ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 115-S50
Shear Tests on Composite Dowel Rib Connectors in
Cracked Concrete
by Martin Classen and Josef Hegger
In steel-concrete composite girders, composite dowel rib shear
connectors can be used to transfer shear forces between the concrete
slab and the steel section. In regions with negative bending moment,
where concrete cracking occurs, the shear capacity of composite
dowel connectors may be affected by transverse concrete cracks.
So far, the internal shear-carrying mechanisms of composite dowel
connectors in cracked concrete are not clarified, and existing shear
capacity models do not account for concrete cracking. Hence, the
present paper summarizes the results of 38 shear tests, providing
novel insights regarding the pryout failure in cracked concrete.
The tests were performed in an innovative test setup allowing the
investigation of the impact of crack spacing and crack width. Using
the test results, the present paper analyzes the phenomenology of
pryout failure in cracked concrete.
Keywords: composite structures; cracked concrete; pryout failure; rib
shear connector; shear tests.
INTRODUCTION
In steel-concrete composite girders, rib shear connectors
can be used to transfer shear forces between the concrete
slab and the steel section. Rib shear connectors are produced
in burning regular recesses into the webs of steel members.
After encasing with concrete, the vertically embedded steel
dowels and the interstitial concrete dowels ensure a struc-
tural, interlocked connection (Fig. 1(a)). Currently, a distinc-
tion is made between composite dowels with either open (for
example, puzzle- or clothoid-shaped1-3) or closed (perfobond
shape4-6) recesses. In this paper, the focus is on the shear
behavior of rib connectors with open puzzle-shaped geom-
etry, which are usually called composite dowels or Crestbond
connectors in the literature. These innovative connectors
have been developed as an alternative for headed studs. The
main advantages of composite dowels compared to headed
studs are higher shear capacity and stiffness as well as suffi-
cient deformation capacity, even in high-strength concrete.
Furthermore, composite dowels allow easy manufacturing
and yield very resource-efficient composite members.
While headed stud connectors are usually welded upright
onto the upper flange of steel members, composite dowels
are burned immediately into the webs of steel members,
allowing single flange-steel beams to be used (Fig. 1(b)).
Herein, in contrast to conventional composite members with
double-flange steel sections and headed stud connectors, the
relative ineffective steel part near the plastic neutral axis is
reduced to a minimum. Consequently, composite members
with single-flange steel beams have significantly increased
bending capacity and bending stiffness when having the
same constructional depth and deploying the same amount
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
TECHNICAL PAPER
Fig. 1—(a) Different geometric types of rib shear connec-
tors; (b) composite beam with single flange steel beam
(shear connectors were cut immediately into the steel web);
and (c) failure modes of composite dowels.
of steel. Today, composite dowel connectors are predomi-
nately used in engineering structures such as prefabricated
composite bridges.7 However, due to their ease of manufac-
ture, excellent load-bearing and deformation properties, and
suitability for slender concrete slabs, these connectors are
being applied more than ever in building construction such
as in composite floors or parking decks.
Figure 1(c) gives an overview of relevant failure modes
for composite dowels. Under static loading, the steel dowel
may fail due to combined shear and bending stresses;
in structures with low embedment depths, a concrete
pryout failure may occur. During the pryout process, the
connector causes a blowout force, acting orthogonal to
the applied shear force toward the smallest concrete cover.
The blowout force causes tensile stresses in the concrete
cover, which lead to the occurrence of a concrete pryout
cone in the ultimate limit state. Due to phenomenological
parallels, the development of design models for pryout
failure of composite dowels was inspired by approaches
for describing the blowout failure of fasteners near-edges.8
Design approaches have been proposed by Zapfe,9 Seidl,10
and Heinemeyer.11 These models were recently consolidated
to a general technical approval12 for composite dowels, as
their application is currently not embodied in international
standards (AISC 2005a,13 ACI 318-B,14 EC415). Herein, the
shear resistance Ppo of a composite dowel is determined by
the tensile capacity of the activatable concrete breakout cone
(depending on hpo1.5√fc, with hpo representing the height of
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 3, May 2018.
MS No. S-2016.395.R3, doi: 10.14359/51701145, was received July 21, 2017, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2018, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
661
Fig. 2—(left) Deficits of well-known shear test setups15 for investigations in cracked concrete; and (right) single pushout tests
by Döinghaus and Heinemeyer.
the cone and √fc describing the concrete’s tensile strength)
multiplied with the factor (1/η), considering the angle of
diversion between shear and blowout direction. In addi-
tion, the favorable influence of transverse reinforcement is
considered by means of an increase factor (1 + ρD,i), with ρD,i
representing the ratio of transversal reinforcement. Further-
more, the model contains reduction factors χx and χy to
account for overlapping pryout cones of adjoining connec-
tors. The characteristic value of the longitudinal shear resis-
tance for pryout failure in uncracked concrete is given by
Eq. (1). Detailed background information to this formula as
well as its limitations are provided by Feldmann et al.12
PPo = χ x ⋅ χ y ⋅ 90 ⋅ h1po.5 ⋅ f c ⋅ (1 + ρD ,i ) (1)
where fc is cylinder concrete strength (MPa); ρD,i is ratio
of transversal reinforcement; hpo is height of the concrete
pryout cone (mm); and χx and χy are reduction factors to
account for overlapping pryout cones.
Until now, experimental and theoretical investigations
focused on the application of composite dowels in concrete
compression chords, where concrete cracking is omitted.
However, if the concrete slab is exposed to tensile stresses
(for example, near the interior supports of continuous
composite beams), transverse cracking occurs. Through this,
the composite dowels’ shear capacity may be affected.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Former shear tests16,17 from the literature indicate that
transverse concrete cracks significantly reduce the shear
capacity of composite dowel connectors with pryout failure,
but so far, the internal mechanisms controlling the pryout
behavior in cracked concrete have not been clarified. Further-
more, existing design models9-12 for composite dowels do
not yet account for concrete cracking. Hence, the present
paper illustrates the results of 38 shear tests,18,19 providing
novel insights regarding the shear behavior of composite
dowels in cracked concrete. These tests were conducted in
an innovative test setup allowing investigation of the influ-
