This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# FRP REINFORCED CONCRETE AND ITS APPLICATION IN BRIDGE SLAB DESIGN

by

YUNYI ZOU

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dissertation Adviser: Dr. Arthur Huckelbridge Supported by Saada Family Fellowship

Department of Civil Engineering CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

January, 2005

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the dissertation of

**Yunyi Zou ______________________________________________________
**

candidate for the Ph.D. degree *.

(signed)_______________________________________________ (chair of the committee)

Arthur Huckelbridge

________________________________________________

Clare Rimnac

________________________________________________

Dario Gasparini

________________________________________________

Robert Mullen

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

(date) _______________________

Nov. 11, 2004

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.

Dedication

To my parents Zou JiShen and Chen XiuFang To my wife Yuping

Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1 3 10 11 12 Abstract 13 Chapter 1 Background and Introduction of the Problem 15 Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load 36 Motivation for the Testing Program Description of Testing Program Experimental Results Qualitative Discussion 36 37 43 55 Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth 78 Estimation of Crack Opening Estimation of Crack Growth Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack 78 83 1 .

Growth Estimation Simulation of Experiment Results 90 98 Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab 104 Analysis of Slab Strips Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs Empirical Design of Bridge Slabs 104 115 127 Chapter 5 Conclusions 130 Chapter 6 Future Research 134 References 136 2 .

20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .12 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.1 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.7 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.17 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.List of Figures Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.8 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.13 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.6 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.16 Figure 2.

24 Figure 2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .5P5 under Cyclic Load Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.6 KN) Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.23 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.31 Figure 2.33 Figure 2.27 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.25 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.2 KN Pmax=15.32 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.26 Figure 2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.30 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.

7 Figure 3.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5P5 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8. C5x8.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.Beam C5x8.6 Figure 3.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5 Figure 3.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C6x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.5H5OL.3 Figure 3.5P5OL and C5x8.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.5H5M (Pmin=2.39 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.

9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.4) Figure 3.76x10.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.57 Figure 3.4.5H5.4 m=3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8. Beam C3x8.4 m=3.5H5. Beam C4x8.76x10.5H5 (C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.76 Figure 3. m=3. C=6.76) Figure 3.5H5. C=6.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3. m=3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6. Beam C5x8.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.76x10.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.4. C=6.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.76) Figure 3. m=3. m=3.5H5 (C=6.4.76) Figure 3. Beam C3x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .48 Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76x10.4 m=3.4 m=3.for Beam C6x8.76x10. C=6.76x10.5P5.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.4.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.5H5 (C=6.76x10.5H5 (C=6.

C=6. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. C=6.8m.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.76x10.76x10.4. m=3.5P5.Figure 3.4.76x10. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm.5P5.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.7m.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. Beam C5x8. Beam C4x8.88 102 103 Figure 3.5P5. Beam C6x8. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. C=6.7m. m=3.8m.4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .55 101 Figure 3.8m.74 102 Figure 3.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. m=3.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.

Slab thickness 215mm. Lane Load and Self-Weight.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.8m.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.10 Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3. Lane Load and Self-Weight.6m.8m. Figure 4.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Figure 4.8m.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Figure 4.6m. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.

Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.Figure 4.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8m. 1.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.20 Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.

List of Tables Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .

Saada as my instructor and sponsor. I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. he is a role model for living and working. Huckelbridge for his guidance. To me.Acknowledgements I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support. I have enjoyed our discussions very much. Throughout my research. 11 . His teaching will benefit me for years to come.

List of Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI CMOD FE FRP GFRP LEFM LFD LRFD RC American Concrete Institute Crack Mouth Opening Displacement Finite Element Fiber-Reinforced Polymers Glass FRP Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Load Factor Design Load and Resistance Factor Design Reinforced Concrete 12 .

**FRP Reinforced Concrete and its Application in Bridge Slab Design
**

by Yunyi Zou

ABSTRACT For decades, bridge slabs have been troubled by the corrosion of steel reinforcements. The unique corrosion resistance of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymers) bars makes them a promising alternative to steel bars. Because of the relatively low elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement, the post-cracking serviceability often is the controlling factor in the flexural design of FRP reinforced concrete. Since bridge deck slabs are under repeated traffic loads, it is the post-cracking serviceability under cyclic loads that becomes vital in the design and maintenance decision-making process.

Experiments have been conducted to investigate the post-cracking flexural performance of FRP RC (reinforced concrete) under constant amplitude cyclic loading. Each specimen tested was a beam with a single FRP bar at the bottom. Two different types of FRP bars were used. The crack opening was monitored for specimens of different size. Up to 2 million cycles of cyclic loads have been applied at 100% service load levels. It has been found that there are two stages in the crack growth of FRP reinforced concrete. The first stage is early growth, which is characterized by increasing crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). The second stage is the stabilization of CMOD and crack length. No fatigue failure was encountered in the testing under service loading and moderate overloads. The effects of moderate overload on observed crack

13

growth were also investigated.

The performances of two different FRP bars were

compared. A model was proposed to predict long term crack growth in FRP R/C under cyclic loading, based on the Paris equation.

Two FE (finite element) crack representations were examined.

One was a

debonded length representation. In this model it was assumed that there was a debonded length around each crack, within which there was no tangential interaction between concrete and reinforcement. Beyond the debonded length, the interface between concrete and reinforcement was tied with no relative movement. The other representation

examined was a fictitious material crack representation. A fictitious material was placed in a triangular crack cross section, with a maximum width of 2.5mm (0.1 in). Then, the modulus of elasticity of the fictitious material was calibrated, based on the observed testing results, after crack growth had stabilized. Both representations have been used to analyze bridge slabs. Finally, an empirical slab design was discussed.

14

Chapter 1

Background and Introduction of the Problem

The advantages of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) include a high ratio of strength to mass, excellent fatigue characteristics, excellent corrosion resistance, electromagnetic neutrality, and a low axial coefficient of thermal expansion. Generally speaking, the disadvantages of FRP reinforcement include its higher cost, lower Young’s modulus (except for Carbon FRP), lower failure strain and lack of ductility. The

transverse coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is also much larger than the longitudinal CTE. The long-term strength of FRP can be as low as 70% of its short-term strength, and ultra-violet radiation can damage FRP. FRP reinforcement is also not effective for compression reinforcement because of the compression instability of the slender axial fibers. There is a lot of potential to apply FRP in bridge engineering for structural elements in corrosive environments with low ductility demand.

For decades, reinforced concrete slabs have been used as bridge decks both in United States and around the world. The relatively inexpensive concrete and steel

reinforcement have served very well in most respects. In recent years, rehabilitation of national highway bridges has been a priority, due to the aging and deteriorating superstructures. One of the major causes of superstructure deficiency is the corrosion of steel reinforcement. In this case, the excellent corrosion resistance and light weight of FRP make it potentially superior in long term performance to conventional reinforcing steel, and, particularly in the case of Glass FRP (GFRP), potentially competitive economically.

15

will generate larger crack lengths and crack mouth opening displacements (CMOD) compared with conventional steel reinforcement. known as the fracture process zone. Shah (1995) summarized the interaction within the fracture process zone as microcracking. The relatively low Young’s modulus of FRP. there is a surge of forces in the bars. crack tip blunting by voids. There exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack. aggregate bridging. crack face friction. In the case of FRP RC beams under bending. Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments. particularly so if 16 . the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value. Consequently. Within the fracture process zone. as soon as cracking occurs. it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures. the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. The tensile forces in the bars and resultant compressive force in concrete increase as depth of intact concrete and fracture process zone decrease. with a relatively small fracture process zone. It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost independent of specimen thickness. which is about one fifth of the Young’s modulus of conventional steel reinforcement.Serviceability covers many different aspects of structural performance related to particular applications. crack branching. crack deflection. The most commonly encountered serviceability requirements in RC structures are maximum deflection and crack opening control. the crack length generally is deeper on the sides than in the middle. Cracking is a complex phenomenon. the aforementioned complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM. particularly in composite materials. For quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. and etc. In the case of smaller scale structures.

the aggregate bridging will be less.076 β f s 3 d c A c (1-1) Where β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. concrete cover and stress level. P. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. In ACI 440. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. w = 0. Gergely and L. 17 . and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression.1R-01. Consequently. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. the number of bars. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. the Gergely-Lutz equation has been modified to estimate the crack opening of FRP RC members by simply replacing the steel strain with FRP strain. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. crack face friction will be smaller.

to be 0.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. In the analysis of cyclic loading.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. 1. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. w= 2 . The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. A value of 1. 1.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. similar to steel bars.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. in the case of no available experimental data. ACI 440. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding.71. slippage moment and fracture moment. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 . a corrective coefficient kb is introduced.00. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars.

