A Thesis

entitled

Finite Element Analysis of an Intentionally Damaged Prestressed Reinforced Concrete

Beam Repaired with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers

by

David A. Brighton

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Masters of Science Degree in Civil Engineering

Dr. Azadeh Parvin, D.Sc., Committee Chair

Dr. Mark A. Pickett, Ph.D., P.E., Committee Member

Dr. Eddie Y. Chou, Ph.D., P.E., Committee Member

Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean

College of Graduate Studies

The University of Toledo

August 2011
 Copyright 2011, David Andrew Brighton

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document
may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.
 An Abstract of

Finite Element Analysis of an Intentionally Damaged Prestressed Reinforced Concrete

Beam Repaired with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers

by

David A. Brighton

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Science Degree in Civil Engineering

The University of Toledo

August 2011

Many of the existing bridges are in need of repair and strengthening due to various

reasons including design flaws, fatigue and deterioration of steel reinforcement, increase

in traffic volume, and accidental impact loads during collisions between vehicles and

bridge girders or piers. The use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials to repair and

strengthen the deficient infrastructures has become very popular due to FRP’s well

known advantages such as high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, light

weight, and ease of applications. This paper presents a review of existing experimental

investigations and field applications of FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete structures.

Various FRP retrofit techniques are also discussed.

A Finite Element Model (FEM) of a prestressed reinforced concrete beam is modeled

based off an experimentally tested beam. The model is intentionally damaged by cutting

two prestressing strands and one mild steel bar. The beam is repaired with three layers of

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) to recover the original design strength of the

beam.

iii
 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Azadeh Parvin for her guidance and support in

my thesis. I also would like to thank my thesis committee members Dr. Mark A. Pickett

and Dr. Eddie Y. Chou for being a part of my thesis committee.

This work was supported in part by allocation of computing time from Ohio Super

Computer.

iv
Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgments iv

Contents v

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Methods of Application 4

1.1.1 FRP Sheets and Strips 4

1.1.2 FRP Plates 5

1.1.3 Near Surface Mounting 5

1.1.4 Sprayed FRP 6

1.1.5 FRP Prestressing 7

1.2 Strengthening of Beams 7

1.2.1 Flexural Strengthening of Beams 8

1.2.2 Shear Strengthening of Beams 8

1.2.3 Strengthening of Beams Subjected to Impact Loads 10

1.2.4 Field Application Projects 11

1.3 Strengthening of Columns

13

v
 1.3.1 FRP Confinement of Columns 13

1.3.2 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Eccentric Axial Load 14

1.3.3 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Impact Loads 16

1.3.4 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Seismic Loads 16

1.3.5 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Corrosion 17

1.3.6 Field Application Projects Related to FRP Repaired Columns 17

1.4 Summary 19

2 Finite Element Analysis 21

2.1 Description of Experimental Study 21

2.2 Finite Element Modeling 25

2.3 Validation of the FEM of UDNR 38

2.4 Results for the FEM of DNR and DR 40

3 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future Research 45

3.1 Summary 45

3.2 Conclusions 46

3.3 Recommendations for Future Research 46

References 47

Appendix A 52

vi
List of Tables

1.1 Summary of Research on Flexural Strengthening of Beams 9

1.2 Summary of Research on Shear Strengthening of Beams 10

1.3 Summary of Research on Impacted Beams 11

1.4 Summary of Field Application Projects - Beams Retrofitted for Shear 12

1.5 Summary of Field Application Projects - Beams Retrofitted for Flexure 12

1.6 Summary of Research on Axially Loaded Columns 14

1.7 Summary of Research on Eccentric Axially Loaded Columns 15

1.8 Summary of Field Application Projects - Columns Retrofitted for Axial 18

Loads or Confinement

1.9 Summary of Field Application Projects - Columns Retrofitted for 18

Corrosion

1.10 Summary of Field Application Projects – Columns Retrofitted for 19

Seismic Loads

2.1 Material Properties of Steel 23

2.2 Experimental Results 24

2.3 Validation of the FEM of UDNR 39

2.4 Summary of FEM Results 41

vii
List of Figures

1-1 Damage Caused by Overheight Vehicle Collision 3

1-2 Spalling of Concrete 4

2-1 Test Setup 24

2-2 Cross-Sectional View of Girder 25

2-3 3-D View of the FEM of the Concrete 26

2-4 Cross-Sectional View of the FEM of the Concrete 27

2-5 Cross-Sectional View of the Shear Steel Reinforcement 28

2-6 Side View of the Shear Steel Reinforcement 29

2-7 3-D View of the Flexural Steel Reinforcement 30

2-8 Damaged Prestressed Steel Strands 31

2-9 FEM of the Steel Plates at the Loading Locations 32

2-10 FEM of the Steel Plates at a Support 33

2-11 Cross-Sectional View of CFRP 34

2-12 3-D View of the FEM with Loads and Constraints 35

2-13 Side View of the FEM with Loads and Constraints 36

2-14 3-D View of FEM Displayed with Lines 37

2-15 Cross-Sectional View of Model 38

2-16 Progression of Cracking and Crushing in the FEM of UDNR 42

viii
2-17 Progression of Cracking and Crushing in the FEM of DNR 43

2-18 Progression of Cracking and Crushing in the FEM of DR 44

ix
Chapter 1

Introduction

Most of the content of this chapter has been published in the proceedings of the

SMAR 2011 conference (Parvin and Brighton 2011). According to the “2008 Status of

the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance” report, most

bridges are inspected every 24 months and are rated based on the conditions of various

bridge components (FHWA 2009). In 1996, 34.2 percent of bridges were classified as

structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. By 2006, that percentage fell to 27.6

percent (US Department of Transportation 2009). There are still many bridges in need of

repair or replacement. Deficiency in bridges can be caused by design flaws, deterioration

due to environmental impact, increase in service loads, and accidental impacts.

Design flaws can occur when engineers improperly design a structure due to poor

methods of analysis and lack of experience or when contractors fail to follow the plan

and procedure outlined by the engineer. Pre-1970’s buildings and bridges were

constructed according to older design codes and need to be retrofitted to meet the current

codes and standards. These structures can be subjected to higher live loads than they

were originally designed for.

1
 The environment can also play a devastating role on infrastructures. Natural disaster

such as hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes can damage or destroy

structures in a matter of seconds. On the other hand, saltwater, deicing chemicals, and

freeze-thaw cycles can cause deterioration over a longer period of time.

Every year, several overheight vehicles impact the bridge girders despite the

regulations and practices set in place by governing bodies to restrict such occurrences

from happening. Placement of barriers and guardrails does not always protect the bridge

columns from vehicular collision damage. The damage caused by such impacts can lead

to concrete cover spalling or cracking, reinforcement damage or exposure, or in worst

cases, structural failure. Figure 1-1 shows damage caused by an overheight vehicle

striking a bridge girder and Figure 1-2 shows spalling of the concrete cover.

Natural disastors, vehicle collisions, and explosions have made engineers reevaluate

current reinforced concrete structures for their effectiveness against resisting such loads.

Previous retrofit techniques include concrete and steel jacketing. These methods are time

consuming and labor intensive. They also increase the cross sectional area of the member

substationally. In recent years, one method of repair that has become increasingly popular

is the use of fiber reinforced polymers materials due to their excellent mechanical

properties, high strength, corrosion resistance, durability, light weight, ease of

application, reduced construction time, efficiency, and low life cycle cost (Ibrahim and

Mahmood 2009; Stallings et al. 2000). The earliest type of FRP material used was glass

fibers embedded in polymeric resins and appeared after World War II for space and air

exploration (Bakis et al. 2002).

2
Figure 1-1 Damage Caused by Overheight Vehicle Collision

In the following years, a variety of fiber materials were introduced to the market

including aramid, boron, carbon, and Kevlar. The repair and strengthening of reinforced

concrete structures can be done through the external reinforcement using FRP strips,

sheets, and plates, or by near surface mounting (NSM), FRP spraying, and FRP

prestressing. In the following sections various types of FRP applications and

strengthening are discussed.

3
Figure 1-2 Spalling of Concrete

1.1 Methods of Application

There are various methods of applying FRP; FRP sheets and strips, FRP plates, NSM,

sprayed FRP, and FRP prestressing. These methods are discussed in the following

sections.

1.1.1 FRP Sheets and Strips

FRP sheets and strips consist of wide or narrow fabrics, respectively, which are

dipped into polymeric binder and then set into place. FRP strips are often used when FRP

sheets are too difficult to place or where only a minimal amount of FRP reinforcing is

needed. Numerous investigations have been performed on retrofit of reinforced concrete

4
members with shear and flexural deficiencies using FRP sheets and strips (Ibrahim and

Mahmood 2009; Di Ludovico et al. 2010; Mayo et al. 1999; Demers et al. 2006; Zhao et

al. 2007; Bousselham and Chaallal 2006; Mosallam and Banerjee 2007; Toutanji et al.

2010; Wu et al. 2009; Matthys et al. 2006).

