ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 108-S61

Reexamination of Dowel Behavior of Steel Bars Embedded

in Concrete
by Yoshiki Tanaka and Jun Murakoshi

To identify the mechanisms of the bearing and failure of steel bars

embedded in concrete subjected to transverse load, static loading ( )
M = − e −βx β {P sin βx − βM o (sin βx + cos βx )} (3c)
tests using 24 concrete blocks containing dowel bars, bolted plate-
mounted bars, or welded studs were conducted. The behavior up to
failure is examined based on the results obtained from the tests and where Mo = Pg; and g is the distance from the face of the
analysis using the traditional beam on elastic foundation (BEF) concrete to the loading point (negative value). Likewise, the
analogy. This paper describes the post-yield behavior of dowel moment of the welded studs in the concrete may be predicted
bars and welded studs involving the spalling of concrete under the on the assumption that the slope at the face of concrete
bars and the plastic hinge of the bars. The elastic analogy provides should be zero because of the restraint of rotation due to the
further interesting implications to illustrate the behavior of the welding to steel plates. When the studs have enough height,
bars in concrete, even beyond yielding. the moment is given by3

Keywords: beam on elastic foundation; dowel action; shear anchor; stud;

( )
subgrade stiffness.
M = − Pe −βx 2β (sin βx − cos βx ) (4)
INTRODUCTION
Friberg1 applied the theory of beam on elastic foundation The influence of a shortage in height is mentioned in a later
(BEF) to represent the behavior of dowel steel bars installed section of this paper.
in joints for concrete pavements. Timoshenko2 introduced Friberg1 stated that the values of K ranged from 80 to
the BEF analogy as follows 400 MPa/mm (300,000 to 1,500,000 lb/in.3) and that the
K-values would most likely increase with the increased
d4 y size of the steel bar. Friberg1 implied, however, that the
EI = − ky (1) K-values would not be sensitive enough to represent the
dx 4
stress distribution of dowel bars in concrete pavements
because K appears in b related to the quarter power of
where x is the depth from the surface of the concrete K.1 The report by ACI Committee 3254 showed that the
(Fig. 1); y is the transverse displacement; k is the modulus K-values ranged from 80 to 2300 MPa/mm (300,000 to
of foundation in MPa (lb/in.2); E is the elastic modulus of 8,500,000 lb/in.3); the average was approximately 600
the steel bar; and I is the moment of inertia of the steel bar. to 700 MPa/mm (2,200,000 to 2,600,000 lb/in.3). The
Friberg,1 however, substituted Kd for the factor k, where K report4 described that the larger the diameter of the dowel
is the modulus of support in the elastic mass or subgrade bars, the smaller the value of K. The compressive strength
stiffness in MPa/mm (lb/in.3); and d is the diameter of the of ordinary concrete for pavements previously seemed to be
steel bar. The solution can be obtained from using Eq. (2)

y = eβx ( A cos βx + B sin βx )

(2)
+ e − βx (C cos βx + D sin βx )

where b = (k/4EI)1/4 = (Kd/4EI)1/4. It was described that

the value of K is the pressure intensity on the elastic mass
that is required to cause a unit settlement.1 The bearing
load distribution acting on the concrete under the bar Rx
is expressed by Kdy in N/mm (kip/in.). For instance, the
transverse displacement, slope, and moment of dowel bars
embedded in the concrete subjected to a transverse load P are
Fig. 1—Definitions of moment and displacement of steel bar
in concrete for BEF.

(
y = e −βx 2β3 EI ) {P cos βx − βM (cos βx − sin βx)} (3a)
o
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 6, November-December 2011.
MS No. S-2008-346.R4 received June 9, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights

( ) {(2βM }
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
θ = e − βx 2β2 EI o − P ) cos βx − P sin βx (3b) copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the September-October 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is
received by May 1, 2012.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 659

ACI member Yoshiki Tanaka is a Senior Research Engineer in the Bridge Structure in reinforced concrete. The background of the equation,
Research Group at the Public Works Research Institute (PWRI), Tsukuba, Japan. His however, was not addressed.
research interests include shear transfer at joints in concrete for highway bridges.

Jun Murakoshi is a Chief Researcher in the Bridge Structure Research Group at

PWRI. He received his BS and MS in civil engineering from the Tokyo Institute of K = 150 fc′ 0.85 d (N, mm) (6)
Technology, Tokyo, Japan, in 1985 and 1987, respectively. His research interests
include the design and maintenance technology of steel/concrete superstructures for
highway bridges.
Several researchers11-13 examined the behavior of welded
studs in concrete. The K-values, however, were expressed by
approximately 21 MPa (3000 psi).5 Currently, for designing a nonlinear relation with respect to the loads.13
Rasmussen9 presented the following equations for
joints in concrete pavements in the U.S., the K-value of
estimating the ultimate transverse loads of dowel bars
400 MPa/mm (1,500,000 lb/in.3) seems to be popular.4,6
embedded in concrete
Dei Poli et al. 7 proposed Eq. (5) for estimating the
K-values based on the relationships between the loads and
the measured displacement obtained from their experiments,
(
Pu = c  1 + ( εc ) ) (
− εc  d 2 fc′ f y )
0.5 0.5
in which the displacement at several points of the steel bars 2
(7a)
in the concrete was directly measured  

where e = –3(g/d)(fc′/fy)0.5; c is the coefficient; and fy is the

K = 269 fc′ 0.5
d 23
P Pu ≤ 0.4 (N, mm) (5) yield point of the steel bar. If the gap g is zero,

where fc′ is the compressive cylinder strength of the concrete;

( )
0.5
Pu = cd 2 fc′ f y (7b)
and Pu is the ultimate load. The ultimate load was estimated
by Dulacska’s8 method based on Rasmussen’s9 equation.
The proportional limit on the relationship was determined then the coefficient c is 2.5 for bolted plate-mounted bars
to be 0.4Pu. Dei Poli et al.7 also attempted to estimate and 1.3 for dowel bars. In this paper, d 2(fc′fy)0.5 is termed
the apparent K-values for expressing nonlinear behavior the “dowel index.” The equation was derived from the
beyond 0.4Pu. Then, the K-values were expressed by using equilibrium of the applied transverse load, the bearing
the ratio P/Pu. force of the concrete, and the plastic moment of the bar
Qureshi and Maekawa10 used Eq. (6) to represent the on the assumption that the ultimate failure would depend
elastic behavior of the reinforcing bars across the cracks on the plastic hinge of the bar. Both the coefficients c of
2.5 and 1.3 were determined based on the experimental
results.9 Several researchers8,14 verified the equation. In
addition, Rasmussen9 stated that the spalling of the concrete
under the dowel bars was observed at the load corresponding
to the coefficient c ranging from 0.7 to 0.9.
To identify the mechanisms of the bearing and the
failure of the steel bars embedded in concrete subjected to
transverse load, the authors conducted concrete block tests
using 24 specimens containing dowel bars, bolted plate-
mounted bars, or studs, and analysis using the conventional
BEF analogy.15 This paper describes not only the reevaluation
of the traditional analogy to illustrate the elastic behavior of
dowel bars and welded studs, but also the capability of the
elastic analogy to make some interesting implications about
the behavior of the bars beyond yielding.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Steel anchors subjected to shear are often observed in
erection or repair works. The research reveals several issues
concerning the mechanisms of the bearing and failure of
steel bars embedded in concrete subjected to transverse
load. A certain understanding of such a basic structure will
contribute to a more reliable design for various concrete
members containing the related structure.

