LOAD AND D E F L E C T I O N CHARACTERISTICS OF DOWELS I N

TRANSVERSE JOINTS OF C O N C R E T E PAVEMENTS

B Y BENGT FBIBBRG
Laclede Steel Company

SYNOPSIS
Laboratory tests were made on single dowels encased in concrete to observe
the characteristics of failure and the rate of deflection of transversely loaded
dowels in concrete The rate at which the concrete reacts under a deflecting
dowel IS called modulus of dowel reaction
Loaded } in from the face of the concrete, J-in hard grade dowels failed at
6000 lb dowel load and 1-in intermediate grade dowels at 9000 lb dowel load,
when encased m 3000 lb per sq in concrete Warning of failure is given by
surface spalling under the dowel, commencing at loads considerably less than
the ultimate Ultimate failure is accompamed by crushing of the concrete
immediately under the dowel The 5-in dowels are all permanently bent at
failure Relationship of dowel strength to the strength of the concrete and
to the yield point of the steel is indicated
A reasonable value for the modulus of dowel reaction for ^-in and 1-in greased
dowels in 6-and 7-in concrete pavements on yielding subgrade is deduced from
these tests to be 300 times the unit crushing strength of cylinders of the concrete

D O W E L F O R M U L A S AND M A T E R I A L CHAR- distnbution of the stress in the concrete

ACTERISTICS
To determine the action of a loaded
dowel crossing an open jomt m a con-
crete structure, it is necessary to know
the rate at which the concrete reacts
against deflection of the dowel, referred
to as modulus of dowel reaction This
quantity is for convenience considered
as a constant factor so that the pressure
of the concrete on the surface of the
dowel is proportionate to the deflection
of the dowel m the concrete at any
point The modulus of dowel reaction K
is defined as the load m pounds per
square mch necessary to cause a 1-in
deflection at the beanng in the concrete
For a body of concrete with the height h,
subjected to uniform stress, K would be
related to the modulus of elasticity of
the concrete, Ec, in the manner
K =
h
For dowels in transverse joints of
pavements, K is not so easily estabhshed
theoretically The pressure against the
dowel is not uniformly distributed The
and to the subgrade underneath the con-
crete as well as the mfluence of the con-
crete over the dowel also may not be
theoretically determined K may there-
fore best be established experimentally
For mathematical expediency, instead
of K in the stress formulas for dowels is
used the dowel constant, j3, established as.
K b
/3 (2)
4£. I
in which h is the width, E, the modulus of
elasticity, and / the moment of inertia of
the dowel
Complete design formulas for dowels
have been developed', based upon the
exact mathematical solution of the prob-
lem presented by S Timoshenko and
J M Lessels'' Apphcations to concrete
pavement joints m that work were
based on a value of K of 1,000,000 lb
per i n ' I n this research, dowel
(1)
• "Design of Dowels m Transverse Joints
of Concrete Pavements," Bengt Fnberg, Pro-
ceedings, A S C E Nov 1938, p 1809
' Applied Elasticity," S Timoshenko and
J M Lessels, Westinghouse Technical Night
School press, pp 133-141
140
 FRIBERG—CHARACTERISTICS
strengths and moduli! of dowel reaction
are expenmentally established in relation
to the most important variables of ma-
terials and dimensions
For a dowel loaded with a downward
shear, P, and a moment, Mo, turning
clockwise, at the face of the concrete,
the downward deflection, 3/0, at the face
of the concrete is established by the
formula
P - pMo
yo =
2/3" £ . / •
iMtrror - MvTor on
DomI
U0W.I
FACE VIEW OF SPEOMEN
Figure 1. Arrangement of Concrete Specimens with Single Dowels for Observations and
Loading
The slope of the dowel at the face of the
concrete is also established as
dy 2fiMo - P
2^ E.I
B y the observation of dowel deflection at
the face of the concrete or the slope of
the dowel m front of the concrete, /3
may easily be computed, and for known
dowel dimensions and concrete may be
used directly in the formulas, or know-
ing fi, the modulus of dowel reaction K
may be computed The modulus of
dowel reaction is analogous with the
modulus of subgrade reaction, k, em-
ployed for computation of stresses in
OF DOWELS 141
concrete pavements. However, where
the modulus of subgrade reaction will
be on the order of a few hundred lb per
in.', the modulus of dowel reaction will
range up to 2,000,000 lb. per in ^
EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF
DOWEL CHARACTERISTICS
As no experimentally established values
of the modulus of dowel reaction have
been reported for use in pavement de-
sign, a number of experiments have been
(3)
made on a simple dowel-concrete struc-
ARRANGEMENT OF MIRRORS SECTION AT DOWEL
ture, to establish this matenal constant
for varymg conditions of concrete
strength and construction The modulus
(4) of dowel reaction is clearly dependent
upon the depth of concrete below the
dowel. As the concentration of stress
as well as the dissipation of this stress
immediately below the dowel is of con-
siderable influence, the size of the dowel
may also mfluence the matenal constant
The tests were planned to give an indi-
cation of these variables
Little is known of the strength of
dowels in transverse jomts The tests
which have been made on completed
joint structures have necessarily been
142 DESIGN

few, difficult to observe, and therefore
subject to experimental variations in a
major degree. To supply much needed
information on dowel strengths, these
tests have been made in the laboratory
on single dowels, extending from one
body of concrete only, so that during
the progress of the experiment the dowels
and the surface of the concrete could be
examined for progressive failures. In
that manner it has been possible to ob-
tain fairly accurate data on the failure
makes the values easily applicable to
dowels in the completed pavement joint
structure.
Test Specimens and Observations. The
specimens consisted of concrete blocks,
8 in. wide and generally 6 or 9 in. long,
with a dowel extending through the
concrete and projecting perpendicularly
to the face at center height. The depth
below the dowel varied from 2 1 to 8 5 in.,
and the dowel .sizes are f in., 1 in., and
for one test, 1\ in. The concrete above

