simulate the rebar, and
one-dimensional interface elements were created to link the rebar
to surrounding UHPC elements (both top and bottom layers). The
interface elements have independent bilinear force–deformation
relationships in each of the normal and shear (relative to the rebar)
directions.
The interface properties were calibrated based on the experi-
mental results as shown in Fig. 3. The case without longitudinal
rebar anchorage (no hook case) was used to calibrate the element
properties along the span, whereas the case with end anchorage
(hook case) was used to calibrate the interface elements within
the anchorage zone of the beam. The numerical model includes
the effect of dowel action because the rebar bearing on the cover
is captured through the interface elements and the tension behav-
ior of the concrete cover material. A permutation of the model was
then created that uses a tension-free interface that can only
transfer compressive stress in the normal direction with the same
interfacial shear property as the first model. This second model
P and 8 cylinders from the last batch were tested to obtain the com-
U.S. #3 bar
(d=9.53mm)
127
U.S. #7 bar
508 (d=22.23mm)
31.75
Loading
304.8
254
Panel
1219.2 All units: mm
Fig. 2. Experimental specimen geometry and setup from Saleem et al. [15].
200
150
Load (kN)
100
Hook with dowel
Hook without dowel
50
Hook with dowel (Exp.)
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm)
(a)
Fig. 3. Load versus displacement curves for beam with and without considering the dowel action effect. (a) With end hooks. (b) Without end hooks.
225
represents the case of beam without dowel action effects. The
load–displacement curves from the two models are shown in
Fig. 3 together with the experimental measurements. The contri-
bution of dowel action in the simulation is approximately 10% of
the shear capacity of the entire system. The contribution percent-
age varies with the geometry and reinforcement ratio of the
model; however, its importance towards the overall shear strength
of the UHPC beam was validated through the simulation. The
dowel action also contributes to the ductility of the shear failure
in UHPC beams as observed during the experiment thus it need
further investigations to obtain the interface properties
theoretically.
3. Experimental studies
3.1. Materials
The UHPC material used in this research is a commercially
available product under brand name DuctalÒ which is increasingly
used in bridge engineering, as well as railway engineering [16]. The
premix cement, high-range reducer, and steel fibers were provided
by Lafarge North America, and the mixing was performed at the
structural laboratory at the University of Central Florida. The
content percentage of each component was listed in previous pub-
lications [15], and heat treatment was not applied to any of the
specimens presented in this paper. The mechanical properties of
DuctalÒ have been investigated by previous researchers [17]. The
compressive strength of UHPC can reach around 221 MPa if a man-
ufacturer-recommended heat treatment process is applied and
tensile strength can reach up to 10.8 MPa [18]. The longitudinal
reinforcement used in this paper is high-strength microcomposite
steel rebar (MMFX) made from a low-carbon, chromium alloy steel.
It meets the requirement of ASTM A1035 standard [19] for Grade
100 rebar with yielding stress of 690 MPa and ultimate strength
as high as 1200 MPa.
A total number of 20 cubes from the first two mixing batches
pressive strength of UHPC at the time of testing (average age of 55
days). The cubes were sized at approximately 25.4 mm while the
cylinder was 127 mm in diameter and 254 mm in length. The aver-
age and maximum compressive strengths from each batch were
summarized in Table 1. Due to the fact that none of the cubes were
surface ground while the cylinders were all well ground on both
sides, an average of 164 MPa compressive strength was adopted
from the test results. The first crack strengths of specimens were
estimated from their compressive strength according to
0 0:5 0
expressions from Graybeal [17]: f t ¼ 0:55f c and f t ¼ 0:049f c .
The modulus of elasticity of the material was estimated as
160
120
Load (kN)
80
40 No hook with dowel
No hook without dowel
No hook with dowel (Exp.)
35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement (mm)
(b)
226 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232

Table 1
Compression strength of specimen.
0 0 0
Batch Age upon test Test model Avg. f c (MPa) Max. f c (MPa) Proposed f c (MPa) Proposed f t (MPa)

1 55 days Cube 133 166 166 7.6

2 55 days Cube 123 154 154 7.2
3 55 days Cylinder 172 179 172 7.8
Average 164 7.5