TEST PROGRAM
The configurations of specimens for three series—
Series N, B, and S—are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1.
The name of each specimen represents the test series, the
target compressive cylinder strength of the concrete, the
Fig. 2—Test schemes and specimens. size of the steel bars, and the specified yield point of the

660 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011

Table 1—Details of test specimens
Series Specimens Concrete cylinder strength fc′, MPa Size of steel bar Nominal diameter, mm Yield point of steel bar fy, MPa
N2419 24.5 No. 6 19.1 342
N3010 33.8 No. 3 9.53 355
N3013 31.2 No. 4 12.7 338
N3016 32.8 No. 5 15.9 345
N3019 33.3 No. 6 19.1 342
N3019-345 33.3 No. 6 19.1 374

Series N, N3019-390 33.3 No. 6 19.1 445

dowel bars N4019 45.8 No. 6 19.1 342
N5010 59.2 No. 3 9.53 355
N5013 59.2 No. 4 12.7 338
N5016 59.2 No. 5 15.9 345
N5019 59.1 No. 6 19.1 342
N5019-345 59.1 No. 6 19.1 374
N5019-390 59.1 No. 6 19.1 445
B2419 24.5 No. 6 19.1 342
B3013 33.8 No. 4 12.7 338
Series B, B3019 33.8 No. 6 19.1 342
bolted plate-
mounted bars B4019 45.8 No. 6 19.1 342
B5013 59.5 No. 4 12.7 338
B5019 59.5 No. 6 19.1 342
S24 24.5 — 19.0 279

Series S,* S30 33.8 — 19.0 279

welded studs S40 45.8 — 19.0 279
S50 59.5 — 19.0 279
*
Diameter of stud is omitted in name because of no variation of size in used studs.
Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; name of specimens indicates following meanings: (for example, in Specimen N3019-345) “N” is type of series; “30” is target cylinder
strength of concrete; “19” is diameter of bars; “-345” is specified yield point of steel bars (no indication means “295”).

steel bars, as described in the footnote of Table 1. The

size of the concrete blocks and the arrangement of the
reinforcement, except the main steel bars, are the same as
in Rasmussen’s9 study. The specimen was simply set on
the platen of a loading machine, as shown in Fig. 2. All the
specimens were monotonically loaded.
Series N was prepared to examine the dowel behavior of
steel bars and determine the K-values. The arrangement of
the dowel bars is the same as Rasmussen’s9 tests, except the
embedded length was changed from 6d to 8d1,5 and deformed
bars were used instead of round bars. The longitudinal ribs
of the deformed bar were vertically aligned, as shown in
Fig. 3. Loading was directly applied to the steel bar with
a 12 mm (0.47 in.) thick steel plate.
Series B was similar to another series in Rasmus-
sen’s9 tests, in which steel plates were mounted on both
sides of the concrete. The steel plates were bolted on, as
shown in Fig. 3. The protruding region of the deformed
bars was threaded for tightening the steel plates. The
diameter of a hole in the steel plate had a clearance of
approximately 2 to 4 mm (0.08 to 0.16 in.) for the bar. Just
before loading, the steel plates were slightly tightened with
nuts, as the strains of the deformed bars at a depth of 1d
Fig. 3—Details of: (a) dowel bars; and (b) bolted plate- from the surface were approximately 100 me. Loading was
mounted bars. applied to the top of both mounted plates.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 661

 data, except steel plates, were obtained from tests, using
three test pieces for each material. The mounted or studded
steel plates had a yield point of 355 MPa (51,500 psi), which
was indicated by the manufacturer. The flexure tests of the
deformed bars were carried out to determine the flexural
rigidity of the deformed bars. The measured flexural rigidity
of the bars EI ranged from 0.94 to 1.04 of the ordinary
flexural rigidity calculated based on the nominal diameter
and the elastic modulus of steel of 200 GPa (29,000 ksi).
Because the studs did not definitely show the yield point, the
proportional limit is indicated in Table 1.
Strain gauges with a gauge length of 1 mm (0.04 in.) were
mounted on the longitudinal ribs of the steel bars, as shown
in Fig. 2. A synthetic rubber coating containing chloroprene
was used to protect the strain gauges in the concrete. The
measured thickness of the coating was approximately
Fig. 4—Spalling of concrete under dowel bar (Specimen N3019). 0.3 to 0.5 mm (0.01 to 0.02 in.) after testing. The coating
of the strain gauges mounted on the steel bar at Side B
was considerably thinner and narrower than that at Side A.
Similarly, the strains of the studs were measured. To measure
the settlement and inclination of the steel bars at the face of
the concrete, the transverse displacements were measured
using linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) at
two points for each side, as shown in Fig. 2(a) (refer also
to Fig. 5). The measured slope was obtained from two data
of the transverse displacement at the surface and at 50 mm
(1.97 in.) apart from the surface, being available to cancel
the influence of settlement due to the elastic deformation of
concrete under the bar. Displacement was measured under
the nuts in Series B, being measured under the studded plates
in Series S. To detect the load at spalling, the longitudinal
displacement was measured using a LVDT on the face of the
concrete at each side of the specimens in Series N (Fig. 2(a)).
Similarly, the longitudinal displacement was measured on
the steel plate at each side of the specimens in Series B and
S (Fig. 2(b) and (c)).
After the tests, the delaminated areas of all the specimens
were sketched and determined. Every specimen was cut in
half along a longitudinal axis with a diamond blade after all
the loading tests. Then, the maximum depth of spalling Lsp
and the length of the bar exhibiting residual deflection Lb
were measured.

RESULTS
Series N
Fig. 5—Measured and predicted slope of dowel bars at Figure 5 shows the measured slope of the dowel bars at the
surface. (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) face of concrete qo in relation to the loads. A predicted line
using Eq. (3b) is drawn for each specimen. Then, the K-values
In Series S, a headed stud welded to a steel plate was were determined using Eq. (9), which is introduced later in
mounted in each side of the concrete blocks to examine the this paper. Two symbols on each curve indicate the load
applicability of the K-values determined from the results of and slope at first yielding and those at spalling, respectively
the dowel bars to the welded studs. The effects of a certain (Appendix A). The spalling of concrete was observed
rotational restraint at the welded end of the studs were also underneath every dowel bar, as shown in Fig. 4. The load at
examined. The loading scheme used was similar to the spalling was determined based on the commencement of the
bolted plate-mounted bars. measured longitudinal displacement (Fig. 6).
All the concrete blocks were made of ordinary portland The load increments became small after spalling. The load
cement concrete containing a 20 mm (0.79 in.) maximum- reincreased, however, after the bar was extremely bent. This
sized crushed aggregate. The blocks were cured using plastic was caused by a wedge action due to the bar being pushed into
sheets for 1 week and then air cured in a laboratory. The the delaminated surface. The loading for every dowel bar was
compression tests of 200 mm (7.9 in.) height x 100 mm arbitrarily stopped when the load increments began to increase
(3.9 in.) diameter cylinder specimens were carried out before
and after all test series.
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
The mechanical properties of the deformed steel bars and the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
studs are shown in Table 1 and Appendix A*. All material equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.