Bousselham and Chaallal 2006, Ibrahim and Mahmood 2009, and Mosallam and

Banerjee 2007 conducted research on improving the shear capacity of beams. Mayo et al.

1999, Demers et al. 2006, and Zhao et al. 2007 conducted research on increasing the

flexural load capacity of beams. Di Ludovico et al. 2010 investigated the flexural

capacity of beams subjected to an impact load. Toutanji et al. 2010, Wu et al. 2009, and

Matthys et al. 2006 conducted research on increasing the axial capacity of columns.

1.1.2 FRP Plates

FRP plates consist of FRP fabric pre-impregnated with the binder material and

allowed to cure before being attached to the desired member. FRP plates are often

desired over FRP sheets or strips due to their rigidity for the ease of placement. Several

investigations have been performed on the retrofit of reinforced concrete members with

shear and flexural deficiencies using FRP plates (Stalling et al. 2000; Nanni et al.2004).

Stalling et al. 2000 did research on increasing the flexural capacity of beams while

Nanni et al. 2004 did research on the shear capacity of beams.

1.1.3 Near Surface Mounting

Near Surface Mounting (NSM) consists of cutting a groove into the concrete surface.

The groove is then filled half-way with an epoxy paste. The FRP rod is placed into the

5
groove and the groove is then filled with more epoxy paste until the surface is leveled

(Nanni et al. 2004). Investigations into the retrofit of reinforced concrete members with

shear and flexural deficiencies using NSM include (Nanni et al.2004; Teng et al. 2006;

Bianco et al. 2009; Nordin and Biorn 2006; Hassan and Rizkalla 2003).

Teng et al. 2006, Hassan and Rizkalla 2003, and Bianco et al. 2009 investigated the

debonding failures of reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened with NSM. Nordin

and Biorn 2006 investigated the affects of prestressing with NSM bars. Nanni et al. 2004

investigated the shear strengthening of beams with NSM.

1.1.4 Sprayed FRP

Sprayed FRP consists of a discontinuous fiber material encapsulated by a polymeric

matrix resin. The biggest advantage for sprayed FRP is the simplicity of its application.

The FRP is applied with a spray or chopper gun system. A better bond between the fiber

and polymer is achieved since the matrix resin also acts as the bonding agent between the

concrete and FRP. The epoxy used for this kind of application has lower viscosity which

allows for better penetration into voids on the substrate surface (Boyd et al. 2008).

Recently investigations have been conducted into the retrofit of reinforced concrete

members with shear and flexural deficiencies using sprayed FRP (Boyd et al. 2008; Lee

and Hausmann 2004).

Boyd et al. 2008 and Lee and Hausmann 2004 investigated increasing the load

carrying capacity of beams using sprayed FRP.

6
1.1.5 FRP Prestressing

Prestressing of FRP sheets has many benefits including the effective use of tensile

strength, active load-carrying mechanism, enhanced durability and serviceability,

effective stress redistribution of existing reinforcement, and improved shear and flexural

capacities (Meier 1995; El-Hacha et al. 2001; Wight et al. 2001; Kim et al. 2005). The

application of prestressed FRP can become more cumbersome due to the required

anchoring system needed to maintain the prestressing in the FRP. Numerous

investigations have been performed on retrofit of reinforced concrete members with shear

and flexural deficiencies using FRP prestressing (Kim et al. 2008; Kim et al 2005; Meier

1995; El-Hacha et al. 2001; Wight et al. 2001).

Kim et al. 2008 investigated the effects of FRP prestressing on impact damaged

girders. Kim et al. 2005 investigated the anchoring techniques of FRP prestressing. Meier

1995, El-Hacha et al. 2001, and Wight et al. 2001 investigated the strengthening of beams

using FRP prestressing.

1.2 Strengthening of Beams

Beams can be strengthened for a variety of reasons including: flexure, shear,

corrosion, seismic, and impact. Flexural and shear strengthening are discussed in detail in

the following sections. Strengthening of beams is also discussed, but in limited detail due

to a shortage in recent studies on the subject.

7
1.2.1 Flexural Strengthening of Beams

Traditional methods of beam flexural repair include external post-tensioning, splicing

of internal strands, and steel jacketing. These methods often only restore a portion of the

ultimate capacity of the damaged member and are left vulnerable to corrosion (Di

Ludovico et al. 2010). In recent years FRP strengthening has become an increasingly

popular alternative to the traditional methods of repair.

Flexural failures of FRP-retrofitted beams are controlled by two primary failure

modes. The first type of failure is due to crushing of the concrete in the compression

zone prior to the attainment of ultimate tensile strain in the outermost layer of FRP. This

occurs in sections with large amounts of FRP reinforcement. Failure by FRP tensile

ruptures occurs when sections have smaller amounts of FRP reinforcement. Failure by

concrete crushing is desired due to greater deformability which leads to a more gradual

mode of failure (Bakis et al. 2002).

A summary of recent publicly available research on the flexural strengthening of

beams can be seen in Table 1.1.

1.2.2 Shear Strengthening of Beams

Traditional retrofits for shear strengthening of beams include steel or concrete jacketing

of the beam. In most cases, beams requiring shear strengthening were often replaced.

The shear capacity of a beam can be improved by partial or full FRP wrapping of the

beam in the lateral direction. The FRP is bonded to beam with the fibers as parallel as

possible to the principal tensile stresses.

8
Table 1.1 Summary of Research on Flexural Strengthening of Beams
Specimen % Increase
Author ID Retrofit Displacement in Load Failure Mode

DiLudovico et al. 2010 S4 CFRP 16.76% FRP debonding

S5 CFRP 23.35% FRP debonding
Boyd et al. 2008 1 GFRP 21.18% Flexural
Zhao et al. 2007 B1 CFRP 50.59% Peeling
B2 CFRP 57.76% Peeling
B3 CFRP 75.98% Debonding
B4 CFRP 90.02% Peeling
B5 CFRP 75.47% Peeling
B6 CFRP 73.71% Peeling
Demers et al. 2006 1 GFRP 11 mm FRP Pull-out
2 GFRP 11 mm FRP Pull-out
3 GFRP 17 mm FRP Pull-out
4 GFRP 19 mm FRP Pull-out
5 GFRP 15 mm FRP Pull-out
6 GFRP 22 mm FRP Pull-out
Wight et al. 2001 B CFRP 46% 35% Debonding
C CFRP 63% 45% Tensile rupture
D CFRP 59% 36.67% Tensile rupture
Stallings et al. 2000 1 CFRP & GFRP 8%
2 CFRP & GFRP 7%
3 CFRP & GFRP 11%
4 CFRP & GFRP 12%
Mayo et al. 1999 1 CFRP 45.16% FRP Rupture

There are two main modes of failure for FRP-retrofitted beams; debonding of the

FRP from the concrete surface or tensile rupture of the FRP sheet at stresses lower than

the FRP tensile strength. This happens due to stress concentrations at the debonded areas

or rounded corners. The mode of failure depends on the wrapping scheme, anchorage

length and system, bond condition, axial rigidity of the FRP, strength of the concrete, and

method of attachment (Bakis et al. 2002).

A summary of recent publicly available studies on shear strengthening of the beams

can be seen in Table 1.2.

9
Table 1.2 Summary of Research on Shear Strengthening of Beams
Increase
Author Test Retrofit in Load Failure Mode

Ahmed et al. 2010 SC-9.5-2 CFRP 38.24% FRP stirrup rupture

SC-9.5-3 CFRP 61.76% FRP stirrup rupture
SC-9.5-4 CFRP 97.06% Flexural
Ibrahim & Mahmood 2009 B1C-90 CFRP 80.30%
B1G-90 GFRP 62.12%
B2C-90 CFRP 2.22%
B2C-90-0 CFRP 3.70%
Mosallam & Banerjee 2007 B20R CFRP 80.99% Flexural
B21R GFRP 54.09% Flexural
B22R CFRP 63.93% Shear failure
B5 CFRP 55.97% Flexural
B3 GFRP 42.15% Shear
B19 CFRP 29.89% Shear
Bousselham & Chaallal 2006 DB-S0-0.5L CFRP 50.56% Shear
DB-S0-1L CFRP 60.26% Shear
DB-S0-2L CFRP 62.22% Shear
DB-S1-0.5L CFRP -4.03% Test stopped
DB-S1-1L CFRP 9.89% Shear
DB-S1-2L CFRP 10.58% Shear
DB-S2-1L CFRP 17.46% Shear
DB-S2-2L CFRP 21.99% Shear
SB-S0-0.5L CFRP 26.08% Shear
SB-S0-1L CFRP 47.68% Shear
SB-S0-2L CFRP 49.80% Shear
SB-S1-0.5L CFRP 7.30% Shear
SB-S1-1L CFRP -2.97% Shear
SB-S1-2L CFRP 1.66% Shear
SB-S2-1L CFRP 4.85% Flexure
SB-S2-2L CFRP 0.72% Flexure
Nanni et al. 2004 S2 CFRP 23.08% Shear
S3 CFRP 24.62% FRP rupture

1.2.3 Strengthening of Beams Subjected to Impact Loads

Every year, several vehicles with over-height loads impact bridge structures, despite

the regulations and practices set in place by governing bodies to restrict such occurrences

from happening. The damage caused by such impacts can lead to concrete spalling or

cracking, reinforcement damage or exposure, girder misalignment, connection failure or

in worst case structural failure (Boyd et al. 2008). FRP repair can be more economical

than traditional methods, especially when the time and installation costs of the repair

10
system are drastically reduced (Di Ludovico et al. 2010). Limited studies have been

reported on FRP-strengthening of beams subjected to impact loads (see Table 1.3).