ence of crack spacing and crack width. Based on the test
results, this study analyzes the relevant load-carrying mech-
662
anisms and explains the phenomenology of pryout failure in
cracked concrete.
DEVELOPMENT OF TESTING PROCEDURE
Analysis of well-known test setups
For the investigation of shear connectors in cracked
concrete several test setups16,17,20 with specific advantages
and shortcomings have been proposed in the literature.
In general, all test setups allow one to detect the effect of
concrete cracking, yielding a reduction in composite dowels’
shear strength. However, a discussion19 of different experi-
mental setups makes clear that most of them provide merely
qualitative information rather than quantitatively assess-
able results, as they do not allow to control essential testing
parameters such as the crack width and the crack spacing.
The shortcomings of previously known test setups are
presented exemplarily in Fig. 2 based on a test setup by
Classen,16 which is comparable to most of the test setups in
the literature. Herein, the shear load is induced by a hydraulic
jack placed between the test specimen and a crosshead fixing
vertical reinforcing bar (Fig. 2(a)). Besides shear stresses in
the composite connection, the test setup yields tensile stresses
in the concrete slab. These tensile stresses are transferred to
the concrete via vertical reinforcing bars sticking out of the
concrete slabs. Due to the one-sided introduction of tensile
stresses, the test setup leads to an uneven tensile stress distri-
bution in the concrete slab (Fig. 2(b)). Therefore, in the upper
half of the slab, more and wider cracks occur (Fig. 2(c)).
Obviously, the setup does not provide a precise control of
the crack spacing, which is why the reproducibility of crack
patterns for identical subtests cannot be ensured with this
test setup (Fig. 2(c)). Moreover, it is not possible to analyze
the shear strength behavior at a defined (given) crack width,
as the longitudinal tension in the concrete slab results from
the shear stress occurring at the same time. Hence, the crack
widths are continuously growing with increasing shear stress
and cannot be controlled independently from one another.
Consequently, the test setup allows neither monitoring of the
evolution of crack width and shear capacity nor the observa-
tion of the relation between crack spacing and pryout load.
For the discussed test setup,15 another problem applies,
which is well-known from standard pushout tests in
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
Fig. 3—Test setup with single shear connectors for analysis of transverse cracking.
uncracked concrete. An inhomogeneous distribution of shear
forces to the composite dowels occurs in which the shear
connectors lying close to the load introduction are stressed
by amplified shear forces (Fig. 2(a)). To avoid inhomoge-
neous shear force distributions, Döinghaus21 proposed the
so-called single pushout test (Fig. 2(d)). Here, only a single
shear connector is tested so that a definite allocation of
applied load and shear capacity can be made, but in the setup
by Döinghaus, an inadvertent eccentricity arises between the
load introduction and the resulting shear force (Fig. 2(d)).
The moment caused by this eccentricity remains rather small
for headed studs but becomes remarkable for composite
dowels. On the one hand, the higher moments are due to
the longer lever arms for composite dowels as the shear
force transmission takes place at half of the dowel’s height,
whereas for the headed studs, the transmission happens at
the dowel base. On the other hand, the shear capacities of
composite dowels (dependent on material and dimensions)
reach a multiple of the ultimate load of headed studs. Due to
the large eccentricity and the high shear capacities, remark-
able moments for composite dowels arise in the single
pushout test, which may falsify the test results. In summary,
the identified shortcomings of presently known test setups
require the development of an innovative testing procedure.
Proposal for an optimized test setup
To rectify the mentioned deficits, an innovative test setup
was developed. This test setup is shown in Fig. 3. Here, only
one shear connector is tested so that a distinct allocation of
test force and shear capacity exists. This way, inhomoge-
neous shear force distributions on different shear connec-
tors are omitted. The shear force is generated by a hollow
piston cylinder. Inadvertent bending moments caused by
an eccentricity are prevented by the usage of an L-shaped
frame (Fig. 3(a) and 3(b)). This frame is rigidly bolted to
the shear connector and allows a load introduction without
significant bending effects. The reaction forces are taken up
by an abutment placed between the test cylinder and spec-
imen (Fig. 3(a) and 3(b)).
The developed test setup can be used to precisely analyze
the influences of crack width and crack spacing. The spacing
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
between the cracks and their relative location to the shear
connector are given by metal sheets inlaid in the external
area of the concrete slab (Fig. 3(a)). Exposed to longitu-
dinal tension, concrete cracks are initiated at these predeter-
mined breaking points, which spread over the full width of
the concrete slab. Using this method, a reproducible crack
pattern can be provided.
To control crack width and shear force independently
from one another, the longitudinal tension required for the
crack initiation is applied before starting the shear test. For
that reason, the concrete slab provides recesses in which
load introduction plates can be fixed (Fig. 3(a) and 3(c)).
These load introduction plates are connected by rods at their
upper and lower sides (Fig. 3(d)). The plates can be moved
apart from one another by tightening nuts threaded to the
rods. Hereby, the concrete in the region of the inlaid sheets
is spread and forced apart. Through the resulting tensile
stresses, precise concrete cracks can be generated, enlarged
to a definite crack width and, afterward, get locked by
blocking the nuts (Fig. 3(e)). With the test setup in Fig. 3, up
to three cracks with a minimal spacing of 75 mm (2.95 in.)
can be produced.
TEST SPECIMEN AND TEST PROGRAM
Production of test specimen
The test specimens consisted of single puzzle-shaped
composite dowels that were encased in 500 mm (19.7 in.)
long, 750 mm (29.5 in.) wide, and 100 mm (3.9 in.) thick
reinforced concrete slabs (Fig. 4(a) to 4(c)). The steel dowel
had a web thickness of 12 mm (0.47 in.) and was made from
structural steel S355 (fy = 355 MPa [51.5 ksi]). Its geometry
is given in Fig. 4(e). The concrete slabs were realized with
a concrete C30/37 (fck = 30 MPa [4.35 ksi]) and a maximum
grain size of 16 mm (0.63 in.). The embedment depth of the
shear connector in the concrete slab was 70 mm (2.76 in.) so
that there was a concrete cover of 30 mm (1.18 in.) between
the bottom of the steel dowel and the concrete slab’s surface.
A foam block was placed in front of the dowel to prevent
an inadvertent transfer of forces between the dowel’s front
surface and the concrete (Fig. 4(b)). Furthermore, Fig. 4(c)
663
Fig. 4—Test specimen.
Table 1—Test campaign
Test n Crack pattern in a composite beam Specimen Crack spacing sr, mm (in.) Crack width wr, mm (in.)