Figure 2. Head Raised. Specimen Under Load

Specimen in Place in Testing Machine

of concrete surrounding dowels as well
as on the complete behavior of dowels
of different sizes in concrete specimens of
considerable variation in size. It has
also been possible to include enough
specimens in the observations so that
the influence of experimental variations
has been minimized. The testing ar-
rangement permitted readings to be
made for both dowel deflections and
dowel slopes. The availability of con-
venient design formulas, nevertheless,
the dowel is grooved to { in. back from
the face to permit exact position of the
dial extension point on top of the dowel
flush with the face of the concrete.
Each test was planned for three dupli-
cate specimens, a, b, and c.
The concrete in all instances contained
a crushed limestone coarse aggregate
and Meramec River sand; the cement is
high early strength "Incor" obtained in
the local market. The composition in
most instances is 1 : 1 5 : 1 5 by weight.
 FRIBERG—CHARACTERISTICS
water 45 per cent of the cement. The
specimens were tested at two to three
days' age
Most of the specimens when tested
were clamped in position directly upon a
steel base in the testmg machme I n a
few tests a sponge-rubber mat, simulat-
ing soil subgrade, was placed under the
concrete, or the specimen was placed on
steel flats so that no bearmg existed
except at the sides of the specimen The
load appUcation consisted of a tool steel
edge, appljong the load on top of the
dowel exactly § in from the face of
the concrete The failure of the con-
crete underneath the dowel could there-
fore be observed as the test progressed
Observations have been made of the
deflection of the dowel in the concrete
exactly at the face of the concrete, the
dial gauge being mounted on the upper
surface of the concrete away from the
dowel. Simultaneously, slope readmgs
of the dowels were taken, one mirror
bemg mounted directly on the dowel a
short distance in front of the load apph-
cation point, a second mirror bemg
mounted on the face of the concrete in
level with the dowel and approximately
3 in away On some specimens a dial
gauge was used to show the deflection
under the dowel, some distance from the
face of the concrete, as well, the dial
bemg clamped to the concrete near the
bottom surface and at the outer comers
of the specimen Typical specimen di-
mensions, as well as the clampmg of the
specimens, the dial gauge mountmgs,
and mirror arrangement are shown dia-
grammatically in Figure 1, and as set
up m the testmg machme m Figure 2
The point of support of the dial gauges
did not mfluence the results In one
test the deflection of the concrete top
surface 3 in directly over the dowel was
measured No deflection could be ob-
served at this pomt until near failure of
the specimen The position of the mirror
on the face of the concrete also was found
OF DOWELS 143
to be without mfluence Two mirrors,
the one placed 1 | m away from the
dowel and the other 3 in away, gave
exactly the same readings at all loads
The deflection readings above and
below the dowel gave uniform results in
most instances The deflection readings
below the dowel were introduced after
it was found on two specimens that the
concrete was cracked in such manner that
the top dial and the entire front portion
of the concrete moved downward with
the dowel The deflection readings un-
der the dowel provide a check against
such incorrect results For most speci-
mens the deflection at the face of the
concrete was entirely sufficient to es-
tablish the action of the dowel
Table 1 gives in summary form the
typ\ca\ dimensions of the specimens,
strengths of 6 by 12 in cyhnders, dowel
loads at failure, and modulus of dowel
reaction for all the different tests as the
average of each group of three (or less,
as indicated by letters)
In each test, the three specimens were
fairly uniform I n some specimens voids
which formed under the dowels affected
the deflection diagrams This was par-
ticularly the case in early specimens
having a considerable amount of con-
crete underneath the dowels It has
been possible in some of these instances
to use the part of the deflection diagram
developed after the dowel had settled
through this small porous area for com-
putation of K The condition was prob-
ably caused by swelhng of the wood
forms which lifted the dowels I t was
eliminated entirely on some of the later
specimens, for which the forms did not
rest directly on the steel pallet
D O W E L LOAD C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
Concrete Strength and Dowel Failure
A significant feature of these tests is that
the initial; visible distress of the concrete
comes a considerable time before the
ultimate load is reached The imtial
 TABLE 1
P R I N C I P A L T E S T D A T A OP D I M E N S I O N S , L O A D S AND D O W E L R E A C T I O N
Width of Specimens 8 in unless noted Length Same as Dowel Embedment
Beanng On steel unless noted
Dowels }-in round, 1-in round, IJ-in round '
Y i e l d Point 60500 lb per sq in , 48400 lb per sq in , 53900 lb per sq in , except when noted
Tensile Strength 101000 lb per sq in , 85500 lb per sq in , 85000 lb per sq in , except when noted
Dowels not coated except when noted

Dowel Concrete Progressive Failure* Modulus of Dowel Reaction

Test
and Initial Ultimate T o Dowel Load of lb) Remarks
Speci- Em- Depth Strength Method of
mens Sue bed- Below 5 by 12 m Dowel Observation
ment Dowel Cyl Dowel Visible Sign Type of Failure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Load Load

[6 per sq lb U> m lUton IEl per m s

tn tn tn tn
2 6 4200 3500 Spall 7000 Spall, vert crack Top defl 3 go 2 10 1 85 1 55 1 06 0 20
labc 0 75 6
Slope 3 60 2 80 1 8

2 5 3100 6000 Spall, horis gooo Spall, vert crack Top defl 1 25 1 00 0 96 0 88 0 85 0 66
2abc 1 00 6
crack Slope 1 80 1 40 1 16

6 2 4 3100 7000 Hons crack 12000 SpaU, vert crack Top defl 1 20 0 71
Sabc 1 25 0 80
Slope 1 65

e 3 0 3500 6500 Horis crack 10000 SpaU, vert crack Top defl 1 00 0 98 0 67
4abc 1 00
Slope 1 80 1 26 1 16

5500 Spall 7500 Vert split Top defl 0 77 0 67 0 56 Duphcates of No 4 on rubber

21abc 1 00 6 3 0 3500
Slope 1 40 0 96 1 00

6 4 0 3600 5500 SpaU - 0600 SpaU. vert crack Top defl 0 50 0 48

Sabo 1 00 0 67
Slope 0 70

3000 Hons crack 9200 Spall Top defl 0 40 0 30 Cast on end, 7 in wide
6abo 1 OO 6 8 5 3200
Slope 0 47 0 45 Specimens b & e, excessive watergain

8000 Hons crack 13500 SpaU Readings nappli cable, curing cracks Cast on end, 7 in thick
22ab 1 00 6 8 6 3600
Top defl 2 80 2 05 1 65 Tested on side 14 in wide
22c 1 00 6 3 0 3600
Slope 1 00
Bot defl 2 00 1 70 1 25 1 15 Tested on end, 7 in wide
22c 8 6 Tested after bond test 295 lb pei sq in ,
8 6 0500 Spall 12000 SpaU Bot defl 1 70 1 70 2 00
22a 0 26 in movement

7300 Spall, horn 9800 Spall, vert crack Top defl 1 40 1 30 1 05

7abc\ 1 00 6 3 0 2700
crack Slope 2 30 2 00 1 60 1 40
Sabc/
3500 Spall 6200 Vert crack Top defl (1 25 0 85) ^Short Dowel length makes
9abc 0 76 3 2 6 3400 jK-computation approximate
Slope (1 30 0 83)

3400 5000 Spall 7000 Spall Top defl 2 50 1 40 1 25 1 05 0 65

lOabc 0 75 6 2 6
Slope 3 20 1 80 1 70
 Uabo 0 75 9 2 6 3600 5000 Spall 7500 SpaU Top defl 3 10 2 30 1 30
Slope 3 70 2 00
12abc 0 75 6 2 6 4500 5500 Spall 8000 SpaU Top defl 1 75 1 66 1 55 Dowels greased a & b to failure,
Slope 2 60 2 20 2 00 c stopiied at 2000 lb
12c SOOO Crushing in Top defl 1 20 0 91 0 86 0 67 Tested after 0 6 in movement bond
bond funnel Slope 1 40 0 91 0 74 0 52 110 lb per sq in
13abc 0 75 9 2.6 4500 4500 Spall 6500 SpaU Top defl 1 26 1 16 1 05 0 91 Dowels greased, a & b tested to failure,
Slope 2 50 1 55 1 50 1 26 c stopped at 2000 lb
13c 4000 Spall 7000 Spall Top defl 1 05 1 15 1 40 1 SO Tested after 0 5-in movement, bond.
Slope 2 80 1 20 1 30 1 20 42 lb per sq in
14abc 1 00 9 3 0 3000 5200 Spall 8200 SpaU Top defl 0 88 Dowel Y P 31700 lb per sq in
Slope 1 15 T S 48100 lb per sq in
Bot defl 0 85
ISsbo 1 00 9 3 0 3000 6300 Spall 12200 SpaU Top deS 2 20 1 80 1 56 1 30 Dowel Y F 561001b per sq i n .
Slope 2 10 T S 100700 lb per sq in
Bot defl 2 40 2 00 1 60 1 45 No 16b excessive watergain
16ab 1 00 9 3 0 3300 5500 Spall 10300 SpaU Top defl 1 36 1 01 0 80 0 67 0 62 0 34
Slope 1 40 0 81
Bot defl 1 72 1 17 0 93 0 71 0 62 0 47
17bc 0 75 6 2 6 2600 2500 Spall 4500 Spall Top defl 0 61 0 43 0 39 Dowel Y P 406001b persq in
Slope 0 48 0 48 0 43 T S 66200 lb per s q in
Bot defl 0 61 0 46 0 43
23a 1 00 6 3 0 3000 Top defl 2 90 Supported on steel
Bot defl 1 16 Loaded to 2000 lb
4000 45" diag tension Top defl 2 26 2 25 Supported at sides only
Bot defl 0 76
24a 1 00 6 3 0 2700 Top defl 2 26 1-40 1 15 1 10 Supported on rubber
Slope 1 60 1 40 1 30 Loaded to 4000 lb
6500 Spall 9000 Test interrupted Top defl 0 85 1 16 1 30 1 46 1 40 Supported on steel
Slope 0 72 1 00 1 25 1 35
24c 1 00 6 3 0 2700 6000 Spall 8000 Vert crack Top defl 1 80 1 26 0 84 0 72 Tested after 0 1-m movement, bond
Slope 1 80 1 15 0 77 3101b p e r s q in
Bot defl 2 30 1 30 0 93 0 67
28a 1 00 9 3 0 2800 5500 Spall 10500 SpaU Top defl 2 25 1 50 1 10 1 00 0 88 0 73 Dowel greased, not puUed, tested o a
Bot defl 2 60 1 90 1 30 1 10 1 00 0 78 steel