Table 1.3 Summary of Research on Impacted Beams

Specimen Type of % Increase
Author ID Test Retrofit Displacement in Load Failure Mode

FRP
Di Ludovico et al. 2010 S4 Flexure CFRP 16.76% debonding
FRP
S5 Flexure CFRP 23.35% debonding
Boyd et al. 2008 1 Flexure GFRP 21.18% Flexural
Kim et al. 2008 1 Flexure CFRP 6.30% 9.96%

1.2.4 Field Application Projects

There have been numerous recent field applications for the strengthening of beams.

States such as Arizona, California, and Missouri tend to favor FRP applications over

traditional methods of repair. The type of repairs include: corrosion, flexural, shear, and

seismic strengthening. The most common type of repair is for the increase in shear

strength due to the advantages of using FRP over traditional methods of repairs. Recent

field application projects for shear and flexural repair can be seen in tables 1.4 and 1.5,

respectively.

11
Table 1.4 Summary of Field Application Projects - Beams Retrofitted for Shear
Agency Structure Date Location Material
D.S. Brown Shore Creek Parkway 2006 NYC, NY CFRP
D.S. Brown D Street Bridge 2006 Tacoma, WA CFRP
D.S. Brown Pittsburgh Airport 2006 Pittsburg, PA CFRP
Quakewrap Oceans One Condominium 2006 Daytona, FL CFRP
Quakewrap Art Gallery 2006 Phoenix, AZ CFRP
FYFE Co.
LLC Miami International Airport 2006 Miami, FL FRP
D.S. Brown Swedish Hospital 2005 Seattle, WA CFRP
D.S. Brown Cranbrooke Overcrossing 2005 Cranbrooke, BC CFRP
Quakewrap Oran M. Roberts Elementary School 2005 Dallas, TX GFRP
Quakewrap Challenger Middle School 2004 Tucson, AZ GFRP
FYFE Co. CFRP &
LLC Flyaway Parking Structure 2004 Van Nuys, CA GFRP
D.S. Brown Dillingham Blvd. over Halawa 2004 Honolulu, HI CFRP
FHWA 2007 Salt Lake Blvd. Bridge over Halawa Stream 2003 Hawaii FRP
Quakewrap Coolidge High School Gymnasium 2003 Coolidge, AZ CFRP
FHWA 2007 I-65 Over Jacob, Broadway, & Gray Streets 2003 Kentucky CFRP
FYFE Co. Minneapolis, CFRP &
LLC Pillsbury Towers 2002 MN GFRP
FHWA 2007 KY 3297 over Little Sandy River 2001 Kentucky FRP
Quakewrap Phoenician Resort 1999 Scottsdale, AZ CFRP
FYFE Co.
LLC Port of Houston Wharf 26-29 1999 Houston, TX FRP
FYFE Co.
LLC OU Medical Center Parking Garage 1997 Oklahoma CFRP

Table 1.5 Summary of Field Application Projects - Beams Retrofitted for Flexure
Agency Structure Date Location Material
Quakewrap Snowflake High School Gymnasium 2008 Snowflake, AZ CFRP
CFRP &
FYFE Co. LLC 8th Street Viaduct Bridge 2006 Des Moines, IA GFRP
Quakewrap Art Gallery 2006 Phoenix, AZ CFRP
FYFE Co. LLC Miami International Airport 2006 Miami, FL FRP
Quakewrap Oran M. Roberts Elementary School 2005 Dallas, TX GFRP
FDOT Chaffee Road Bridge 2004 Jacksonville, Fl CFRP
FYFE Co. LLC Saddle Dome 2003 Calgary, AB Canada GFRP
IowaDOT Bridge 7838.5S092 2003 Pottawattamie Co.,
(Phares et al. IA
2003) CFRP
Quakewrap Coolidge High School Gymnasium 2003 Coolidge, AZ CFRP
I-65 Over Jacob, Broadway, & Gray
FHWA 2007 Streets 2003 Kentucky CFRP
CFRP &
FYFE Co. LLC Pillsbury Towers 2002 Minneapolis, MN GFRP
FYFE Co. LLC Horsetail Creek Bridge 1998 Oregon FRP
FYFE Co. LLC OU Medical Center Parking Garage 1997 Oklahoma CFRP

12
1.3 Strengthening of Columns

Columns can be strengthened for a variety of reasons including: confinement,

eccentric axial loading, seismic loading, and corrosion. In the following sections, these

topics are discussed in further detail.

1.3.1 FRP Confinement of Columns

Traditional methods to increase the load carrying capacity of columns include steel

and concrete jacketing which lead to a much larger cross-sectional area for the column.

FRP can be used to increase the axial load carrying capacity of the column with minimal

increase in the cross-sectional area. Confinement consists of wrapping the column with

FRP sheets, prefabricated jacketing, or in situ cured sheets with fiber running in

circumferential direction. The use of confinement increases the lateral pressure on the

member which results in more ductility and higher load capacity. Confinement is less

effective for rectangular shape than circular shape RC columns due to the confining

stresses that are transmitted to the concrete at the four corners of the cross-section. The

confinement effectiveness improves with the increase in the corner radius (Bakis et al.

2002). Recent studies by (Wu et al. 2009), (Matthys et al. 2006), and (Toutanji et al.

2010) show that FRP materials can be used to effectively increase the load carrying

capacity of columns under axial loading. Research conducted on the effect of FRP

strengthening of columns axially loaded is shown in Table 1.6.

13
Table 1.6 Summary of Research on Axially Loaded Columns
Author Test Retrofit % Increase in Failure Mode
Load
Toutanji et al. 2010 K9 CFRP 14.89% FRP fracture
K10 CFRP 8.51% FRP fracture
K11 CFRP 6.38% FRP fracture
Wu et al. 2009 L-C-1 AFRP 68.55% FRP fracture
L-C-2 AFRP 176.74% FRP fracture
L-D-1 AFRP 2.02% FRP fracture
L-D-2 AFRP 30.54% FRP fracture
L-D-3 AFRP 61.21% FRP fracture
M-C-1 AFRP 50.74% FRP fracture
M-C-2 AFRP 112.80% FRP fracture
M-C-3 AFRP 136.66% FRP fracture
M-D-1 AFRP 6.76% FRP fracture
M-D-2 AFRP 19.55% FRP fracture
M-D-3 AFRP 29.44% FRP fracture
H-C-1 AFRP 21.83% FRP fracture
H-C-2 AFRP 52.15% FRP fracture
H-C-3 AFRP 102.12% FRP fracture
H-D-1 AFRP -0.18% FRP fracture
H-D-2 AFRP 14.78% FRP fracture
H-D-3 AFRP 9.98% FRP fracture
Matthys et al. 2006 K2 CFRP 59.23% FRP fracture
K3 CFRP 59.87% FRP fracture
K4 GFRP 61.79% FRP fracture
K5 GFRP 13.66% FRP fracture
K8 CFRP/GFRP 32.98% FRP fracture

1.3.2 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Eccentric Axial Load

In field applications, most columns are not under perfect concentric loading. This

produces a nonuniform confining stress due to the strain gradient which in turn reduces

the effectiveness of the column (Parvin and Wang 2001). Traditional methods for the

upgrade of eccentrically loaded columns include reinforced concrete and grout injected

into a steel jacketing system. These methods are successful in increasing the structural

capacity of the column but are labor intensive, difficult to implement on site, and

significantly increases the cross-section of the column. FRP retrofitting has none of the

previous mentioned problems. Recently, research has been conducted on the eccentric

axial loaded column retrofitted with FRP sheets. Parvin and Wang 2001 studied the

14
effects of the jacket thickness and various eccentricities on the effectiveness of CFRP

retrofitted columns. Maaddawy 2009 examined the eccentricity to section height ratio on

the confinement of axially loaded columns. Yi et al. 2006 conducted experiments on FRP

retrofitted columns with various fiber orientations. Li and Hadi 2003 and Hadi 2006

evaluated the effectiveness of CFRP and GFRP sheets on high strength concrete and

normal strength concrete, respectively. Hadi 2007 compared the effectiveness of CFRP

and GFRP retrofitted columns to steel jacketed columns. Results of research conducted

on eccentrically axially loaded columns are shown in Table 1.7.