662 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011

Fig. 6—Measured longitudinal displacement (fc′ = 30 MPa; Fig. 7—Examples of moment acting on dowel bars (fc′ =
d = 19 mm). (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) 30 MPa; d = 19 mm). (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

again. In this paper, the ultimate state of the dowel bars is

defined as the load sustained regardless of the rapid increase
in the transverse displacement before the wedge action began.
The strain distributions on the upper and lower extreme
fibers of the dowel bar exhibited approximate symmetry
before first yielding. The distribution of the moment of the
dowel bar is obtained from using Eq. (8)

(
M x = EI ( 2 d ) ε x ,u − ε x ,l ) 2 (8)

where Mx is the moment of the steel bar at x; and ex,u and ex,l
are the measured strains of the upper and the lower extreme
fibers of the bar at x, respectively. Examples of the moment
distributions acting on the dowel bar are shown in Fig. 7. Two
curves for data sets a) and b) were fitted to Eq. (3c). The moment
at the surface indicates the existence of an untouched or less- Fig. 8—Comparison of measured K-values with previous
touched region between the steel plate and the bar. Thus, a real equations on relationship between Kd and fc′. (Note:
loading point might have a gap g of several millimeters from Regression 1 was obtained from all results; Regression 2
the face of the concrete. The gap and K were set as parameters was obtained from all results except Specimens N5010 and
for the fitting to the BEF. The fitting curves were determined N5019. Experimental results were obtained from fitting for
so that a higher correlation coefficient and smaller differences moment diagram at first yielding [Appendix B]; 1 mm =
from the measured moments were obtained. Every specimen 0.0394 in.)
showed good fitting, except Specimen N5019 (Appendix B).
As the load approached the load at first yielding, the K-values
became consistent. Hereafter, the measured K-value represents
the measured K-value at first yielding.
The measured K-values obtained from the fitting are plotted
in Fig. 8 in relation to the cylinder strength of the concrete fc′.
Equation (5) proposed by Dei Poli et al.7 and Eq. (6) indicated
by Qureshi and Maekawa10 are also illustrated. The linear
correlation of the measured K-values was not so far from
both equations in the range of ordinary concrete strength less
than 60 MPa (8700 psi). The measured K-values are likely
to increase, however, with the increase of the diameters of
the steel bars, as Friberg1 suggested. The influence of the
diameters differed from both concepts of Eq. (5) and (6).
A relationship between the measured K-values and fc′d is
illustrated in Fig. 9. Equation (9) is obtained from a correlation
using all the experimental data, except Specimen N5019,
which exhibited the inappropriate fitting for K.

Fig. 9—Relationship between Kd and fc′d2 based on experi-

K = 0.25 fc′d (N, mm) (9) mental results. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 663

 yielding of the dowel bars in relation to the dowel index. The
load Py can be approximately estimated using the dowel index.

( )
0.5
Py = 0.4 d 2 fc′ f y (11)

The load Py corresponds to 0.4Pu presented by Dei Poli

et al.,7 although they estimated Pu to be approximately
1.3d2(fc′fy)0.5.
Theoretically, the load at first yielding Py can be estimated
using BEF. The maximum moment of the bars is obtained
from substituting the position of the maximum moment Lm
for Eq. (3c).
Fig. 10—Relationship between ultimate load and dowel
index. (Note: Specimens N24**, N30**, N40**, and N50**
show results of specimens at Side A in Series N with specified (
M = −e −βLm P β ) {(1 − βg) sin βL m − βg cos βLm } (12)
strength of concrete of 24, 30, 40, and 50 MPa, respectively;
1 MPa = 145 psi.)
where Lm = (1/b)tan–1(1/(1 – 2bg)). The moment at first
yielding My is given by

M y = 2 If y d (13)

From Eq. (12) and (13), the load at first yielding is

( )
Py = πd 3 f y 32 βeβLm {(1 − βg) sin βL m − βg cos βLm } (14)

The predicted load using Eq. (14) agreed with the

experimental results. Then, the K-values were determined
Fig. 11—Loads at first yielding and spalling in relation to using Eq. (9). The K-values did not seem to be very sensitive,
dowel index. however, for predicting the load Py. Whichever K-value is
determined by Eq. (5), (6), (9), or even a constant value
of 400 MPa/mm (1,500,000 lb/in.3), the predicted load Py
As shown in Fig. 5, the slope qo predicted using Eq. (3b) does not vary significantly. The K-values given by Eq. (9)
were somewhat favorable to the prediction.
and the K-values obtained from Eq. (9) are approximately
The load at spalling Psp is also plotted in Fig. 11. Similar
consistent with the measured slope prior to the first yielding. to the load Py, a good correlation between Psp and the dowel
Incidentally, both Fig. 8 and 9 are illustrated using Kd index is observed.
(=k). When Friberg1 applied the BEF analogy dealing with
only a plane issue to the behavior of dowel bars having a
finite width in concrete having infinite width, the width d
( )
0.5
might rather confuse the concept of the analogy (Eq. (1)). Psp = 0.84 d 2 fc′ f y (15)
In Fig. 10, the ultimate loads of the dowel bars are plotted
in relation to the dowel index. The ultimate loads Pu are
The result shows that the spalling always happened after the
approximately equal to the dowel index.
first yielding of the dowel bar and that the load at spalling was
approximately twice as large as that at first yielding. When
compared with the ultimate load Pu (Eq. 10), it can be seen
( ) that an extra load-carrying capacity remained at spalling.
0.5
Pu = 1.0 d 2 fc′ f y (10)
From the dissection survey (Appendix C), it was found
that the measured area of spalling Asp rapidly increased with
the increase of the measured depth of spalling Lsp (Asp =
On the other hand, the maximum loads containing 28Lsp2).
the influence of the wedge action were not far from
Rasmussen’s9 equation 1.3d 2(fc′fy)0.5. Series B and S
The load at first yielding Py is interesting for predicting From the tests in Series B and S, the load at first yielding
a proportional limit in the dowel behavior of a steel bar of the bolted plate-mounted bars, the load at the proportional
embedded in concrete. Figure 11 shows the load at the first limit of the studs, the load at the commencement (or the limit