20 minimize the bending deformation of the upper portion and to

avoid undesired flexural cracks developed at the notched area.
The bottom longitudinal reinforcement is the rebar of interest,
and it was designed such that its middle portion was completely
Equivalent stress (MPa)

15
10
Simplified
ft
5 crete to provide pure dowel action against the UHPC cover. Five
0
0.01
0 0.05 0.1
Crack opening (mm)
Fig. 4. Stress and crack width relation for nonlinear spring.
41.4 GPa, which is a conservative value based on the literature
results for the same UHPC material without heat treatment. The
results of first crack strength for all batches are summarized in
Table 1, and since the difference is less than 5%, an average value
of 7.5 MPa is used for all the specimens. The stress versus crack
opening curves from Chanvillard and Rigaud [18] are presented
in Fig. 4. The simplified tensile stress versus crack width relation
used in this paper was assumed to be linear after reaching first
crack strength and extended to a crack width of 0.3 mm (also plot-
ted in Fig. 4).
3.2. Specimen design
The dowel action specimen design is shown in Fig. 5. The
notched beam is simply supported and doubly reinforced to
exposed in the notched area (Fig. 5). The dowel force was then
applied at the middle portion of the bottom rebar using a steel
hook and clamp. A plastic tube was used to cover the entire length
of bottom rebar except the notched part, as shown in Fig. 5. It was
aimed to minimize the interfacial bond between rebar and con-
groups of notched UHPC prisms were constructed as shown in
Fig. 5, with a sample specimen illustrated. The notch is 50.8 mm
wide at rebar locations for all specimens. Variations of the speci-
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 mens among different groups, including length, depth, side and
bottom cover size, and rebar size of the specimens, are listed in
Table 2.
The dowel bar deformation was monitored using six linear
potential meters attached to the back side surface of the specimens
while the front side surface was ground and painted for crack
observation purposes. The tensile load was applied by a universal
testing machine (UTM) under displacement control at 3.8 mm/
min. The loading rate was doubled after reaching 10 mm deforma-
tion. The test was terminated if the displacement gauge reached
the limit or the cracks widened such that they prevented the
continuation of loading, whichever occurred first.
3.3. Results
The progression of failure of a typical specimen is demonstrated
in Fig. 6. The dowel load increased rapidly initially until the first
crack appeared at one or both sides of the notch. After that, the
dowel load increased slowly with lower stiffness and the cracks
widened on both sides. The specimen reached its peak load shortly
after the visibility of the side cracks. The average peak load and

LVDT U.S. #4 bar

d=12.7mm

Plastic tube for U.S. #3 bar

debonding L-63.5 L-38.1 L-12.7 L12.7 L38.1 L63.5 d=9.5mm
P
Prism specimen with notch at middle
Top bar to keep prism rigid
U.S. #4 bar

U.S. #3 bar
support support Bottom bar to apply dowel force

UTM upper crosshead

Steel rod used to apply dowel force

UTM middle crosshead

clamp

Fig. 5. Detailed specimen test setup.

 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232 227

Table 2
Designed specimen with comparison groups.

Specimen group ID Length L (cm) Height H (cm) Width B (cm) Bond length Lb (cm) Bottom cover (cm) Side cover (cm) Steel bar size (db ) (cm)
1 35.6 10.8 3.8 30.5 2.5 1.4 #3 (1.0)
2 45.7 10.8 3.8 40.6 2.5 1.4 #3 (1.0)
3 35.6 10.2 3.8 30.5 1.9 1.4 #3 (1.0)
4 35.6 10.8 2.9 30.5 2.5 1 #3 (1.0)
5 35.6 11.4 4.4 30.5 2.5 1.4 #4 (1.3)

The Bold values indicates the parameters that are changed in each group relative to the base Group 1.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 6. Failure mode of typical specimen. (a) Beginning of load. (b) Crack initiation. (c) Cracking spreading. (d) Final failure mode.