Table 1.7 Summary of Research on Eccentric Axially Loaded Columns

Author Test Retrofit Eccentricity % increase in load
Hadi 2007 G0 GFRP 50 mm 11.94%
G1 GFRP 50 mm 38.82%
G3 GFRP 50 mm 57.84%
C0 CFRP 50 mm 55.11%
C1 CFRP 50 mm 109.42%
C3 CFRP 50 mm 124.64%
Hadi 2006 C2 CFRP 42.5 mm 7.35%
C3* CFRP 42.5 mm 4.99%
C4* CFRP 42.5 mm -1.84%
C6* CFRP 42.5 mm 22.57%
Parvin and Wang 2001 C11* CFRP 7.6 mm 44.40%
C21* CFRP 7.6 mm 79.02%
C12* CFRP 15.20 mm 47.87%
C22* CFRP 15.20 mm 80.98%
Maaddawy 2009 FW-e1 CFRP 37.5 mm 37.21%
FW-e2 CFRP 54 mm 24.24%
FW-e3 CFRP 71 mm 8.28%
FW-e4 CFRP 107.5 mm 3.26%
PW-e1 CFRP 37.5 mm 27.91%
PW-e2 CFRP 54 mm 21.21%
PW-e3 CFRP 71 mm 3.45%
PW-e4 CFRP 107.5 mm 1.09%
Yi et al. 2006 C10L-1 CFRP 175 mm 5.00%
C01L-1 CFRP 175 mm 6.70%
C01S-1 CFRP 35 mm 7.70%
C02S-1 CFRP 35 mm 13.30%
C10L-3 CFRP 175 mm 13.40%
C01L-3 CFRP 175 mm 4.60%
C20L-3 CFRP 175 mm 22.00%
C11L-3 CFRP 175 mm 21.00%

15
1.3.3 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Impact Loads

Vehicles often strike columns or piers despite the measures put in place such as

guardrails and barriers. Such impacts can lead to concrete spalling or cracking,

reinforcement damage or exposure, girder misalignment, connection failure or in worst

cases structure failure (Boyd et al. 2008). FRP retrofit can offer a quick and economical

repair as compared to traditional methods. There are limited studies looking into the

retrofit of columns for impact loads. Li et al. 2005 investigated the effects of altering the

compressive strength of the concrete of RC columns when subjecting it to four-point

bending and showed that increasing the compressive strength allowed for a larger

transverse load and deflection.

1.3.4 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Seismic Loads

Reinforced concrete structures built before the modern day design codes may have

been insufficiently designed to survive a severe earthquake. Numerous studies involve

the FRP retrofit of reinforced concrete columns for seismic loads. Gu et al. 2010

investigated the effects of the amount of FRP reinforcement length on the plastic hinge

region and the drift capacity of FRP retrofitted columns. Lacobucci et al. 2003 examined

the increase in ductility and energy dissipation capacities of FRP-retrofitted reinforced

concrete columns. Wu et al. 2008 studied a new method of retrofitting square or

rectangular reinforced concrete columns by embedding reinforcement bars into the plastic

hinge zone to increase the ductility of the concrete in this region.

16
1.3.5 Strengthening of Columns Subjected to Corrosion

Reinforced concrete columns are susceptible to corrosion from marine environments,

fire, and deicing agents. FRP retrofitting of a reinforced concrete column involves

jacketing the column with the FRP material and filling the voids between the jacket and

the concrete surface with conventional or expansive grout (Pantazopoulou et al. 2001). In

their study the different types of diffusion barriers to protect GFRP retrofitted columns

were investigated. (Tastani and Pantazopoulou 2004) examined the jacket characteristics

and the repair method. (Bae and Belarbi 2009) studied the effectiveness of CFRP sheet in

protecting the RC columns from corrosion of the steel reinforcement. The research has

shown that FRP retrofit was a practical alternative to conventional methods due to its

superior performance in enhancing the strength and ductility of RC columns.

Performance was markedly improved by increasing the number of FRP layers and by

providing sufficient anchorage for each layer (Pantazopoulou et al. 2001) (Tastani and

Pantazopoulou 2004). FRP are very efficient as repair materials which can also decrease

the rate of corrosion (Tastani and Pantazopoulou 2004) (Bae and Belarbi 2009).

1.3.6 Field Application Projects Related to FRP Repaired Columns

Recent field application projects for the strengthening of columns with FRP are

shown in tables 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9. The types of repairs include: corrosion, confinement,

axial, flexural, shear, and seismic strengthening. California is one of the most popular

places to use FRP reinforcement due to the need for seismic strengthening. Seismic and

axial FRP strengthening of columns are very common.

17
Table 1.8 Summary of Field Application Projects - Columns Retrofitted for Axial
Loads or Confinement
Agency Structure Date Location Type of Repair Material
Quakewrap Port Clinton Garage 2009 Port Clinton, OH Axial GFRP
Fyfe Co. LLC Corona Del Mar 2009 Orange Co. CA Confinement GFRP
D.S. BROWN Medford Fire Station 2007 Medford, OR Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN Los Gatos Creek Bridge 2007 Santa Clara, CA Axial CFRP
Quakewrap Cabana Hotel 2007 Miami Beach, FL Axial CFRP
Quakewrap Rocky Mountain Hardware 2007 Hailey, ID Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN House Seismic 2005 Puako, HI Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN Childrens Hospital 2005 Seattle, WA Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN PNC Bank 2004 Lexington, KY Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN I-10 Overcrossing 2003 Los Angeles, CA Axial CFRP
Quakewrap Plaza In Clayton 2003 St. Louis, MO Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN Dolphin Condos 2002 Malibu, CA Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN First Union Bldg 2002 Charlotte, NC Axial CFRP
D.S. BROWN Precast Concrete Plant 2001 Boise, ID Axial CFRP
FHWA 2007 US 64 WB over Haw River 2000 North Carolina Confinement GFRP
FHWA 2007 Androscoggin River Bridge 1999 Mexico, Maine Confinement FRP
FHWA 2007 East Street Viaduct over WV Alt 14A 1999 West Virginia Confinement CFRP
FHWA 2007 I-96 over US 27 1999 Lansing, MI Confinement CFRP/GFRP
FHWA 2007 I-80 at State Street 1999 Utah Confinement FRP
Quakewrap Phoenician Resort 1999 Scottsdale, AZ Confinement CFRP
Fyfe Co. LLC Harris Hospital Parking Garage 1994 Fort Worth, TX Axial GFRP

Table 1.9 Summary of Field Application Projects - Columns Retrofitted for

Corrosion
Agency Structure Date Location Material
Fyfe Co. LLC Chula Vista Bayside Park Pier 2009 San Diego, CA CFRP/GFRP
Quakewrap Bay View Bridge 2007 Ft. Lauderdale, FL CFRP
Quakewrap I-90 Bridge at Cline Ave. 2006 Gary, IN GFRP
Quakewrap I-94 Bridge at S.R. 49 2006 Chesterton, IN GFRP
D.S. BROWN I-95 / I-273 Interchange 2005 Wilmington, DE CFRP
D.S. BROWN I-33 / I-270 Interchange 2005 Columbus, OH CFRP
Quakewrap Tucson Main Library 2005 Tucson, AZ GFRP
D.S. BROWN Bahia Honda Bridge 2003 Florida Keys CFRP
Fyfe Co. LLC Miramar Water Treatment Plant Clear well 2 2003 San Diego, CA FRP
Fyfe Co. LLC Malibu Residence 2001 Malibu, CA FRP
Quakewrap I-40 Bridge 1997 Oklahoma City, OK GFRP

18
Table 1.10 Summary of Field Application Projects – Columns Retrofitted
for Seismic Loads
Agency Structure Date Location Material
D.S. BROWN Day’s Inn 2008 Portland, OR CFRP
Quakewrap Ted Stevens International Airport 2008 Anchorage, AK CFRP
FYFE Co. LLC Pasadena City Hall 2007 Pasadena, Ca FRP
FYFE Co. LLC 2025 South Figueroa 2007 Los Angeles, CA GFRP
D.S. BROWN Vista House 2005 Portland, OR GFRP
Quakewrap McKinley Tower 2005 Anchorage, AK CFRP & GFRP
D.S. BROWN Mountainview Overcrossing 2004 Reno, NV CFRP
D.S. BROWN Mogul East & Mogul West 2004 Mogul, NV CFRP
D.S. BROWN Glendale Parking 2002 Glendale, CA CFRP
FYFE Co. LLC Sobrante WTP Clearwell Roof 2002 El Sobrante, Ca GFRP
FYFE Co. LLC L.A. Sports Arena 2002 Los Angeles, CA GFRP
D.S. BROWN Richmond Police HQ 2001 Richmond, CA CFRP
FYFE Co. LLC Big Tujunga Canyon Bridge 2001 Los Angeles, CA FRP
FYFE Co. LLC Arroyo Quemado Bridge 1999 Santa Barbara, CA FRP
FYFE Co. LLC Centinela Hospital 1999 Inglewood, CA GFRP

1.4 Summary

This chapter has provided a review of recent experimental research and field

application projects on the FRP retrofit of reinforced concrete structures. The existing

studies have shown that the use of FRP materials restore or improves the member original

design strength and in some cases allows the structure to carry an increased load that it

was not designed for. With more field application projects, FRP will continue to grow in

popularity as a retrofit material. FRP materials have become increasingly popular for the

repair and retrofit of reinforced concrete structures as opposed to other traditional

methods due to its superior material properties; lightweight, resistant to corrosion, and

ease of application which results in shortening the construction time.