28c 1 00 9 3 0 2800 6500 SpaU 8000 Vert split Top defl 1 60 1 30 1 06 0 93 0 93 0 78 IDowel greased, pulled 0 3 in , bond
Bot defl 1 60 1 30 1 10 0 97 0 96 0 88 > 40 lb per sq in Tested on rubber
J mat
31a 0 75 6 3 0 5700 No sp Eill either joint 21000 Bend failure E n d , top 6 00 4 00 3 20 2 70 Specimen F i g 0
center block Center, top 2 40 2 40 2 10
concrete Across j n t 4 00 4 00 3 00 2 30
32a 0 76 9 &6 3 0 5100 No spall either joint 17000 Bend faUure E n d , top 1 60 1 70 1 76 Specimen F i g 9
center block Center, top 1 15 1 45 1 36 1 36
concrete Across j n t 1 20 1 60 1 66 2 00
> Progressive failure terms indicate (a) Initial Spall A fine crack i to 1 in below and around the dowel (b) Horuontal crack A fine crack from the dowel, merging mto spall (c) VerticaL
crack Extending to bottom and/or top of specimen and some distance back (d) SpUt Sudden crack through the concrete
146 DESIGN
warning almost always consisted of a
small spalling underneath the dowel,
first noticeable as a fan-shaped crack
from J in. to I 5 in. away from the dowel.
In the deeper specimens, the first evi-
dence would be a very small, horizontal
crack, extending from the dowel toward
each side, merging into a fan-shaped
failure as the load increased. Consider-
ably greater loads were taken after the
appearance of this first spall, usually
with appearance of fan-shaped cracks
further away from the dowel. Ultimate
Figure 3. Specimens of Tests Nos. 4, 5, 6, and
21 after loading, showing typical failures
failure occurred after extensive spalling
underneath the dowel, frequently to a
depth of about f in. from the face with
fractures through pieces of aggregate,
even toward the lower feather edge.
The concrete underneath the dowel,
after failure, could be crumbled, and in
some instances aggregate particles im-
mediately underneath the dowels could
be crumbled completely as well. In
the shallow specimens and in those
resting on rubber pads, ultimate failure
was accompanied by a vertical crack
extending from top to bottom of the
specimen; those on rubber pads split
completely through as sudden failures.
Figure 3 shows the specimens of tests
Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 21 after failure, illustrat-
ing the fan-shaped compression failures
underneath the dowels in each instance.
In Figure 4 is shown some initial spalling
and ultimate loads at 6-in. embedment
for f-in., 1-in., and Ij-in. dowels; and
the corresponding dowel deflections.
The strength of Ij-in. dowels was not
fully developed with 6-in. length. The
. I
>^ U/hmoM toad
/4C0O ^ V
1
1
^ Lood 0^ //rs/ spa//
fVumben /ndicc
\
8
41------^"
6000
4000
zooo
I
D
3-
4
Doive/3/ze, /nc/i, round
Figure 4. Critical Dowel Loads and Rate of
Deflection at Face for -in., 1-ln. and l>-ln.
Dowels.
specimens on rubber pads split after
initial spalling at considerably smaller
loads than did those bearing on steel.
Such splitting would probably not occur
in the field. As shown in Figure 4, the
first spalling occurs at a load approxi-
mately two-thirds of that which causes
failure.
In Figure 5 have been plotted the ulti-
mate load values of f-in. and 1-in. dowels
relative to concrete cylinder strength.
For 1-in. dowels, the loads appear to be
substantially proportionate to the con-
 FRIBERG—CHARACTERISTICS
Crete cylinder strength Within a prac-
tical limit the same relation applies to
f-in dowels All f-in dowels ui these
tests were permanently bent at comple-
tion of the tests The proportionahty
between ultimate dowel load and con-
crete cylinder strength is therefore not
clear for the higher concrete strengths
at which the bending stress in the dowel
rathei than the compression stress under-
neath it caused failure
Dowel Strength and Steel Strength
Failure by excessive bending stresses in
the dowel is dependent upon the yield
point of the steel Steel with different
yield points in the | and the 1-in sizes
was therefore included in the tests
The initial crack and ultimate failures for
I and 1-in dowel sizes are shown in
Figure 6 For f-in dowels, both the
initial crack and the ultimate failures are
substantially proportionate to the yield
point of the steel For the 1-m dowels
the initial crack is clearly independent
of the yield point of the steel, whereas
the ultimate load shows a fair propor-
tionality to the yield point The data
indicate that for | - m dowels of up to
60,000 lb per sq in yield point at least,
with 3000 to 3500 lb per sq in concrete,
both initial spalling of the concrete and
failure of the dowel are due to excessive
bendmg stresses in the dowel The
maximum dowel moment and bending
stress occurs more than J in away from
the face As the yield point is exceeded,
the bearing stress shifts toward the face,
which is evidenced as spalling of the
concrete For 1-in dowels, the initial
warning appears to be excessive compres-
sion in the concrete underneath the dowel,
the spall being independent of the dowel
yield point strength As the reaction to
the dowel load moves away from the
face of the concrete, the moment on the
dowel increases, and at the same time
the strength of the concrete away from
the surface becomes greater For 1-in.
dowels, the ultimate failure may there-
OF DOWELS 147
fore be in bending, although the initial
warning was concrete compression at the
surface of the joint
Influence of Dowel Length I t is of
practical importance to be able to use
the least dowel length which utihzes the
full strength of the concrete and the
dowels Theoretical stress determina-
tions indicate that | - i n dowels gain httle
effectiveness over 5-in embedment, and
1-in dowels over 7-in embedment
These results are substantiated by tests
on different dowel lengths, illustrated
i/oooa
^aooo
%60oa
M/miars /neZ/eafe Teat
%looo\ o /'i /ndmduol yb/ue
lOOO 2S00 30OO SSOO 4OO0 •*SOO
Concrefe Cy/inc/er Jfrength / 4 per sq in
Figure 5. Ultimate Dowel Loads for Concretes
of Varying Strength
for \ and 1-in dowels for both initial
spall and ultimate load in Figure 7
With decreasing lengths of dowels, the
supportmg arrangement for the dowels
must be increasingly accurate to hold
them in correct alignment withm a
reasonable degree This requirement is
no less important for short dowels than
for those of greater length
DOWEL DEFLECTION CHAHACTEHISTICS
Modulus of Dowel Reaction Determi-
nations. From Equation 3, /3 may be
obtained when the observed deflection
at the face of the concrete is known m
relation to the dowel load and moment.
148
From the values of /3, the modulus of
dowel reaction K for any range of load-
ing may be computed (Equation 2).
The values of K have been established for
the various dowel sizes, loads, concrete
strengths, and depths of concrete below
the dowels
The slope, a, of the dowel in front of
the point of load apphcation on the dowel
IS the sum of the slope of the dowel at
the face of the joint (Equation 4), and
/ UltimahLood
Numbara indicofe test
and concrete sfrength
0000
ZOOO
30000 .40000 SOOOO
Yield Point of Dowe/y /h per so in
Figure 6. Initial Spall and Ultimate Load for
Dowels of Varying Yield Point Strength
the slope of the dowel cantilever from the
face of the joint to the point of load
application. I t is:
« = 8-1/(1+0-
This angular change with increasing
load has been obtamed m the observa-
tions as the difference in slope between
the ground glass mirrors on the face of
the concrete and on the dowel, respec-
tively, penmtting a second method of
establishing j8 and the modulus of dowel
reaction K.
The deflection, D, of the dowel at a
distance A in front of the concrete
DESIGN
face may be established as the sum of
the deflections at the face, the deflection
of the dowel cantilever to the point of
load apphcation and the deflection of the
remainder of the distance A at the even
slope a. I t IS
D =
(6)
A - 5
The observations of these deflections,
made under the dowels in some of the
ultimate ioM
yLoodol fii^iflo/t
/OOOCn
Numbers Indicate Tiif
S * S « 7 e 9^
60000 Length of Dotve/ fmbedmenf, inchei
Figure 7. Initial Spall and Ultimate Loads
for Dowels with 3-ln., 6-in., and 9-in. Em-
bedment.
tests, also permit computation of /S
and K.
Values of K established by the different
methods mcluded in Table I , generally
(5) agree quite well,- except for small dowel
loads
The modulus of dowel reaction vaned
considerably with the dowel load Fig-
ure 8, showing in separate graphs the
secant modulus of dowel reaction for
1-in. and | - i n dowels for several different
tests, illustrates this fact For loads up
to 2000 lb dowel loads with f-in dowels
and up to 3000 and 4000 lb dowel loads
for I-in dowels in bond with the con-
crete, K is fairly high The observa-
 FRIBERG—CHARACTERISTICS
tions on greased dowels, shown in Figure
8, having no such variation, indicate
that at low dowel loads bond between
the dowel and the concrete is effective in
transferring stress from the dowel to
the concrete This bond may be active
both vertically simulating an increased
size of the dowel, and horizontally simu-
lating an increased dowel stiffness At
intermediate loads the value of the
modulus of dowel reaction is fairly uni-
form until it decreases sharply at the
higher loads near failure For dowel
1
n /found Oonre/s
1 V \\
f eraqe^
£0 oon base
28 c-on rubber pad
J 1 1
Load on Domf, pounds
Figure 8. Secant Modulus of Dowel Reaction for Varying Dowel Loads
design the values of dowel reaction ob-
tained for intermediate loads, represent-
ing most nearly the condition of dowels
in opening and closing transverse joints,
should be used
Influence of Dowel Greasing and Dowel
Movement The tests on specimens with
greased dowels covered both undis-
turbed dowels and those which had been
pulled i in to ^ in before testing The
bond resistance of the greased dowels
averaged 50 lb per sq in for f and 1-in
dowels, as compared to 300 lb per sq in
for dowels not coated For a few speci-
mens, the longitudmal movement caused
OF DOWELS 149
a slight decrease in K In most in-
stances, however, the modulus of dowel
reaction remained unchanged after move-
ment For one specimen with 1-in
dowels, a 2000 lb dowel load was apphed
ten consecutive times without any in-
crease in deflection under load but with a
permanent set, unloaded, of 0 001 in
The decrease in modulus of dowel reac-
tion due to greasing and dowel movement,
according to these tests, averages less
than 20 per cent The variation in K
due to dowel coatings certainly is much
\\ 1
\\ f in fic <und Doifveti
^\
1
f^greosed^<y
^\
'3edo//b,
1
Load onDouve/, pounds
less than may be occasioned by water
gain or disturbance of the dowel in fresh
concrete
Influence of Yielding Base and Concrete
Depth The steel base under the speci-
men does not represent the condition ex-
isting under a pavement on 3aelding
subgrade Some data relative to this
factor are derived by companng the
tests of specimens resting on the steel
base with (a) tests of duplicate speci-
mens resting on rubber (tests 4 and 21,
28a and 28c), (b) tests on the same
specimens supported on rubber (test 24),
and (c) tests on the same specimens
150 DESIGN

