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


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.


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 .

4 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.18 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 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.List of Figures Figure 2.15 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.13 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.8 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.9 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.19 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 8.12 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.

5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.25 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 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=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.32 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5H5 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.30 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .3 KN Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.26 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.23 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.24 Figure 2.33 Figure 2.31 Figure 2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.27 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.

5P5 Figure 2.5S5 Figure 2.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5P5OL and C5x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.5S5 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.6 KN) Figure 2.5S5 and C5x8.7 Figure 3.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.6 Figure 3.5H5M (Pmin=2.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5 Figure 3.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.5H5OL.39 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.3 KN Beam C5x8. C5x8.1 Figure 3.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.Beam C5x8.3 KN Beam C6x8.

4. m=3. C=6.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5 (C=6.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.4 m=3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.57 Figure 3. m=3.76) Figure 3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5.76x10.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76x10.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. C=6. Beam C4x8.5H5 (C=6.4) Figure 3.76x10.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5.76x10.4 m=3.4 m=3. Beam C5x8.4.76x10.5H5.5H5 (m=3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76 Figure 3.4.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.for Beam C6x8.76x10. C=6.76x10. Beam C3x8.76x10.76) Figure 3.76x10.4 m=3.76x10.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. m=3.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.48 Figure 3.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.76x10.5H5 (C=6. m=3. C=6.4.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8. Beam C3x8.5P5.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.

16M Bar at 100mm.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.88 102 103 Figure 3.55 101 Figure 3.4. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. m=3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4. m=3.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Beam C6x8.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.7m.76x10. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4. C=6.74 102 Figure 3. Beam C4x8.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.5P5. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. C=6. Beam C5x8. C=6.4.5P5.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m. m=3.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m.Figure 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.76x10.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .4.

8m.6m.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.10 Figure 4.6m. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 . 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm.8m.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.8m. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.7m. (Girder spacing 3.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4.

23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .8m.20 Figure 4. 1.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.Figure 4.

1 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .2 Table 3.

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


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.


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.


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

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

In the analysis of cyclic loading. A value of 1. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. 1. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces.00. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. in the case of no available experimental data. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 .2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report.71. ACI 440. 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. to be 0. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. slippage moment and fracture moment. similar to steel bars. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. 1. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. w= 2 . Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions.

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

It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. Therefore.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. 3. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. Similarly. 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. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. 0. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete.3 respectively. 0. The authors suggested that C might be related to R.12 and 3.12. were close to one for different specimens. however. The material parameter m was found to be 3. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m .1. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. although the units were not stated explicitly. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. Z.P. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. Baluch et al. height 20 . Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete.2.15 at R=0. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained.

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

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.


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


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


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

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

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


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


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.


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

31 . the three beams were space at 2.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. 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 results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. respectively. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. the spacing was fairly large. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. which was fairly high. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. Models of 1/6. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. In either case. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. however. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. 1989).13m (7 ft). In the prototype.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23.

However. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement.S. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders.2. The crack control 32 . The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design.55S for positive moment and 1220+0. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load.1. c. top and bottom. a. The formula is in U. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab. b. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.6m (12 ft).) The span length of a slab is less than 3.3-1. the width is taken as 660+0.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. where the girder spacing is S.6. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.003 is required in both directions. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. units.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. d. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. Due to serviceability requirements.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD).25S for negative moment.

Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. In the current LRFD codes. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 .3 K g 0. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. For girder spacing S less than 3. Therefore. supported on multiple girders.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.2 K g 0. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.6m (12 feet). Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).1 ) ( ) ( ) 9.4 S 0. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. In other words.06 + ( S 0. DF = 0.6 S 0. the formulas for DF are as follows.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. L is the bridge span. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. 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.5.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0.

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

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

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

Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans.83. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. 37 . and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. The concrete was composed of type III cement. water. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. 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 (8.9 MPa (4045 psi).0/ 2. but with four different widths were fabricated.5/ 2. Therefore. Traditionally.9 MPa (715 psi).5 inches). Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios.5MPa (5000 psi). Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.0/ 0.

units follows.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length.. C6x8.8 GPa (5. 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. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. (see Figure 2. of the FRP bar. The beam widths were 76 mm. Within each beam.S.Figure 2. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. For identification purposes. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. the beam size in U.5H5. which are reported herein. #5. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. C4x8. 102 mm.5H5. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. 16 (#5) bars. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8.5H5. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. As shown above. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. 4. C5x8.1). the last number is the size. Inc.5 inches) thick. respectively. Inc. 38 . there was one No.92E6 psi).5H5. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.