From the review of the literature, it was also concluded that limited studies have been

performed on the FRP retrofit of concrete members subjected to impact loadings. With

further investigations, life cycle costs will outweigh the higher upfront cost of FRP

19
retrofit over conventional retrofit techniques. The work in this chapter was funded by US

DOT through UT-UTC phase I and is part of the report to the agency.

The present study uses finite element analysis software, ANSYS on Ohio Super

Computer to investigate the effects of CFRP strengthening of RC members subjected to

impact loading. In particular, a prestressed reinforced concrete beam from an existing

study was used for modeling and simulation (Di Ludovico et al. 2010). Chapter 1

involves the review of literature on FRP strengthening of RC members. Chapter 2

discusses the developed finite element models of the control, intentionally damaged, and

FRP retrofitted reinforced concrete beam. Chapter 3 includes the summary, conclusion,

and proposed future research.

20
Chapter 2

Finite Element Analysis

A Finite Element Model (FEM) of a prestressed reinforced concrete I-shaped

girder tested experimentally by Di Ludovico et al. 2010 and reported on in the journal

article “FRP STRENGTHENING OF FULL SCALE PC GIRDERS” has been created.

The article appeared in the Journal of Composites for Construction September/October

2009 edition. The FEM is name UnDamaged Not Retrofitted (UDNR) and will be

validated by comparing it to the experimental results recorded for girder S1 conducted by

Di Ludovico et al. 2010. After validation, the FEM will undergo simulated impact

damage and will thus be called Damaged Not Retrofitted (DNR). The FEM will then be

retrofitted with CFRP to regain the original design strength. This model will be name

Damaged and Retrofitted (DR).

2.1 Description of Experimental Study

Five full scale prestressed reinforced concrete I-shaped girders with reinforced

concrete slabs were tested. The I-shaped girders (13000 mm long and 800 mm high) were

designed according to ANAS specifications. The girders had a rectangular cross section

of 570 mm x 800 mm for a length 1000 mm close to the supports to provide additional

21
shear reinforcement. The girders had 12 low-relaxation, seven wire, 12.5 mm diameter

steel strands and six mild steel bars with 18 mm diameter in both the top and the bottom

of the girder for longitudinal reinforcement. The stirrups consisted of 12 mm diameter

bars spaced at 100 mm were used for shear reinforcement. The girders had a concrete

deck with dimensions of 250 mm x 1200 mm with six 12 mm diameter mild steel bars

and 12 mm diameter stirrups spaced at 100 mm for shear reinforcement. The girders and

the decks were designed for flexural failure.

Girder S1 was the control beam and was not damaged or retrofitted. Girders S2 and

S3 were intentionally predamaged, to simulate an overheight vehicle collisions and

tested. Girders S4 and S5 were intentionally predamaged and retrofitted with CFRP

laminates. Girders S2, S3, S4, and S5 were intentionally damaged at midspan by

removing the concrete cover for a total length of 250 mm. Girders S2 and S4 had strands

Nos. 1 and 2 cut. Girders S3 and S5 had strands Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 9 cut. The damaged

areas were then patched with a cementitious mortar. The damage was limited to one side

of the girder to simulate a vehicular collision. Girders S2 and S3 were tested without any

CFRP retrofit. Girders S4 and S5 were strengthened with CFRP laminates. The laminates

were applied by means of manual wet layup according to American Concrete Institute

(ACI) provisions 440.2R-08.

Tests were conducted to determine the material properties of the girder and deck

concrete, cementitious mortar, and mild and prestressing steel. Cubic compressive

strength tests were conducted to determine the average compressive strength for the

girder and deck concrete of 50.3 MPa and 28.9 MPa respectively. The average

compressive strength of the cementitious mortar was 49.8 MPa. The mild and

22
prestressing steel, carbon fibers, and epoxy resin were tested and their mechanical

properties are listed in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Material Properties of Steel

Yield stress Tensile strength Ultimate strain Modulus of elasticity
(Mpa) (Mpa) (Gpa)
Prestressing steel 1,800 1,900 0.035 210
Girder mild steel 585 680 0.15 210
Deck mild steel 587 683 0.06 210
Epoxy resin --- 40 0.018 3
Carbon fibers --- 4,830 0.014 230

Testing was conducted in a four-point bending configuration. The distance between

the supports was 12,000 mm. Two hydraulic jacks were used to apply the load 5,400 mm

from each support. Stringer-type LVDTs were placed at the girder midspan and loading

points’ locations. LVDTs were placed at the supporting locations and 700 mm from the

support to record rotation about the specimen ends. LVDTs were also placed along the

midspan cross section to record the compressive and tensile strains (two on each side at

the top and bottom girder bulbs). 10 strain gauges were placed on the strands prior to

pouring the concrete and on the CFRP laminates (two at midspan cross section, six at a

distance of 300 mm from midspan, and two at 500 mm from midspan). Two strain gauges

were placed on the concrete slab at the midspan cross section. The test setup and a cross-

sectional view of the beam can be seen in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. The experimental

results are summarized in Table 2.2.

23
Table 2.2 Experimental Results
Beams S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Cracking load, (kN) 362 322 268 329 291
Yielding load, (kN) 963 780 750 893 856
Maximum load, (kN) 1152 907 835 1059 1030
Cracking moment, (kN*m) 1209 1101 956 1120 1018
Yielding moment, (kN*m) 2832 2338 2257 2643 2543
Maximum moment, (kN*m) 3342 2681 2487 3091 3013
Deflection at cracking load, (mm) 7.1 7 6.9 7.6 7.9
Deflection at yielding load, (mm) 73.7 54.8 65.6 62.2 59
Deflection at maximum load, (mm) 216.2 131.5 133 117.2 119.7
Deflection at failure load, (mm) 312.3 281.4 264 134.7 119.7

Figure 2-1 Test Setup

24
Figure 2-2 Cross-Sectional View of Girder

2.2 Finite Element Modeling

The models were created using ANSYS. The process of opening the ANSYS

program through Ohio Super Computers can be seen in Appendix A. The concrete was

drawn via means of a block by dimensions and the corresponding dimensions were

entered. The concrete was modeled using Solid65 element and the material properties

were entered. This element was chosen because it has eight nodes with three degrees of

freedom at each node (translation in the x, y, and z direction). Solid65 is capable of

plastic deformation, cracking in three orthogonal directions, and crushing (ANSYS). A

smeared cracking approach was used in the modeling of the concrete. The FEM of the

concrete can be seen in figure 2-3 and 2-4.

25
Figure 2-3 3-D View of the FEM of the Concrete

26
Figure 2-4 Cross-Sectional View of the FEM of the Concrete

The steel reinforcement was drawn with a line and then assigned a Link180

element and its material properties. A Link180 element was used to model the steel

reinforcement. Link180 is a 3D spar element with two nodes with three degrees of

freedom at each node (translation in the x, y, and z direction). The element is capable of

plastic deformation, initial strain, can simulate elastic or perfectly plastic material, and is

identical in compression and tension (ANSYS). A perfect bond was assumed between the

concrete and steel reinforcement. This differs from the actual beams behavior where the

composite action between the steel and concrete is lost. The two materials shared the

same nodes and the same approach was used for the FRP composite. A cross sectional

and side view of the shear steel reinforcement can be seen in figures 2-5 and 2-6

27
respectively. The flexural steel reinforcement can be seen in Figure 2-7. The prestressed

steel strands used to show the damage are shown in Figure 2-8.

Figure 2-5 Cross-Sectional View of the Shear Steel Reinforcement

28
Figure 2-6 Side View of the Shear Steel Reinforcement

29
Figure 2-7 3-D View of the Flexural Steel Reinforcement

30
Figure 2-8 Damaged Prestressed Steel Strands

The steel plates used at the support and loading locations in the model to avoid

stress concentrations were drawn with a block by dimensions. A Solid45 element was

used and the appropriate material properties were defined. Solid45 has eight nodes with

three degrees of freedom at each node (translation in the x, y, and z direction). The

element is capable of plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiffening, large deflection, and

large strain capabilities (ANSYS). The steel plates at the loading location and at the

support can be seen in figures 2-9 and 2-10 respectively.

31
Figure 2-9 FEM of the Steel Plates at the Loading Locations

32
Figure 2-10 FEM of the Steel Plate at a Support

The CFRP was drawn using an area. A Shell 41 layered element was used to

model the FRP Composite. Shell41 is a 3-D element having membrane stiffness but no

bending stiffness, allows variable thickness, stress stiffening, large deflection, and has

three degrees of freedom at each node (translation in the x, y, and z direction) (ANSYS).