of No. 3 (80% increase in the steel area), the peak load increased
Table 3 by approximately 40%. The increase of span length from 35.6 cm
Peak dowel action load from different groups. to 45.7 cm caused a 24% increase of the peak load.
Group number Specimen Average load Standard deviation
number (kN) (kN) 4. Theoretical analysis
G1 (base) 4 12.80 1.03
G2 (longer span) 3 15.97 0.71 4.1. Simplified stress versus cracking opening model and verifications
G3 (smaller bottom cover) 3 11.92 0.71
G4 (smaller side cover) 3 8.14 0.67 The stress versus crack opening relation of UHPC from the liter-
G5 (larger rebar) 3 17.93 2.62 ature was simplified as an elastic-perfectly plastic relation, as
described previously in Fig. 8. Therefore, the unit length spring
force versus displacement takes the same shape and can be deter-
standard deviation values for each group are reported in Table 3.
mined by four parameters: the foundation stiffness of the material
The average load versus table movement for all specimen groups
kc , the first crack force F t , the displacement causing the onset of
are shown in Fig. 7. The individual load versus table displacement
cracking d0 , and the displacement denoting the end of the force
curves for specimens within Group 1 and 4 are shown in Fig. 7a
plateau d1 . The deformations d0 and d1 can be expressed as,
and c, respectively. The displacement distribution with respect to
different load levels for specimen 1-2 and 4-1 are shown in ft
d0 ¼ lc ð3Þ
Fig. 7b and d as illustrations for typical responses along the Ec
specimens.
Comparing the peak load from Group 1 and the rest of groups, it d1 ¼ d0 þ C w1 ð4Þ
is concluded that the peak dowel force is very sensitive to the size
where lc is the characteristic length and can be expressed as follows
of side cover, rebar diameter, and span length. The influence of
if assuming cracking happens only within the side cover.
smaller bottom cover size for the geometrical configuration used
in this research is small. Decreasing the side cover size from lc ¼ ck beff p=2 ð5Þ
1.4 cm to 1 cm caused a 36% reduction of the peak dowel force,
while reducing the bottom cover from 2.5 mm to 1.9 mm only The value of d0 ¼ 0:01 mm obtained from the uniaxial tensile
caused a 7% peak force drop. By using rebar size US No. 4 instead test [18] (Fig. 4) is adopted, which leads to parameter ck ¼ 1:25.
228 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232

14 25
Specimen 1-2 0 kN
12
2.54 kN
20

Displacement (mm)
6.70 kN
10
10.50 kN

Load (kN)
15 13.17 kN
8
10.43 kN
7.14 kN
6 10 6.57 kN
4 Specimen 1-1
Specimen 1-2 5
2 Specimen 1-3
Specimen 1-4
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -100 -50 0 50 100
Table Displacement (mm) Location (mm)

(a) (b)
10 30
Specimen 4-1 0 kN
8 25 1.47 kN
2.61 kN

Displacment (mm)
20 4.65 kN
Load (kN)

6 7.19 kN
4.81 kN
15
4.08 kN
4 3.91 kN
10
Specimen 4-1
2 Specimen 4-2
5
Specimen 4-3
Specimen 4-4
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -100 -50 0 50 100
Table Displacement (mm) Location (mm)
(c) (d)
3.5

2.5
Load (kN)

1.5

1 G1 G4
G2 G5
0.5
G3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Table Displacement (mm)
(e)
Fig. 7. Experimental results. (a) Load versus table displacement for Group 1 specimens. (b) Displacement profiles with increasing load for specimen 1-2. (c) Load versus table
displacement for Group 4 specimens. (d) Displacement profiles with increasing load for specimen 4-1. (e) Averaged load versus table displacement for all groups.

If the bottom cover fails before the cracking of the side cover, then
parameter d1 shall be adjusted to reflect this premature failure.
The influence of omitting the descending branch in the pro-
posed stress versus crack opening relation was explored using a
numerical model containing a series of springs as shown in
Fig. 8. Experimental results from specimens in Group 1 were used
to compare with the numerical simulation. Considering the width
and spacing of the nonlinear spring in the model, the material
stress-crack width was converted to the load-deformation relation
for the series of springs. Three different descending trends were
assumed and shown in Fig. 9a. The maximum crack width used
in Model C equals the quarter of the fiber length used in this mate-
rial. The load versus displacement relations for three measurement
stations (ST1 through ST3) were obtained from the numerical
spring model, with the corresponding load values multiplied by
two to consider the dowel action contribution from both sides.
These curves were then compared to the experimental results
(experimental specimens SP. 1 to SP. 4) as shown in Fig. 9(b–d).
The comparison demonstrates that the overall dowel action
responses not only dependent on the first crack strength, but also
are affected by the post-crack softening of the material. Model B
with moderate softening better represents the experimental
results, whereas it is conservative to use Model A when predicting
the peak dowel force.
The sensitivity of the crack width d0 with respect to the peak
dowel force was also investigated using the numerical spring
model. Fig. 10 shows the results with three different d0 values,
and it was concluded that the d0 value determines the initial stiff-
ness of load versus displacement curves. However, its impact on
the peak dowel force is not significant. Use of d0 ¼ 0:01 mm
(ck = 1.25) matches well with the experiment results regarding
the initial stiffness of specimens from Group 1.
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232 229