127 mm and 152 mm (3. Similarly. without a helical wrap along the length. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98.2). The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. One specimen. 102 mm.5P5. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. C4x8.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar.Figure 2.5P5. C5x8.5H5M.5 inches) thick. C6x8. The beam widths were 76 mm. 39 . One extra specimen.5P5OL. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. respectively.5P5. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.9 ksi) for #5 bars. for comparison purposes.5P5. The bars are also sand coated.1x106 psi). C5x8. For identification purposes. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. C5x8.5S5. One more specimen. 4. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. C5x8. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8.

5H5 C6x8.5H5 C4x8.5P5 C5x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.5H5 C5x8.Specimen C3x8.5H5M C3x8.5P5 C4x8.5P5 C6x8.5S5 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 2.5P5OL C5x8.5H5 C5x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5P5 C5x8.

The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. 0.20ffu for FRP bars. the predicted crack openings are 0. 127 mm and 152 mm. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. 102 mm. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi).Figure 2.3 and 2.2.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.80 mm and 0. Based on nominal kb value of 1. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .68 mm. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency. respectively. 0.75 mm.4).1R-01. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. According to ACI 440.1R-01. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. in accordance with ACI 440.

the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.8 Hz. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.5H5. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1. for a bridge of 10.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.94. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. For a bridge slab under traffic load. So.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . Therefore.23.23 Hz. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location.94 and 0. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. the overall frequency is 1. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. which is the product of 7.3 in the factored load. for specimen C5x8.5H5 and C6x8. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. carbon FRP. Therefore.

02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. 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 approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. respectively. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude.5”). The first specimen tested was C5x8.540 mm to -1. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. for average curvature estimation. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . and all cracks were stable. within the pure bending region. After more cycles were applied. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. the crack lengths became visually constant.02B-20 and 632. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. Experimental Results (1) Group H . there was no sign of distress with the specimen. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. Inc.000 cycles.5H5.039 in)).Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.270 mm (+0. After the first test interval of 5. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.1000 in to -0.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632.5 inches) below the top of beam.Static pre-cracking was used.118 in to -0.

5 inches) to 165mm (6. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. To investigate the effect of overload. Figure 2. The crack length was virtually the same. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. Pmax was increased to 22.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. the specimen was still in good condition.5 inches). There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. 44 . corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4.000 cycles.000 cycles of this overload.5H5. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. 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.0 kips). After 10. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.300 N (5. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen.

Figure 2.7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).5 H5 45 . To investigate the effect of overload. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.8 Specimen C4 x 8. Pmax was again increased to 22.000 cycles.8 million cycles. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. up to 1.300 N (5.5H5 was similar.0 kips) for 15. No addition distress was found in the specimen.Figure 2.75 inches) below the top of beam.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1.

9 Specimen C6 x 8.600 N.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15.000 cycles. Therefore.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload. The newly formed crack was instrumented. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. Pmax was raised back to 20.000 cycles. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15.000 additional cycles were applied. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.600 N ( 3. prior to 10.000 N and 40. Figure 2.The behavior of specimen C6x8.5H5 was somewhat different. however. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared. During the subsequent fatigue testing. no new cracks appeared up to 140.5 H5 46 .5 kips). After an additional 35. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.

75 inches) below the top of beam. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30.000 N (4. and all cracks were stable. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen.300 N (5. To investigate the effect of overload. 47 .000 testing cycles. the crack lengths became visually constant. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. No new cracks were found in the specimen. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270.To further investigate the overload effect. (2) Group P . a total of 40. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. After the first run of 3. Pmax was finally increased to 22.000 cycles were applied at this load level.000 cycles.000. the specimen was still in good condition. with the second and third cracks monitored. After 10.0 kips). After more cycles were applied.5P5. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8.5 kips) was applied.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. Pmax of 20. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.000 cycles of overload.

5P5.5 inches). 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. After 3000 cycles of overload.000 N (6.10 Specimen C3 x 8. as debonding became more pronounced. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900.Figure 2. 48 . it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29. The average spacing was 200mm (8. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. the concrete cover started falling off.5k). The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1.000 load cycles. After 200 cycles of overload. Within the pure bending region.