The CFRP was modeled with the assumption of a perfect bond between the CFRP and

concrete. This would be hard to achieve with experimental results unless excessive

mechanical fasteners were used to adhere the CFRP to the concrete. A cross sectional

view of the CFRP can be seen in Figure 2-11.

The entire FEM can be seen in figures 2-12, 2-13, and 2-14. Figure 2-12 shows

the FEM with loads and constraints in a 3-D view. Figure 2-13 shows a side view of the

33
FEM with loads and constraints. Figure 2-14 shows a 3-D view of the FEM displayed

with lines. Figure 2-15 shows a cross-sectional view of the beam. The dimensions were

slightly altered from the experimental study in order to obtain whole elements with a

mesh spacing of 50 mm. The placement of the prestressed steel strands and mild steel bar

were assumed with dimensions in increments of 50 mm.

Figure 2-11 Cross-Sectional View of CFRP

34
Figure 2-12 3-D View of the FEM with Loads and Constraints

35
Figure 2-13 Side View of the FEM with Loads and Constraints

36
Figure 2-14 3-D View of FEM Displayed with Lines

37
Figure 2-15 Cross-Sectional View of Model

2.3 Validation of the FEM of UDNR

Validation of the FEM occurred by comparing the deflections of girder S1 to the

FEM of UDNR at the cracking load, yielding load, and ultimate load. The FEM of

UDNR had a deflection of 8.8662 mm at the cracking load of 362 kN, 86.2234 mm at the

38
yielding load of 963 kN and 236.5922 mm at the ultimate load of 1152 kN. These values

were calculated by a straight line interpolation between two data points. The FEM of

UDNR had a 24.88%, 16.99% and 9.43% difference from the experimental results

recorded on girder S1. The deflection at the Yielding and Ultimate Load represent the

experimental deflections better than the Cracking Load due to the ability of ANSYS

being able to model steel more accurately than concrete. The data shows good agreement

in the behavior at critical points between the finite element analysis and the experimental

results. Table 2.3 shows a summarized version of the validation.

The ANSYS program records cracking and crushing at each applied load step.

Figure 2-16 shows the progression of cracks and crushing in the FEM of UDNR as the

load was increased. Every other load step is displayed in Figure 2-15 in order to better

display the progression of cracking and crushing. A circle outline in the plane of the

crack represents cracking. An octahedron outline represents crushing. If a crack has

opened and then closed, the circle outline will have an X through it. Each integration

point can crack in up to three different planes. The first, second, and third crack at an

integration point is shown with a red circle outline, green circle outline, and blue circle

outline, respectively (ANSYS). It should be noted that even micro cracks and crushing

are displayed and that it is not necessarily a progression of flexural or shear cracks.

Table 2.3 Validation of the FEM of UDNR

Deflection of Girder Deflection of FEM
Experimental Load of S1 S1 UDNR Percent Difference
Cracking Load (362 kN) 7.1 mm 8.9 mm 24.9%
Yielding Load (963 kN) 73.7 mm 86.2 mm 17.0%
Ultimate Load (1152kN) 216.2 mm 236.6 mm 9.4%

39
2.4 Results for the FEM of DNR and DR

For the FEM of DNR, two prestressed steel strand and one mild steel bar was

removed from one side of the beam. They were replaced with four prestressed steel

strands and two mild steel bars extending 6131 mm from each end of the beam. That

length was determined by assuming 250 mm of damage about the center of the beam and

then accounting for half of the development length of the prestressing strands. The

development length was determined as 39 times the diameter of the bar or 369 mm

(Kassan et al.). The grout used to patch the damaged area of concrete, was assumed to

have the same material properties as the concrete used in the girder. A perfect bond

between the grout and concrete was assumed for ease of analysis.

The FEM of DNR yielded deflections of 10.6743 mm, 98.4417 mm, and 261.77

mm for the cracking load, yielding load, and ultimate load, respectively. There was a

20.39%, 14.17%, and 10.64% difference as compared to the FEM of UDNR for the

cracking load, yielding load, and ultimate load respectively. The data represents typical

behavior of a beam that has been damaged. The progression of cracking and crushing in

the FEM of DNR can be seen in Figure 2-17. The progression of cracking and crushing

shows an increase in the amount of flexural cracks and a decrease in second and third

cracks at integration points. This is due to the increased flexural failure.

For the FEM of DR, the CFRP was modeled using the material properties of Tyfo

SCH-41S-1 Composite (FYFE Co.). A perfect bond was assumed due to the high strength

epoxy and the assumption of mechanical fasteners being used. Three layers of CFRP

were applied to the bottom of the girder over the entire length. The orientations of the

40
principle fibers were parallel to the longitudinal reinforcement. The CFRP had a modulus

of elasticity, tensile strength, ultimate elongation, and thickness of 230 GPa, 3.79 GPa,

1.7%, and 1 mm respectively.

The FEM of DR yielded deflections of 7.4662 mm, 83.745 mm, and 214.3876

mm for the cracking load, yielding load, and ultimate load of girder S1, respectively.

There was a 30.05%, 14.93%, and 18.10% increase as compared to the FEM of DNR for

the cracking load, yielding load, and ultimate load respectively. Compared to the FEM of

UDNR a 15.79%, 2.87%, and 9.39% decrease in deflection was recorded for the FEM of

DR for the cracking load, yielding load, and ultimate load of girder S1, respectively. The

CFRP effectively increased the load carrying capacity beyond the original design strength

of the girder. The progression of cracking and crushing in the FEM of DR can be seen in

Figure 2-18. The crack progression shows a reduction in the height of the flexural cracks

and the area of concrete subjected to flexural cracks. A summary of all the FEM results

can be seen in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Summary of FEM Results

Deflections (mm) % Difference Between
UDNR & DNR & UDNR &
Load Levels UDNR DNR DR DNR DR DR
362 kN 8.9 mm 10.7 mm 7.5 mm 20.4% 30.1% 15.8%
963 kN 86.2 mm 98.4 mm 83.7 mm 14.2% 14.9% 2.9%
1152 kN 236.6 mm 261.8 mm 214.4 mm 10.6% 18.1% 9.4%

41
42
Figure 2-16 Progression of Cracking and Crushing in the FEM of UDNR

Figure 2-17 Progression of Cracking and Crushing in the FEM of DNR

43
Figure 2-18 Progression of Cracking and Crushing in the FEM of DR

44
Chapter 3

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for

Future Research

3.1 Summary

This paper presented finite element analysis of three full-scale prestressed concrete

girders, one undamaged, one intentionally damaged and one damaged and strengthened

with externally bonded CFRP laminates. The FEM of UDNR, the model based on Di

Ludovico et al. 2010 was validated based on comparison to girder S1. The model was

intentionally damaged to simulate impact damage and then was retrofitted with CFRP.

The FEM of DNR, the model that was damaged, showed behavior that is typical for a

damaged girder. The FRP retrofit improved the damage PC girder’s design strength back

to its original design strength. The FEA proved that a damaged PC girder can be

affectively retrofitted to it original design strength or more as shown in the FEM of DR.

3.2 Conclusions

45
 The finite element analysis was used to evaluate the affects of CFRP on a

damaged prestressed reinforced concrete girder in a simpler, cheaper, and effective way

compared with full scale experimental tests. The general behavior of the finite element

model showed good agreement with data from an experimental full-scale girder test. The

addition of CFRP reinforcement to the damaged girder showed a decrease in the amount

of deflection at various loads. The results obtained from the finite element analysis

demonstrate that CFRP can be used as an affective retrofit technique.

3.3 Recommendations for Future Research

The lack of investigation into the retrofit of reinforced concrete bridge girders

impacted by overheight vehicles has impeded its viability to be used as an effective

retrofit technique. More full scale experimental and analytical tests need to be conducted

on RC bridge girders with actual or simulated damage caused by overheight vehicles. The

increase in experimental results will allow more researchers to use their results to validate

their finite element model and allow those researchers to investigate topics without full

scale experimental tests.

Further investigation is needed into the effects of using FRP over the entire length

of the beam as compared to effects of using FRP at just the damaged area. Wrapping

schemes and orientation of the principle fibers can be investigated to determine their

effects on the retrofit of a beam.

46
REFERENCES

Ahmed, E. A., El-Salakawy, E.F., and Benmokrane, B.. "Shear Performance of RC

Bridge Girders Reinforced with Carbon FRP Stirrups." Journal of Bridge Engineering
15.1 (2010): 44-54. ASCE.

ANSYS. Vers. 13.0. ANSYS Inc., 2010. Program documentation.

Bae, S.W., and Belarbi, A.. "Effects of Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement on RC

Columns." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 23.1 (2009): 20-31.

Bakis, C. E., Bank, L. C., Brown, V. L., Cosenza, E., Davalos, J. F., Lesko, J. J.,
Machida, A., Rizkalla, S. H., and Triantafillou, T. C.. "Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites for Construction State-of-the-Art Review." Journal of Composites for
Construction 6.2 (2002): 73-87. ASCE.