Reference S0/SR0 3 Uncracked concrete

S1 2 ≥300 (11.8) 0.25 (0.01)

S2 2 ≥300 (11.8) 0.50 (0.02)

S3 3 300 (11.8) 0.25 (0.01)

S4 2 300 (11.8) 0.50 (0.02)

Influence
S5 2 150 (5.9) 0.25 (0.01)
of crack
spacing/
location of S6 2 150 (5.9) 0.50 (0.02)
cracks
S7 2 150 (5.9) 0.25 (0.01)

S8 3 150 (5.9) 0.50 (0.02)

S9 2 75 (2.95) 0.25 (0.01)

S10 3 75 (2.95) 0.50 (0.02)

SR1 2 150 (5.9) 0.25 (0.01)

SR2 2 150 (5.9) 0.50 (0.02)

Influence SR3 2 150 (5.9) 0.85 (0.033)

crack width SR4 3 150 (5.9) 1.00 (0.039)
SR5 2 150 (5.9) 1.30 (0.051)
SR6 2 150 (5.9) 1.65 (0.065)

shows the metal sheets for the crack initiation as well as the
recesses for the installation of the load introduction plates.
The reinforcement (reinforcing steel B500, fs = 500 MPa
[72.5 ksi]) is depicted in Fig. 4(a) and 4(b), consisting of
transverse reinforcing bars (“1”: Ø 12 mm [0.47 in.]); stir-
rups (“2”: Ø 10 mm [0.39 in.]) at 150 mm (5.9 in.) spacing
and longitudinal reinforcing bars (“3”: Ø 8 mm [0.31 in.]).
To provide sufficient confinement of the vertical recesses in
the concrete slab, each recess was surrounded by two hori-
zontal reinforcement loops (Ø 10 mm [0.39 in.]), as can be
seen in the photo of the reinforcement in Fig. 4(d).
Test campaign
The test campaign covered 38 shear tests on composite
dowels with pryout failure in transversely cracked concrete
and was structured in two stages. It was divided into a Test