The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent. (1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams under four-point bending. It was concluded that the Paris equation results in 19 . tension or flexure. Although Paris’s law was developed for steel. P. Crack length was also recorded based on the CMOD compliance measurements. C and m are material parameters. regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression. Apparently. The report by ACI committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement. N is the number of cycles. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems. Perdikaris et al. researchers have tried to verify if it was also valid for concrete. The proposed equation is as follows. In early 1960s. da = C (∆K ) m dN (1-3) Where a is the crack length. The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 102 and 107 cycles. is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels).fracture moment. Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete. ∆K is the stress intensity factor difference at maximum and minimum loading. Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains and microcracking.C. which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete.

however. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. 0. height 20 . da C (∆K ) m = dN (1 − R)( K c − K max ) (1-4) where Kc is the fracture toughness of the material of interest at the appropriate thickness. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. Baluch et al. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete.1. were close to one for different specimens. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. Therefore. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials.P. Similarly. The material parameter m was found to be 3. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained.2. although the units were not stated explicitly. 0. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. 3. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length.3 respectively. Z.12. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete.15 at R=0.12 and 3.

The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. Different lines were obtained for different beam size. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. Therefore.and notch length. for fracture under monotonic loading. 21 . All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length. However. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. The thickness was constant for all beams. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. although they were parallel to each other.26. The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf). Dye would then be applied at the crack section. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. utilizing a three point bending test setup. The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance.

Swartz et al (1981) also compared the effects of fatigue pre-cracking and static pre-cracking. For the same notched plain concrete beams, one group was pre-cracked by fatigue after one million cycles and the other group was statically pre-cracked to the same crack depth. Under three-point and four-point bending, it was reported that failure strength and associated maximum stress intensity factor of the statically pre-cracked beams are slightly higher than those of pre-cracked by fatigue. It was then concluded that static pre-cracking was acceptable, even for fatigue testing.

Efforts have been made to predict the growth of cracks due to fatigue loading. Balaguru and Shah (1981) proposed a model to simulate the increase of deflection and crack opening for steel RC. The components included in the model were as follows: (a) the cyclic creep of concrete; (b) the reduction of stiffness due to cracking and bond deterioration; (c) reinforcing steel softening. The experimental data was cited from other articles, which was limited to 100,000 or 50,000 cycles. The rebar stress range was between 69 MPa and 276 MPa (10 ksi and 40 ksi). The maximum rebar stress utilized was almost twice the rebar fatigue stress limit. The crack opening was recorded

photographically. It appeared that there were only five data points recorded within 100,000 cycles. The general trend of the model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. However, the motivation of using a stress range twice the rebar fatigue stress limit may be questioned. A limit of 100,000 cycles is generally not enough in the fatigue test of reinforced concrete.

22

The finite element method has been widely used in reinforced concrete analysis. There are two different approaches in crack modeling in finite element analysis. One is smeared crack modeling, which is generally better when overall load/deflection behavior is of primary interest. Initially, the concrete is assumed to be isotropic. The reinforced concrete cracks when the stress reaches an assumed failure surface. Instead of literally representing the crack in the concrete FE mesh, the concrete member remains as a continuum. The constitutive equations are then modified to reflect the cracked state.

The other popular method is discrete cracking modeling, utilized when detailed local behavior is investigated, as done early on by Ngo and Scordelis (1967). Based on local stresses in the finite element mesh, some element nodes are separated to model a discrete crack. Since it is costly and tedious, this method is generally only applicable in certain special circumstances.

Darwin (1993) performed a review of finite element analyses on conventional reinforced concrete. The survey results are summarized as follows. (a) Reinforcement. Reinforcements can be modeled in three methods - (1) distributed reinforcement within elements, (2) discrete bar element between element nodes, and (3) uniaxial element embedded in the element. In all cases, reinforcements and concrete are modeled as separate materials. Perfect bonding is always assumed. Fortunately, load-deflection behavior is not sensitive to the bonding unless the failure mode is bond slip, which is not deemed to be a valid design. (b) Concrete under Tension. Tension stiffening and tension softening have improved the numerical stability of simulation. Tension stiffening was

23

first used to account for the residual tensile strength of concrete between cracks. Tension softening uses the concept of fracture mechanics to achieve similar effects. (c) Concrete in Compression. It was found that the overall performance of a model is more related to the details of crack representation and shear retention after cracking, than the details of different concrete constitutive models in compression. (e) Load Increment. It was advised to take small load increments and assure that convergence is achieved at every step.

Perfect bond models, however, are invalid for the purpose of crack analysis. In the vicinity of a crack, there is inevitable bond-slip between rebar and concrete. Efforts have been made to model bonding. Manufacturers of FRP bars are aware of the necessity to model the bond-slip of their bars. Hughes Brothers, Inc. had sponsored a couple of institutions to investigate the phenomenon. A variety of results were obtained, as

different testing methodologies generated different results. This is an indication of the complexity of the issue.

Larralde et al (1993) tested the bonding of FRP bar and concrete. There was a longitudinal helical wrap around bar surface. Since there was little cracking in the concrete after bond failure, it was believed to be an indication of low local bearing stress between the indentations of the FRP bars and the surrounding concrete.

There is generally no fatigue failure within the FRP bars themselves. Therefore, research activities have been directed to the bonding between FRP and concrete under

24

in order to ensure sufficient development length.000 cycles. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. steel bars and concrete. there was one protruding test bar. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted.1mm. Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. C. 12. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete.fatigue loading. Basically. due to the damage to the bar. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars. C. The bar diameters were 10. with one supplementary bar on each side. The CP bars in their tests exhibited behavior very similar to the Aslan 100 bars made by Hughes Brothers Inc. however. caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. Thermal fatigue.7mm and 16mm. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. The load amplitude was 25 . At both the top and bottom of a specimen.E. In the test setup. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. An embedment length of five diameters was used. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles.

but the load levels were very different. Straight bars were smooth. the residual slip after the first cycle was a significant portion of slip at the end of the 100. The actuator displacement verses load observations also supported that conclusion. An effect of bar size has been observed. with the average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased. 26 . A top bar effect also exists for FRP. grain-covered or sandblasted prismatic rods. twisted or braided. The experiment setups were similar to each other for the two investigations. Cosenza et al. bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes. Among environmental conditions. depending on the load magnitude. Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance. mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete. The authors suggested that slipping of bars might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. and a survey of bond-slip models was presented. FRP bars were categorized into straight bars and deformed bars. The bar slip at the free ends was recorded. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP bars. It was stated that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond. indented. It was also recognized by the authors that bond failure should not occur in properly designed members with working stress of up to 20% of ultimate strength.000 cycles. In the case of CP bars.selected to achieve 90%. normal pressure between FRP bars and concrete. friction due to FRP surface roughness. Shield et al. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness. 50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. ranging from 75% to 25%. Deformed bars were ribbed. It was found that the residual bond stiffness was actually higher than the initial bond stiffness. This work was contradictory to the finding by C.

chemical conditions, however, such as high alkalinity were shown to be detrimental to bonding. Popular bond-slip models are the Malvars model, BPE model, modified BPE model and CMR model. All of these models use exponential functions to model the first branch of increasing bond stress and slip. The softening branch was modeled linearly, for convenience. The authors stated that modified BPM model presented the best agreement with the available experiment results.

A. Katz (2001) tested five different types of FRP bars. Each FRP bar was embedded in a concrete block and 450,000 cycles of cyclic loads were applied. Between each 150,000 cycles, the specimens were immersed in water of 60oC and 20oC to simulate a deterioration process. At the end of the fatigue tests, a pullout test was conducted for each specimen. Three mechanisms of failure observed were abrasion of rod surface, delamination of outer layer of resin, and abrasion of cement particles entrapped between rod and concrete. It was concluded that helical wrapping of FRP bars did not increase bond resistance under cyclic loading. A sand covered bar surface did improve bonding; such bars were able to maintain maximum loading for a relatively long slip.

Flexural response of FRP reinforced concrete were reported by Benmokrane (1996) and other investigators. The general consensus is that at small load, the crack pattern in FRP concrete is similar to that of steel reinforced concrete. As the load increases, however, there are more cracks with larger crack openings in FRP concrete than in traditional steel reinforced concrete, for comparable reinforcement ratios. This

27

behavior is expected, since FRP has a much lower modulus of elasticity, compared with traditional steel reinforcement. The moment /curvature diagrams of lightly reinforced FRP beams are clearly bi-linear, with the bend point at the crack initiation moment level.