25 million cycles. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.000 cycles. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. (Unfortunately. At around 900 cycles.5 P5 Specimen C5x8. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.75 in). two new cracks appeared. and then began growing. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4.11 Specimen C4 x 8.300 N (5.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.000 cycles. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking.5 inches) within the pure bending region. 49 .Figure 2. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. By the end of the test. Pmax of 22. To investigate the effect of overload.0 kips) was applied for 10.

000 N (6. no new cracks appeared up to 1.Figure 2. After 50. there was no indication of severe distress. The two existing cracks then started branching. After 155. Subsequently. Pmax was raised to 29. the specimen was still in good shape.000 cycles. 50 . During the subsequent fatigue testing.000 cycles of overload. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.5 kips). to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding.5P5 behaved similarly.5 P5 The specimen C6x8.000 cycles of this overload were applied. as expected. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found.300.12 Specimen C5 x 8. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. No extra load was initially added. however.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload.

followed by cyclic load at service level.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking.5P5OL. For specimen C6x8.. Figure 2. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading. For specimen C5x8.Figure 2.5 P5OL 51 .5H5.13 Specimen C6 x 8. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing.14 Specimen C5 x 8.

000.000 cycles of this load level. Then.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). with two very close to each other.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. At the end of 1.0 kips). there was no visible growth of the cracks. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. and five cracks appeared. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. No new crack was generated during the test.5 S5 52 .000 cycles.15 Specimen C5 x 8. there was no sign of distress within the specimen. To further investigate the overload effect. Static pre-cracking was used. Figure 2.75 inches).000 N ( 6.000 cycles.300 N (5.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. As cyclic load testing started. Pmax was first increased to 22. Pmax was then increased to 29.

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

17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.

The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 . at least for the bars tested in this investigation. the service load crack openings. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.5H5 and C5x8.6 MPa (4000 psi). In group P. As mentioned earlier.013. respectively.010.0048. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens.84 mm for all four specimens. were 0. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.19 and 0.5H5. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. respectively.5H5.1R-01 criteria.5H5.5H5. had the lowest reinforcement ratio. were 0.5P5. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.16 mm. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.007 for specimens C3x8. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. 0. C4x8. C5x8.5P5 and C6x8.68 mm and 0.15 mm. C4x8. the predicted service load crack openings.16 mm and 0.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.5H5 and C6x8. 0. 0.2. respectively. C4x8. According to the limited test results. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P.5H5.5P5.5H5. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. a kb value of 0. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings.5P5.5H5 was 0. 0.26mm.17 mm. based on ACI 440. C5x8. were between 0. Specimen C6x8. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8. Based on these limited tests. 0.008 and 0. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8.

18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. with increasing load cycle counts. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD.20.18). The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. 2.19. 56 . The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.21 and 2. 2. which disappears after unloading.

100 0.respectively. 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.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.200 0. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.19 and 2.5H5 0. with increasing load cycles counts.20. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.6 KN) 57 . 0. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2. but at a decreasing rate.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .5H5 C5x8 .5H5 0.400 C3 x8 . Based on the experimental results. As can be seen in Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 C4 x8 .

5P 5 C 5x8.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.E+03 1.5P 5 C 4x8.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.E+04 1.2 KN Pmax=15.E+02 1.15 CMOD (mm) 0.E+01 1.6 KN) 58 .200 0.1 0.E+00 1.100 1.E+05 1.300 C 3x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 0.5P 5 0.5H5 C6 x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .150 0.5P 5 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5H5 C5x8 .0.6 KN) 0.2 C3 x8 .20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.

5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.5H5 and C6x8.5P5 0. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings). during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.5H5.5P5 about 10.1 0.5H5. It took specimens C6x8.2 KN Pmax=15. The first stage is crack development.5P5.2 C3 x8 .5P5. Specimens C3x8.5P5 0.5P 5 C6 x8 . 59 .000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.0. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. C4x8. C5x8.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5H5 and C5x8. C3x8. C4x8.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. during this period of crack development. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P5 C4 x8 .