664 ACI Structural Journal/May 2018

Fig. 5—Dowel characteristics (shear force-slip relationship) for different configurations of crack spacing. (Note: 1 kN =
0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Series S, in which the crack spacing and the location of the
crack to the shear connector was varied, plus in a Test Series
SR to investigate different crack widths. Moreover, refer-
ence tests with uncracked concrete were carried out. The test
campaign is summarized in Table 1.
Test Series S included 10 tests (S1 to S10), each consisting
of two or three identical subtests. To analyze the influence
of the spacing between adjoining cracks and the location
of the crack to the shear connector, five different crack
patterns with a definite crack spacing of either 75, 150, or
300 mm (2.95, 5.9, or 11.8 in.) were considered. In contrast to
reinforced concrete beams, where the crack spacing usually
depends on the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement,
the crack spacing in concrete slabs of composite beams is
induced by the stirrups, which represent discontinuities in
the concrete slab.22 Therefore, the chosen spacing between
adjoining cracks corresponded to common dimensions of
stirrup spacing in composite beams. For all configurations,
the typical crack pattern of the composite beam is shown in
the fourth column of Table 1, while the fifth column illus-
trates the tested specimen, in which the crack patterns were
simulated in the shear tests. For the crack spacings 300 and
150 mm (11.8 and 5.9 in.), two crack patterns were shifted to
sr/2 against each other (for example, test S1 and S3 for sr =
300 mm or S5 and S7 for sr = 150 mm). The tests of Series
S were carried out with a uniform crack width of 0.25 mm
[0.01 in.] (S1, S3, S5 etc.) and were afterward repeated with
a width of 0.5 mm [0.02 in.] (S2, S4, S6, etc.).
Test Series SR was aimed to reveal the impact of the trans-
verse crack width on the shear strength of the composite
dowels. Therefore, six shear test configurations (SR1 to
SR6) consisting of two or three subtests each were carried
out with a uniform crack pattern and constant crack spacing
of 150 mm (5.9 in.). Hereby, the crack widths were varied
from 0.25 to 1.65 mm (0.01 to 0.065 in.) to cover a wide
range of relevant crack widths in the ultimate limit state.
Testing procedure and measurements
Before applying the shear force, the crack pattern was
induced by forcing apart the load introduction plates. There-
fore, the plates were moved along the thread rods until
transverse cracks developed at the inlaid sheets. By gradu-
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
ally moving the nuts, the definite crack width got adjusted.
Thereby, inductive displacement transducers on the surface
and the bottom of the slab enabled the continuous moni-
toring of the induced crack width (Fig. 3(e)). After reaching
the intended crack width, the crack was locked by tightening
the nuts. The procedure allowed to induce cracks with an
accuracy of 0.01 mm (0.0004 in.).
After inducing the crack pattern, the shear force was
applied with the hydraulic cylinder. At 40% of the expected
ultimate load, 25 load cycles were performed to eliminate
the adhesive bond between steel and concrete. Afterward,
the specimen was loaded until failure. The declining curve
of the force-slip relation was recorded, if possible, until the
maximum test force dropped off 20%. During the test, the
slip in the composite connection, the lifting of the concrete
slab, as well as the crack widths were measured with induc-
tive displacement transducers.
TEST RESULTS
Impact of crack spacing and location of the
transverse cracks
In Fig. 5, the shear force-slip relationships of Test Series
S are presented for different configurations of crack spacing
and crack location. The characteristic dowel curves were
determined for a constant crack width of 0.25 mm (0.01 in.)
in the left diagram and 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) in the right one.
Same-colored dowel characteristics with dashed or drawn-
through curves belong to shear tests with identical crack
spacing but at different crack location (for example, S1-1
and S3-2, Fig. 5, left).
The comparison of S1-1 and S3-2 demonstrates the influ-
ence of the crack location. Though both configurations had
identical crack spacing, the dowel characteristics differ
significantly. While the shear force-slip curve of test S1-1
is nearly congruent to the uncracked reference test, test S3-2
with identical crack spacing shows a 20% decreased shear
capacity and a significantly reduced stiffness. Obviously, the
shift of the crack location by 150 mm (5.9 in.) had a striking
influence. This leads back to the transverse crack, which cuts
through the pryout cone in test S3-2, while it did not affect
the pryout cone in test S1-1 due to its modified location in
the slab. In Fig. 6, the pryout cones and transverse cracks
665
Fig. 6—Overview of different crack patterns. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 7—Relation between shear strength and crack spacing.
of the shear tests S1-1 and S3-2 are contrasted. The crack
patterns of both tests (S1-1 and S3-2) represent the border-
line cases for maximum influence (S3) and minimum influ-
ence (S1) of the pryout cone by transverse cracks. Hence, for
every other theoretical crack pattern with an identical crack
spacing of 300 mm (11.8 in.), the shear capacity would be
classified in between. Analogically, this applies to the other
configurations with identical crack spacing but different
crack locations (for example, S7 and S5, with sr = 150 mm
[5.9 in.] in Fig. 5). For the shear tests with a spacing of
75 mm (3 in.), only one crack location was investigated due
to the constricted dimensions of the specimen (Series S9).
Consequently, no range of results can be indicated, but it
is to be expected that the influence of the crack location for
smaller spacing is less pronounced.
Furthermore, the comparison of the shear force-slip rela-
tionships in Fig. 5 illustrates that a reduction of the crack
spacing leads to a decrease of the average shear strength
of the composite dowels in cracked concrete (for example,
comparison of dowel characteristic curves S1-1, S7-2, and
666
S9-1). This reduction of shear capacity by decreasing crack
spacing (or increasing the number of cracks) can also be
explained with the concrete pryout cones depicted in Fig. 6.
Based on the uncracked reference test S0-2, whose pryout
cone length is nearly six times the pryout cone’s height, the
resulting length of the pryout cone decreases with every
reduction of the crack spacing or with every increase in the
number of cracks, respectively. The consequential reduc-
tion of the pryout cone surface yields the decrease of shear
capacity. Figure 6 (right, below) illustrates how transverse
cracks interfere with the formation of pryout cones. For
crack distances smaller than the length of the pryout cone
(lout,uncracked = 240 mm [9.45 in.]), the cracks cut through and
detached the originally coherent big pryout cone into several
smaller pryout cone slices. The length of these pryout cone
slices correlates with approximately the average crack
spacing sr of the transverse cracks (for example, Fig. 6: S9-2
and S5-1).
Figure 7 summarizes the results of the studies on the
influence of crack spacing and crack location on the shear
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