Bianco, V., J. Barros, A. O., and Monti, G.. "Bond Model of NSM-FRP Strips in the
Context of the Shear Strengthening of RC Beams." Journal of Structural Engineering
135.6 (2009): 619-31.

Bousselham, A., and Chaallal, O.. "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete T-Beams

Strengthened in Shear with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-An Experimental Study."
ACI Structural Journal 103.3 (2006): 339-47.

Boyd, A. J., Liang, N.F., Green, P. S., and Lammert, K.. "Sprayed FRP Repair of
Simulated Impact in Prestressed Concrete Girders." Construction and Building Materials
22.3 (2008): 411-16.

Demers, M., Labossiere, P., and Mercier, C.. "Glass FRP Jacketing of Prestressed
Concrete Beams." University of Sherbrook. (2006). Web. 11 May
2010.<http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20097711/GLASS-FRP-JACKETING-OF-
PRESTRESSED-CONCRETE-BEAMS/>.

Di Ludovico, M., Prota, A., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E.. "FRP Strengthening of Full
Scale PC Girders." Journal of Composites for Construction 14.5 (2010): 510-20.

47
D.S. BROWN. "50 FRP REFERENCE PROJECTS." The D.S. Brown Company. Web.
19 May 2010. <http://www.dsbrown.com>.

El-Hacha, R., Wight, R. G., and Green, M. F.. "Prestressed Fibre-reinforced Polymer
Laminates for Strengthening Structures." Progress in Structural Engineering and
Materials 3.2 (2001): 111-21.

El Maaddawy, T. "Strengthening of Eccentrically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Columns

with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Wrapping System: Experimental Investigation and
Analytical Modeling." Journal of Composites for Construction 13.1 (2009): 13-24.

FDOT. Florida Department of Transportation. Rep. no. BC354-55. Web. 20 May2010.

<http://www.dot.state.fl.us/researchcenter/Completed_Proj/Summary_STR/FDOT_BC35
4_55_1.pdf>.

FHWA. Federal Highway Administration. Bridge Technology. Federal Highway

Administration: Home. U.S. Department of Transportation, 22 Mar. 2007. Web. 12 July
2010. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/ibrc/resourcm.cfm>.

Fyfe Co. LLC. "Beams / Projects by Type of Element | Fyfe Co. LLC." Tyfo Fibrwrap
Systems / The Fibrwrap Company. Web. 12 July 2010.
<http://www.fyfeco.com/projects/by-type-of-element/beams.aspx>.

Gu, D.S., Wu, G., Wu, Z.S., and Wu,Y.F.. "Confinement Effectiveness of FRP in
Retrofitting Circular Concrete Columns under Simulated Seismic Load." Journal of
Composites for Construction 14.5 (2010): 531-40.

Hadi, M.N.S. "Behaviour of FRP Strengthened Concrete Columns under Eccentric

Compression Loading." Composite Structures 77 (2007): 92-96.

Hadi, M.N.S. "Behaviour of FRP Wrapped Normal Strength Concrete Columns under
Eccentric Loading." Composite Structures 72 (2006): 503-11.

Hassan, T., and Rizkalla, S.. "Investigation of Bond in Concrete Structures Strengthened
with Near Surface Mounted Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Strips." Journal of
Composites for Construction 7.3 (2003): 248-57.

Ibrahim, A. M., and Mahmood, M. S.. "Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Strengthened with FRP Laminates." European Journal of Scientific Research 30.4
(2009): 526-41. EuroJournals. Web. Mar. 2010.

Kassan, J., and Harries, K. A.. "Redevelopment of Prestressing Force in Severed

Prestressed Strands." Journal of Bridge Engineering.

Kim, Y. J., Bizindavyi, L., Wight, R. G., and Green, M. F. _2005_. “Anchoring
Techniques for Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Beams with Prestressed CFRP

48
Sheets.” 3rd Int. Conf. on Construction Materials (ConMat05) _CD-ROM_, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada (2005).

Kim, Y. J., Green, M. F., and Fallis, G. J.. "Repair of Bridge Girder Damaged by Impact
Loads with Prestressed CFRP Sheets." Journal of Bridge Engineering 13.1 (2008): 15-
23. ASCE.

Lacobucci, R. D., Sheikh, S. A., and Bayrak, O.. "Retrofit of Square Concrete Columns
with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer for Seismic Resistance." ACI Structural Journal
100.6 (2003): 785-94.

Lee, H. K., and Hausmann, L. R.. "Structural Repair and Strengthening of Damaged RC
Beams with Sprayed FRP." Composite Structures 63 (2004): 201-09.

Li, G., Torres, S., Alaywan, W., and Abadie, C.. "Experimental Study of FRP Tube-
encased Concrete Columns." Journal of Composite Materials 39.13 (2005): 1131-145.

Li, J., and Hadi, M.N.S. "Behaviour of Externally Confined High-strength Concrete
Columns under Eccentric Loading." Composite Structures 62 (2003): 145-53.

Matthys, S., Toutanji, H., and Taerwe, L.. "Stress–Strain Behavior of Large-Scale
Circular Columns Confined with FRP Composites." Journal of Structural Engineering
132.1 (2006): 123-33.

Mayo, R., Nanni, A., Gold, W. and Barker, M., "Strengthening of Bridge G270 with
Externally-Bonded CFRP Reinforcement,” SP-188, American Concrete Institute, Proc.,
4th International Symposium on FRP for Reinforcement of Concrete Structures
(FRPRCS4), Baltimore, MD, Nov. 1999, pp.429-440.

Meier, U. "Strengthening of Structures Using Carbon Fibre/epoxy Composites."

Construction and Building Materials 9.6 (1995): 341-51.

Mosallam, A. S., and Banerjee, S.. "Shear Enhancement of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Strengthened with FRP Composite Laminates." Composites Part B: Engineering 38.5-6
(2007): 781-93.

Nanni, A., DiLudovico, M., and Parretti, R.. "Shear Strengthening of a PC Bridge Girder
with NSM CFRP Rectangular Bars." Advances in Structural Engineering 7.4 (2004): 97-
109. Web. 13 May 2010.

Nordin, H., and Talisten, B.. "Concrete Beams Strengthened with Prestressed Near
Surface Mounted CFRP." Journal of Composites for Construction 10.1 (2006): 60-68.

Pantazopoulou, S. J., Bonacci, J. F., Sheikh, S., Thomas, M.D.A, and Hearn, N.. "Repair
of Corrosion-Damaged Columns With FRP Wraps." Journal of Composites for
Construction 5.1 (2001): 3-11.

49
Parvin, A., and Wang, W.. "Behavior of FRP Jacketed Concrete Columns Under
Eccentric Loading." Journal of Composites for Construction 5.3 (2001): 146-52.

Pellegrino, C., and Modena, C.. "Flexural Strengthening of Real-Scale RC and PRC
Beams with End-Anchored Pretensioned FRP Laminates." Structural Journal 106.3
(2009): 319-28.

Phares, B. M., Wipf, T. J., Klaiber, F. W., Abu-Hawash, A., and Si-Lee, Y.. Proc. of
2003 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa. Web. 20 May
2010.
<www.intrans.iastate.edu/pubs/midcon2003/pharesfrp.pdf>.

Quakewrap, "Beam and Column Strengthened with Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)."
Fiber Reinforced Polymer(FRP) from QuakeWrap™. Web. 19 May 2010.
http://quakewrap.com/sample_projects.php

Parvin, A., and Brighton, D.. “Repair of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Beams with
Composites”. Proc. of First Middle East Conference on Smart Monitoring, Assessment
and Rehabilitation of Civil Structures, Dubai, UAE. Feb. 2011.

Stallings, J. M., Tedesco, J. W., El-Mihilmy, M., and McCauley, M.. "Field Performance
of FRP Bridge Repairs." Journal of Bridge Engineering 5.2 (2000): 107-13. ASCE.

Tang, T., and Saadatmanesh, H.. "Analytical and Experimental Studies of Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer-Strengthened Concrete Beams Under Impact Loading." ACI
Structural Journal 102.1 (2005): 139-49.

Tastani, S.P., and Pantazopoulou, S.J.. "Experimental Evaluation of FRP Jackets in

Upgrading." Engineering Structures 26 (2004): 817-29.

Teng, J. G., Lorenzis, L. De, Wang, B., Li, R., Wong, T. N., and Lam, L.. "Debonding
Failures of RC Beams Strengthened with Near Surface Mounted CFRP Strips." Journal of
Composites for Construction 10.2 (2006): 92-105.

Toutanji, H., Han, M., Gilbert, J., and Matthys, S.. "Behavior of Large-Scale Rectangular
Columns Confined with FRP Composites." Journal of Composites for Construction 14.1
(2010): 62-71.

"Tyfo SCH-41S-1 Composite." FYFECo.com. FYFECo. LLC, Dec. 2010. Web. 24 Apr.
2011.