resting on steel but supported at the
sides so that no support existed over a
6-in width immediately underneath the
dowel (test 23) The sponge-rubber pad
was selected to give approximately the
same yield as the subgrade, after com-
pression from its original thickness of
0 5 in down to 0 2 in before the start
of the loadmg
were cast directly on the steel base to
which the end blocks were clamped dur-
ing testing There was no support under
the center block, which was loaded at
center over the 14-in width Face
deflections, observed both at end block
and center block, and observation of
deflections across one joint give repre-
sentative values of modulus of dowel

TABLE 2
C H A N G E I N M O D U L U S OF D O W E L R E A C T I O N F O R Y I E L D I N G C O N C R E T E S U P P O R T
Depth of Concrete above Dowels 3 in
All Dowels in Bond, except Test 28, Dowels Greased
Modulus of Dowel Reaction
Based on Average
Decrease on
Modulus of Yielding
Test No K m d of Support
Dowel R e - Support
Deflection Deflection Slope Readings action
to Top Bottom

milUon lb per million lb per million lb per million lb per

in • tn ' m * m ' %

4 Steel 0 98 Not observed 1 25 1 12\

27
21 Rubber 0 67 Not observed 0 96 0 82/

23 Steel 2 90 1 15 2 0 \ 25
23 Air 2 25 0 76 1 5 /

24 Rubber 1 10 Not observed 1 30 1 20\

14
24 Steel 1 45 Not observed 1 35 1 40/

28a Steel 1 10 1 30 Not observed 1 20\ 10

28c Rubber 1 05 1 10 Not observed 1 07/

31 Across Joint* 3 0 \ 12
Steel 3 20\ 3 2 /
25
Air 2 40/

32 Across Joint* 1 65\ 12

Steel 1 75\ 1 75/ 23
Air 1 35/
* The decrease in Modulus of Dowel Reaction is assumed as double the difference between
average value and that for steel