Fig. 8—Dowel characteristics and shear force-crack relations of Test Series SR.
Fig. 9—Relation between shear strength and crack width.
capacity of composite dowels in cracked concrete; therefore,
the shear capacities of the tests were plotted over the spacing
of the transverse cracks. The trend lines in the diagrams
shows the reduction of the shear capacity with decreasing
crack distances (or higher number of cracks). The large
scatter of the shear strength for crack distances of 150
and 300 mm (5.9 and 11.8 in.) is due to the different crack
locations. These different crack locations are indicated by
quadratic or triangular data point markings in the diagrams.
The studies on the influence of crack spacing and crack
location were carried out for a constant crack width of
0.25 mm (0.01 in.) and were afterward repeated for 0.5 mm
(0.02 in.). The comparison of the left (wr = 0.25 mm
[0.01 in.]) and the right (wr = 0.5 mm [0.02 in.]) diagram
in Fig. 7 demonstrates a slight reduction of the shear
strength, based on the increased crack width. Hereinafter,
these investigations on the impact of the crack width are
systematically expanded.
Impact of crack width
The impact of the crack width on the shear capacity of
composite dowels was investigated in Test Series SR. Before
beginning with the shear tests, a uniform crack layout with
constant crack spacing sr of 150 mm (5.9 in.) was induced.
The crack widths were varied from 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) (SR1)
to 1.65 mm (0.065 in.) (SR6). In Fig. 8 (left), the shear force-
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
slip relationships of Test Series SR are plotted together
with the shear force-slip curve of the uncracked reference
test S0-3. Already for very low load levels, a character-
istic discontinuity can be observed in the force-slip curves
of the cracked specimen. This continuity is followed by a
short plateau, where the slip increases with the shear force
remaining constant. This plateau is based on the steel dowel
moving forward into the opened transverse crack. After
closure of this gap, the shear force increases uniformly again
until reaching the shear capacity. The comparison of the
characteristic dowel curves clarifies that an increase of the
given crack width yields a significant reduction of stiffness
and shear strength of the composite dowels. Simultaneously,
the deformation capacity of the composite dowels increased
with the crack width. Furthermore, Fig. 8 (right) shows the
development of the crack widths over the applied shear
force. Obviously, the crack width remained nearly constant
throughout the shear test.
The correlation between shear strength and crack width
is displayed in Fig. 9. Already at a small crack width of
0.25 mm (0.01 in.), the shear capacity in the tests was remark-
ably decreased compared to the reference test (a reduction
of 14%). For larger crack widths of 1.65 mm (0.065 in.), the
reduction of the shear strength reached approximately 50%.
Figure 9 (left) illustrates the degressive correlation between
667
Fig. 10—Pryout mechanism in cracked and uncracked concrete.
shear strength and crack width, which tends toward a hori-
zontal asymptote for very large crack widths.
Furthermore, Fig. 9 (right) shows the pryout cones of the
specimen under different transverse crack widths. Whereas
for small crack widths, large pryout cones occurred, the
pryout cone surface reduced with increasing crack width.
This is due to the effectiveness of the crack friction mech-
anism that controls the transfer of shear stresses over the
crack. For small crack widths, the flanks of the transverse
crack featured an effective interlocking so that the blowout
force, acting orthogonal to the shear force of the composite
dowel, was almost completely transferred over the trans-
verse crack. Thereby, large and coherent pryout cones were
generated and high shear capacities reached. In tests with
larger crack widths, the effectiveness of the crack friction
was reduced so that the transfer of shear stresses over the
crack was remarkably affected. Due to the reduced shear
transfer, the pryout cones could not bridge the discontinuity
in the concrete slab caused by the transverse crack. In conse-
quence, these pryout cones had significantly reduced dimen-
sions and were detached or cut off by the transverse cracks
(Fig. 9, right).
ANALYSIS OF PRYOUT FAILURE IN CRACKED
AND UNCRACKED CONCRETE
All shear tests in cracked and uncracked concrete resulted
in a pry-out failure of the concrete. This failure mode is char-
acterized by the break out of a concrete cone orthogonal to
the applied shear force.
668
For composite dowels in uncracked concrete, the applied
shear force is transferred from the steel dowel onto the
concrete dowel through contact compression stresses
(Fig. 10, top right). Thereby, the axis of the resultant shear
force goes almost through the inflection point of the puzzle
geometry (half of the dowel’s height). Immediately in front
of the steel dowel, a highly stressed concrete wedge arises.
This concrete wedge is confined by the surrounding concrete,
the stirrups, and the steel dowels so that shifting in any direc-
tion is prevented and a multiaxial stress state develops. In
compressing the concrete wedge, a blowout force is caused,
acting in the direction orthogonal to the applied shear force,
toward the smallest concrete cover (Fig. 10, top right). When
the shear force is further increased, the tensile strength of
the concrete in the region above the compressed concrete
wedge is exceeded and a lopsided pryout cone arises on the
surface of the slab. Due to this pryout of the concrete cone,
the confinement is released and the compressed concrete
wedge collapses. In Fig. 10 (above left) the characteristic
fracture pattern of the reference test S0 is shown in a view of
the slab surface and cut through the slab. Herein, the length
lout,uncracked of the pryout cone is marked.
It is, in principle, the same structural behavior for the
pryout of composite dowels in transversely cracked concrete
slabs, but the transverse cracks in the concrete overlap and
influence the development of a multiaxial stress state and
the formation of pryout cones. Due to the transverse cracks
crossing the concrete dowel, the confinement is reduced so
that, compared to the uncracked concrete, a smaller multi-
axial compression stress state develops. Besides the change
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
of the stress state, a transverse crack causes a diversion of
the fracture crack path (Fig. 10, bottom right). The transfer
of shear stresses over the transverse crack depends on aggre-
gate interlock, which is predominately controlled by the
crack width. Especially for wide transverse cracks, only
small shares of the blowout force can bridge the crack, as
the shear stress transfer is strongly delimited. This leads to
a fragmentation and a remarkable reduction of the pryout
cone size. Consequently, the shear strength of composite
dowels in cracked concrete is reduced. Figure 10 (below)
shows exemplarily the view of the slab surface and a cut
through the specimen S7. Obviously, the pryout cone has
significantly smaller dimensions lengthwise (lout,cracked) as
the pryout cone of the uncracked concrete (lout,uncracked).
COMPARISON WITH HEADED STUD
CONNECTORS
To classify the experimental findings of this paper, it is
useful to compare them with the behavior of headed studs.
Here, it is useful to make distinction between headed studs