664 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011

of linearity with respect to the loads) of the longitudinal
displacement of the steel plates (Fig. 6), and the ultimate
load were obtained (Appendix A). The first yielding of the
bars and the proportional limit of the studs were detected by
strain readings. It should be noted that while the maximum
strain of studs occurred at the welded end, no strain gauge
was mounted just at the point (refer to Fig. 2(c)). As shown
in Fig. 6, the longitudinal displacement on the mounted steel
plates for both the bolts and studs moderately increased
when compared with the dowel bars. The loads at the
commencement of the longitudinal displacement for the
bolted plate-mounted bars and welded studs were often
larger than the load at spalling under the dowel bars in each
companion specimen.
As shown in Fig. 10, the ultimate load of the bolted
plate-mounted bars is consistent with Eq. (7b) using the Fig. 12—Measured and predicted moment acting on welded
corresponding coefficient of 2.5. The ultimate load of stud (Specimen S30).
the welded studs was similar to that of the bolted plate-
mounted bars. The flexural and shear rupture of the bolted
plate-mounted bars and the welded studs was observed at
the face of the concrete in all the specimens for Series B
and S, except Specimens B2419, S24, and S30, which had
a relatively low concrete strength. The ultimate load due to
the rupture may be limited to the property of steel bars such
as the ultimate shear force Vsu(=fsu As /1.73), where fsu is the
ultimate tensile strength; and As is the nominal area of the
steel bar. The average ultimate load due to the rupture of the
bolted plate-mounted bars was 1.32Vsu; the average ultimate
load of the welded studs was 1.67Vsu.
The measured and predicted moment diagrams of a stud
in Specimen S30 are shown in Fig. 12. The predicted lines
are obtained using BEF (Eq. (d3) in Appendix D) with the Fig. 13—Measured moment acting on bolted plate-mounted
K-values from Eq. (9). The method and K-values seem bar (Specimen B3019). (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
effective to predict the behavior of the welded studs. In
the moment diagram at 16.7 kN (4.0 kips), the predicted to the delayed rotational restraint brought on by the small
moment at the welded end (x = 8 mm [0.3 in.]) reached the clearance of the hole in the plates.
proportional limit of the studs. The yielding ought to have From the dissection survey, it was found that the depth of
occurred at the welded end much earlier than the load of spalling under the bolted plate-mounted bar was not much
50.1 kN (11.3 kips) when the measured strain at a depth of different from that under the dowel bar when compared
2d reached the proportional limit; however, the compatibility between companion specimens. While the load at the
of the BEF with experimental data was fairly observed even longitudinal displacement commencement of bolted plate-
at the load of 50 kN (11.3 kips). mounted bars was larger than that of dowel bars, invisible
An example of the measured moment of a bolted plate- cracking might develop at the lower load corresponding
mounted bar at first yielding is plotted in Fig. 13. Using to spalling under the dowel bars. Even if the cracking
Eq. (3c) and (4), three predicted lines are drawn. The thin developed, the ductile behavior of the bars might be
solid line exhibits the behavior of dowel bars with no restraint sustained due to the mounted plates confining the cracked
of rotation at the surface. The thick line exhibits the behavior concrete beneath the bars.
of the bar with a strict restraint of the rotation, similar to the Large initial axial tension may generate friction between
welded studs. This thick line corresponds to Eq. (3c) when the steel plates and concrete but affect the yielding of the
bolts after slipping at the interface. The stiff behavior was
assuming that Mo is 600 N-m (443 lb-ft). Every measured
observed at only a very low load. The influence of the friction
moment is between both the predicted lines. The third
due to the introduced axial force of approximately 3 to 6 kN
line (broken line) using Eq. (3c) was approximated to the
(0.67 to 1.35 kips), however, seemed to be negligible for the
experimental data. Then, Mo was 200 N-m (148 lb-ft). It was details in Series B.
recognized that the positive moment due to the steel plates
acted on the bars at the surface. The bolted plates seemed to BEHAVIOR OF DOWEL BARS
be insufficient to keep the rotational restraint compared with Spalling of concrete
the studded plate. Although the longitudinal displacement on A depth to the resultant of bearing load distribution Rx
the bolted plates was similar to that on the studded plates, as from the surface to the first intercept on the x-axis L(=(1/b)
shown in Fig. 6, the clearance of the hole in the bolted plates tan–1((bg – 1)/bg)) can be calculated by numerical integration,
might mitigate the restraint prior to extreme deflection. The similar to the center of gravity. From the calculation
bolted plate-mounted bars seemed to be ruptured owing for 14 specimens containing dowel bars, it was found that

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 665

 The depth of spalling is likely to be shallower than the
maximum moment point.
The previous finding implies that the resultant induces the
spalling of concrete. At spalling, the resultant of the bearing
load distribution from the surface to the first intercept F may
be approximated by

L
F = Kd ∫ 0 ydx ( y at Psp )
(18)
= Psp e − βL {(1 − 2βg ) sin βL − cos βL} + 1

From Eq. (18), the ratios of F to Psp for the specimens ranged
from 1.22 to 1.33, the average being 1.27.
Assuming that the spalling depends on the shear failure
of the concrete due to the resultant of the bearing load
Fig. 14—Relationship between measured depth of spalling within the first intercept, the resultant at spalling may
and calculated depth of resultant of bearing stress distribution correspond to the shear resistance force of the concrete.
within first intercept. Figure 15 shows the relation of the shear resistance force
Vsp with the calculated resultant at spalling F. In this
study, the values of Vsp were evaluated by multiplying the
shear strength of concrete vu(=2ft)15 and the area of failure
having a conical shape Msp(=preq(req2 + Lsp2)0.5), where ft
is the tensile strength of concrete (=0.3fc′2/3); and req is the
equivalent radius calculated using the measured area of
spalling Asp(=preq2). Figure 15 implies that the assumptions
about the resultant force inducing the spalling and the
corresponding shear capacity of the concrete under the
dowel bar are likely to be acceptable.

Plastic hinge of dowel bars

The assumed plastic hinge point of the steel bars introduced
by Rasmussen9 most likely has something to do with the
depth of the maximum moment point before yielding Lm
or just after spalling Lma. On the assumption that the BEF
analogy would still be applicable to the dowel bars in the
remaining concrete after spalling, the origin for another axis
(x′-axis) is positioned at the delaminated surface of concrete,
Fig. 15—Relationship between shear resistance force of as illustrated in Fig. 16. The maximum moment point after
concrete under dowel bar and assumed resultant at spalling. spalling Lm′ on the x′-axis may be given by

for all specimens of dowel bars, the depth of resultant Lcg has Lm ′ = (1 β) tan −1 (1 (1 − 2βg ′ )) (19)
a linear relation to the depth of the first intercept L as follows
where g′ is the distance from the delaminated surface of
the concrete to the loading point (≈g – Lcg). The assumed
Lcg = 0.283L (16) maximum moment point just after spalling from the original
surface Lma is
In Fig. 14, the calculated depth of resultant Lcg is shown
in relation to the measured depth of spalling Lsp. The depth
Lcg approximately corresponds to the depth Lsp. Because Lma = Lcg + Lm ′ (20)
coarse aggregate might occasionally exist under the bar,
the measured depth of spalling Lsp has a greater potential
to vary than Lcg. The result implies that the spalling always The depth Lma was calculated for each specimen containing
initiates around the depth Lcg. A relationship between Lcg dowel bars. From the results, the following correlation
and the maximum moment point of steel bars Lm (= (1/b) between Lma and the depth of the maximum moment point
tan–1(1/(1 – 2bg))) is represented by before yielding Lm was obtained.