GFRP reinforced concrete beams were analyzed by Vijay and GangaRao (2001); different modes of failure were compared. The compression controlled failure mode presented not only higher flexural strength, but also a more ductile failure than the tension controlled failure mode. This result was consistent with ACI 440.1R-01

suggested design criteria. A parameter DF was defined as the ratio of energy absorption at ultimate strength to that at a limiting curvature value. To satisfy both the serviceability deflection limit of L/180 and crack opening limit of 0.016 inches, the curvature limit was set to be 0.005/d. The parameter DF then became a unified indicator, covering both serviceability and strength. The tensile strength of concrete is typically assumed to be 7.5 f c' , with an assumed elastic modulus of 57000 f c' (using U.S. units with stress units in psi). The tensile strain at cracking is thus assumed to

be ε cr = 7.5 f c' 57000 f c' = 0.0013 .

The curvature at first cracking ψ cr is

approximately 2ε cr / h = 0.0026 / h , for a symmetric section. Vijay and GangaRao thus have used twice the curvature at first cracking as the limiting curvature in their design criterion.

Bridge decks of traditional steel reinforced concrete have been analyzed and tested by many researchers, including Graddy et al.(1995). With the general purpose FE program SAP as their primary analysis tool, they performed a sequence of linear finite

28

element analysis, utilizing a smeared crack representation. A cracking stress of 0.1fc’ was used for plain concrete, with Kupfer's (1969) criterion. Cracks were only deemed possible in the directions parallel to the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement, i.e., the model failed to simulate nonorthogonal cracks. assigned for each round of analysis. New material parameters were

The element utilized was an eight node

isoparametric solid element, of the same size for the entire model, with edges parallel to the edges of model. Comparing analytical results with available experimental data, the study indicated that load-deflection was accurately simulated in the analysis, while the predicted stresses in the reinforcements were very different from those observed experimentally. The work was limited to the ultimate strength studies of RC slabs, and the serviceability of these slabs was not investigated.

Many researchers including Graddy et al.(1995) and others have noticed the effect of arching action in traditional steel reinforced concrete. Before a concrete slab cracks, the dominant resistance is flexure. After the concrete cracks, a “dome” architecture exists underneath the concentrated loads, if the cracked concrete is excluded. In-plane, or membrane stress, then becomes more significant. The results of theoretical analysis and experiments have shown that the arching action contributes to the slab strength. Arching action for multiple wheel loads is uncertain, however, especially in the case of FRP reinforced concrete slabs. Arching effect at service load levels for FRP slab has not been investigated.

29

Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete. A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck. The authors concluded that actual failure loads of the steel-free deck slabs are more than 10 times larger than the theoretical failure load attributable to bending alone. The results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to failure under monotonic loading. The position and location of the lateral straps were also analyzed. due to shakedown in the slab. but at a much larger load. partially studded straps. The transverse reinforcements are mainly external steel straps or FRP bars. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing. They included fully studded straps. cruciform straps. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. FRP bars and diaphragms. The results showed that the load at slab failure was only increased by 11% for a two girder model and 15% for a three girder model. For practical purposes. B. 30 .

the spacing was fairly large. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. The orthotropic reinforcement pattern consisted of a top and bottom layer of transverse and longitudinal steel reinforcing bars 19M (#6) spaced at 188mm and 376mm respectively. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC.13m (7 ft). The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. Models of 1/6. In either case.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. 1989). which was fairly high. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. 31 . respectively. however.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. the three beams were space at 2. In the prototype.

2.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. Due to serviceability requirements. However. c. The crack control 32 . a. units. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement.3-1. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically.1. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.55S for positive moment and 1220+0.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m.6m (12 ft). top and bottom. where the girder spacing is S.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. d. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. the width is taken as 660+0. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.25S for negative moment.) The span length of a slab is less than 3.6. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load.003 is required in both directions.S. b. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. The formula is in U.

380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. the AASHTO design codes have traditionally provided lateral distribution factors which account for the maximum possible portion of wheel load (half of axial load) acting on one girder.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft). Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors.06 + ( S 0. DF = 0. For girder spacing S less than 3. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders.5. supported on multiple girders. L is the bridge span.3 K g 0.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. In other words. In the current LRFD codes. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry.6 S 0.4 S 0. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. the formulas for DF are as follows. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . Therefore.6m (12 feet). In the AASHTO LFD design codes. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing.2 K g 0.

the bond durability under cyclic loads. In summary. however. deserves to be further investigated before engineers can be expected to be confident with this fairly new material.elements. but all were less than AASHTO (1996). the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled with beam elements. The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from conventional RC. Some other criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported. Sometimes. on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads. has not been thoroughly investigated. The performance of FRP RC under monotonic loading has been understood fairly well. mostly based on pullout tests. It was found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26 (1987). The analysis results showed that the distribution factor decreased. There have been varying results. The serviceability of FRP RC. ACI 440. particularly in fatigue environments. as the bridge span became larger. or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements. with a size effect being detected. The Paris law appears to be applicable in concrete.1R-01 proposes to design for a strength failure mode of concrete crushing. FRP itself possesses excellent fatigue properties. the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in applications such as bridge deck slabs. although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. to achieve better ductility. Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab. 34 .

A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening of the test specimens. The finite element model will then be extended to the analysis and crack opening estimation of realistic FRP reinforced concrete bridge deck slabs under actual AASHTO wheel loads. Finally. particularly in fatigue environments. Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in applications such as bridge slabs. the overall performance of an FRP RC slab on a single span bridge of multiple girders will be analyzed. The finite element method has been successfully used for a long time in bridge structural analysis. 35 . An empirical equation for final crack opening will be proposed. analysis results are typically based on uncracked concrete slab properties. the uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters.1R-01 will be discussed. A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack growth under cyclic loading. the crack opening displacement and crack growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory. which is generally reasonable for steel RC. The current bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution. Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood. In this study. A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to evaluate the effects. Other implications on the serviceability provisions in ACI 440. Subsequently. serviceability is often the critical factor in bridge deck slab design. Under the condition of a cracked slab. experimental results on fatigue testing of FRP RC will be presented. the lateral load distribution factor will be discussed.Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed. Although the current design methodology is strength oriented. respectively.

FRP is set to be a promising alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks. Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be applicable to typical in service conditions. following an interval of cyclic loading. There are two shortcomings with these approaches. rather than its strength. The second issue is that such tests are sensitive to specimen imperfections. or by RILEM beam bond tests. With portions of bar exposed. 36 . One is that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment such as a bridge deck. Crack opening and its growth in FRP RC are related to the fatigue characteristics of FRP bar. such variations can be especially critical in fatigue testing. and their interface.Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load Motivation for the Testing Program Due to its high corrosion resistance. Crack opening is one of the important indicators of serviceability. The bond-slip and crack growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated. The behavior of FRP reinforced concrete under fatigue loading has been investigated thus far by simple pullout tests. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is its serviceability. concrete. A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a concrete pull-out block. the bar is susceptible to local damage due to unintentional stress concentrations and eccentricities which may not be representative of in-service conditions.

Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27.5 inches).0/ 0. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1.0/ 2. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.9 MPa (4045 psi). but with four different widths were fabricated. The concrete was composed of type III cement.5/ 2.83. Therefore. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. in specimens more representative of in-service applications.5MPa (5000 psi). 37 . Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. water.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. Traditionally.9 MPa (715 psi). The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4.

the last number is the size. the beam size in U. For identification purposes. 4.5H5. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. respectively.5H5. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.92E6 psi).8 GPa (5. units follows. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude.5 inches) thick.5H5.. Within each beam. 16 FRP bar (#5 diameter 5/8 inches) at the bottom of each beam (tensile region) with 25 mm (1 inch) cover to the bar surface. which are reported herein.S. C4x8. C6x8. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. Inc. Inc. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. #5. of the FRP bar. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. C5x8. 102 mm.Figure 2.1). there was one No.5H5. The beam widths were 76 mm.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. (see Figure 2. 38 . As shown above. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. 16 (#5) bars.

C5x8. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.2).5H5M. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. without a helical wrap along the length.5S5.1x106 psi). C5x8. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. respectively.5P5.Figure 2. One extra specimen. for comparison purposes.5 inches) thick. Similarly.5P5. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. 4. The beam widths were 76 mm.5P5. 102 mm. For identification purposes. C4x8. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. C5x8. C5x8. The bars are also sand coated.5P5. 39 .5P5OL. One more specimen. C6x8. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2.9 ksi) for #5 bars. One specimen.