United States. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration.

Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration, 14 Dec. 2009. Web. 11
May 2010. <www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2008cpr/es.htm#c3a>.

50
Wight, R. G., Green, M. F., and Erki, M-A. "Prestressed FRP Sheets For
Poststrengthening Reinforced Concrete Beams." Journal of Composites for Construction
5.4 (2001): 214-20.

Wu, H.L., Wang, Y.F., Yu, L., and Li, X.R.. "Experimental and Computational Studies
on High-Strength Concrete Circular Columns Confined by Aramid Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Sheets." Journal of Composites for Construction Journal of Composites for
Construction 13.2 (2009): 125-134.

Wu, Y.F., Liu, T., and Wang, L.. "Experimental Investigation on Seismic Retrofitting of
Square RC Columns by Carbon FRP Sheet Confinement Combined with Transverse
Short Glass FRP Bars in Bored Holes." Journal of Composites for Construction 12.1
(2008): 53-60.

Yi, W.J., Xian, Q.L., Ding, H.T., and Zhang, H.Y.. Experimental Study of RC Columns
Strengthened with CFRP Sheets Under Eccentric Compression. Proc. of International
Symposium on Confined Concrete, Changsha, China. Farmington Hills: American
Concrete Institute, 2006. 395-410.

Zhao, M., Dong, Y., Zhao, Y., Tennant, A., and Ansari, F.. "Monitoring of Bond in FRP
Retrofitted Concrete Structures." Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
18.8 (2007). SagePub. SAGE Publications, 19 Apr. 2007. Web. May 2010.

51
Appendix A

Download “Cygwin” and “Putty” these can be found on the internet free of charge.

Open the Cygwin program. A window should appear similar to the one below.

Open the Putty program. A window should appear similar to the one below.

52
Enter the Host Name (or IP Address) given to you from Ohio Super Computers and click
Open. A window should appear similar to the one shown below.

Enter your password and hit “Enter”.

Enter the following commands and hit “Enter” after each command.
“qsub –I –X –l walltime=1:00:00 –l software=ansys+1”
“module load ansys”
“ansys –g”

53
A window should appear similar to the one below.

Click on the open icon in the upper left hand corner of the window. Load the file of your
choosing from its destination or start a new program.

54
TO START A NEW PROGRAM

Creating Geometry

In order to create any object, you have to define all of the keypoints for that object.

To create a keypoint, click on the “In Active CS” shown highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Enter a keypoint number and the
x, y, and z coordinates associated with it and click “Apply”. Continue entering the
keypoint number, x, y, and z coordinates and click “Apply” for all keypoints.

55
To create a line, as used to model steel reinforcement, click on the “In Active Coord”
shown highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click in the black box and list the
two keypoints associated with the line separated by a comma as shown below and click
“Apply”. Do not use spaces before or after commas. Repeat this step for all lines.

56
To create an area, as used to model FRP, click on the “area fillet” as shown highlighted
below.

A window should appear similar to the one below. Click in the black box and list all
keypoints associated with the area as show below and click “Apply”. Do not uses spaces
before or after commas. Repeat this step for all areas.

57
To create a block volume, as used to model concrete, click on the “By Dimensions” as
shown below.

A window will appear similar to the one below. Enter the x, y, and z coordinates
associated with the block volume and click “Apply”. Repeat this step for all volumes.

58
After creating lines, you must define steel reinforcement by 3 parameters: element
types, real constants, and material props.Click on “Add/Edit/Delete” for “Element Type”
as shown highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on “Add…”

59
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Define the “Element Type” as
follow: click on “Link” and “3D finit stn 180” as shown highlighted below and click
“OK”.

Define “Real Constants” as follows: click on the “Add/Edit/Delete” for real constants, as
shown below.

60
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on “Add…”.

A window will appear similar to the one below. Select the “Element Type” you want to
associate the “Real Constants” with as shown highlighted below and click “OK”.

61
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Enter the cross-sectional area for
the steel reinforcement and click “OK”. Close the “Real Constant” window.

Define “Material Properties” as follow: click on “Material Models” under “Material

Props” as shown highlighted below.

62
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on isotropic as shown
highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one below. Enter the modulus of elasticity and
poisson ratio for the steel reinforcement and click “OK”.

63
After creating volumes, you must define concrete by 3 parameters: element types, real
constants, and material props. Click on “Add/Edit/Delete” for “Element Type” as shown
highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on “Add…”

64
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Define the “Element Type” as
follow: click on “Solid” and “concret 65” as shown highlighted below and click “OK”.
Close the “element type” window.

Define the “Real Constants” as follows: click on “Add/Edit/Delete” under “Real

Constants” as shown below.

65
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on “Add…”.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Select the “Solid65” and click
“OK”.

66
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Enter a “Crushed stiffness factor”
and click “OK”. Close the “Real Constants” window.

Define the “Material Properties” as follows: click on the “Material Models” under
“Material Props” as shown highlighted Below.

67
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on “Material” in the upper
left hand corner and select “New Model…”. Material Model Number 2 will appear in the
left hand side of the window. Select “Material Model Number 2”. Select “Concrete” as
shown highlighted in the right side of the window.

A window will appear as shown below asking you to enter the linear properties of the
concrete. Enter the modulus of elasticity and the poisson ratio and click “OK”.

68
A window will appear as shown below. Enter the material properties for the concrete and
click “OK”. Close the “Define Material Model Behavior” window.

After creating areas, you must define FRP by three parameters: Element Type, Real
Constants, and Material Properties. Define “Element Type” as follows: click on
“Add/Edit/Delete” for element type as shown highlighted below.

69
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on “Add…”.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Select “shell” and “Membrane
41” as shown highlighted below and click “OK”. Close the “Element Type” window.

70
Define “Real Constants” as follows: click on “Add/Edit/Delete” under “Real Constants”
as shown below.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Click on “Add…”.

71
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Select “Shell41” as shown
highlighted below and click “OK”.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Enter the shell thickness at node
I,J,K, and L and click “OK”. Close the “Real Constants” window.

72
Define the “Material Properties” as follows: click on “Material Models” as shown
highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one below. Click “Material” in the upper left hand
corner and select “New Model…”. Material Model Number 3 will appear in the left side
of the window. Select “Material Model Number 3”. Click “Isotropic” as shown in the
right side of the window.

73
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Enter the modulus of elasticity
and poisson ratio for the FRP and click “OK”. Close the “Define Material Model
Behavior” window.

To Mesh the model, you will have to mesh each material separately. The following steps
show how to mesh the steel reinforcement. The same steps can be repeated for the
remaining materials such as the concrete and FRP.

Click on the “Default Attribs” as shown highlighted below.

74
A window will appear similar to the one below. Select the “Element type number”,
“Material number” and “Real Constant set number” associated with the steel
reinforcement and click “OK”. For meshing the concrete and FRP, you will need to select
the “Element type number”, “Material number” and “Real Constant set number”
associated with the material.

Click on “Line” under Mesh as shown highlighted below. For meshing the concrete and
FRP, you will need to select “Volumes” and “Areas”, respectively.

75
A window will appear similar to the one below. List the Line numbers of the steel
reinforcement as shown below and click “OK”. For the concrete and FRP, you will need
to list the volume and area numbers, respectively.

To Apply a Load, click on “On keypoints” as shown highlighted below.

76
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. List all of the keypoints to which
the load will be applied to as shown below and click “OK”.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Enter the direction of the force
and the force/moment value and click “OK”. For a downward force, use “FY” with a
negative value. A diagram of the directions used in my model are shown below.

X
Z

77
To apply Boundary Conditions, click on “On keypoints” under displacement as shown
highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Enter the keypoints to which the
boundary constraint will be applied as shown below and click “OK”.

78
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. For this Thesis and these
Elements, clicking on “All DOF” will create a pinned connection. Click the DOFs to be
constrained and enter a displacement value, typically 0. Click “OK”. Repeat these steps
for all boundary constraints. You can select multiple DOFs. For a roller connection, click
on “UY” and “UZ” to constrain linear displacement in the Y and Z direction only.

To Run Analysis, click on “New Analysis” as shown highlighted below.

79
A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Select “Static” and click “OK”.

click on “Current LS” under Solve as shown highlighted below.

80
The following windows should appear. Click “OK” on the “Solve Current Load Step”
window.

Your model will begin to solve. After a successful run, a window will appear notifying
you that the solution is done.

To save your model and your solution, click on the save button shown below. Save the
file to the destination of your choosing.

81
ANSYS will solve the model at varying load steps. For each load step, the data is
recorded. To choose a load step, click on “By Pick” as shown highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one shown below. Select the load step of your
choosing and click “Read” and then “Close”. You can now obtain the deflection or
crack/crushing plot.

82
To obtain the deflection, click on “Deformed Shape” as shown highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one below. Select the type of plot you wish to view
and click “OK”.

83
To obtain a plot of the cracking and crushing locations, click on “Crack/Crush” as shown
highlighted below.

A window will appear similar to the one below. Click “OK”

84