Lcg = 0.61Lm (17) Lma = 1.27 Lm (21)

666 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011

 Fig. 17—Relationship between measured length of residual
deflection of dowel bar and assumed depth to maximum
moment point just after spalling.
Fig. 16—Assumption of maximum moment point just
after spalling.

A relationship between the depth Lma and the measured

length of residual deflection Lb is illustrated in Fig. 17.
The assumed depth Lma approximately corresponds to the
measured length Lb.
Regarding the dowel bar just after spalling, the moment
at Lma and the other moment at the delaminated surface
(≈Lcg) were tentatively estimated using the load at spalling
Psp given by Eq. (15). Both the estimated moments at Lcg
and Lma were extremely beyond the plastic moment of the
steel bars. The results imply that just at spalling, the full
penetration of yielding throughout the cross section might
develop, at least in the region from the delaminated surface
(≈Lcg) to the assumed maximum moment point after spalling
(Lma). From this viewpoint, it can be seen that presumably
further spalling was difficult to take place. The remaining
load-carrying capacity after spalling most likely depended Fig. 18—Difference of bearing load distribution between
on the strain hardening of the steel bar prior to the beginning welded stud and dowel bar (fc′ = 30 MPa; d = 19 mm).
of the wedge action. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
From the previous results, the process up to failure of
the dowel bars embedded in the concrete is schematically (refer to the ratio of 1.27 for the dowel bars). Both features
summarized in Appendix E. The behavior in elasticity still stemming from the elastic behavior might be reasons why
provided several useful parameters to draw the behavior of the cracking of the concrete underneath the studs was not
the dowel bars beyond first yielding. obviously observed in the dissection survey, despite the
severe deformation of studs. Eventually, the rotational
BEHAVIOR OF WELDED STUDS restraint impacting the elastic behavior seemed to bring
Welded studs exhibited ductile behavior and a higher about the ductile behavior and higher load-carrying capacity
load-carrying capacity compared with the companion dowel of the welded studs.
bars. Figure 18 shows the bearing load distribution acting Using the equation of the moment diagram for headed
on welded studs with a diameter of 19 mm (0.75 in.) in short studs (Appendix D), Fig. 19 indicates the influence of
concrete with a cylinder strength of 30 MPa (4350 psi) using the height of the studs on the moment diagram for welded
the BEF analogy (Appendix D) and that for the companion studs with a diameter of 19 mm (0.75 in.) in concrete with a
dowel bars. The rotational restraint due to welding to the cylinder strength of 30 MPa (4350 psi). In this case, the studs
steel plate results in a significant difference in the bearing with a height of more than 150 mm (5.91 in.) bear negligible
load diagram. From the figures, it can be seen that the point moment at the head. The studs with a height of 100 mm
of resultant acting on the studs tends to be deeper. The (3.94 in.), however, are subjected to a large moment at the
deeper resultant point is most likely effective in delaying the head. In the dissection survey, critical cracks from the head
spalling of concrete owing to requiring a larger failure area of the studs were commonly observed in Series S, as drawn
for the spalling. In addition, from Fig. 18(a), the resultant in Fig. 19. Similar cracks were also observed in the tests of
F acting on the stud is approximately equal to the applied welded studs presented by Ollgaard et al.12 Such cracks might
load P. The ratio F/P of 1.0 for the welded studs is smaller begin to develop due to the large moment acting on the head of
than that for dowel bars with a sufficient embedded length such short studs. Two types of failure of the welded studs that