5P5OL C5x8.5P5 C6x8.5H5 C6x8.5P5 C4x8.5S5 Width (mm) 76 102 127 152 127 76 102 127 152 75 127 Height (mm) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 Reinforcement 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) Steel Test Sequence 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 10 9 8 11 Table 2.5H5M C3x8.5P5 C5x8.5H5 C4x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5H5 C5x8.Specimen C3x8.5H5 C5x8.5P5 C5x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.

0.1R-01.4). Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .2. 102 mm.80 mm and 0. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. 127 mm and 152 mm.Figure 2.75 mm.1R-01. Based on nominal kb value of 1.20ffu for FRP bars. the predicted crack openings are 0.3 and 2. According to ACI 440. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments.68 mm. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. 0. in accordance with ACI 440. respectively. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored.

Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.5H5 and C6x8.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).3 in the factored load.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . Therefore. for a bridge of 10.23. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2. For a bridge slab under traffic load. for specimen C5x8.23 Hz. However. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.8 Hz. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location.5H5. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.94. So. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated.94 and 0. the overall frequency is 1.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. which is the product of 7.in carbon FRP.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. Therefore. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests.

All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was recorded under a ramp load and the first 20 cycles of cyclic load at the beginning of each test interval. The first specimen tested was C5x8.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. The specimen did not appear to have 43 .540 mm to -1. Experimental Results (1) Group H .5 inches) below the top of beam. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.039 in)).02B-20 and 632. for average curvature estimation. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude.118 in to -0. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. within the pure bending region.5”). Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.000 cycles.Static pre-cracking was used. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. After more cycles were applied.1000 in to -0.5H5. and all cracks were stable. the crack lengths became visually constant. respectively. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7.270 mm (+0. Inc. After the first test interval of 5. there was no sign of distress with the specimen.

5 inches) to 165mm (6. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings.0 kips). The crack spacing was between 130mm (4.5 inches). 44 .5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates.5H5. Figure 2. The crack length was virtually the same. the specimen was still in good condition.000 cycles.000 cycles of this overload. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports.6 Specimen C5 x 8.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. After 10. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20. Pmax was increased to 22.300 N (5. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. To investigate the effect of overload.

5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches). To investigate the effect of overload.8 million cycles.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8. No addition distress was found in the specimen. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4.75 inches) below the top of beam.300 N (5. Figure 2.8 Specimen C4 x 8.7 Specimen C3 x 8.000 cycles. up to 1.Figure 2.0 kips) for 15. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.5H5 was similar.5 H5 45 . Pmax was again increased to 22.

and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.9 Specimen C6 x 8. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. Therefore.000 additional cycles were applied.5 H5 46 . prior to 10. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.600 N.000 cycles.000 N and 40.5 kips).5 kips) to explore the effect of overload. The newly formed crack was instrumented. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.000 cycles. Pmax was raised back to 20.600 N ( 3. After an additional 35. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.The behavior of specimen C6x8. Figure 2. During the subsequent fatigue testing. however. at which point the CMOD gage debonded.5H5 was somewhat different.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. no new cracks appeared up to 140.

with the second and third cracks monitored.0 kips). No new cracks were found in the specimen.75 inches) below the top of beam. After 10. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. 47 .000 cycles of overload. the specimen was still in good condition. After more cycles were applied. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270.000 N (4. (2) Group P . Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region.000 cycles. Pmax of 20. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen.To further investigate the overload effect. To investigate the effect of overload. and all cracks were stable. the crack lengths became visually constant.5P5.000 cycles were applied at this load level.5 kips) was applied. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.000.300 N (5. After the first run of 3.000 testing cycles.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. Pmax was finally increased to 22. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). a total of 40. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30.

5k). existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared.Figure 2. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied.5P5. the concrete cover started falling off.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. Within the pure bending region. as debonding became more pronounced.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8.10 Specimen C3 x 8. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1.000 N (6. The average spacing was 200mm (8.000 load cycles. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. 48 . it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. After 3000 cycles of overload. This stress level was equivalent to the data cited by Balaguru and Shah (1981) in their model to simulate the increase of deflection and crack opening for steel RC.5 inches). Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. After 200 cycles of overload. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000.

000 cycles. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4.0 kips) was applied for 10.25 million cycles. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. At around 900 cycles. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. By the end of the test. between the first two cracks at the midspan region.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.300 N (5. (Unfortunately.Figure 2. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. two new cracks appeared. 49 . with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. and then began growing.000 cycles.5 P5 Specimen C5x8.75 in).) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. Pmax of 22. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.11 Specimen C4 x 8. To investigate the effect of overload. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.5 inches) within the pure bending region.

5P5 behaved similarly.000 cycles of overload. as expected. No extra load was initially added.5 P5 The specimen C6x8.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. The two existing cracks then started branching. Pmax was raised to 29.5 kips). the specimen was still in good shape. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload. 50 .12 Specimen C5 x 8. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.000 N (6.000 cycles of this overload were applied. During the subsequent fatigue testing. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. After 155.300. After 50. Subsequently. however. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. there was no indication of severe distress. no new cracks appeared up to 1.Figure 2.000 cycles.

5H5. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing.14 Specimen C5 x 8. Figure 2.13 Specimen C6 x 8.5P5OL.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.. For specimen C6x8. followed by cyclic load at service level.Figure 2. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading.5 P5OL 51 . For specimen C5x8. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared.

000 N ( 6. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5.0 kips).5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches).000 cycles. with two very close to each other. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. and five cracks appeared. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. Pmax was then increased to 29.15 Specimen C5 x 8. there was no sign of distress within the specimen. The specimen was still in good shape after 150.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress.5 S5 52 .000.75 inches). No new crack was generated during the test. At the end of 1. there was no visible growth of the cracks. To further investigate the overload effect.000 cycles of this load level. Static pre-cracking was used.000 cycles. Figure 2.300 N (5. Then. Pmax was first increased to 22.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. As cyclic load testing started.

The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration.15.For all specimens. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span.14). C5x8. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. particularly for large cycle counts. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. acoustic emission and dye penetration. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch).5P5. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. failed to produce consistently usable results. First. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. Black ink was injected into the notch. 53 .5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. For some specimens in group P. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement.5P5 and C6x8. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. As the cracks opened up. the images of cross sections of C4x8. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. so as to open the crack. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. After about two hours.

Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .

based on ACI 440. 0.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.5P5. 0. were between 0. 0.5P5.16 mm.5H5 was 0.84 mm for all four specimens.1R-01 criteria.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. respectively.010. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.5H5 and C6x8.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. were 0. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings. the service load crack openings. As mentioned earlier.17 mm.6 MPa (4000 psi). a kb value of 0. Based on these limited tests.013. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. Specimen C6x8.5H5. In group P. C5x8. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .16 mm and 0.5H5.5H5. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. at least for the bars tested in this investigation. C4x8.5H5 and C5x8.19 and 0. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. were 0.5H5. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. C4x8. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value.5P5.68 mm and 0.007 for specimens C3x8.2. C5x8. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.15 mm. According to the limited test results.26mm.5P5 and C6x8.5H5. C4x8. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value. respectively.0048. 0.008 and 0. 0. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction. respectively. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens.5H5. the predicted service load crack openings.

19. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same.20. which disappears after unloading.18). ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. 2.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. with increasing load cycle counts. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. 56 .21 and 2.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. 2. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.

200 0.2 KN Pmax=15. Based on the experimental results.5H5 C4 x8 .300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 . Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.19 and 2.100 0.respectively.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2. with increasing load cycles counts.20. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first. but at a decreasing rate. 0.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2. it would appear to be conservative to use one and half of the initial CMOD as an estimate of maximum total crack opening under cyclic loads. As can be seen in Figure 2.5H5 0.5H5 C5x8 . By the end of the tests of one million cycles.6 KN) 57 . the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.5H5 0.400 C3 x8 . but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.

21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.E+00 1.E+04 1.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5H5 C4 x8 .5P 5 C 5x8.100 1.E+02 1.6 KN) 0.E+05 1.5P 5 0.1 0.5H5 C5x8 .5H5 C6 x8 .15 CMOD (mm) 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.5H5 0.5P 5 C 4x8.0.5P 5 0.E+03 1.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.150 0.2 KN Pmax=15.2 KN Pmax=15.300 C 3x8.6 KN) 58 .05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.2 C3 x8 .E+01 1.200 0.

5H5. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages. 59 . C4x8. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.5P5.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results.5P5 0. Specimens C3x8.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5P5 about 10.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8.5H5. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2. during this period of crack development. C4x8.1 0. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.5P5 C4 x8 .5H5 and C5x8. It took specimens C6x8.5P 5 C6 x8 .2 C3 x8 .2 KN Pmax=15.0. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles.5P5.5P5 0. C5x8. C3x8.5H5 and C6x8.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks. The first stage is crack development.