with either slender or stocky geometry.
In uncracked concrete, the fracture of slender headed stud
connectors was analyzed by several researchers.23-25 It is either
characterized by a ductile steel failure of the stud’s shank or
a concrete failure in front of the stud’s welding root. Herein,
the concrete crushes due to multiaxial compressive stresses.
Currently, the behavior of headed studs in cracked concrete
is rather poorly investigated. In the literature, several beams
tests in hogging moment regions26-28 have been documented,
where only slight influence of concrete cracking has been
found for the shear resistance of headed studs. However,
due to plastic redistribution of shear forces in the composite
connection, beam tests are rather inappropriate to assess the
shear resistance of headed studs. Johnson et al.20 were the
first to perform shear tests on single headed studs in trans-
versally cracked concrete. Depending on the amount of
applied tensile stresses, the shear resistances of the studs
reduced to up to 64% of the shear capacity in the uncracked
concrete. At the same time, a significant decrease in stiff-
ness was observed. At 80% of the fracture load, the relative
displacements in the composite connection were approxi-
mately twice as large as in the corresponding test without
transverse cracks. Despite having observed significantly
larger reductions in shear resistance in the tests, Johnson and
Greenwood suggest reducing the design shear resistance by
a factor of 0.8 for slender headed studs in cracked concrete.
Until now, the mechanisms of shear behavior of slender
headed studs in cracked concrete are not severely analyzed.
The authors believe that transverse cracks, which cross the
region of confined concrete in front of the stud, interfere with
the multiaxial compressive stresses and promote the collapse
of the concrete confinement. However, at the same time,
the local compression field in front of the stud suppresses
the formation of concrete cracks, which damps their detri-
mental influence. Both interfering mechanisms need to be
analyzed and quantified in future investigations. Compared
to composite dowel connectors, the reduction in shear resis-
tance attributed to transverse concrete cracks is expected to
be of minor relevance for slender studs. Due to significantly
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
diverging phenomena of concrete failure (slender studs fail
due to concrete crushing, composite dowels due to pry out
when the concrete’s tensile strength is reached), it is not
possible to transfer the experimental findings of this paper to
the shear behavior of slender headed stud connectors.
On the contrary, when short, stocky studs are used for
an anchorage loaded in shear, pryout failure may occur for
these studs, as well. According to Anderson and Meinheit,29
short studs are typically so stiff that under a direct shear
load, they bend primarily in single curvature. The deforma-
tion results in the head of the stud “kicking back,” which
breaks out a pryout cone of concrete behind the stud. Up to
now, the pryout behavior of short, stocky studs in cracked
concrete had not been experimentally investigated, but due
to the phenomenological parallels to the pryout of composite
dowels, the authors believe that the failure of stocky studs in
cracked concrete is also controlled by the parameters crack
location, crack spacing, and crack width. The experimental
methods developed in this paper may serve as a starting
point for future experimental research in pryout of stocky
studs in cracked concrete.
CONCLUSION AND COMPILATION OF ALL TEST
RESULTS
The test campaign covered in total 38 shear tests on
composite dowels in cracked and uncracked concrete. Table 2
lists the results of all performed shear tests. Here, the investi-
gated test parameters such as crack location, crack spacing,
and crack width are summarized as well as the concrete
compressive strengths fc,cube, which were determined by
accompanying material tests. Furthermore, Table 2 contains
the ultimate test force Pult (which corresponds to the dowel’s
shear capacity) as well as the slip δult corresponding to Pult
and the deformability of the dowels, δu, which is defined as
the slip at 90% of the shear capacity in the post failure range.
In conclusion of this paper, all major results are summa-
rized as follows:
1. For all performed shear tests on composite dowel
connectors, the pryout failure governed. For uncracked
concrete, the length and width of the resultant pryout cone
were approximately six times the height of the pryout
cone. In tests with transverse cracks in the concrete slab,
the cracking decreased the dimensions of the pryout cone,
leading to a reduction of the stiffness and the shear strength
of the composite dowels.
2. When the distance between adjoining transverse cracks
with constant crack width was reduced (or the number of
transverse cracks was increased), the shear strength of the
composite dowels decreased almost proportionally to the
crack spacing, whereas the pryout cone was cut through
by transverse cracks so that instead of one coherent large
pryout cone, several smaller breakout cone slices resulted.
Their lengths roughly corresponded to the average crack
spacing sr.
3. The shear strength of composite dowels is greatly
dependent on the present crack width. For large crack
widths, a reduction up to 50% of the shear strength was
identified. This decrease in shear strength is based on the
disrupted shear stress transfer in the crack. For small crack
669
Table 2—Summary of test results
fcm.cube, MPa
Rest Crack location and spacing sr wr, mm (in.) (ksi) Pult, kN (kip) δult, mm δu, mm
S0-1 47.3 (6.86) 147.0 (33.05) 4.4 5.5
Reference S0-2 0 (0) 47.3 (6.86) 149.0 (33.50) 4.8 7.5
S0-3 47.3 (6.86) 156.0 (35.07) 4.4 6.2
S1-1 40.2 (5.83) 153.2 (34.44) 3.2 5.4
0.25 (0.01)
S1-2 40.8 (5.91) 137.3 (30.07) 2.9 4.7
S2-1 45.6 (6.61) 138.5 (31.14) 3.8 6.1
0.50 (0.02)
S2-2 37.9 (5.50) 122.8 (27.61) 5.2 6.6
S3-1 40.2 (5.83) 100.2 (22.53) 4.3 5.4
S3-2 0.25 (0.01) 40.8 (5.91) 124.1 (27.90) 4.7 7.2
S3-3 37.2 (5.40) 106.3 (23.90) 5.2 10.7
S4-1 45.6 (6.61) 110.2 (24.77) 3.3 5.0
0.50 (0.02)
S4-2 37.9 (5.50) 111.0 (24.95) 5.2 5.6
Influence S5-1 40.2 (5.83) 108.0 (24.28) 4.2 5.2
of crack 0.25 (0.01)
spacing/ S5-2 40.8 (5.91) 98.1 (22.05) 4.1 7.4
location S6-1 45.6 (6.61) 105.1 (23.63) 4.1 7.0
of the 0.50 (0.02)
cracks S6-2 37.9 (5.50) 108.5 (24.39) 4.7 6.0
S7-1 37.2 (5.40) 122.9 (27.63) 6.3 7.2
0.25 (0.01)
S7-2 40.8 (5.91) 134.1 (30.15) 4.2 5.4
S8-1 45.6 (6.61) 108.1 (24.25) 4.5 7.2
0.50 (0.02)
S8-2 37.9 (5.50) 123.9 (27.85) 5.7 7.7
S9-1 40.2 (5.83) 93.6 (21.04) 3.3 5.2
S9-2 0.25 (0.01) 40.8 (5.91) 127.7 (28.71) 4.4 6.0
S9-3 37.2 (5.40) 108.6 (24.41) 5.4 8.4
S10-1 45.6 (6.61) 101.3 (22.77) 2.3 4.7
0.50 (0.02)
S10-2 37.9 (5.50) 101.2 (22.75) 3.7 6.0
SR1-1 37.2 (5.40) 122.9 (27.63) 6.3 7.2
0.25 (0.01)
SR1-2 40.8 (5.91) 134.1 (30.15) 4.2 5.4
SR2-1 45.6 (6.61) 108.1 (24.30) 4.5 7.2
0.50 (0.02)
SR2-2 37.9 (5.50) 123.9 (27.85) 5.7 7.7
SR3-1 43.9 (6.37) 99.6 (22.39) 2.7 4.0
0.85 (0.033)
SR3-2 43.9 (6.37) 88.0 (19.78) 6.6 9.0
Impact
crack SR4-1 43.9 (6.37) 86.6 (19.47) 3.9 5.4
width
SR4-2 1.00 (0.039) 41.4 (6.00) 97.9 (22.01) 3.4 6.9
SR4-3 41.4 (6.00) 88.7 (19.94) 4.4 11.6
SR5-1 41.4 (6.00) 87.5 (19.67) 3.8 10.0
1.30 (0.051)
SR5-2 41.4 (6.00) 81.2 (18.25) 8.3 10.0
SR6-1 43.9 (6.37) 65.0 (14.61) 4.1 10.8
1.65 (0.065)
SR6-2 41.4 (6.00) 83.8 (18.84) 2.4 9.7