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011 667

 Lm = maximum moment point of steel bar, mm (in.)
Lm′ = assumed maximum moment point after spalling from failed
surface, mm (in.)
Lma = assumed maximum moment point after spalling from original
surface, mm (in.)
Lsp = measured maximum depth of spalling, mm (in.)
Mo = moment at surface, N-m (kip-in.)
Msp = assumed area of failed surface of concrete after spalling, mm2 (in.2)
Mx = moment at x, N-m (kip-in.)
P = transverse load, kN (kip)
Psp = load at spalling, kN (kip)
Pu = ultimate load, kN (kip)
Py = load at first yielding, kN (kip)
Rx = bearing load distribution acting on concrete at x, N/mm (kip/in.)
req = equivalent radius of failed area due to spalling (=(Asp/p)0.5), mm
(in.)
Vsp = shear resistance force of concrete under steel bar, kN (kip)
Fig. 19—Influence of height of studs on moment at head.
Vsu = ultimate shear force of steel bar, kN (kip)
(Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) vu = shear strength of concrete, MPa (psi)
x = depth from surface, mm (in.)
were observed in the pushoff tests presented by Viest11 might y = transverse displacement, mm (in.)
be related to the moment acting on the head due to the short b = relative stiffness of steel bar and concrete, mm–1 (in.–1)
cutoff. Further investigation is needed to identify the influence e = Rasmussen’s9 parameter
of several factors, such as the size of the head. ex,l = measured strain of lower extreme fiber of bar at x, mm (in.)
ex,u = measured strain of upper extreme fiber of bar at x, mm (in.)
CONCLUSIONS qo = slope of steel bar at surface
In this study, loading tests using 24 concrete blocks
containing dowel bars, bolted plate-mounted bars, or welded REFERENCES
1. Friberg, B. F., “Design of Dowels in Transverse Joints of Concrete
studs were carried out, followed by a dissection survey to
Pavements,” Proceedings of ASCE, Nov. 1938, pp. 1809-1828.
determine the depth of spalling observed under dowel bars 2. Timoshenko, S., Strength of Materials, Part II: Advanced Theory and
and the residual deflection region of the bars. The behavior Problems, third edition, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New Jersey, 1956, pp. 1-25.
up to failure was investigated using the experimental data 3. Chang, Y. L., “Discussion on the Paper ‘Lateral Pile-Loading Tests’
and the BEF analogy. The elastic analogy still provides by Feagin, L. B.,” Transactions of ASCE, V. 102, 1937, pp. 272-278.
some implications to illustrate the behavior of the steel bars 4. ACI Committee 325, Subcommittee III, “Structural Design
embedded in concrete, even beyond yielding (Appendix E). Considerations for Pavement Joints,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 53,
No. 7, July 1956, pp. 1-28.
This paper, depending on the traditional analogy, may be
5. Marcus, H., “Load Carrying Capacity of Dowels at Transverse
insufficient to fully identify the post-yield behavior of the Pavement Joints,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 48, No. 10, Oct. 1951,
dowel bars. The approach is at least likely to be useful for pp. 169-184.
engineers and researchers to draw an outline concerning the 6. Yoder, E. J., and Witczak, M. W., Principles of Pavement Design,
process of failure of the dowel bars. second edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1975, 736 pp.
7. Dei Poli, S.; Di Prisco, M.; and Gambarova, P. G., “Shear Response,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Deformations, and Subgrade Stiffness of a Dowel Bar Embedded in
The tests in this study were conducted as a part of the Cooperative Research Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992,
Project on Connections of Precast Prestressed Concrete Elements for Bridges pp. 665-675.
with the Japan Prestressed Concrete Contractors Association (JPCA). 8. Dulacska, H., “Dowel Action of Reinforcement Crossing Cracks in
Concrete,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69, No. 12, Dec. 1972, pp. 754-757.
9. Rasmussen, B. H., “Betonindstobte Tvaerbelastede Boltes og Dornes
NOTATION
As = area of cross section of steel bar, mm2 (in.2) Baereevne,” Bygningstatiske Meddelser, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1963,
Asp = measured delaminated area of spalling on plane surface, mm2 (in.2) pp. 39-55. (in Danish)
c = coefficient for Rasmussen’s9 equation 10. Qureshi, J., and Maekawa, K., “Computational Model for Steel Bar
d = diameter of steel bar, mm (in.) Embedded in Concrete under Combined Axial Pullout and Transverse
E = elastic modulus of steel bar, MPa (psi) Shear Displacement,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 15,
F = assumed resultant of bearing load distribution within first No. 2, 1993, pp. 1249-1254.
intercept, kN (kip) 11. Viest, I. M., “Investigation of Stud Shear Connectors for Composite
fc′ = compressive cylinder strength of concrete, MPa (psi) Concrete and Steel T-Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 52, No. 4,
fsu = ultimate tensile strength of steel bar, MPa (psi) Apr. 1956, pp. 875-892.
ft = tensile strength of concrete, MPa (psi) 12. Ollgaard, J. G.; Slutter, R. G.; and Fisher, J. W., “Shear Strength
fy = yield point of steel bar, MPa (psi) of Stud Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete,” AISC
g = distance from surface of concrete to loading point, mm (in.) Engineering Journal, Apr. 1971, pp. 55-64.
g′ = distance from failed surface to loading point, mm (in.) 13. Akao, S.; Kurita, A.; and Hiragi, H., “Effect of Directions of Concrete
h = height of stud, mm (in.)
Placing on Behavior of Headed Stud Shear Connectors in Push-Out
I = moment of inertia of steel bar, mm4 (in.4)
Tests,” Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No. 380, Apr. 1987,
K = modulus of support in elastic mass or subgrade stiffness,
MPa/mm (lb/in.3) pp. 311-320. (in Japanese)
k = modulus of foundation, MPa (psi) 14. Vintzeleou, E. N., and Tassios, T. P., “Mathematical Models for
L = depth to first intercept of bearing load distribution, mm (in.) Dowel Action under Monotonic and Cyclic Conditions,” Magazine of
Lb = measured length of bar exhibiting residual deflection after Concrete Research, V. 38, No. 134, 1986, pp. 13-22.
testing, mm (in.) 15. PWRI and JPCA, Cooperative Research Report on Connections of
Lcg = depth to resultant of bearing load distribution within first Precast Prestressed Concrete Elements for Bridges, PWRI Cooperative
intercept on x-axis, mm (in.) Research Report No. 370, Tsukuba, Japan, Mar. 2008, 247 pp. (in Japanese)

668 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2011

 1 Appendix A Materials and Test Results of Loading Tests

4 Table A1–Mix proportions of concrete

Target cylinder strength w/c Air s/a Content, kg/m3
of concrete, MPa % content% % W C S1 S2 G AE
24 75 4.5 47.6 171 228 615 261 1005 2.28
30 57 5.0 46.7 181 318 571 243 967 3.18
40 48.5 3.9 46.6 170 351 569 243 970 3.86
50 40 2.4 45.3 175 438 543 232 975 4.82
5 Note : 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kg/m3 = 0.06 lb/ft3. Ordinary portland cement, Maximum size of coarse aggregate = 20 mm.
6 Sand(S1 ， F.M.=2.02) and crushed fine aggregate(S2 ， F.M.=3.68) were blended. Crushed coarse aggregate
7 (F.M.=6.68). AE(agents) : Water reducer for 24 and 30 MPa; Super plasticizer for 40 and 50 MPa
8
9
10
11 Table A2–Properties of deformed bars, studs and steel plates
Measured flexural Yield Measured
Yield point Tensile strength Elastic modulus
Size rigidity strain height *
fy, MPa fu, MPa E, GPa EIf, kN-mm2 ×10–6 mm
#3 355 503 192 84400 1850 10.1
#4 338 480 189 239000 1790 13.2
Deformed #5 345 504 193 629000 1790 16.9
bar #6 (295) 342 538 193 1320000 1770 20.8
#6 (345) 374 560 192 1270000 1950 19.9
#6 (390) 445 638 190 1240000 2340 20.0
Stud dia. 19 mm 279 † 470 209 － 1360 † 18.9
Steel plate t = 22 mm 355 527 － － － －
12 Note : 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 GPa = 145 ksi; 1 kN-mm2 = 2.42 kip-ft2; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
13 : All data were obtained from tensile or flexural tests using three test pieces for each material except the steel plate indicating data by
14 manufacturer. Numbers in the parentheses mean the specified yield point (MPa).
15 * Measured height includes both longitudinal ribs. † Proportional limit
16