25). The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length.23 through 2. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness). Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique.5H5 (see Figure 2. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error. For beam C3x8. The general trend of plastic CMOD. For beam C6x8. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 . it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa. For beam C5x8. If the area becomes larger.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings).26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading. Figures 2.5H5. although at a decreasing rate. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8.5H5 (see Figure 2.5H5 (see Figure 2.24).Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. or crack stabilization. nearly constant elastic CMOD.5H5 (see Figure 2.23). The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased.26). the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. For beam C4x8. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop for any particular load cycle is related to the energy loss by the specimen during that load cycle. crack growth reaches the second stage.

29. 2.15 0. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.5P5.30 and 2.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .0 0 0 1.for the single crack.05 0. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2. which is discussed later.1 0.8 4 1. 2.27.2 0.28.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .5P5.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. 2. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.

05 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.0 0 0 1.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.2 0.0 0 0 .2 Figure 2.0 0 0 2 8 0 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 2 .25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 9 8 8 .24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.15 0.15 0.05 0.0 0 0 .0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .

000 140.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.1 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.4 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.3 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .

29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.15 0.25 0.1 0.2 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .05 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.05 0.000 900.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.2 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.000 900.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.

14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.05 0.2 0.000.15 0.2 0.000 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.1 0.15 0.000 1.05 0.050.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.000 600.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.

33). The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.20E-05 8.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. friction.00E-06 0.00E-05 C3 x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .5H5 1.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.32 and 2. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.5H5 1. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. The pseudo energy loss per crack. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section. at unit width.00E-06 4.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . damping.5H5 C6 x8 . etc. micro-cracking. 2.32 and 2.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.33. From Figure 2. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.

5H5 and C4x8.00E-06 0. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.5P5 C6 x8 .00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .50E-05 2.33 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P These tests seem to indicate that fatigue damage to FRP RC is related to bar spacing/reinforcement ratio. 67 . the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.50E-05 1.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.5H5 and C6x8.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases.5H5.00E-05 C3 x8 .5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.5P5 C4 x8 . The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles. Similarly in group P.2. generally speaking.00E-05 5. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.

The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.25 Figure 2. Similar results were obtained in group P.3 KN Beam C5x8.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC.5H5.35). For specimen C5x8. a 30% overload was applied after 180.5H5 68 .37. as shown in Figure 2. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. For specimen C6x8. up to 40% over service load levels. It would appear that relatively modest overloads. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.15 CMO D (mm) 0.2 0.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 . overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior.34).5H5.1 0.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.36 and 2.000 load cycles.

15 CMO D (mm) 0.3 0.2 CMO D (mm) 0.5P5 69 .25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .5H5 20 1.3 Figure 2.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.05 0.1 0.1 0.4 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.25 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.

70 . no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10.000 cycles of loading. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. as shown in Figure 2.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. for the Isorod rebars.37 0.1 0.000 cycles. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening.05 0. there was fatigue hardening.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2.15 0. and CMOD started growing again. In the subsequent loading cycles. At the same time. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.38.3 KN Beam C6x8. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations.2 0. at the working stress level. Only after 10.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.

25 CMOD (mm) 0.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5H5M (Pmin=2.30 0.5P5. 0. However. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5H5 and C5x8. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.35 0. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 . C5x8.Comparing group H.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.5H5 and C5x8. Compared with FRP bars.15 0.05 0. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.00 1 -0.5H5OL.5H5M Figure 2.5P5.5S5 and C5x8.10 0.20 0.

39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles. During the service level fatigue testing.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars.000 response cycles. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . the crack length was visually constant.75 in). As more cycles were applied.considerably lower. or closer to rebar at the bottom. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. Figure 2. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars. Figure 2. After one million cycles under working stress. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed. with similar reinforcement ratios. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. an overload of 40% above working stress was applied. No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. In the crack stabilization stage. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. although no overload was applied.

04 0. At the same time.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.03 CMO D (mm) 0.06 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .01 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.05 0.5S5 73 .06 C MO D (mm) 0.02 0.02 0.000. unlike FRP RC. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.000 1.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.40.08 0.000 280.04 0.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.

5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.00E-06 1.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.5H5.00E-06 0.41.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen. sometimes.5S5 Thus far. the pseudo energy loss per crack.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. for specimen C5x8. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.5S 5 C5x8. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking.5P5 and C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8. at unit width.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 2.00E-06 6.00E-06 3. 7.5S5 and C5x8. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. 74 .The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.00E-06 4.

75 . no plastic CMOD was acquired.000 cycles. At around one million cycles. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. however. it began to stabilize. until one million cycles had elapsed. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. the elastic CMOD started to decrease.42. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. In addition. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. there was a crack at midspan. they were very close to each other.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. But. which was 115mm (4. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected.Figure 2. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count.000 cycles. the elastic CMOD became less.42 Specimen C5 x 8.000 cycles.. In specimen C5x8. In other words. Unfortunately.5 H5M In specimen C5x8.5P5. as shown in the photo. after 10. as more cycles were applied.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. due to operation problems.

The cracks were initiated by static pre-cracking. The second stage is crack stabilization at which the length of a crack is approximately constant. the secondary crack will propagate along with the primary one and this “stiffening” effect may become even stronger. with four beam widths utilized to simulate different bar spacing in bridge deck slabs. with slower growth in crack opening. and. the experiments covered one steel rebar and two different types of FRP bars. In summary. the results indicate that there are two stages of crack growth. there is additional shear stress introduced onto the bar surface. on fully developed cracks were also investigated. limiting the opening requirement of monitored cracks. Effects of overloads at pre-cracking. This characterization was further verified through monitoring of the evolution of hysteresis plots. When a secondary crack appears close to a primary crack. One is crack development. The reported observation by other investigators that cyclic load improves the bonding stiffness between concrete and FRP bars may be attributable to initiation of secondary flexural cracks. thus quantifying the evolution of energy loss per 76 .The shear stress distribution along a bar can also be utilized as a vehicle to further explain this multiple-crack phenomenon. For FRP RC. Consequently. the primary crack appears “stiffer” and its elastic CMOD becomes smaller. The CMODs were recorded when specimens were under cyclic load at working stress level. As more cycles are applied. and then decreases with distance from the crack surface. The rebar/concrete shear stress is at a maximum a short distance from the crack surface. which is characterized by growing crack opening and length.

5P5. although the surfaces were a little uneven. The crack development stage for conventional steel R/C was observed to be shorter and less apparent when compared with FRP RC. For the steel RC. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios. The reported improvement of bonding stiffness due to cyclic loads by others may be attributable to this phenomenon. The plastic CMOD appeared to grow slightly with the number of cycles. but at a decreasing rate.cycle. the specimens showed no sign of distress or significant alteration of crack opening behavior. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks.5P5 indicated that the crack tips stopped at the same normal distance length from the top of the beam. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading. C5x8. The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence.5P5 and C6x8. Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress. The profiles of crack length for C4x8. 77 .

it is difficult to estimate crack opening for complex structures and loading such as bridge deck slabs. and predict the performance of other structures. To estimate the opening of a crack in a reinforced concrete beam. First. Once valid finite element model parameters are established. The objective is to be able to make use of the existing experiment results. it will be used to analyze more complex structures with cracks. which was utilized for this investigation.Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth The experimental results have illustrated the performance of a number of FRP RC beam specimens. a discrete crack model will be used. Due to the fact that crack growth is composed of development and stabilization. the simulation is divided in two steps. Estimation of Crack Opening It has long been known that reinforced concrete is difficult to model. Reinforcing bars may be modeled as truss element. initial crack mouth opening distance will be estimated. Secondly. The drawback of this approach is that the 78 . Although ACI 440 has modified the Gergely-Lutz equation. A finite element method will be calibrated to estimate the initial CMOD at static pre-cracking of the specimens which were tested. which is the rebar element in ABAQUS program. The general trend in the results of different specimens suggests the possibility of developing a model to predict the evolution of cracks in FRP RC in fatigue environments. a fatigue model will be used to simulate the crack development.

Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study.1.1 Debonded Length Representation Two simplified finite element modeling approaches have been proposed. however. The model is not necessarily unique. however. and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it. Initially. a substantial effort was made to simulate the mechanical behavior of the contact between the concrete and rebar. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model. a crack is modeled as a precracked surface. The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 . When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements. In the first case. for this investigation. They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. shown above in Figure 3. The apparent reason for this difficulty was that the overall behavior of the finite element (FE) model is very sensitive to the local bond-slip model.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar. No success was achieved. which is not the case in reality. however.