beam, while the support from surrounding UHPC was treated as

two separate finite length elastic foundations. Because the model
is symmetric, only the right part of the beam was considered in
the analytical model. The width of the free span in the middle
d Ld equals the width of the notch. The complementary solution to
the BEF differential equation, y1 ðxÞ, satisfies the displaced shape
in the free span (notched region), as shown in Eq. (6), when
Stress x 2 ð0; d. The solution, y3 ðxÞ, for the remaining domain
x 2 ðd; d þ Ld  as shown in Eq. (7) is assumed from existing approx-
ft imate BEF solutions for finite length beams [20].
1 1
Ec y1 ðxÞ ¼ c1 x3 þ c2 x2 þ c3 x þ c4 ; x 2 ð0; d ð6Þ
6 2
P 0 b c
y3 ðxÞ ¼ ½4e cos c  ð2  2bdÞec ðcos c  sin cÞ; x 2 ðd; d þ Ld Þ ð7Þ
4k
Cw1 Crack Width qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kc
where b ¼ 4
4Eb Ib
and c ¼ bðx  dÞ. Parameter P 0 is the concentrated
Force load applied at the middle of the rebar portion in the gap. The
boundary conditions can be expressed as follows:
8
>
> y1 ðx ¼ dÞ ¼ y3 ðx ¼ dÞ
Ft >
> dy1
>
< dx ðx ¼ dÞ ¼ dy 3
ðx ¼ dÞ
dx
dy1 ð8Þ
>
> dx
ðx ¼ 0Þ ¼ 0
>
>
>
: E I d3 y1 ðx ¼ 0Þ þ P ¼ 0
kc b b 0
dx3
d0 d1 Deflection
By solving these equations for the four unknown constants, the
final displacement expressions are:
Fig. 8. Simplified relations used in numerical spring model.
P0 c2 P0 b 2
y1 ðxÞ ¼ ð2c þ 3bdÞ  ðc þ 2cbd  1  bdÞ ð9Þ
24b3 Eb Ib 2k
4.2. Beam on elastic foundation (BEF)
P0 bec
The experiment setup and corresponding simplified model are y3 ðxÞ ¼ ðcos c þ sin c þ bdðcos c  sin cÞÞ ð10Þ
2k
shown in Fig. 11. The embedded rebar was treated as an elastic

8
16 Model C SP.1
7
Equivalent Stress (MPa)

SP.2
Model A SP.3
6 SP.4
Model B 12
Load (kN)

5 Model C
4
8
3
2 4 Model A Model B

1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack Width (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)

16 Model C 16 Model C
Model B
12 12
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

8 8

SP.1 SP.1
4 SP.2 4 Model B SP.2
Model A Model A
SP.3 SP.3
SP.4 Sp.4
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. 9. Numerical spring model results from Model A, B, and C. (a) Stress versus crack opening models with different softening trends. (b) Load versus displacement
comparison for ST1. (c) Load versus displacement comparison for ST2. (d) Load versus displacement comparison for ST3.
230 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232

8 16
14 SP.1
7 Model B1

Equivalent Stress (MPa)

SP.2
Model B1 12 Model B2 SP.3
6 SP.4
Model B2 Model B3
10

Load (kN)
5
Model B3
4 8
Model ck kc d0 6
3
(MPa) (mm)
2 B1 1.25 21069 0.01 4
B2 10 2634 0.08
1 B3 38 693 0.3 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Crack Width (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

16 16
14 Model B1 SP.1 14
Model B2 SP.2
12 12
Model B3 SP.3
10 SP.4 10
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
8 8
6 6
4 4 Model B1 SP.1
SP.2
Model B2 SP.3
2 2
Model B3 Sp.4
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(c) (d)
Fig. 10. Numerical spring model results from Model B1, B2, and B3. (a) Stress versus crack opening models with different initial stiffness. (b) Load versus displacement
comparison for ST1. (c) Load versus displacement comparison for ST2. (d) Load versus displacement comparison for ST3.