On the loaded side of a joint the pres-
sure on the dowel is from the concrete on
top of it, which therefore lacks bound-
ary support entirely This condition
was easily duplicated with test specimens,
as shown in Figure 9 A center block 11
in long and 14 m wide was supported by
two dowels 8 in center to center across
two 1-in wide open joints to end blocks
of the same width To prevent initial
bending in the dowels, the specimens
reaction, both with and without sub-
grade support The detail data are in-
cluded m Table 1, for the two tests,
specimens 31a and 32a
Table 2 gives the values of the modulus
of dowel reaction observed by all the
different methods of support for 3-in
depth of concrete below the dowel
The decrease in K for specimens restmg
on a yielding base or without boundary
support I S less than 25 per cent for this
 FRIBERG—CHARACTERISTICS
depth of concrete The decrease is less
than the variation in K due to changes
in the concrete material
Values of modulus of dowel reaction
for different depths of concrete below
the dowels show considerable variation
because of excessive water gam or voids
underneath the dowels, especially for
the greater depths of concrete To
overcome this condition the specimens of
test 22 were cast on the side, and tested
on the side and in upright position The
Dial for face deflection
Dial For deflection
across |omt
\2 <5'%
Specimens 14 wide, cost on steel base
Figure 9 Specimens with Two Dowels, Loaded at Center of Concrete Block, Supported on Plain
Dowels
results of two specimens were inapplica-
ble because of cunng cracks The
meager data on mfluence of concrete
depth are shown m Figure 10 They
show clearly a decrease of K with increas-
ing depth of concrete below the dowels,
but the data are not sufficient to show
an average relationship
The dissipation of stress m an elastic
mass subjected to fine loading at a
boundary surface is well established'
and decreases in reverse proportion to
' See note' page 140
OF DOWELS 15]
the distance Assuming a stress dis-
tribution in the concrete which is not
influenced by the support, the total
deflection vertically under the dowel can
be obtained by integration The theo-
retical value of K obtamed in that
manner has been mdicated in Figure 10
and gives some venfication of the trend
of the expenmental data
Modulus of Dowel Reaction and Con-
crete Strength Some relation between
modulus of dowel reaction and strength
Dial for Face deflection
1<i^
of concrete should exist, similar to the
relation for modulus of elasticity of the
concrete upon which factor the modulus
of dowel reaction ultimately is dependent
In Figure 11 the computed values of
modulus of dowel reaction for f-m, 1-m ,
and \\-m dowels have been plotted
against the concrete cyhnder strengths of
the different tests Considermg the van-
ations m dowel size and in depth of
concrete below the dowels, and the m-
clusion of greased dowels with the re-
mamder of the values, the agreement is
152 DESIGN
good, and the trend of the data is clearly
evident The average of the different
tests vanes only a small amount from
that representated by straight propor-
tionahty of K = 400 times the concrete
cyhnder strength for the two depths of
3 and 3J in to the center of the dowels
The value for 1-in dowels at a uniform
depth probably should be slightly higher,
especially when cognizance is taken of
the fact that the 1-m dowels in the tests
had I m greater depth of concrete than
the f m. size I n 6-in pavements, for
l/a/ut3 of/f based on Oef/ectiona
•>i^alue3ofK based on 5/opeMaosurements
Y^'^-zpteorelical value based on E^'ZOOOOoo,
Vdepthfo center of do.^ f Permissible Dowel Loads In all of
Numbers Indicofe Taaf
z 4- e a
V Depfh of Concrefe be/ow Dowel, inc/)es
Figure 10 Modulus of Dowel Reaction for
Varying Depth of Concrete Below 1-in.
Dowels.
1-in. dowels, K would approximate 500
tunes the concrete cylinder strength
For common pavement thicknesses, more
than one value is hardly justified and
500 times the concrete cyhnder strength
will represent both f and 1-in dowels
for the maximum loads to be expected
(The value for test 3, l | - i n dowels, is
considerably below the average, but i t
should be remembered that this test
was made with short embedment for the
size of dowel.)
|»« n,r
le qreestit
%IS\
m qreostd
•• llb/ue for^'t Omni
S, e emhtlimenf
•Ofalaefor /V Ootrel
i-OlXJof/itet/.
A Hilot toil^'p Oonal
niiiptamm 3'<indj£'dtplh io center otdbtiiel
2500 SOOO SSOO 'tOOO 4SOO sooo 55^5
^ Concrete Cylinder 3tienqltj, Itk per sq in
Figure 11 Modulus of Dowel Reaction for
Concretes of Varying Strength
APPLICATION OF EXPERIMENTS TO DOWEL
DESIGN
the tests the load on the dowel was ap-
phed exactly | in from the face of the
concrete Assuimng that the dowel load
acts at the center of the jomt, the tests
give the stresses in 1 m wide, open jomts
The load at first spall as well as the ul-
tunate load on the dowel is m these tests
fairly independent of the depth of the
concrete below the dowel and of dowel
coatings as well The tests may then
be applied directly to field conditions for
same strength concrete and yielding
subgrade I n pavement design, where
the dowels are used for pavement stress
rehef, the dowel shear should be limited
to not more than half of the load at first
spall, f-in dowels should not be re-
quired to transfer over 2000 lb dowel
shear, and 1-in dowels, not over 3000 lb
dowel shear for 3000 lb per sq in
concrete
Dowels remam effective far beyond
the first spalhng at the surface of the
concrete Although at such loads the
rates of deflection of the dowels are sufli-
ciently high to make them meffective for
stress rehef where normal subgrade sup-
port exists, f-in dowels loaded up to
3500 lb. and 1-m dowels loaded up to
 FRIBERG—CHARACTERISTICS
5000 lb would still remain eflScient to
maintam the jomt m substantial align-
ment where subgrade support is lacking
Such higher values of dowel loads may
occur also under the added condition of
extreme dowel misahgnment
Dowel Effectiveness for Pavement Stress
Relief The rate at which dowels trans-
fer loads from one pavement edge to the
adjacent slab is dependent entirely upon
the rate of deflection of the pavement
edge, the moment of inertia of the dowels,
and the modulus of dowel reaction.
These tests estabhsh K with a reasonable
degree of certamty for average pavement
thicknesses of 6 and 7 in Adjustmg the
expenmentally established value to con-
ditions govemmg m the field with greased
dowels and a yielding subgrade, each
accounting for approximately 20 per cent
decrease m K, the modulus of dowel re-
action may reasonably be estimated at
1,000,000 lb per in * for 3000 lb. per sq
in concrete This value of K corre-
sponds with that for which stress relief
has been computed in connection with
pavement on a silt-loam subgrade^
Under those conditions, j - m dowels may
be counted upon to transfer from 20 to
30 per cent and l-m dowels from 25
to 35 per cent of the wheel load, across
the pavement joint, when the wheel is
placed directly over the dowel. Cor-
rectly installed f-in dowels would ac-
cordmgly be sufficient for wheel loads
over the dowel up to 5000 lb and l-m
dowels up to 8000 lb
For a modulus of dowel reaction of
1,000,000, dowel shear of 1000 lb gives
maximum bearmg stress in the concrete
of 2000 to 3000 lb per sq in for ^-in
dowels and 1300 to 1800 lb per sq in
for 1-in dowels Maximum shears of
2000 and 3000 lb respectively, therefore,
correspond to concrete stresses on the
diameter of the dowel from 4000 to
6000 lb per sq in for joint widths of
* See note' page 140.
OF DOWELS 153
0 and 1 in , respectively. The maximum
values should not be exceeded by com-
bmed wheel load and nusahgnment
stresses Actually, dowel shear rather
than stress should govern for the dimen-
sionmg of dowels
Bowel Stiffness and Pavement Stiffness
The greater amount of bending of the
dowel takes place inside the concrete
The angle of bend in the protruding
portion of a dowel may safely be neg-
lected Average values of dowel slopes
at the face, of the concrete, established
in these tests, are (for dowel loads of
small values).
For f-in dowels Angular change 0 0025
per 1000 lb dowel shear
For 1-in dowels Angular change 0 0012
per 1000 lb dowel shear
For li-in dowels Angular change 0 0006
per 1000 lb dowel shear
The rates of angular change of pave-
ment edges under wheel loads are very
much less on normal subgrade On
silt-loam subgrade', the values for pave-
ment comers would approximate
For 7-in pavement corner 0 0002 per
1000 lb wheel load
For 9-in pavement corner. 0 0001 per
1000 lb wheel load
The rate of bendmg m dowels of l-m
and i-m size is therefore from five
to ten times the rate of bendmg in the
pavement For practical design with
round dowels of these sizes, the jomt
faces can therefore well be considered
as remaining parallel during loading, and
the dowel reaction may be considered as
a load concentrated at the center of the
joint
The same results indicate that dowels
of customary sizes can give but bttle
restraint to jomt curling action under
changing temperatures
' "The Structural Design of Concrete Pave-
ments," L W Teller and E C Sutherland,
Public Roads. Nov 1935, Part 2.
 154 DESIGN