It reaches its maximum value.length from the crack surfaces.2 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8. The disadvantage of this model is that the interaction of two crack surfaces is neglected. Based on this representation. Within the debonded length.5P4 A debonded length was calibrated for each specimen based on the experimental results. Figure 3. A typical finite element model with debonded length representation is shown below. the stress within reinforcement can be calculated. The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. Different specimens will result in different values of debonded length as shown in 80 . the bond stress decreases. At distances further away from the crack surface. The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar. relatively close to the crack surface. however.

It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. will make this representation insensitive to crack length. A small base dimension.5P5 C5x8. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3.22 0.16 C3x8. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.21 0.1 in). and the debonded length subsequently decreases.5mm (0.5P5 C6x8. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region.the table below. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section.17 0. As mentioned earlier.23 0. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material.5P5 C4x8.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model.19 0.3). Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0.17 0. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. however.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. The height is the true height of a crack. Interestingly. The justification of the model is as follows.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. to account 81 . there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack.

5P4 82 .4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.for the interaction between crack surfaces. Fictitious Material Figure 3.3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3. The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.

Efic. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation. Normally. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.20 Efic 27.The Young’s modulus.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0.20 0. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3. of the fictitious material was calibrated for each specimen based upon the assumed triangular dimensions and upon the experimental results after the CMOD reached its maximum value. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks. Specimen C3x8. below. 83 .1 MPa (3500 psi) 13.5P5 C6x8.5P5 C4x8.5P5 C5x8.24 0.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12. However.20 0.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.20 0. Also.24 0. It is another possible indication of a size effect. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.20 0.2.

Consequently. The more cyclic loads are applied. at the crack tip. have to be overcome. the fewer the interlocks become.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 . At the beginning of cyclic loading. the fracture process zone may behave differently. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction.5). including aggregate bridging and crack surface friction within cracks. In the case of cyclic loading. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. Therefore. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3. several components in the fracture process zone. the interlocks. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff. a fracture process zone may be modeled as additional distributed tensile stresses between crack surfaces. under repeated loading. with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength. In the case of monotonic loading up to failure.Concrete has been categorized as a quasi-brittle material for its fracture process zone at the crack tip. in this model. Af c1 Figure 3.

ac stands for the crack length.In the diagram above. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. based on compatibility and equilibrium conditions: fc a = f t hb − a − ac fc a Ec = f f hb − a − c1 E f (3-1) (3-2) 1 1 f c awb = f f Af + f t (hb − a − ac ) wb 2 2 1 2 1 M = A f f f (hb − c1 − a ) + f t wb (hb − a − ac ) (hb − ac ) 3 2 3 (3-3) (3-4) Substituting equation (3-1) and (3-2) into (3-3). hb stands for the beam height. ⎡ 1 h − ac Ec (h − a − ac ) 2 ⎤ wb ⎥ M = Pf ⎢(hb − c1 − a) + b 3 3 A f E f h − a − c1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ where Pf is the force within FRP bar. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. the result is as follows. the depth of compressive concrete is obtained: wb (hb − ac ) 2 + 2 a= Af E f Ec (hb − c1 ) (3-5) 2wb (hb − ac ) + 2 Af E f Ec Finally. the following equations are obtained. (3-6) 85 . fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4).

6. under either monotonic or cyclic loading. In other words. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. the following equation is obtained. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. So the following relation is obtained. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. Utilizing this behavioral assumption. 86 .6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. based on finite element analysis. Consequently. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. shown below in Figure 3. This assumption will later be verified. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden.

The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . ∆K is the range of the difference of stress intensity factors for M and Pf which are calculated based on a standard handbook (Tada et al 1985). da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results.32( c ) 2 − 13.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface.39( ac a a a ) + 7. the following equation is obtained. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . and N is the number of cycles. L is the spacing of cracks. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively.1( c ) 3 + 14. dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 M C∆K m ≈ = LC∆K m dN EI L EI (3-10) Note that wc in the above equation is the elastic portion of the crack opening. after rearrangement.12 − 1.

hb is the beam height. M is the bending moment.88(1 − c )5 − 2.17 − 28.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5. P is the concentrated load.G( a c a c a c a c ac .04(1 − c )5 + 1.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.46 + 3. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup. The angle α has the following expression.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption. D was 610mm (24 in).04( c ) 2 + 14. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.16( c ) − 31. 88 .06( c ) + 0. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.63 + 25.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.54( c ) 2 − 14.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3. ) = g1 ( c ) + g 2 ( c ) + g 3 ( c )( ) 2 + g 4 ( c )( )3 hb ac hb ac hb ac hb ac hb ac a a a a ) = 0.22( c ) + 34.84(1 − c )5 + 0.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.

5H5 C4x8.5 72 0.0011 5.00128 = 0.00654 0.5P5 C5x8. with relative differences all less than 10%.00109 5.01121 × 7.5 = 0.3. the following equations are obtained.5P5 C6x8.00127 = 0. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .5 72 0.006407 0.006973 × 12 = 0.01302 × 6 = 0. the hinge assumption is justified.00119 = 0.0011 5 72 Table 3.5P5 0. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U. we have the following equation. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15). units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.5H5 C5x8.S.00696 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.

Three different C values were used.5H5 as a prototype. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. using specimen C5x8. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. depending on the ingredients and curing process.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction.25x10-4.76. corresponding to 2x10-16. 2. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. 7. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm.76x10-4. the opening increment only changed by 0. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. The results were shown in Figure 3. namely.6x10-17 and 3.S. In the case of multiple cracks. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9.Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack Growth Estimation The unknown Paris Equation parameters in the crack growth simulation are C and m.8. units. To address these variables with uncertainties. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. 6. First. the exact spacing of cracks is random. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. 6. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). with possibly different initial crack lengths. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. which will be determined based on experimental results. The parameter m was set to be 3.

The crack opening increment.76x10-4 and m at 3. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. and that each was completely different from the others. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. The final crack opening increment might be 0.were similar to each other. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6. 3. did not change more than 0.76. 91 . the measured surface crack was always an estimate.5 in). C was therefore fixed at 6. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. the model is insensitive to C. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected.86.01mm less.9. however. Obviously.86.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . Due to the aforementioned difficulties. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. It was found that crack opening growth was sensitive to the initial crack length although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to initial crack length.76 and 3. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. it was concluded that the model of crack opening growth is very sensitive to m although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to m.003mm. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984).66.

6MPa to 41. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm.10 and 3. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0.76. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef.5MPa and 41.76x10-4 and m of 3. The error for crack opening increment was about 0.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. The height of specimen 92 . The crack opening increment was approximately 0. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. The width of specimen C5x8. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. approximately.4MPa. 1.11.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. The plots are shown in Figure 3. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. the values of Ef . The crack opening growth. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing.6MPa. Values of Ec were set at 27.15Ef and 1. Finally. however.3Ef were examined.002mm less. yet all cracks stop at the same length. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. with fixed C of 6.001mm less.Three different values of crack spacing were examined.12 and 3.13. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other.4MPa. As Ec increased from 27. with a difference of about 40mm. The plots are shown in Figure 3. 34.25 in). was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity.

5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. with 6mm less beam height. however.15. crack length. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. due to the nature of the exponential function.25 in).C5x8. 93 . The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. This model is most sensitive. In summary.001mm less. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. The plots are shown in Figure 3. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition.14 and 3. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. and vice versa. For other variables. and specimen size.

Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.76x10-4) 94 .76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.

11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.76) 95 .76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.

12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76) 96 .76x10-4 m=3.

15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.76) 97 .76x10-4 m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.

For parameters C and m in Paris equation.22.16 to 3. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. For both thin and thick specimens. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. 98 . A summary was shown in Figure 3. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987).Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis.19 to 3. The results are listed from Figure 3. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ).23. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. In other words. since m is the exponential term.S. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . To simplify the model. For specimens of group H. Similar results are shown Figure 3. all specimens except C6x8. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. which illustrates a size effect. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. using a brute force approach.18. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. units.5H5. a fixed value of C was set to be 6.

16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.48 99 . the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. In the case of FRP concrete. C=6.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. m=3. however. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state.76x10-4. When the specimen width increases. and. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. Figure 3.5H5.

C=6.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.76x10-4.76x10-4.76 100 .5H5. C=6.5H5.Figure 3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.57 Figure 3. m=3.