U.S. #4 bar P0 b
yðx ¼ dÞ ¼ ð1 þ bdÞ ð13Þ
2kc
L-63.5 L-38.1 L-12.7 L-12.7 L-38.1 L-63.5
The elastic solution is valid only before the initiation of
cracking. After that, the UHPC cover will lose stiffness at the crack
location and the foundation modulus will no longer be uniform
U.S. #3 bar UHPC along the length of beam. Therefore, the elastic dowel force Pe
represent beam represent elastic foundation
P when yðx ¼ dÞ ¼ d0 can be calculated as Eq. (14) using Eqs. (3)
and (13).
Ld 2d Ld
P0=P/2 2kc f t lc 2f t beff
Pe ¼ ¼ ð14Þ
y Ec bð1 þ bdÞ bð1 þ bdÞ
The estimated elastic dowel force for US No. 3 and No. 4 rebar
x
y1 (Group 1 and Group 5) are 1.4 kN and 2.6 kN, respectively, given
y3 that the failure happens at the side cover. From the calculation, it
was concluded that the elastic dowel force based on BEF theory
d Ld is only small portion of peak dowel force, and thus BNF theory
Fig. 11. Test setup and simplified model. must be investigated.

4.3. Beam on nonlinear foundation (BNF)

The foundation stiffness kc can be expressed as Eq. (11). There-
fore, the value of b for each group can be estimated using Eq. (12). Although the numerical spring model yielded reasonable results
f t beff 2Ec when compared to the experimental results, a simplified theoreti-
kc ¼ ¼ ð11Þ cal derivation similar to that presented for BEF is still desirable. The
ft
l ck p
Ec c schematic for the BNF model proposed is shown in Fig. 12, and
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Model A was adopted for the nonlinear force–deformation relation.
4 Ec Conceptually, the model is the same as the BEF model in Fig. 11;
b¼ ð12Þ however, an additional domain y2 ðxÞ was added to reflect the
2ck pEb Ib
region of the foundation that reached the nonlinear stage. The fig-
Based on Eqs. (7) and (10), the elastic dowel displacement at ure shows both the expected deformed shape of the rebar, as well
x ¼ d is as the foundation reaction. The solution for the deformation of the
 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232 231

P0 20
Ld Group 5
18
B C D
A Group 2
16

Peak dowel force (kN)

y1 y2 y3
d dm Ld0 Base curve
14
Group 1 Group 5
12
y Group 3
BEF 10 Base curve
BNF Group 4 Group 1,2,3
8
(0,0)
x
6 Base curve
Group 4
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
α Value
F BNF
BEF
Fig. 13. Estimation of parameter a for each group.