34
 1

2 Table A3 Test results of dowel bars

At first yielding detected by At spalling detected by Cracking of
At ultimate state
strain reading longitudinal displacement concrete
Specimen Side A Side B Side A Side B Side A Side B
Py Py Psp Psp Pu Pu Side A Side B
θo,y θo,y θo,sp θo,sp θo,u θo,u
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
N2419 14.7 0.0114 19.2 0.0174 27.1 0.0470 17.7 0.0156 33.0 0.0921 33.6 0.1314 Yes, 41 No
N3010 3.2 0.0182 3.4 0.0201 7.2 0.1279 – – 8.6 0.2261 9.5 0.3592 No No
N3013 6.3 0.0157 10.0 0.0162 14.0 0.0945 14.0 0.0616 16.1 0.2104 16.1 0.1729 No No
N3016 14.3 0.0170 17.3 0.0150 22.1 0.0430 22.1 0.0317 27.3 0.1342 30.8 0.1864 No No
N3019 19.2 0.0113 18.7 0.0103 33.1 0.0467 33.1 0.0613 40.8 0.1208 40.8 0.1471 No No
N3019-345 16.7 0.0098 25.2 0.0149 37.7 0.0660 38.1 0.1000 37.6 0.0907 41.1 0.1390 No No
N3019-390 20.6 0.0110 30.6 0.0195 30.1 0.0223 39.0 0.0500 40.6 0.0853 43.2 0.1243 No No
N4019 16.9 0.0102 26.6 0.0145 42.5 0.0855 41.3 0.0775 46.5 0.1879 46.4 0.1826 Yes, 57 Yes
N5010 2.6 0.0161 3.9 0.0163 6.2 0.0835 7.2 0.1261 11.5 0.3549 12.5 0.4717 No No
N5013 8.5 0.0170 10.6 0.0175 17.8 0.1000 17.3 0.0957 20.6 0.2256 21.3 0.2907 No No
N5016 11.3 0.0124 16.2 0.0169 33.6 0.2059 29.1 0.1067 33.7 0.2089 34.0 0.2051 No No
N5019 24.6 0.0137 27.6 0.0132 39.1 0.0459 39.1 0.0427 48.9 0.2038 49.1 0.2166 Yes, 62 Yes
N5019-345 17.9 0.0121 26.6 0.0146 44.5 0.1034 44.0 0.0839 53.1 0.2042 52.6 0.1776 Yes Yes
N5019-390 26.6 0.0141 31.2 0.0142 54.0 0.0916 51.1 0.0542 59.2 0.1598 59.2 0.1386 Yes, 60 Yes
3 Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips
4 The ultimate state was determined as load sustained regardless of rapid transverse displacement,
5 not including the re-increase of load due to the wedge action.
6 θo,y, θo,sp, and θo,u are the measured slope of the bar at the surface at each load.
7 "Cracking of concrete" indicates whether cracking unrelated to spalling was observed (Yes) or not (No).
8 When the load at cracking (kN) was detected, it is drawn.
9 No rupture of steel bar was observed in Series N.
10
11 Table A4 Test results of bolted plate mounted bars and studs
Load at first Load at
yielding, Py or commencement of
Ultimate load, Pu
Load at longitudinal Cracking of concrete Rupture of steel bar
Specimen (kN)
proportional limit displacement
(kN) (kN)
Side A Side B Side A Side B Side A Side B Side A Side B Side A Side B
B2419 26.4 34.0 61.0 61.0 96.0 Yes, 86 Yes No No
B3013 10.7 11.8 14.1 24.6 46.3 – No No Yes No
B3019 34.3 38.3 61.1 74.6 – 116 Yes, 72 Yes No Yes
B4019 36.2 29.6 70.1 62.6 – 115 Yes, 86 Yes, 85 No Yes
B5013 17.5 15.8 32.6 27.1 – 47.8 No No No Yes
B5019 34.7 26.3 72.6 59.1 – 118 Yes, 86 Yes No Yes
S24 57.6 79.5 71.6 70.6 96.7 Yes Yes No No
S30 54.6 68.6 70.0 70.0 118 Yes, 114 Yes No No
S40 70.6 77.6 91.0 91.0 – 116 Yes, 80 Yes No Yes
S50 91.5 70.5 116 110 134 – Yes, 92 Yes No Yes
12 Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kips
13 "Load at first yielding" for bolted plate mounted bars and "Load at proportional limit" for welded studs were determined
14 using strain readings.
15 "Load at commencement of longitudinal displacement" indicates the load when a rapid increase was observed
16 in the measured longitudinal displacement.
17 "Cracking of concrete" indicates whether cracking unrelated to spalling was observed (Yes) or not (No).
18 When the load at cracking (kN) was detected, it is drawn.
19 "Rupture of steel bar" indicates whether the flexural and shear rupture of steel bar/stud was observed (Yes) or not (No).
20

35
 1 Appendix B Fitting for Determining the value of K and g
100 100
2
0 0
3

Moment (N-m)
Moment (N-m)

-100 -100
4
-200 -200
5
-300 Fitted -300 Fitted
Measured Measured
6
-400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
7
Depth (mm) Depth (mm)
8 (a) N3010 P = 3.2 kN (b) N5010 P = 2.7 kN

9
100 100
10
0 0
11
Moment (N-m)

Moment (N-m)

-100 -100
12
-200 -200
13
-300 Fitted -300 Fitted
Measured Measured
14
-400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
15
Depth (mm) Depth (mm)
16 (c) N3013 P = 6.5 kN (d) N5013 P = 9.1 kN

17
100 100
18
0 0
19
Moment (N-m)

Moment (N-m)

-100 -100
20
-200 -200
21
-300 Fitted -300 Fitted
Measured Measured
22
-400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
23
Depth (mm) Depth (mm)
24 (e) N3016 P = 14.0 kN (f) N5016 P = 13.7 kN

25 Fig. B1 Fitting for determining K and g

36
 1
100 100
2
0 0
Moment (N-m)

Moment (N-m)
3
-100 -100
4
-200 -200

5 Fitted fitted
-300 -300
Measured Measured
6 -400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
7 Depth (mm) Depth (mm)

8 (g) N3019 P = 19.1 kN (h) N5019 P = 16.7 kN

9
100 100
10
0 0
Moment (N-m)

Moment (N-m)

11
-100 -100
12
-200 -200

13 -300 Fitted -300 Fitted

Measured Measured
14 -400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
15 Depth (mm) Depth (mm)

16 (i) N3019-345 P = 18.7 kN (j) N5019-345 P = 20.7 kN

17
100 100
18
0 0
Moment (N-m)

Moment (N-m)

19
-100 -100
20
-200 -200

21 -300 Fitted -300 Fitted

Measured Measured
22 -400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
23 Depth (mm) Depth (mm)

24 (k) N3019-390 P = 23.2 kN (l) N5019-390 P = 30.8 kN

25 Fig. B1 Fitting for determining K and g (Cont.)

37
 1
100 100
2
0 0
Moment (N-m)

Moment (N-m)
3
-100 -100
4
-200 -200

5 -300 fitted Fitted

-300
Measured Measured
6 -400 -400
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
7 Depth (mm) Depth (mm)

8 (m) N2419 P = 15.7kN (n) N4019 P = 18.3 kN

Note: 1 N-m = 0.738 lb-ft; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
9

10 Fig. B1 Fitting for determining K and g (Cont.)

11

12

13 Table B–Measured values of K and g

Cylinder Diameter Load for
Estimated Measured
strength of steel determining K K.d
Specimen gap, g value of K
fc ' bar, d (= Py)
(MPa) (mm) (kN) (mm) (MPa/mm) (MPa)
N2419 24.5 19.1 14.7 –6 103 1960
N3010 33.8 9.53 3.2 –6 114 1090
N3013 31.2 12.7 6.3 –2 88 1120
N3016 32.8 15.9 14.3 –1 138 2190
N3019 33.3 19.1 19.2 –3 205 3930
N3019-345 33.3 19.1 16.7 –6 185 3540
N3019-390 33.3 19.1 20.6 –3 116 2220
N4019 45.8 19.1 16.9 –5 216 4130
N5010 59.2 9.53 2.6 –6 94 893
N5013 59.2 12.7 8.5 – 2.5 266 3380
N5016 59.2 15.9 11.3 –6 266 4230
N5019 59.1 19.1 24.6 –4 587 11200
N5019-345 59.1 19.1 17.9 –6 186 3550
N5019-390 59.1 19.1 26.6 –3 306 5850
14 Note : 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa/mm = 3680 lb/in.3; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
15
16