76x10-4.39 Figure 3. C=6.Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.76x10-4.5P5.5P5. m=3. m=3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.55 101 . C=6.

m=3.74 Figure 3.5P5.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.5P5. C=6.76x10-4.88 102 .21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. C=6.76x10-4. m=3.Figure 3.

4 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .4 Group H Group P 3.6 3.8 m Value 3.

by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models.6. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. From the AASHTO design guide. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. and to simulate a worst case scenario. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4. The arching effect will also be examined. First. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. To account for the effect of continuity.3-1. plus top and bottom chord 104 . For a cast-in-place concrete slab. due to its relative simplicity. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. The values of strip width are based on experience.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs. the width of primary strip is 660+0. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters.2. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips.55S for positive moments.1. Secondly.

2. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction.5P5. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs.6 m (12 feet).6.5-1 in AASHTO. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8. The corresponding strip widths are 1.. i. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load.e.86 MPa (125 psi).8 m (6 feet). the following assumptions are made. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. The wheel load is 71. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. which represent the majority of bridges in service. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs.8 m.2 m (86 in) and 2.7 m (105 in). 2. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.1.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load.2.7 m (9 feet) and 3. and the width of the loading area is always 0.5m (20 in). The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows.7 m (66 in). with a lateral spacing of 1. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.bars. 105 . For the purpose of simplicity. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.

First. Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4.1. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.8m. the case of a girder spacing of 1. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. To investigate the arching effect. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero. 16M Bar at 100mm.5 in2). It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan.8m (6 ft) was analyzed.2.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.

8m. 107 .Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.3. From the stress contour plot.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. The tensile stress also decreased significantly. it can be seen that a significant area of compressive stress appeared both at the slab top near edge and at the bottom of the slab in the middle. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.

16M Bar at 100mm) Next.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 108 . To investigate the effects of rebar spacing.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. 2. Two cases of girder spacing. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.6m.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.7m and 3.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm. The results are illustrated below. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. the effects of girder spacing were examined.Figure 4.

7m.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .Figure 4.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.

16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.6m.

8m.Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. Next. regardless of the girder spacing. The magnitude of 111 . The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center.10. In Figure 4. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load.

rather than the static ultimate strength. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.6m Girder Spa. 100 1. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. The remaining issues. including crack opening and slab deflection. The maximum rebar stress at 3. 150mm Bar Spa.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design.0 ksi). 100mm Bar Spa.stress at the assumed 3.6m Girder Spa. 2. 100mm bar Spa.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71.4 0. 3.2 1.1 MPa (10. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load.6 0. therefore.7m Girder Spa.8 1 1. 120 3.2 0.3 ksi). which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars.0MPa (13.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89.8m Girder Spa. 100mm Bar Spa. are durability and serviceability.

The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0.5 in2). The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.00202 in). The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more.0072 in). Finally.19mm (0.0085 in).8m girder spacing. 113 . which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.0073 in). the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000.051mm (0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0023 in).0020 in).To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. a top diaphragm bar.051mm (0.055mm (0.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.22mm (0.058mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0. which should be acceptable.18mm (0.0019 in).5mm suggested in ACI 440.048mm (0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. was added at each diaphragm location. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders. to 0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.21mm (0. the entire diaphragm was removed. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0083 in). Compared with the maximum 0.0022 in). the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1. At the girder spacing of 1.

0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.4mm (0.089 mm (0.5 in2). Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. again.0042 in).A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2.077mm (0.055 in).077mm (0. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.13 mm (0. should be acceptable. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.53mm (0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0.00303 in). with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. which. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1.0031 in).080mm (0.108mm (0.0032 in). The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.021 in). the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.

16 mm (0. 9.5mm (. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. however. there are four legal loads.4m and 1. A rebar spacing of 100mm obviously produces even lower predicted crack openings (25% of the ACI 440 limit) and smaller slab deflections (deflection/span ratio below 1/2000). namely an opening of less than . under the design truck load and lane loads. at 150mm spacing.02 in). which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. its expected conservatism. The axle spacings are 3.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1.6m. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. 115 . presumably. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. 1.sake of simplicity. somewhat arbitrary. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. The strip width is.62 KN (17 kips). The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. due to its simplicity and.2m.2m. and due to their ineffectiveness.0063 in). it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab.6m (12 ft). which is composed of one axle load of 53. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. In the State of Ohio.

The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. which would generate too many elements. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. The second and third axles are 142. Similar to slab strip model.producing a total length of 15.3m (60 ft) long. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4.6 KN (8 kips).5m. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. Due to the large size of the structure. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. such as 5C1. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. especially including discrete rebars. the slab was supported by three girders. The spacing between the 116 . and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). With the fictitious material representation. The design truck is composed of three axles.5 KN (32 kips). The model bridge was single span of 18. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness.27m (14 ft).5 in). There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. The front axle load is 35.

it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip.27m (14 ft) and 9. In Figure 4.081mm.8m (6 ft). the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. in the bridge model. minimum spacing of 4.64 Kips/ft). with no diaphragms. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. In the case of single span bridge. Compared with Figure 4. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.11 and 4.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition.053mm.05m (10 ft). girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. For comparison purposes. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 .35 KN/m (0. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing.12. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.4. using the fictitious material model. a slab strip model under the same condition was created.11. relative to the actual imposed stress field. spanning the two girder spacings. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression.15m (30 ft).

15 through 4. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge.8m. there was always one compression “dome”.6m. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model.14.058mm. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.7m and 3. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4.041mm.8m (6 ft) to 3. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. and excessive crack opening predictions. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. as expected.13 and 4. The single “dome” was split into two again.19. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. 2.6m (12 ft). the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly. From the model and results shown in Figure 4.20.6m (15 ft). Finally. as an indication of the arching effect.6m spacing. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. As the girder spacing changed from 1. Without diaphragms. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4.crack opening prediction. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4.15.

It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. Even including an impact factor of 1.21 mm. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening.41mm. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution.21.3.22 for the bridge model with 1. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3.6m (12 ft). The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. The model is shown in Figure 4. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. the maximum crack opening under the Ohio legal load 5C1 was about 2/3 of the crack opening of AASHTO design load at different reinforcement spacing. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders. 119 .of the same model without diaphragms. the maximum final crack opening was 0. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. Nevertheless. as shown in Figure 4. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. Even at a girder spacing 3.8m girder spacing.

Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm. (Girder spacing 1. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. 120 .8m. Lane Load and Self-Weight.

121 .13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.

Figure 4. (Girder spacing 2.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.

Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.6m.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.

No Diaph. 2.8m Girder Spa.No Diaph. 3.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.6m Girder Spa.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .w / Disph.w / Diaph. 0. 1.2 2.7m Girder Spa.Figure 4.6m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa. 0.No Diaph.8m Girder Spa. 3. CMOD (mm) 0.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.w / Diaph.3 1.

08 CMOD (mm) 0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.04 0.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0. (Girder spacing 1. 1.0.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.06 0.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.

there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed load. For the critical girder. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated. one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load. The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor.Figure 4. design loads are first applied to a bridge. When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load. Then. between girders.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight. A cracked section has a smaller stiffness than the uncracked portion the slab in the transverse direction. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. As the majority of 126 . slab thickness. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge. To compute the distribution factors. In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders.

respectively. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. although temperature and shrinkage effects. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . In the longitudinal slab direction.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. as discussed below. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. ρ = 0.0018 × 60. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. Empirical Design of Bridge Slabs The analysis discussed has been limited to the serviceability of a deck slab at the maximum positive moment point in the transverse direction. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant.000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. at girder lines. As a result. are resisted by larger concrete sections. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. the effects of temperature and shrinkage needs to be included for the longitudinal direction by supplying minimum reinforcement parallel to the traffic direction of the bridge. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel.

6m 912 ft). top and bottom in both directions. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988. Although this design seems to be simple. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. The analysis results of this study indicate that reinforcement of 16M (#5) at 150mm (6 in) spacing is satisfactory for girder spans up to 3. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. In summary.study. Therefore. the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs.6m (12 ft). particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. and the arching effect on strength. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. for girder spacing up to 3. 128 . The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction. and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action. 1989). it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be serviceability. and it does provide adequate strength. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. instead of ultimate strength.

The somewhat larger predicted crack openings associated with FRP RC bridge decks should be considered admissible by bridge owners and inspectors. 129 . given the enhanced corrosion resistance.