(0,0)
x
The estimated peak dowel force P u and width of middle portion
Fig. 12. Schematic drawing of the BNF model. dm for each group were computed and listed in Table 4. The peak
force decreases with increasing value of d; therefore, a minimum
value of d = 25.4 mm was used to calculate the values presented
rebar in the three domains of the nonlinear foundation are labeled in the table. It should be noted that the proposed equations only
as y1 ðxÞ; y2 ðxÞ, and y3 ðxÞ. Solution of differential equations for each consider failures in the side cover; therefore, the peak dowel force
domain yields expressions with eight constants of integration. The for Groups 1, 2, and 3 are the same. For comparison, the parameter
complementary solution for the free span is the same as Eq. (6) and c from Eq. (1) was calculated for all groups based on experimental
not repeated. The solution for y2 ðxÞ in the domain x 2 ðd; d þ dm Þ is results, and the values are all above the 0.83 value used for NSC.
shown in Eq. (15). Finally, the approximate solution for the finite In order to fit the experimental peak dowel force for individual
length BEF [20] is the same as used previously, but updated to groups, parameter a was introduced to modify the displacement at
reflect the length over which the response is elastic the end of force plateau. The right hand side of Eq. (17) then
x 2 ðd þ dm ; d þ dm þ Ld0 Þ, as shown in Eq. (16). changes from d1 to d1 a. The peak dowel forces from the updated
f t beff x4 1 1 equation are plotted against a range of assumed a values for
y2 ðxÞ ¼  þ c9 x3 þ c10 x2 þ c11 x þ c12 ð15Þ Groups 1-3, 4, and 5 as base curves in 13. The peak experimentally
24Eb Ib 6 2
observed load for Groups 1–5 are shown as horizontal lines in
P 0 b bx
y3 ðxÞ ¼ ½4e cosðbxÞ  ð2  bLd0 Þebx ðcosðbxÞ  sinðbxÞÞ ð16Þ Fig. 13. The intersection of the horizontal lines with the base curves
4kc
yields the a values for each group. For Groups 1, 4, and 5, the a val-
Parameter dm and the peak dowel force Pu with particular d and ues are close to each other and are all between 2 and 2.5. For Group
dm values are solved simultaneously using force equilibrium 3 with smaller bottom cover, the premature failure at the bottom
according to Pu ¼ 2f t beff dm þ Pe and displacement compatibility leads to a smaller a value of 1.8. Group 2 with longer span leads
at the end of supporting region of the foundation in Eq. (17). The to a ¼ 4:3 (intersection of curves is beyond the range of a values
elastic dowel action force Pe can be found using Eq. (14). shown). With sufficient bottom cover, the peak dowel force can
c pP u P0 M4  f t beff M5 be estimated conservatively using a ¼ 2.
ðM 3 b3 þ M 2 b2 þ M 1 bÞ þ ¼ d1 ð17Þ For use in a reinforced flexural member, let parameter d equal
24Ec ðd þ dm Þ 24Eb Ib ðd þ dm Þ
zero. T, the Eq. (17) can be simplified as Eq. (19). This simplified
Parameters M i are polynomial expressions of d and dm as equation can be used to estimate the peak dowel force. With input
follows: values of parameters for US No. 7 rebar, the estimated peak load for
5 4 a ¼ 2 is 35.9 kN. This dowel force contribution level is close to the
M5 ¼ dm þ 3dm d FEM estimation presented in Fig. 3, which are 30 kN and 39 kN for
4 2 2 3
M4 ¼ dm þ 3dm d þ 4dm d the specimens with and without end hooks, respectively.
3 2 2 ð18Þ 3 2 4 5
M3 ¼ 3dm þ 9dm d þ 6dm d cpP0 ð3dm b3 þ 3dm b2 þ 6dm bÞ P 0 dm  f t beff dm
2 2
þ ¼ d1 a ð19Þ
M2 ¼ 3dm þ 6dm d þ 3d 24Ec dm 24Eb Ib dm
M1 ¼ 6dm þ 6d

Table 4
Designed specimen with comparison groups.