CONCLUSIONS base, the modulus of dowel reaction at

Laboratory tests on smgle dowels en-
cased in 3000 lb per sq in concrete
and loaded § in from the face of the
concrete gave ultunate loads of about
6000 lb per dowel for hard grade | - m
dowels and 9000 lb for 1-in dowels
These loads were reached with both
plain and coated dowels in concrete
having up to 8^ in below the dowel
Imtial wammg of failure is given by
fine cracks in the concrete under and
concentnc with the dowels at loads § less
than failure loads
Both load at imtial crack and ulti-
mate strength of f-in dowels and the
ultimate strength of 1-m dowels m-
creased with mcreasmg yield pomt of
the dowel steel and with mcreasmg con-
crete strength The imtial crack under
1-m. dowels was independent of steel
yield pomt strength
The Modulus of dowel reaction in-
creased with concrete strength and de-
creased with mcreasmg concrete depth
below the dowel The modulus of dowel
reaction was of the same magnitude for the laboratory of the Laclede Steel Company,
' f and 1-m dowels For dowels bonded St Louis, Missouri Valuable assistance was
in concrete 3 and 3 | m above a rigid tion and testing of the specimens
loads of from 2000 to 4000 lb was above
400 tunes the concrete cylmder strength
The tests indicate that greasing the
dowel decreases the modulus of dowel
reaction, and that the influence is great-
est for small loads At loads of from
2000 to 4000 l b , the decrease does not
exceed 20 per cent Movement of the
greased dowel does not further decrease
the modulus of dowel reaction
The tests on jaelding support under the
concrete mclude complete absence of
support at the face of the joint, and
showed 10-27 per cent decrease in
modulus of dowel reaction for yielding
support of the concrete 3 and 3 | in
away from the dowel
Based on these tests it seems justifi-
able, to propose for f and 1-m greased
dowels m 6 and 7-m concrete pavements
on yieldmg subgrade a modulus of dowel
reaction equal to 300 times the concrete
cylmder strength, governing for the
maximum design loads on the dowels
Acknowledgment All tests were made m
given by W E Bradbury, B S , in the prepara-

DISCUSSION ON CHARACTERISTICS OF DOWELS

PROF F E RICHART, University of
Illinois I have been very much inter-
ested in the deflection of dowels across an
expansion jomt Havmg tested many
dowelled jomts m the past 3 or 4 years,
I am impressed with the fact that a dowel
must be fairly ngid m order to be effective
m transmittmg shear and m reducmg
flexural stress m the adjacent slab
Probably the simplest approach is to
consider a smgle dowel across the openmg
of an expansion jomt I f the dowel is
perfectly rigid, as the load approaches the
jomt, at most one-half of i t may be
expected to be transferred to the hitherto
unloaded slab I f the dowel is very
flexible, all the load may be carried
directly to the subgrade and none trans-
ferred through the dowel The effective-
ness of a dowel might be defined as twice
the percentage of load transferred
through the dowel
Consider a jomt, with load on the left-
hand edge Let the deflection or settle-
ment of the left edge be di, that of the
right edge, d,, and the difference di —
dr = Ad Now if V is the shear trans-
mitted across the jomt, by definition,
the dowel effectiveness is
2V
e = (1)
The values of di and d, may be computed
as the deflection of the free edge of a
 DISCUSSION—DOWELS 155