The elastic CMOD disappears after unloading. even for the case of widely spaced cracks.Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches.000 cycles of full service load testing. At the end of 2. under constant load amplitude. In addition. As more load cycles are applied. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. Current results from this investigation cannot confirm the results of other researchers. The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC. which is the plastic portion. the elastic CMOD. experiences growth to stabilization. generally increases with the number of load cycles. The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions. The specimens with more than balanced reinforcement ratio presented multiple cracks in static pre-cracking whereas only one crack appeared for the specimen with a near balanced reinforcement ratio. The general trend of elastic CMOD is that it grows with fluctuation until 130 . FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD.000. The permanent CMOD at zero load. the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. that bonding between concrete and FRP actually can be improved under cyclic loading. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles.

The modulus of elasticity 131 . A debonded length of 25mm (1 in) between the concrete and the FRP rebar. As the thickness of the specimen decreases. which originated during cyclic testing. and then to analyze realistic bridge deck slabs. The model has been proved to predict crack growth in FRP RC reasonably well.convergence. No tangential relative displacement was allowed between rebar and concrete beyond the assumed debonded length. Tensile stress at the crack tip was included in the section stress distribution. A size effect was observed. A model which is based on the Paris equation was proposed to predict the evolution of crack growth. The second finite element representation is a fictitious material representation. two simplified finite element crack representations were developed to simulate the test specimen behavior. for several different reinforcement spacing. The first representation is a debonded length representation. on each side of a crack. The CMOD reduction encountered in the tests was possibly attributable to the effects of additional cracks. The sensitivity analysis illustrated that the model was most sensitive to the exponential parameter. was found to be a conservative estimate. A low modulus fictitious material was placed within a prescribed crack region to account for the bonding stress between concrete and bar near a crack. To extend the findings to typical bridge deck slab design. The stress intensity factor was assumed to be the sum of those for pure bending and for the concentrated force within the FRP bar. the exponential parameter in the Paris equation decreased.

arching action within the deck slab between adjacent girders is enhanced. Consequently.of the fictitious material was calibrated based on the testing results at the crack stabilization stage. The results indicated that the stress in the FRP reinforcement was relatively low. The debonded length FE representation was used to analyze an AASHTO slab strip model. when diaphragms were included in the model. The diaphragms. In the case of weak or absent diaphragms. The fictitious material FE representation was used to analyze a complete bridge slab. By reducing the differential deflections between girders. Different reinforcement spacing generated somewhat different moduli of elasticity for the fictitious material. however. 132 . larger crack opening will appear. excessive deflections of interior girders will generate one larger compression “dome” covering more than two girders. instead of ultimate strength. Top chord bars in the diaphragms were shown to be ineffective in reducing the predicted crack openings. The results indicated that the crack opening computed from a slab strip utilizing the fictitious material model was similar to the result from a complete bridge slab model. due to the fact that a very large number of elements were required. are instrumental in the serviceability of bridge slabs. with much less effective arching action. was thus verified. The assumption that bond fatigue strength is the critical issue in FRP bridge deck slab design.

Reinforcement of 16M spaced at 150mm top and bottom in both directions appears to be satisfactory for girder spacing up to 3. Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength.The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. reinforcement.6m. since arching effect has typically been ignored. A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design. The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 . Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis.

Development of accelerated testing techniques for durability would be a breakthrough for FRP technology. The variable amplitudes may be quantified using root mean cube effective stress amplitudes. In reality. They include seasonal temperature variation. The portions of stress 134 . The durability of FRP reinforced slabs under these conditions is instrumental to its applicability in bridge deck infrastructures. The experimental work has been limited to beams with FRP reinforcement. The Paris equation may have to be revised. a bridge slab is under moving traffic loads of variable amplitudes. The complete empirical slab design algorithm deserves to be verified. supported by multiple girders. alkaline or acidic solutions and saline solutions. The crack growth under loads of variable amplitude requires experimental investigation. Stochastic models may be developed to describe the variations. there are many other environmental factors involved during the life span. Size effects under variable amplitude should be evaluated. under moving loads. water invasion. The variability of cracking and crack growth is evident in the experiments.Chapter 6 Future Research The experiments conducted in this research were limited to loads of constant amplitude at a fixed location. The experiments should be extended to actual FRP reinforced concrete slabs. Although FRP concrete slab is corrosion resistant.

The distribution of crack opening growth may be predicted by the model. Structure types may include different configurations such as a sandwich type. such as a tension leg platform (TLP). light weight and ease in construction. 135 . Being composite also makes it possible to have different forms. corrosion resistance is also one of the major concerns. The most promising structure modules should possess excellent load distribution. in which case a crack profile may be simulated. Any reduction of the topside weight by using FRP composites will reduce the cost of supporting structure. In this study. which includes the weight of the accommodation module and production facilities. The dynamic characteristics of FRP tendons under wave action should be studied. Low weight and excellent fatigue performance are also the advantages in this environment. the normal crack length has been used. TLP tendons may also be composed of FRP. In a floating offshore platform. the topside load has to be supported.intensity factors in the Paris equation may be randomized by adding noise. In offshore structures. The actually crack profile may be described by a fractal geometry. The model may be also extended to random loadings. The variability of crack growth may be determined statistically. FRP rods can be a direct substitute of steel reinforcement.

American Concrete Institute. S. S. 1987. 1.E. Houston. M. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. Chaallal. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. pp 29-37. Baluch. Nanni. June 17-19. Committee 440. A. ACI Committee 215. Texas. ACI Structural Journal. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. O. JCTRER.2. Boothby. C. A. Compilation 33. “440. Benmokrane. SEM-RILEM International Conference. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. 2001 5. American Concrete Institute. B.Bibliography 1. 80-87 8. Masmoudi. American Concrete Institute. Swartz.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. A. USA.P. No. 1996 4. S. Vol. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. Vol. 20. pp. January 1998.B. 2000 3. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. R.H. 1995 7. No.91. 136 . Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”.. Al-Dulaijan. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. M. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Shah. 2004 2. S.K. 1992 6. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. Bakis. Qureshy.

Burns. Gergely. Tarhini. B. pp. Publication SP-75. 10. pp137-144. Manfredi. ACI Journal. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Klingner. 1993. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. pp 83-87. Vol. Ned H.4. 137 . Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. R.P.3. Editor S. Kupfer. Journal of Composites for Construction. 16.1. No. Graddy.E. H. H. K. May.2.2. T. G. 1997. Frederick. L. No.9. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. 14. Bakht. S. 1982 11. Balaguru. No. American Concrete Institute. H. Cosenza. 12. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. Shah. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. May 1997. Mabsout.5. SP-20. pp 40-51. August 1969.5. Center for Transportation Research. C. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. R. Vol. John C. P. February. The University of Texas at Austin. J.87-117. Hilsdorf.K. American Concrete Institute. No. Journal of Composites for Construction. Vol. C. Vol.3. Vol. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. E.1. pp 139-147.2. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. R. A. Lutz. No. Causes. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. Detroit.66. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. August.P. August 2000. G. 13. M. pp 659-673. Larralde. 15. 2000. Vol. Richard E. 17. Philleo.

Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Shield.. Beim. NCHRP Project No. French. 114. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. Editor S.P.. P.M. Inc. R. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”.A. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. 1982 138 . C. Swartz. Perdikaris. P. USA. No. 21. American Concrete Institute. Zokaie. Huang. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. 64-69 22. No.N. pp. S. A. pp.C. S.E. John Wiley & Sons.C. 2. Nutt.4. 86. 591607. Houston. 20. Vol. S. Perdikaris. National research Council. March 1988.E. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Beim. Shah.P. Shah.C. Journal of Structural Engineering. A. S.. 1995 23. 1987. S. 483-491. ACI Structural Journal.P. Vol. Swartz. Perdikaris. pp. C. Oct. C. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. S. Vol. T. 1987 19. Texas. pp 381-388. S. 12-26. C.3.C. R. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. S. Transportation Research Board. 1997. July-August 1989.E. June 17-19.M. Washington D. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. P. ASCE. 24. K. Shah. Detroit. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”.K. Fatigue of Concrete Structures.18. Swartz. Publication SP-75.

June 1984. pp. No. P. Fartash.528-534. 26. GangaRao. Vol.H. Vol. ACI Structural Journal. Banthia and P.C.G.25.K. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Paris. Brett. C.24.S. C. M. Vancouver. 2002. Second Edition. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Vijay. pp. S.22.2. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. edited by P. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”. Canada. No. November 1982.11. Experimental Mechanics. Paris Productions Inc.G. 1963 29. Transactions of ASME. K.98.V. 2001 139 . H. Swartz. S. Montreal. Buckland. 28. G. pp129- 134. Paris. Journal of Basic Engineering. F. Hota V. P. J.E. 27. Vol. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. No.85. Tada. Canada. Hu. Vol.E. N.6. Experimental Mechanics.. P. Swartz.412-417. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. 1985 30.