Group ck b (1/m) P e (kN) dm (mm) P u (kN) P test (kN) P u /P test (%) c

1 1.25 89.9 1.4 19.05 9.4 12.8 73.7 1.87

2 1.25 89.9 1.4 19.05 9.4 15.97 59.0 2.33
3 1.25 89.9 1.4 19.05 9.4 11.92 79.1 1.74
4 1.76 82.5 1.2 24.64 6.1 8.14 74.3 1.53
5 1.25 61.9 2.6 27.18 13.7 17.93 76.7 1.80
232 J. Xia et al. / Engineering Structures 83 (2015) 223–232
5. Discussion and conclusions
This paper investigated the dowel action between high strength
rebar and surrounding UHPC using analytical, experimental, and
theoretical approaches. Experimental specimens were tested with
notches to load the rebars embedded in UHPC. By using plastic sep-
aration tubes, the test setup successfully obtained the peak dowel
force without the influence of the interfacial bond. Dowel forces
obtained were on the order of 12.8 kN for the base group. By using
BEF theory, the foundation modulus for the case of rebar bearing
against UHPC cover was calibrated based on the experimental dis-
placement results. To capture the peak dowel force, the concept of
BNF was utilized. By assuming the decay relation between the
foundation yielding length and the average post-crack tensile
strength of UHPC, the peak load can be estimated based on the ini-
tial cracking strength.
Usually, all factors contributing to the shear resistance of
reinforced concrete beams are linearly combined to reflect the
total shear resistance, such as that shown in Eq. (2). When consid-
ering dowel action effects, the peak force estimated from the equa-
tion is usually used. However, in order to achieve the peak dowel
reaction, the shear cracks need to widen to an extent that may
affect the shear resistance from the bridging fibers. In other words,
a simple linear combination of the peak reaction from individual
shear resistance mechanisms may overestimate the total shear
resistance. This is especially true for the case of UHPC, which has
higher than normal material strength that leads to considerable
maximum shear resistance from fibers. More complicated models
that involve geometric compatibility should be developed to
address this phenomenon fully; however, the dowel action versus
displacement relation investigated in this paper can provide a
foundation for such research.
Acknowledgements
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the support of Lafarge
North America who provided the materials for the UHPC (DuctalÒ).
The research was funded in part by Florida Department of Trans-
portation (FDOT) under Contract No. BDK80 977-06. All experi-
ments were conducted at the Structural Laboratory of the
University of Central Florida.
References
[1] Vyas JS, Zhao L, Ansley MH, Xia J. Characterization of a low-profile fiber-
reinforced polymer deck system for movable bridges. J Bridge Eng
2009;14(1):55–65.
[2] Saleem MA, Mirmiran A, Xia J, Mackie K. Experimental evaluation of aluminum
bridge deck system. J Bridge Eng 2012;17(1):97–106.
[3] Xia J, Mackie KR, Saleem MA, Mirmiran A. Shear failure analysis on ultra-high
performance concrete beams reinforced with high strength steel. Eng Struct
2011;33(12):3597–609.
[4] Kim J, Park Y. Prediction of shear strength of reinforced concrete beams
without web reinforcement. ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):213–22.
[5] Soroushian P. Behavior of bars in dowel action against concrete cover. ACI
Struct J 1987;84(2):170–6.
[6] Bush T, Mannava S. Measuring the deflected shape of a dowel bar embedded in
concrete. Exp Tech 2000;24(3):33–6.
[7] Tanaka Y, Murakoshi J. Reexamination of dowel behavior of steel bars
embedded in concrete. ACI Struct J 2011;108(6):659–68.
[8] Friberg B. Design of dowels in transverse joints of concrete pavements. Trans
Am Soc Civil Eng 1940;105.
[9] El-Ariss B. Behavior of beams with dowel action. Eng Struct 2007;29(6):
899–903.
[10] Ince R, Yalcin E, Arslan A. Size-dependent response of dowel action in RC
members. Eng Struct 2006;29:955–61.
[11] Dulacska H. Dowel action of reinforcement crossing cracks in concrete. ACI
Mater J 1972;69(12):754–7.
[12] Reineck KH. Ultimate shear force of structural concrete members without
transverse reinforcement derived from a mechanical model. ACI Struct J
1991;88(5):592–602.
[13] He XG, Kwan AKH. Modeling dowel action of reinforcement bars for finite
element analysis of concrete structures. Comput Struct 2001;79(6):595–604.
[14] Maitra SR, Reddy KS, Ramachandra LS. Load transfer characteristics of dowel
bar system in jointed concrete pavement. J Transport Eng 2009;135(11):
813–21.
[15] Saleem MA, Mirmiran A, Xia J, Mackie K. Ultra-high-performance concrete
bridge deck reinforced with high-strength steel. ACI Struct J 2011;108(5):
601–9.
[16] Tanaka Y, Ishido M, Kobayashi T, Ohkawa M. Technical development of a long
span monorail girder applying ultra high strength fiber reinforced concrete. In:
Second international symposium on ultra high performance concrete. Kassel
University Press; 2008. p. 803–10.
[17] Graybeal BA. Material property characterization of ultra-high performance
concrete. Tech rep. FHWA-HRT-06-103. Federal Highway Administration;
2006.
[18] Chanvillard G, Rigaud S. Complete characterization of tensile properties of
DuctalÒ UHPFRC according to the French recommendation. In: 4th int RILEM
workshop on high performance fiber reinforced cement composites
(HPFRCC4); 2003. p. 14.
[19] ASTM A 1035 (2006). Standard specification for deformed and plain, low-
carbon, chromium, steel bars for concrete reinforcement. West Conshohocken
(PA, USA): American Society for Testing and Materials; 2006.
[20] Hetenyi M. Beams on elastic foundation; theory with applications in the fields
of civil and mechanical engineering. The University of Michigan press; 1946.