widths, the crack flanks have an effective aggregate inter-
lock so that high shear stresses can be transferred over the
crack. Thereby, parts of the blowout force, acting orthogonal
to the shear force, are transferred over the crack so that a
coherent pryout cone on both sides of the transverse crack
develops, whereas large crack widths lead to a reduction of
the transferable shear stresses. Therefore, the crack cannot
be bridged and the blowout force is concentrated on the side
of the crack facing the shear connector. Consequently, the
pryout cone is cut by the crack.
4. The crack formation in concrete leads to a significant
increase of the deformability of composite dowels. While
the ductility of the analyzed composite dowels for slender,
uncracked concrete slabs hardly reached the required defor-

670 ACI Structural Journal/May 2018

mation capability for ductile shear connectors of 6 mm
(0.236 in.), the cracking leads to a remarkable increase in
ductility. This characteristic is especially important to enable
plastic redistributions in the composite connection. Through
this, composite beams can transfer shear forces from regions
with cracked concrete and reduced shear capacity of the
connectors to less stressed areas of the beam.
OUTLOOK
The results and findings of this experimental study are
the basis to develop theoretical model approaches for
composite dowels in cracked concrete. In a companion
paper,30 the existing pryout model for composite dowels
(refer to Eq. (1)) was extended by the influence of transverse
concrete cracking. The basic idea of the approach is to assess
the shear resistance in comparing the force, which can be
transferred across the critical transverse crack by aggregate
interlock with the pryout force of the corresponding pryout
cone segment.
Furthermore, the pryout failure of short, stocky headed
studs in cracked concrete should be investigated. Here, the
experimental methods developed in this paper may serve as
a starting point. The authors assume that the pryout failure of
studs in cracked concrete is controlled by the same parame-
ters (crack location, crack spacing, and crack width). There-
fore, in the future, model approaches30 for the interaction of
composite dowels and transverse cracks may be adopted and
transferred to stocky studs in cracked concrete.
AUTHOR BIOS
Martin Classen is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute of Struc-
tural Concrete, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. He received
his degree in structural engineering in 2011 from RWTH Aachen University
and his degree as an International Welding Engineer from SLV Duisburg,
Duisburg, Germany, in 2015. He received his PhD in 2016 from RWTH
Aachen University. His research interests include analysis and design of
reinforced concrete structures and composite structures.
Josef Hegger is a Professor in the civil engineering department at Aachen
University. He received his diploma in 1979 from Aachen University
(RWTH Aachen) and his PhD in 1985 from the Technical University Braun-
schweig, Braunschweig, Germany. His research interests include shear,
high-strength concrete, prestressed concrete, detailing, and textile-rein-
forced concrete.
REFERENCES
1. Chu, T. H. V.; Bui, D. V.; Le, V. P. N.; Kim, I.-T.; Ahn, J.-H.; and Dao,
D. K., “Shear Resistance Behaviors of a Newly Puzzle Shape of Crestbond
Rib Shear Connector: An Experimental Study,” Steel and Composite Struc-
tures, V. 21, No. 5, 2016, pp. 1157-1182. doi: 10.12989/scs.2016.21.5.1157
2. Lorenc, W.; Kożuch, M.; and Rowiński, S., “The Behaviour of Puzzle-
Shaped Composite Dowels — Part I: Experimental Study,” Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, V. 101, 2014, pp. 482-499. doi: 10.1016/j.
jcsr.2014.05.013
3. Lechner, T.; Gehrlein, S.; and Fischer, O., “Structural Behaviour of
Composite Dowels in thin UHPC-Elements,” Steel Construction, V. 9,
No. 2, 2016, pp. 132-137. doi: 10.1002/stco.201610012
4. da. C. Vianna, J.; de Andrade, S. A. L.; da S. Vellasco, P. C. G.; and
Costa-Neves, L. F., “Experimental Study of Perfobond Shear Connectors in
Composite Construction,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, V. 81,
2013, pp. 62-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.11.002
5. Valente, I., and Cruz, P., “Experimental Analysis of Perfobond Shear
Connection between Steel and Lightweight Concrete,” Journal of Construc-
tional Steel Research, V. 60, No. 3-5, 2004, pp. 465-479. doi: 10.1016/
S0143-974X(03)00124-X
6. Ahn, J. H.; Lee, C. G.; Won, J. H.; and Kim, S. H., “Shear Resistance
of the Perfobond-Rib Shear Connector Depending on Concrete Strength
ACI Structural Journal/May 2018
and Rib Arrangement,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, V. 66,
No. 10, 2010, pp. 1295-1307. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.04.008
7. Hechler, O.; Berthellemy, J.; Lorenc, W.; Seidl, G.; and Viefhues, E.,
“Continuous Shear Connectors in Bridge Construction,” Composite
Construction in Steel and Concrete, V. VI, 2011, pp. 78-91. doi:
10.1061/41142(396)7
8. Furche, J., and Eligehausen, R., “Lateral Blow-out Failure of Headed
Studs Near a Free Edge,” Anchors in Concrete: Design and Behavior,
SP-130, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1991,
pp. 235-252.
9. Zapfe, C., “Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von Verbundträgern mit
Betondübeln zur Übertragung der Längsschubkräfte,” dissertation, Institut
für Konstruktiven Ingenieurbau, Universität der Bundeswehr, München,