slab under concentrated load, assummg V IS the concentrated load (shear

that the deflection of the subgrade under transmitted)
one edge is unaffected by the deflection k IS the modulus of subgrade reaction
under the other edge a short distance 1 is the radius of relative stiffness
away Let the deflection due to a load For a 7-in pavement, with modulus of
P on the edge of a slab be Ze, then elasticity of concrete equal to 3,000,000
lb per sq m , k and 1 may have the fol-
, V lowmg values
dr = p Ze,
Compressible
soil k = 50, 1 = 36, kl' = 64,800
A P - V Medium soil k = 100, I = 30, kl» = 90,000
dl = Ze
Stiff soil k = 250, 1 = 22, kP = 125,000
and From the foregomg equations, it is evi-
^, P - 2V . dent that the effectiveness of a dowel
Ad = — 5 — = (1 - e)zo depends not only upon its own flexibihty,
mdicated by Ad, but also upon the stiff-
whence ness of the subgrade and the thickness
Ad and stiffness of the concrete as shown by
e = 1 - (2)
Zv I t is fau-ly easy to determme the
wherem deflection, Ad, of a dowel by laboratory
Ad IS the deflection across the joint due tests, and thence to compute the effec-
to a shear V which is transmitted tiveness of dowels in transmittmg shear,
across the jomt, by computmg Zv for the soils to be en-
Ze is the maxmium deflection of a free countered Better still would be field
tests m which both quantities would be
edge of the slab under a concentrated
foimd expenmentaUy and m which a
load P, at the edge
study of the variation m dowel efficiency
Equation (2) may be written m another
could be made after vanous periods of
form by mtroducmg a new term,
service.
Zv = maximum deflection of a free
edge of the slab under a concentrated One happy conclusion from Eq (3)
load equal to the shear V. is that a dowel will show its highest
effectiveness on a flexible subgrade where
Then it IS needed, and its lowest effectiveness
eze J 1
on a stiff subsgrade where i t is not partic-
Zv = and e ularly needed
2 . , Ad (3)
Further study of the distnbution of a
2zv concentrated load among several dowels
The values of Zymay be computed from IS needed This is difficult to do in the
Westergaard's equation' laboratory, I beUeve i t should be done as
a field test on a subgrade of well-known
0 433V
(4) characteristics and on sufficiently" large
kP scale to produce a large volume of statis-
wherem tical data Dr Westergaard,'' m his
ZT is the maximum edge deflection of analysis of the distribution of a load
the slab among a Ime of dowels, assumed absolute
ngidity of dowels, his analysis, I beheve,
• Westergaard, H M "Computation of
Stresses in Concrete Roads," Proceedings, ' Westergaard, H M "Spacing of Dowels,"
Highway Research Board, Vol 6, p 90-112 Proceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol 8,
(1926) p. 154-158 (1928)
156 DESIGN
could be modified by the mtroduction of
the deflection of the dowel itself Ap-
parently, dowel deflections should have
the effect of reducmg the shear concen-
tration on any smgle dowel, thus produc-
mg some unprovement m the theoretical
group effectiveness of dowels in the wider
spacmgs
M R R D BRADBURY, Wire Reinforce-
ment Institute M r Fnberg'a mterestmg
mvestigation is a commendable attempt
to evaluate one of the basic factors affect-
mg dowel action—namely, that property
of the surroundmg concrete termed the
"modulus of dowel reaction " This pro-
perty, which may be defined as the rate
at which the concrete adjacent to the
dowel deforms under an mcreasmg mten-
sity of pressure as applied by the dowel,
IS an important factor m governmg dowel
action Hence, its value must neces-
sarily be known if one attempts to com-
pute by rational analysis either the flex-
ural stress induced in the dowel, the pres-
sure which i t exerts on the concrete, or
the amount which it permits one slab
edge to deflect with respect to the other.
Professor Richart raises the question
of dowel effectiveness I f we mean by
the term "effectiveness" merely the abil-
ity of a dowel to transfer load across a
pavement jomt, then we are concerned
primarily with dowel deflection, because
the effectiveness of a dowelmg unit in
performmg this function is obviously
dependent only upon the extent to which
the dowel prevents the loaded slab edge
from takmg its full free-edge deflection
when a wheel load is apphed on one side
of the joint That this is a function of
the simple ratio of dowel deflection to
slab deflection may be shown by consid-
enng the case of a smgle dowel located
directly beneath a wheel load apphed on
one edge of a pavement joint
Calling W the wheel load and R the
proportion of W transferred across the
joint by the dowel, then the net resultant
load on the loaded slab edge is (1 - R)W,
while the load applied by the dowel on
the unloaded edge, which is also the shear
on the dowel, is RW I f d is the free-
edge deflection of the slab as produced by
a load of umty and A the dowel deflection
caused by a shear of umty, then, smce
the difference between the deflections of
the loaded and unloaded slab edges must
equal the deflection of the dowel, one
may wnte
( l - R ) W d - RWd = RW
whence.
R =
Although not referred to m the paper
here presented, Mr Friberg has derived
this same basic expression for load trans-
fer m another paper wherem he discusses
the theoretical analysis of dowels ' Thus
it IS seen that the "percentage" of load
transferred by a dowel is mdependent of
the magnitude of the applied wheel load
as long as the stresses mduced thereby
do not exceed the elastic resistance of
the dowel m flexure or its bearmg on the
concrete Moreover, the above expres-
sion clearly shows that the effectiveness
of a given dowel, m terms of the percent-
age of the applied load transferred, is not
the same m all thicknesses of slab or on
all kmds of subgrade, the effectiveness of
the dowel dimmishmg with mcrease m
slab thickness and/or mcrease m the stiff-
ness of the subgrade That the same
type and size of dowel may have a widely
varymg load-transfer effectiveness, de-
pendmg upon thickness of slab and char-
acter of subgrade, may be illustrated by
application of the above formula to two
extreme cases—a thm slab on a soft
subgrade and a thick slab on a firm sub-
grade
• Proceedings Am Soc C E November
1938, Vol. 64, page 1809
 DISCUSSION-DOWELS
Assume, for example, that it has been
found (preferably by test) that a certam
type and size of dowel extendmg across a
given jomt opening will undergo a deflec-
tion A = 0 0065 m per 1,000 lb of shear «
Now, suppose that such a dowel extends
across a jomt in a 5-m pavement on a
soft subgrade—one havmg a subgrade
modulus of say k = 50 lb per m ' As-
summg that the concrete has a modulus
of elasticity E = 4,000,000 lb per m ' and
a Poisson's Ratio u = 0 15, one finds,
according to Westergaard,' that the max-
imum free-edge deflection of such a slab
is d = 0.0094 mches per 1,000 lb. of ap-
plied wheel load. Substitutmg these
values for A and d in the above expression
for load transfer gives the value R =
0 372, or 37 2 per cent Similar compu-
tations usmg the same dowel, but for the
case of a 9-in slab on a subgrade having
a modulus k = 200 lb. per in.,' gives a
value R = 0 188 or 18 8 per cent; which
mdicates that the same dowel with the
same jomt openmg may be twice as
efficient in the feature of load transfer
when used m a thm slab on a soft sub-
grade as i t is m a thick slab on a fairly
stiff subgrade. Values of the load-trans-
fer effectiveness of the same dowel for
other combmations of slab thickness and
subgrade modulus are given m Table 1.
While the feature of load transfer is,
of course, the basic function performed
by a dowel, stiU the mere ability of a
doweling imit to transfer load is not in
itself of major importance—it is only a
means to an end The ultimate purpose
of utihzmg dowels at transverse jomts m
concrete pavements is to rely upon dowel-
mg action to effect an appreciable reduc-
tion in the stress that would be induced m
' Friberg's theoretical analysis indicates
that this 18 the dowel deflection that would be
expected to occur with a J-m round dowel
spanning a J-m joint opening
' See Proceedings, Highway Research
Board, Vol 5, page 90
157
what would otherwise be a free slab edge
as a wheel load passes across the joint.
The magnitude of the upward or negative
reaction that any mdividual dowel exerts
against the loaded slab edge is, of course,
equal to the part of the ajfmlied load which
that particular dowel tr^sfers But the
effectiveness of that negative reaction in
reducmg edge stress at the center of wheel
load apphcation is not alone dependent
upon its magnitude I t is mfluenced
also, and to an even greater degree, by
the amount that its pomt of apphcation
IS distant from the wheel load And one
has only to examme the moment curves
developed by Westergaard' for the case
TABLE 1
L O A D - T R A N S F E R C A P A C I T Y O F AN A 8 S D B 4 E D
DOWEL* IN SLABS OF D I F F E R E N T THICK-
N E S S E S AND ON D I F F E R E N T S U B G R A D E B
Percent of Load Transferred by Dowel
Thickness
of Slab Subgrade Modulus k (lb per m >)
(inches)
k = 60 k ° 100 k = 200 k°400
5 37 2 33 7 29 7 25 3
6 34 4 30 5 26 3 22 2
7 32 0 27 7 23 3 19 2
8 29 6 25 2 20 9 16 8
9 27 4 23 0 18 8 14 9
* Based on a dowel which is assumed to
deflect 0 0065 mches per 1,0001b of shear
of edge loadmg to appreciate how rapidly
a dowel, regardless of its reaction magni-
tude, loses its stress-reducing effect as its
distance from the apphed wheel load
mcreases Thus, the efficiency of a group
of dowels as commonly used m concrete
pavements can not be fully appraised by
considenng only the feature of load trans-
fer The combmed effect of two different
phases of dowel action must necessarily
be considered (a) the flexural behavior
of each dowel unit, which governs the
amount of load i t transfers across the
jomt, and (b), dowel spacmg, which is
the all-important factor m fixmg the
stress-reducmg effectiveness of the group.
158 DESIGN

MR. GEO. A RAHN, Pennsylvania discussion, gives the accepted formula

Highway Department: I n the design of for smgle dowel load transfer. The
transverse jomts, there are several fea- formulas are identical; of the two factors,
tures on which I am earnestly m search of dowel load transfer and dowel effective-
information I think we all recogmze ness, the first mentioned is more directly
the vulnerabiliW of that particular part obtamed and usable
of a concrete *avement I n order to For application of smgle dowel per-
offset certam objectionable features we formance to pavement design, the total
weaken the cross-section through the in- deflection between adjacent concrete
sertion of a series of dowels Do we take slabs I S the govemmg quantity, mcludmg
mto consideration the resultant forces the increments of dowel deflections withm
set up by that system of dowels m that both bodies of concrete, and the deflection
particular section of the pavement' I
think we are mtroducmg other resultant TABLE A
forces that we are not forced to coimte- COMPUTED DEFI/ECTION ACROSS J O I N T F O R
nance m an undoweled jomt Another 1000-LB D O W E L S H E A R
thmg, m our enthusiasm to develop a All values in inches
jomt which wiU transfer the load, are we K = 1,000,000 1b per in »
not neglectmg the feature of the actual E , = 28,000,000 lb per in '
placmg of that joint m the structure? Deflection to Cent«r of Joint
Through the mtroduction of an mtrioate Width of Increment of
Total De-
flection
system of dowels, reinforcement, chairs Jomt
Across Joint
Face Slope
and tie rods the proper placement of Cantilever
Deflection Deflection Bending
concrete is comphcated at a recognized
vital spot m the structure. i-m Dowels

0 0 0022 0 0 0 0043
0 50 0 0026 0 0006 0 00001 0 0065
M R FRIBERG, Author's closure: I n 1 00 0 0030 0 0016' 0 00010 0 0094
formulas establishing the action of dowels 1 50 0 0035 0 0029 0 00030 0 0134
crossmg jomts of varymg opemngs, only
] -in Dowels
one material constant occurs which is not
established by past experience—the mod- 0 0 0013 0 0 0 0026
ulus of dowel reaction The tests de- 0 50 0 0015 0 0003 0 0 0036
scribed m the paper were planned to give 1 00 0 0017 0 0007 0 00003 0 0049
1 50 0 0019 0 0013 0 00010 0 0066
particular information regardmg the
value of this important matenal factor
for round dowels That the accepted of the portion of the dowel between
formulas represent closely the actual jomt faces due to dowel slope and shear.
stress distribution is apparent from the All of the quantities are proportionate
good agreement between the values of to the amount of dowel load; m addition,
modulus of dowel reaction obtamed by the width of jomt openmg influences the
mdependent methods of measurement
magnitude of deflection The relative
and calculation, and with dowels of
different size magnitude of the individual deflection
increments is shown m Table A The
Professor Richart m his equation No 3
deflection mcrement due to bendmg m the
gives an expression for smgle dowel
effectiveness as related to dowel deflec- free portion of the dowel can evidently
tion and pavement deflection (influenced be neglected
largely by pavement thickness and sub- The deflection "A" across a jomt "a"
grade stiffness) M r Bradbury, m his mches wide for a deflection "yo" at the
 DISCUSSION-DOWELS 159

face of the jomt is closely approximated
by the formula
A = 2y(
This formula permits rapid computation
of face deflections for any estabhshed or
of tests reported m the paper the vertical
deflections at the face of the concrete and
the total angular deflections at loads up
to 4000 lb , includmg 18 plam 1-m dow-
els, 8 plam J-m dowels, and 6 greased
f-m dowels The concrete strength for
these specimens with 1-in dowels aver-