26). The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. Figures 2.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings).24).23). all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness). although at a decreasing rate. The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length.25).26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 . it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading. For beam C4x8. The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. For beam C3x8.23 through 2. For beam C6x8.Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique. nearly constant elastic CMOD.5H5 (see Figure 2.5H5.5H5 (see Figure 2. 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. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. or crack stabilization. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error.5H5 (see Figure 2. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD. If the area becomes larger. The general trend of plastic CMOD. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. For beam C5x8.5H5 (see Figure 2. crack growth reaches the second stage. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased.

One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.8 4 1. 2.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .05 0.2 0. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .15 0. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.for the single crack. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.0 0 0 1.28. 2.1 0. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.30 and 2.29.27. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.5P5. which is discussed later.5P5.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.

0 0 0 2 8 0 .2 Figure 2.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .05 0.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.1 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .15 0.0 0 0 2 .0 0 0 9 8 8 .2 0.05 0.0 0 0 .0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 .25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.

2 0.2 0.3 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.1 0.000 140.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .4 0.1 0.

5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.15 0.05 0.000 900.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .25 0.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.05 0.2 0.000 900.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.15 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.

05 0.2 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.1 0.15 0.000 0.000 1.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.050.05 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .000 600.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.2 0.

00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.20E-05 8. From Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.33).5H5 1. 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.5H5 1. at unit width. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.33. etc.32 and 2.00E-05 C3 x8 . friction. micro-cracking.00E-06 0.32 and 2. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 .00E-06 4.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 .Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. 2.5H5 C4 x8 . damping. The pseudo energy loss per crack.5H5 C6 x8 .

5P5 C6 x8 . which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.50E-05 2.) 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. generally speaking. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.5H5 and C6x8.33 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.2.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.00E-05 5.00E-05 C3 x8 .00E-06 0.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.5H5 and C4x8. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.50E-05 1.5P5 C4 x8 .5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8. Similarly in group P.5H5.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length. 67 .

a 30% overload was applied after 180.15 CMO D (mm) 0. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .5H5.3 KN Beam C5x8.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC.1 0.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.25 Figure 2.5H5. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. as shown in Figure 2. up to 40% over service load levels.34).000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.35).36 and 2. It would appear that relatively modest overloads.5H5 68 .34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22. Similar results were obtained in group P. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.37. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.2 0. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P. For specimen C6x8.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.000 load cycles. For specimen C5x8.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10.

2 CMO D (mm) 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 69 .3 KN Beam C5x8.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.25 0.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.1 0.4 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.5H5 20 1.3 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.15 CMO D (mm) 0.05 0.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .2 0.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.1 0.

the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage.1 0. for the Isorod rebars.37 0.15 0. At the same time. and CMOD started growing again.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.3 KN Beam C6x8. there was fatigue hardening. Only after 10.2 0.000 cycles of loading. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. In the subsequent loading cycles. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. at the working stress level.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. 70 .000 cycles.38. as shown in Figure 2.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.05 0.

steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.30 0.5H5M (Pmin=2.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.00 1 -0. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload. C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.05 0.25 CMOD (mm) 0.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. 0.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.Comparing group H.10 0.5H5 and C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.5P5. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.15 0.5H5 and C5x8.5P5.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.20 0. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .35 0. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5H5OL.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8. Compared with FRP bars. However.5H5M Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5S5 and C5x8.

although no overload was applied. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200.000 response cycles. During the service level fatigue testing. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. the crack length was visually constant. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. As more cycles were applied. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased.39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles. The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC.75 in). instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars.considerably lower. with similar reinforcement ratios. or closer to rebar at the bottom. No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. In the crack stabilization stage. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars. Figure 2. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. Figure 2. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. After one million cycles under working stress.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load. an overload of 40% above working stress was applied.

unlike FRP RC.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5S5 73 . At the same time.000.000 280.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.04 0.01 0.000 1.03 CMO D (mm) 0.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.08 0.02 0.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.02 0. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.04 0.06 Figure 2.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.06 C MO D (mm) 0.05 0.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 . there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.1 Figure 2.40.

The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.00E-06 2. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking.5P5OL and C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.5S 5 C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per crack. at unit width.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.5S5 Thus far. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.00E-06 3.00E-06 0. sometimes. there are cracks in close proximity to each other. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5H5.00E-06 1. 7. for specimen C5x8. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased. 74 .5P5 and C5x8. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.41.00E-06 4.00E-06 6.