17

18

38
 1
6 6
2 N3010 N5010

Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)

3 4 4

4
2 2
5

6 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
7 K (MPa/mm) K (MPa/mm)

8 (a) N3010 (b) N5010

9
10 10
N3013 N5013
10
8 8
Load P (kN)
Load P (kN)

11
6 6 Reload

12 4 4

13 2 2

14 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
15 K (MPa/mm) K (MPa/mm)

16 (c) N3013 (d) N5013

17
20 20
N3016 N5016
18
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

19
10 10
20
Reload

21

22 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
23 K (MPa/mm) K (MPa/mm)

24 (e) N3016 (f) N5016

25 Fig. B2– Determined value of K at each load

39
 1
40 40
2 N3019 N5019

30 30
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)
3
20 20
4

5 10 10

6 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
7 K (MPa/mm) K (MPa/mm)

8 (g) N3019 (h) N5019

9
40 40
N3019-345 N5019-345
10
30 30
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

11
20 20
12
Reload
13 10 10

14 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
15 K (MPa/mm) K (MPa/mm)

16 (i) N3019-345 (j) N5019-345

17
40 40
N3019-390 N5019-390
18
30 30
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)

19
20 20
20
10 10
21

22 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
23 K (MPa/mm) K (MPa/mm)

24 (k) N3019-390 (l) N5019-390

25 Fig. B2– Determined value of K at each load (cont.)

40
 1
40 40
2 N2419 N4019

30 30
Load P (kN)

Load P (kN)
3
20 20
4

5 10 10

6 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
7 K (MPa/mm) K (MPa/mm)

8 (m) N2419 (n) N4019

9 Note; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1MPa/mm = 3680 lb/in.3

10 Fig. B2– Determined value of K at each load (cont.)

11

12

13

41
 1 Appendix C Results of Dissection Survey and Measured Area of Spalling

3 Table C–Results of dissection survey and measured area of spalling

4
Side A Side B
Measured Measured
length of Measured length of Measured
Measured area Measured area
Specimen residual depth of residual depth of
of spalling Asp, of spalling Asp,
deflection of spalling Lsp, deflection of spalling Lsp,
mm2 mm2
bar or stud Lb, mm bar or stud Lb, mm
mm mm
N2419 63.5 13.0 3720 41.0 15.8 11900
N3010 18.5 7.5 1120 – 7.0 1990
N3013 20.5 7.3 3810 20.5 8.5 1370
N3016 22.5 8.5 1540 25.5 10.8 3440
N3019 35.5 15.0 8610 23.3 9.3 1760
N3019-345 30.3 14.8 3790 28.5 15.0 4730
N3019-390 39.3 13.3 2650 34.3 17.8 7390
N4019 30.3 9.5 2330 26.0 12.0 2910
N5010 10.8 6.5 2040 8.8 6.3 1290
N5013 10.0 7.3 2130 11.8 8.8 1650
N5016 18.0 6.0 3090 15.5 10.5 3210
N5019 30.8 10.5 2960 26.5 14.3 3400
N5019-345 25.5 14.3 6330 20.5 14.5 6470
N5019-390 30.0 15.0 8120 31.5 13.5 4450
B2419 65.3 14.5 – 63.0 13.8 –
B3013 17.5 9.0 – 31.0 10.0 –
B3019 58.0 8.5 – 47.5 11.5 –
B4019 36.0 9.3 – 32.3 10.5 –
B5013 19.8 5.5 – 6.5 5.8 –
B5019 26.8 6.5 – 29.0 8.5 –
S24 57.5 – – 61.8 – –
S30 – – – – – –
S40 41.8 – – 35.5 9.5 –
S50 29.8 – – 26.8 12.0 –
5 Note : 1 mm = 0.0394 in. Every data is the average of measured values on both surfaces observed after cutting.
6
7
8
9
10
11

42
 1 Appendix D Application of BEF to welded studs

3 Studs often have the insufficient height to regard as infinite length when applying BEF. In
4 this paper, the procedure to correct the influence of the cut-off of dowel bars is applied,
5 introduced by Friberg (Ref. 1). To maintain the equilibrium of force at the cut-off point, the
6 cut end of the bar is subjected to the inverse shear equivalent to that acting on the
7 corresponding point on dowel bars having an infinite length.
8
9 V = – P . e – x cos  x – P’ . e – (h – x) cos  (h – x) (d1)

10 where, P’ = – P . e – h cos  h = – P . A; A = e – h cos  h; B = e – h sin  h; h is embedded

11 length of stud. Equation (d1) can be expressed as
12
13 V = – P (e – x cos  x – A2 . e  x cos  x – A .B . e  x sin  x) (d2)

14 This equation is effective when x ranges from 0 to h. The moment, slope and displacement of
15 the bar are obtained from the following conventional integration,
16
 
M   V dx ,      dx , y   dx
M
17
 
 EI 

18 M = – (P / 2) [{e – x – A (A + B) e  x} sin  x – {e – x + A (A – B) e  x} cos  x + C1]

19 (d3)

20 θ = (P / 2 2EI) {– e– x sin  x – A . e  x (A sin  x – B cos  x) + C1  x + C2} (d4)

21 y = – ( P / K d){e– x(sin  x + cos  x) – A (A – B) e  x sin  x + A (A + B) e  x cos  x

22 + C1 2x2 + 2 C2  x + C3} (d5)

23 On the assumption that the head of the stud is effective to restrain the rotation of the bar,
24 whichever x is zero or h, θ should be zero, thus;
25
26 C1 = (1 /  h) {B + A . e  h (A sin  h – B cos  h) – C2}

27 C2 = – A .B

28 in addition, when x = h, y = 0,

29 C3 = – A – B + A (A – B) . e  h sin  h – A (A + B) e  h cos  h – C1 2h 2 – 2 C2  h

30 Otherwise, assuming that the head of the stud is ineffective to restrain the rotation of the bar,
31 when x is h, M should be zero, C1 = A – B + A (A – B) e  h cos  h + A (A + B) e  h sin  h.
32 The other constant factors C2 and C3 are the same as the former assumption.

43
 1 Appendix E Schematics Summarizing Failure Mechanisms of Dowel Bars

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 Fig. E–Schematics of the failure mechanisms of dowel bar

21 embedded in concrete under transverse load
22
23 note: Additional notation, introduced by Rasmussen (Ref. 9)
24 SH = ratio of the average of bearing stress distribution to fc'
25 z = assumed depth to plastic hinge of bar, mm (in.)
26 ξ = assumed ratio of depth to the resultant of bearing stress to z
27

44