-4:-in FfOUND DOWCLS

Def/ec/ion Face Deflecfion af Face
12 "High ircjioe, bonded
OIZO
Individuo/ i/afue, bonded

oioo
flt'eraqe fa/ue, borx/ed
•'/lirerage yo/ue, greased ^
Indiyidoa/ iralcieigreased
4
oooe ' 2 o * f yo/ue, bonded •

O0O6

ooo*

oooz

ooiz 3lope of Doi/vel 5/ope 6f£>on'e/.

ooio

0004

eooo sooo o /ooo zooo sooo 4000

loacf on Ooive/, pounds
Figure 1 Deflections at Face and Angular Deflections for 1-ln. and f-in. Dowels. Spread of
observations is also shown.

observed value of total deflections across
jomts, and gives suflSciently close values
for jomts up to 1| m wide
Figure 1' shows graiJhically for a
number of typical mdividual specimens
' Figure 1 and this paragraph have been in-
cluded to provide experimental observations
suggested by F E Richart.
aged 3100 lb per sq m , for those with
plam f-m. dowels 3800 lb per sq m , and
for greased |-m dowels 4500 lb per sq
m The spread of the experimental data
is mdicated by Imes through the high and
low values for dowels in bond and by
individual deflection values. Specimens
showmg an erratic deflection diagram
160 DESIGN
have not been included in the graphs;
however, the relatively high individual
observations, especially at low loads, for
some of the 1-in. dowels are undoubtedly
influenced by voids at the dowels caused
by the method of fonmng the specimens
Although the spread of the experimental
data IS considerable, the averages give
representative values for both plam and
greased dowels
Prior to 1935 the few dowels used m
transverse joints of concrete pavements
were installed with little regard for align-
ment Excessive misahgnment between
dowels will undoubtedly, as Mr Rahn
has suggested, produce stresses around
the dowels exceedmg those due to traffic
loads Fortunately, m those mstances
where stresses due to misahgnment alone
have exceeded the strength of the con-
crete, they have been relieved by local
failure around the dowels rather than by
structural failure of the pavement slab
While a wheel load over a badly mis-
aligned dowel may mcrease the stress
between the dowel and the concrete,
dowel shears due to misahgnment will not
add to the wheel load to increase the
critical tension stress in the pavement
edge because the misahgnment will be
relieved by the deflection under wheel
load. Although badly aligned dowels
accordmgly may have become meffective
for stress rehef of the joint edges, they
wiU not in combmation with wheel loads
cause structural failure of the pavement
The relatively high frequency of crack
occurrence perpendicular to the trans-
verse joints m the pavement lanes on
existmg roads mdicates the need for care-
ful attention to obtam effective dowels
Some means for edge stress relief is par-
ticularly necessary m pavements with
more than 10-ft wide lanes, because the
mcreasing curhng stresses are, for certain
conditions of loading, added to the wheel
load edge stresses.
With the better design and construc-
tion practices which now generally pre-
vail, resulting in better alignment
between the dowels, load transfer obser-
vations m the field on pavements con-
structed durmg the last few years might
be expected to give valuable and appli-
cable information
Information on the effect of dowel
misalignment, published by A R Smith
and S. W Benham," mdicates for extreme
jomt movements shght spalhng at 1 per
cent and at 4 per cent misahgnment com-
plete failure of the concrete aroimd the
dowel The stresses mcidental to these
structural failures have been computed
usmg a modulus of dowel reaction of
1,000,000. Some distress apparently at-
tended stresses of 3000 lb per sq m
computed magnitude, and complete fail-
ure occurred at stresses of 10,000 to
13,000 lb per sq m Employing the
same modulus of dowel reaction for com-
putation of bearing stresses m the load
tests descnbed in the paper, the mitial
warning of failure corresponds to stresses
of not less than 6000 lb per sq m (dis-
tnbuted evenly across the diameter of
the dowel) The ultimate failures cor-
respond to computed bearmg stresses of
well over 15,000 lb per sq in The
added fnctional stresses could easily
account for the decrease m strength ob-
tamed m the Smith and Benham tests
The terms "dowel rigidity," "dowel
load transfer," "dowel stress rehef," and
"dowel effectiveness," should be used
with careful consideration of their limita-
tion
The dowel rigidity is proportionate to
the moment of mertia, whereas the per-
formance of the dowel expressed by load
transfer is dependent upon the total de-
flection, influenced pnmanly by the de-
flection of the concrete around the dowel
for some distance away from the face of
the jomt Thg load transfer of dowels of
• "Effect of Dowel-Bar Misahgnment Across
Concrete Pavement Joints," by Arthur R
Smith and Sanford W Benham, Transactions,
Am Soc C E , Vol 103, p 1133 (1938)
 DISCUSSION—DOWELS
increasing size changes very much less
than the moment of mertia of the dowels
A Ij-m round dowel has a moment of
mertia ten times that of a |-m round
dowel, however, the amount of load
transfer offered by a smgle Ij-m dowel
(see Table 4, page 1821, ASCE Pro-
ceedings, November, 1938) is generally
less than double that transferred by a
|-in dowel The great advantage of
mcreased dowel size is m the decrease of
bearmg stress on the concrete with the
use of the larger sizes
The term "dowel effectiveness" has
been used m the past to compare different
load transfer devices with each other by
companng the maximum stresses at
joints provided with the particular de-
vices or with the stresses at edges without
load transfer provisions So defined, the
term "dowel effectiveness" is very much
dependent upon the spacmg of the load
transfer devices, and it is accordmgly
suggested that the term "dowel effective-
ness" should not be apphed to smgle
dowel performance The designer is
directly interested in the possible decrease
of a maximum stress to a safe figure by
means of a load transfer device for corner
or edge loadmg on a pavement of given
thickness This decrease is established
by the percentage of stress relief, directly
obtamable by experiments and computa-
tion, and mvolves the important variable
of dowel spacing It is suggested that
the term "dowel load transfer" should be
161
used to evaluate the performance of single
load transfer elements for a given rate of
pavement edge deflection The term
"dowel stress rehef" should be used to eval-
uate the decrease m maximum edge stress,
dependent upon the performance of the
single dowel, the subgrade, and the
dowel spacmg Computations of stress
relief require the assumption that the
wheel load on the surface of the pavement
and the load introduced by shear in the
dowel produced identical stress distribu-
tion in the pavement section
It is smcerely hoped that field experi-
ments will clarify the issue of the stress
relief obtainable with load transfer de-
vices The action of the smgle dowel
IS suflSciently well established that such
experiments should be susceptible to
mtelhgent interpretation The experi-
ments should be particularly helpful to
establish the influence of spacmg of the
load transfer devices
The maximum stresses at the pavement
edge under a wheel load occur m a lim-
ited area directly under this wheel load
The primary purpose of load transfer
devices must always be to decrease this
critical stress The fact that for greatly
deflectmg dowels the shear is less concen-
trated on any single dowel is therefore not
an mdication of retamed effectiveness of
dowels on wider spacmg for the perfor-
mance of their essential function of
stress rehef