The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured.000 cycles. as more cycles were applied.000 cycles.42 Specimen C5 x 8. Unfortunately. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. In other words.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. no plastic CMOD was acquired.42. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. there was a crack at midspan.5P5.000 cycles. they were very close to each other. it began to stabilize. until one million cycles had elapsed.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. the elastic CMOD became less. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. however. At around one million cycles. as shown in the photo. which was 115mm (4.5 in) from the two monitored cracks.. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. But. due to operation problems. after 10. 75 .Figure 2. In specimen C5x8. In addition.

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

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

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

and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it. a substantial effort was made to simulate the mechanical behavior of the contact between the concrete and rebar. however.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study. 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. When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements. They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. shown above in Figure 3. which is not the case in reality. The model is not necessarily unique. however. In the first case. for this investigation. however. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model.1 Debonded Length Representation Two simplified finite element modeling approaches have been proposed. a crack is modeled as a precracked surface. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 . Initially. Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3. No success was achieved.1.

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

The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2.19 0.21 0. will make this representation insensitive to crack length. Interestingly. As mentioned earlier.3). It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. A small base dimension. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. The height is the true height of a crack. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. to account 81 . The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material.the table below. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces.22 0.5P5 C5x8.16 C3x8.5P5 C4x8.23 0. The justification of the model is as follows.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model.17 0. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces.5mm (0.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. however. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack.17 0.1 in).5P5 C6x8.

Fictitious Material Figure 3. The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.for the interaction between crack surfaces.3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3.5P4 82 .4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.

5P5 C5x8.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13.20 0. Normally. Specimen C3x8.20 Efic 27. Also. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.20 0.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. 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. It is another possible indication of a size effect.5P5 C4x8. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3. 83 . below.20 0.24 0. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.The Young’s modulus. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.20 0.2. Efic.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.24 0.5P5 C6x8. However. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.

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

Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete.In the diagram above. ac stands for the crack length. hb stands for the beam height. 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. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). ⎡ 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. the following equations are obtained. (3-6) 85 . the result is as follows. 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). ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement.

the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. shown below in Figure 3.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. Consequently.6. So the following relation is obtained.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. the following equation is obtained. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. under either monotonic or cyclic loading. based on finite element analysis. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. In other words. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam. 86 . It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. This assumption will later be verified. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. Utilizing this behavioral assumption.

39( ac a a a ) + 7. 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.32( c ) 2 − 13.12 − 1. and N is the number of cycles.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [ = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results. the following equation is obtained. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation. after rearrangement. L is the spacing of cracks.1( c ) 3 + 14. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . ∆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).

The angle α has the following expression. 88 .66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.17 − 28.22( c ) + 34. M is the bending moment.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5. P is the concentrated load.04(1 − c )5 + 1.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.G( a c a c a c a c ac . ) = 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. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.63 + 25. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3. hb is the beam height. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.88(1 − c )5 − 2.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.16( c ) − 31.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.04( c ) 2 + 14.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.84(1 − c )5 + 0.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.46 + 3.06( c ) + 0. D was 610mm (24 in).54( c ) 2 − 14.

00654 0. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.00128 = 0.00696 0.S.5P5 C5x8.01121 × 7. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.0011 5.5 72 0. with relative differences all less than 10%.00127 = 0.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 . 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 3.5P5 0.00109 5. we have the following equation.006407 0.5H5 C5x8.3. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.006973 × 12 = 0. the following equations are obtained.00119 = 0.0011 5 72 Table 3.5 = 0.5 72 0. the hinge assumption is justified.01302 × 6 = 0.5H5 C4x8.5P5 C6x8.

To address these variables with uncertainties. which will be determined based on experimental results. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. First.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U.S. with possibly different initial crack lengths. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. The parameter m was set to be 3. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. depending on the ingredients and curing process. 7. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated.25x10-4.76x10-4.6x10-17 and 3. namely. Three different C values were used. 2. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . 6. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. 6. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm.76. using specimen C5x8.5H5 as a prototype. units. corresponding to 2x10-16.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. The results were shown in Figure 3. the opening increment only changed by 0. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. In the case of multiple cracks.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. the exact spacing of cracks is random.8.

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. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984).were similar to each other.76x10-4 and m at 3. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. Obviously.86.5 in). C was therefore fixed at 6. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. 91 . the model is insensitive to C.66. 3. The crack opening increment. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3.76. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6.003mm.01mm less. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. 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. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths.76 and 3.9. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. and that each was completely different from the others. did not change more than 0.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . The final crack opening increment might be 0. however.86.