Deutschland, 2001.
10. Seidl, G., “Verhalten und Tragfähigkeit von Verbunddübeln in Stahl-
betonverbundträgern,” dissertation, TU Breslau, 2009.
11. Heinemeyer, S., “Zum Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von
Verbundträgern aus ultrahochfestem Beton mit Verbundleisten,” Schriften-
reihe Institut für Massivbau RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland, 2011.
12. Feldmann, M.; Kopp, M.; and Pak, D., “Composite Dowels as Shear
Connectors for Composite Beams—Background to the German Technical
Approval,” Steel Construction, V. 9, No. 2, 2016, pp. 80-88. doi: 10.1002/
stco.201610020
13. American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), “Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05),” American Institute for
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2005.
14. ACI Committee 318-B, “Appendix D – Anchoring to Concrete, Code
CB-30,” draft version, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
June 22, 2000.
15. Eurocode 4, “Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
– Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings (EN 1994 -1-1: 2004),”
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
16. Classen, M., and Herbrand, M., “Shear Behavior of Composite
Dowels in Transversely Cracked Concrete,” Structural Concrete, V. 16,
No. 2, 2015, pp. 195-206. doi: 10.1002/suco.201400100
17. Research Project Preco-Beam, “Prefabricated Enduring Composite
Beams Based on Innovative Shear Transmission,” Research Fund for Coal
and Steel, 2010.
18. Classen, M., “Zum Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von Verbundträ-
gern mit Verbunddübelleisten und großen Stegöffnungen,” PhD thesis,
RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland, 2016.
19. Classen, M., and Hegger, J., “Pry-Out of Composite Dowels in
Cracked Concrete,” Stahlbau, V. 86, No. 3, 2017, pp. 256-268. doi: 10.1002/
stab.201710470
20. Johnson, R. P.; Greenwood, R. D.; and van Dalen, K., “Stud
Shear-Connectors in Hogging Moment Regions of Composite Neams,” The
Structural Engineer, V. 47, No. 9, 1969, pp. 345-350.
21. Döinghaus, P., “Zum Zusammenwirken hochfester Baustoffe in
Verbundträgern,” PhD-Thesis, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland, 2002.
22. Ramm, W., and Elz, S., “Zur Duktilität von Gurtplatten im Negativen
Momentenbereich,” DAfStb-Forschungskolloquium, Kaiserslautern, 1995.
23. Ollgaard, J. G.; Slutter, R. G.; and Fisher, J. W., “Shear Strength
of Stud Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete,” Engi-
neering Journal (New York), V. 8, No. 2, 1971, pp. 55-64.
24. Oehlers, D. J., and Coughlan, C. G., “The Shear Stiff-
ness of Stud Shear Connections in Composite Beams,” Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, V. 6, No. 4, 1986, pp. 273-284. doi:
10.1016/0143-974X(86)90008-8
25. Xue, W.; Ding, M.; Wang, H.; and Luo, Z., “Static Behavior
and Theoretical Model of Stud Shear Connectors,” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, V. 13, No. 6, 2008, pp. 623-634. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:6(623)
26. Ghosh, A. R., and Malik, S. K., “Contribution of Longitudinal Rein-
forcement to the Ultimate Strength of Composite Sections under Hogging
Moment,” Indian Concrete Journal, V. 44, No. 8, 1970, pp. 341-345.
27. Mallick, S. K., and Chattopadhyay, S. K., “Behaviour of Continuous
Steel-Concrete Composite Beams,” Indian Concrete Journal, V. 49, No. 6,
1975, pp. 173-178.
28. Rex, C. O., and Easterling, W. S., “Partially Restrained Composite
Beam-Girder Connections,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
V. 58, No. 5-8, 2002, pp. 1033-1060. doi: 10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00081-5
29. Anderson, N. S., and Meinheit, D. F., “Pryout Capacity of Cast-in
Headed Stud Anchors,” PCI Journal, V. 50, No. 2, 2005, pp. 90-112. doi:
10.15554/pcij.03012005.90.112
30. Classen, M., and Hegger, J., “Assessing the Pry-Out Resistance of
Open Rib Shear Connectors in Cracked Concrete–Engineering Model with
Aggregate Interlock,” Engineering Structures, V. 148, 2017, pp. 254-262.
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.050
671
CALL FOR ACTION
ACI Invites You To...
Do you have EXPERTISE in any of these areas?
• BIM
• Chimneys
• Circular Concrete Structures Prestressed by Wrapping
with Wire and Strand
• Circular Concrete Structures Prestressed with
Circumferential Tendons
• Concrete Properties
• Demolition
• Deterioration of Concrete in Hydraulic Structures
• Electronic Data Exchange
• Insulating Concrete Forms, Design, and Construction
• Nuclear Reactors, Concrete Components
• Pedestal Water Towers
• Pipe, Cast-in-Place
• Strengthening of Concrete Members
• Sustainability

Then become a REVIEWER for the

ACI Structural Journal or the ACI Materials Journal.
How to become a Reviewer:
1. Go to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci;
2. Click on “Create Account” in the upper right-hand corner; and
3. Enter your E-mail/Name, Address, User ID and Password, and
Area(s) of Expertise.

Did you know that the database for MANUSCRIPT

CENTRAL, our manuscript submission program,
is separate from the ACI membership database?
How to update your user account:
1. Go to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aci;
2. Log in with your current User ID & Password; and
3. Update your E-mail/Name, Address, User ID and Password,
and Area(s) of Expertise.

QUESTIONS?
E-mail any questions to Journals.Manuscripts@concrete.org.