This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve.11. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm.13. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . The plots are shown in Figure 3. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. Values of Ec were set at 27.001mm less. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . 1. The height of specimen 92 .6MPa to 41. with fixed C of 6. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. with a difference of about 40mm.5MPa and 41. The crack opening growth. yet all cracks stop at the same length. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. approximately. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size.6MPa. The width of specimen C5x8. The plots are shown in Figure 3. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. As Ec increased from 27. the values of Ef .76.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.10 and 3.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. The crack opening increment was approximately 0.12 and 3. however. Finally.4MPa.4MPa. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef.3Ef were examined.15Ef and 1.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. The error for crack opening increment was about 0.002mm less.76x10-4 and m of 3. 34. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing.25 in).

The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. and vice versa. 93 . the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. This model is most sensitive. The plots are shown in Figure 3. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. In summary. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. due to the nature of the exponential function. For other variables. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. and specimen size. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP.001mm less. however.14 and 3.25 in). as long as the variability is within a reasonable range.15.C5x8.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. with 6mm less beam height. crack length.

76) Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76x10-4) 94 .

76) 95 .Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.

12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76) 96 .13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.

76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.76) Figure 3.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) 97 .5H5 (C=6.

A summary was shown in Figure 3.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. units. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C .22. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. since m is the exponential term. In other words. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). in that m decreases as the beam width decreases.18.23. which illustrates a size effect. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P.5H5. The results are listed from Figure 3. all specimens except C6x8. using a brute force approach.S.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ). it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. Similar results are shown Figure 3. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. 98 . For both thin and thick specimens. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed.19 to 3. For parameters C and m in Paris equation.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. To simplify the model.16 to 3. For specimens of group H.

48 99 . the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. however.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. When the specimen width increases. In the case of FRP concrete. and. m=3. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. C=6.76x10-4.5H5. Figure 3.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials.

18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.76x10-4. m=3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. C=6.Figure 3.5H5.5H5. C=6.76 100 . m=3.57 Figure 3.76x10-4.

C=6. C=6. m=3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.55 101 .19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. m=3.76x10-4.76x10-4.39 Figure 3.5P5.Figure 3.5P5.

m=3.88 102 .76x10-4.76x10-4.74 Figure 3.Figure 3.5P5.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8. C=6.5P5. C=6. m=3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.

2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.6 3.4 Group H Group P 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .4 3.8 m Value 3.

Secondly. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. For a cast-in-place concrete slab. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. and to simulate a worst case scenario.6. due to its relative simplicity. The arching effect will also be examined. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions.2.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. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. From the AASHTO design guide. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. To account for the effect of continuity.55S for positive moments. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4.1. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. plus top and bottom chord 104 .3-1. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. the width of primary strip is 660+0. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. The values of strip width are based on experience. First.

which represent the majority of bridges in service. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section.8 m (6 feet). For the purpose of simplicity. The corresponding strip widths are 1. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3.7 m (105 in). 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. 2. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack.5m (20 in).86 MPa (125 psi). due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs.8 m. The wheel load is 71. 2. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.2. the following assumptions are made. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. i. 105 .6 m (12 feet). Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.1. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. with a lateral spacing of 1.bars. and the width of the loading area is always 0. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm.2 m (86 in) and 2..6.7 m (66 in).5-1 in AASHTO. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight.e.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.7 m (9 feet) and 3.5P5. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows.

To investigate the arching effect. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . 16M Bar at 100mm.5 in2).1. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. the case of a girder spacing of 1. Figure 4. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.First. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2. one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4.8m (6 ft) was analyzed.2.8m.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan.

8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 107 . From the stress contour plot. The tensile stress also decreased significantly.Figure 4. 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.3.

with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed. Two cases of girder spacing.8m.6m girder spacing was also analyzed.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4.8m.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3. 2. 108 .3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. The results are illustrated below. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. the effects of girder spacing were examined.7m and 3.

Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.7m.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.

16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m.

the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. In Figure 4. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. regardless of the girder spacing. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. 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 lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab.10. The magnitude of 111 .Figure 4. Next. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center.8m.

Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.0 ksi).stress at the assumed 3.2 0. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. 100mm Bar Spa.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . 120 3. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. 100mm Bar Spa.7m Girder Spa. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. The maximum rebar stress at 3.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. therefore. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels.8 1 1. rather than the static ultimate strength. are durability and serviceability. 150mm Bar Spa.4 0.6m Girder Spa. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. The remaining issues.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4. including crack opening and slab deflection. 100 1.2 1.3 ksi). 3. 100mm bar Spa.6 0.1 MPa (10.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. 2.0MPa (13.8m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa.

0073 in).22mm (0. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.0022 in). The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0.19mm (0. Finally.5 in2).8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. to 0. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.055mm (0.0019 in).058mm (0. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. was added at each diaphragm location.0023 in). Compared with the maximum 0.8m girder spacing.18mm (0. 113 .048mm (0.5mm suggested in ACI 440. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.0083 in).051mm (0.0085 in). At the girder spacing of 1.0020 in). The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.00202 in). To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.21mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. which should be acceptable.051mm (0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. the entire diaphragm was removed. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect. a top diaphragm bar.0072 in). The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).

4mm (0. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same. again.021 in). the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2.13 mm (0. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small. which.0031 in). With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.0032 in). the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.53mm (0.077mm (0. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0.108mm (0.00303 in).080mm (0. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. should be acceptable. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.089 mm (0.055 in).0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0.5 in2). it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0042 in).077mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).

In the State of Ohio. there are four legal loads. The strip width is.2m. somewhat arbitrary. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. at 150mm spacing.02 in). under the design truck load and lane loads. 9. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. presumably. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. The axle spacings are 3. which is composed of one axle load of 53. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. its expected conservatism. namely an opening of less than .5mm (. however. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. 1.0063 in).sake of simplicity. 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).6m. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design.16 mm (0. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1.2m. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low.4m and 1. due to its simplicity and. 115 . which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440.62 KN (17 kips).6m (12 ft). and due to their ineffectiveness.

Due to the large size of the structure. With the fictitious material representation. The second and third axles are 142. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. the slab was supported by three girders.5m. especially including discrete rebars. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. The design truck is composed of three axles.6 KN (8 kips). but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness.3m (60 ft) long. The spacing between the 116 . One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. such as 5C1. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. The model bridge was single span of 18.producing a total length of 15. The slab thickness was 215mm (8.27m (14 ft).5 in). Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi).5 KN (32 kips). Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. Similar to slab strip model. The front axle load is 35. which would generate too many elements. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening.

actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.35 KN/m (0. spanning the two girder spacings. relative to the actual imposed stress field. For comparison purposes. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9.053mm.12. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. a slab strip model under the same condition was created. with no diaphragms. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip.8m (6 ft).081mm.11 and 4.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. Compared with Figure 4. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. minimum spacing of 4.15m (30 ft).05m (10 ft). In Figure 4. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.11.27m (14 ft) and 9.second axle and the third axle varies between 4.4.64 Kips/ft). in the bridge model. In the case of single span bridge. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. using the fictitious material model. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.

6m (12 ft).20. there was always one compression “dome”. The single “dome” was split into two again.7m and 3.19. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. 2. as expected. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 .6m spacing. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression. and excessive crack opening predictions. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge.058mm. As the girder spacing changed from 1.6m.6m (15 ft).15 through 4. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.8m.15. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.14. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model.crack opening prediction. Without diaphragms.8m (6 ft) to 3. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4.13 and 4. as an indication of the arching effect.041mm. Finally.

22 for the bridge model with 1. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders.of the same model without diaphragms. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. the maximum final crack opening was 0. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution.21. 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. as shown in Figure 4.21 mm.3. Nevertheless. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. 119 . Even at a girder spacing 3.8m girder spacing.6m (12 ft).41mm. The model is shown in Figure 4. Even including an impact factor of 1.

Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.8m. Slab thickness 215mm. (Girder spacing 1.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. 120 . Lane Load and Self-Weight.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.

13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 121 .14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.8m.Figure 4.

15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. Figure 4. (Girder spacing 2. Lane Load and Self-Weight.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 .16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.Figure 4.

18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.6m.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. (Girder spacing 3. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .

1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.Figure 4.w / Diaph. 3.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 . 3. 2.6m Girder Spa.w / Disph.6m Girder Spa.2 2. CMOD (mm) 0.w / Diaph.7m Girder Spa. 1.No Diaph.7m Girder Spa.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. 0.No Diaph. 0.3 1.8m Girder Spa.8m Girder Spa.No Diaph.

(Girder spacing 1.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.0.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.04 0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.8m. 1.06 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .

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

Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more.0018 × 60. as discussed below.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. 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. As a result. respectively. although temperature and shrinkage effects. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. are resisted by larger concrete sections. at girder lines.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. ρ = 0. In the longitudinal slab direction.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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80-87 8. June 17-19. 1995 7. Qureshy. 136 . “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. R. Swartz. Benmokrane.H. A.. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. pp 29-37. C. Bakis. Compilation 33. S. Boothby. Houston. M. January 1998. USA.E. American Concrete Institute. “440. Shah. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. 2004 2. Vol. American Concrete Institute. M. ACI Structural Journal. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Texas. No. Al-Dulaijan. 1996 4. 1. B.2. pp.Bibliography 1. No. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. A. Masmoudi.K. Chaallal. 1992 6. Committee 440. JCTRER.P. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. S. Baluch. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. Nanni. 2001 5. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. SEM-RILEM International Conference. A. 2000 3. S. American Concrete Institute. S. ACI Committee 215. 1987.91. Vol. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. O. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 20.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”.B.

B. T. Graddy. Cosenza. E. Hilsdorf.3. pp 659-673. H. Larralde. 10. Journal of Composites for Construction. 15. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Burns. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. pp137-144. C. P. pp 40-51.66. Klingner. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering.87-117. 137 .2. Gergely. H. 12. No. K. August 1969. No. August. Publication SP-75. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. pp. J. Richard E.5.E. H. Kupfer. Tarhini. Vol. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”.P.P. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Vol. R. May 1997. 14. No.5. Center for Transportation Research. Shah.4. Manfredi. Ned H. The University of Texas at Austin. Detroit. pp 83-87.2. 1993. 13. August 2000. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. Causes. 17. 2000. Editor S.1. C.3. No. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. R. Balaguru. John C.1. S. Lutz. 1982 11. Vol. Vol. L. ACI Journal. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. 1997. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. A. American Concrete Institute. No. Philleo. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. February. Journal of Composites for Construction.K. G. R. G. American Concrete Institute. SP-20.2. Frederick. pp 139-147. Bakht. 16. Vol. Vol.9. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Mabsout. May. M.

Shah. Transportation Research Board.P. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. S. Perdikaris. Huang. French. Beim. Beim. 20.M. Journal of Structural Engineering. Nutt.. pp. June 17-19. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. 1987 19. S. Zokaie. Vol.M. Inc. 24. Shield. Shah. P. 21. Texas. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. C.E.C. T. John Wiley & Sons. July-August 1989. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2. Editor S. Perdikaris.3. R. C. Swartz.18. No. Vol. No. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. Vol. 591607.N. 12-26. National research Council. USA. Shah. Oct. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. pp. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures.C. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. Swartz. March 1988. 86. Fracture of Concrete and Rock.P. 1982 138 . S. Perdikaris. 483-491.4. NCHRP Project No. American Concrete Institute. Swartz..C.K. Washington D. 1997. P. C. 1995 23. S.A. S. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. pp 381-388.P.C.E. A. C. Publication SP-75. P. pp.E. A. SEM-RILEM International Conference. S. Detroit. K. ASCE. 1987. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. 64-69 22. R. Houston. 114. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. S. S. ACI Structural Journal..

Hu. Vol. ACI Structural Journal. Vancouver.H. Second Edition. Canada.G.25. P.528-534.85.C. Experimental Mechanics. N.6. Paris. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. S. 1985 30.412-417. pp129- 134. C. Swartz.G. P. Paris. M. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”.S. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”.E.V.24. pp.K. No. 27. 2002. Banthia and P. G. Journal of Basic Engineering. Brett. Vijay. P. 26. No. K. Vol. No. S. Vol. Experimental Mechanics. 1963 29. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. pp. Canada.11. Montreal.2. Fartash.22. edited by P. Vol. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”. Hota V. Paris Productions Inc. GangaRao. Transactions of ASME.98. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. C. Tada. November 1982. J. 28. H. Swartz. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. Buckland.E.. F. June 1984. 2001 139 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful