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 .

5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.11 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.15 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.14 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 8.4 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.List of Figures Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .10 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.16 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.12 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.2 KN Pmax=15.

28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.33 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN 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=22.24 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.26 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.23 Figure 2.32 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.6 KN) Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.3 KN Beam C5x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.25 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.31 Figure 2.30 Figure 2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .6 KN) Figure 2.27 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.

41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.3 KN Beam C5x8.1 Figure 3.5P5OL and C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.6 Figure 3.5P5 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5OL.5S5 and C5x8.39 Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C6x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.3 Figure 3.5S5 Figure 2.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.6 KN) Figure 2. C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.Beam C5x8.7 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.

9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8. Beam C4x8.4 m=3.76x10.4 m=3.76x10. m=3.5H5.4 m=3. C=6.5H5 (C=6. C=6.76x10. Beam C5x8.76x10.76) Figure 3.5P5.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8. m=3.4.5H5 (C=6.76x10.76) Figure 3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (m=3.76x10.4 m=3.4 m=3.5H5.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6. C=6.4) Figure 3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76) Figure 3. m=3.5H5.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8. Beam C3x8.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76) Figure 3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8. C=6.5H5 (C=6.4.5H5 (C=6.76x10.76) Figure 3.76x10.4.4.76) Figure 3.for Beam C6x8. Beam C3x8.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.48 Figure 3.76x10.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.57 Figure 3.76x10. m=3.76x10.76 Figure 3.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.

Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4.8m.8m. m=3.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. m=3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .4.8m.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.7m.4.Figure 3. Beam C6x8.4.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. C=6. C=6.74 102 Figure 3.55 101 Figure 3. m=3.76x10. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. Beam C4x8. 16M Bar at 100mm.76x10.6m.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.5P5.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.5P5.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.7m. Beam C5x8.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.88 102 103 Figure 3. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4. C=6.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.8m.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3.76x10.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.

Figure 4.6m.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Figure 4.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8m.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 . 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.8m. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.7m.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. Lane Load and Self-Weight.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.6m.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4.10 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 3.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.

22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .20 Figure 4.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.8m. 1.

2 Table 3.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .1 Table 3.

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

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.


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

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

1.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. A value of 1. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. slippage moment and fracture moment.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. to be 0.71. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. w= 2 . The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. 1. similar to steel bars. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. ACI 440. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 .83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. dc is the concrete cover to bar center.00. in the case of no available experimental data. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. 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. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. In the analysis of cyclic loading.

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

The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length.P.12 and 3. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials.12.2. although the units were not stated explicitly. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. Baluch et al. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. Therefore. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained.15 at R=0. 0. however. 3. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm.3 respectively.1. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. were close to one for different specimens. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. Z. 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 concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. The material parameter m was found to be 3. 0.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. Similarly. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. height 20 . It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax).

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

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


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

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

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.


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

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

1. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.6m (12 ft).003 is required in both directions. where the girder spacing is S.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum.S. The crack control 32 .) The span length of a slab is less than 3. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. b. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. However. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders.25S for negative moment.2. the width is taken as 660+0.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. d. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution. The formula is in U. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. units.3-1. a. c. Due to serviceability requirements. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD).6. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.55S for positive moment and 1220+0. top and bottom.

Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. For girder spacing S less than 3.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000).3 K g 0. In other words. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . DF = 0. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5.2 K g 0. supported on multiple girders. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. Therefore. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).6m (12 feet). 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 0.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. 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. In the AASHTO LFD design codes.6 S 0.06 + ( S 0.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. L is the bridge span. In the current LRFD codes.4 S 0. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. the formulas for DF are as follows.5.

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

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

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

5 inches). The nominal compressive strength target was 34. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.0/ 0. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8.83. in specimens more representative of in-service applications.9 MPa (4045 psi).5MPa (5000 psi). Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars.0/ 2. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. 37 . the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.9 MPa (715 psi). Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. water. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. The concrete was composed of type III cement. but with four different widths were fabricated. 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. Therefore. Traditionally. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios.5/ 2.

The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. 4.5H5. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. Inc.5H5. respectively. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. The beam widths were 76 mm. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. As shown above. 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. the last number is the size.5H5. 16 (#5) bars. Within each beam.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested.Figure 2. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. the beam size in U. C5x8.8 GPa (5. For identification purposes. which are reported herein.1)..92E6 psi). of the FRP bar. #5.5H5. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.S. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. units follows. 38 .5 inches) thick. there was one No. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. 102 mm. (see Figure 2. C6x8. C4x8. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. Inc.

5P5OL. The beam widths were 76 mm.5P5. 4. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.5P5. For identification purposes. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. respectively. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar.5H5M. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. for comparison purposes.9 ksi) for #5 bars. One extra specimen.1x106 psi). One specimen. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. C6x8.5P5.5P5. The bars are also sand coated. One more specimen. Similarly. without a helical wrap along the length. C5x8.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. 102 mm.Figure 2.2). of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. C5x8. 39 . C5x8. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8.5 inches) thick.5S5. C4x8. C5x8.

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

80 mm and 0. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments.Figure 2. respectively. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .1R-01.20ffu for FRP bars. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points.3 and 2.1R-01.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.68 mm. the predicted crack openings are 0. 102 mm. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). 127 mm and 152 mm. 0.75 mm. in accordance with ACI 440. According to ACI 440.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm.4). 0. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.2. Based on nominal kb value of 1.

the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. So.3 in the factored load. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1. for specimen C5x8.94. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. For a bridge slab under traffic load. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated.5H5 and C6x8.23. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0. which is the product of 7.5H5. the overall frequency is 1.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . Therefore. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour.23 Hz. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7. For a truck with axle spacing of 3.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).in carbon FRP.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. Therefore. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location. for a bridge of 10.8 Hz.94 and 0. However.

02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.270 mm (+0. 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. respectively.118 in to -0. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.039 in)). The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. which was near the theoretical neutral axis.5H5.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.02B-20 and 632. within the pure bending region.5”).1000 in to -0.5 inches) below the top of beam. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. The first specimen tested was C5x8. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. the crack lengths became visually constant.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. After the first test interval of 5. Experimental Results (1) Group H .540 mm to -1. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . for average curvature estimation. Inc. After more cycles were applied.Static pre-cracking was used. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. and all cracks were stable.000 cycles. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.

5H5. the specimen was still in good condition. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen.0 kips). corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. After 10. Pmax was increased to 22. Figure 2.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8.5 inches) to 165mm (6. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam.6 Specimen C5 x 8.5 inches). To investigate the effect of overload.000 cycles of this overload.300 N (5. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. The crack length was virtually the same.000 cycles. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. 44 .

Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. up to 1. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. Pmax was again increased to 22. Figure 2. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking. No addition distress was found in the specimen.7 Specimen C3 x 8.0 kips) for 15.5H5 was similar.5 H5 45 . To investigate the effect of overload.300 N (5.Figure 2.75 inches) below the top of beam.8 Specimen C4 x 8.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.000 cycles.8 million cycles.

The behavior of specimen C6x8. prior to 10. no new cracks appeared up to 140. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.5 H5 46 .000 cycles. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.000 cycles.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.000 additional cycles were applied.5 kips).5H5 was somewhat different. During the subsequent fatigue testing.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. Pmax was raised back to 20. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. After an additional 35. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.9 Specimen C6 x 8.000 N and 40.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4. however. The newly formed crack was instrumented.600 N ( 3. Figure 2.600 N. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. Therefore.

0 kips).5P5. with the second and third cracks monitored.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.5 kips) was applied.000 testing cycles.000 cycles of overload. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. After more cycles were applied.75 inches) below the top of beam.000 cycles. No new cracks were found in the specimen.000 N (4.000 cycles were applied at this load level. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. After the first run of 3. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. and all cracks were stable.To further investigate the overload effect. Pmax was finally increased to 22. After 10. a total of 40. (2) Group P .300 N (5.000. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. To investigate the effect of overload. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. 47 . Pmax of 20. the specimen was still in good condition. the crack lengths became visually constant. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.

The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. The average spacing was 200mm (8. Within the pure bending region. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000.5k).000 load cycles. 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. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. After 3000 cycles of overload.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.5 inches). A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. After 200 cycles of overload. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. as debonding became more pronounced.5P5.000 N (6. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. 48 .Figure 2. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8.10 Specimen C3 x 8. the concrete cover started falling off.

The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. and then began growing.000 cycles. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles. two new cracks appeared.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1.000 cycles. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5x8.75 in). between the first two cracks at the midspan region. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4.300 N (5.0 kips) was applied for 10. Pmax of 22. At around 900 cycles. By the end of the test.5 inches) within the pure bending region. 49 .11 Specimen C4 x 8. (Unfortunately.25 million cycles. To investigate the effect of overload. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.

000 cycles of overload. Subsequently. however. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.5P5 behaved similarly. there was no indication of severe distress. 50 . Pmax was raised to 29. The two existing cracks then started branching. No extra load was initially added.Figure 2. no new cracks appeared up to 1. After 155. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. as expected. During the subsequent fatigue testing.000 cycles.000 cycles of this overload were applied.5 kips).12 Specimen C5 x 8.000 N (6. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.300. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. After 50.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. the specimen was still in good shape.

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

000 cycles. there was no sign of distress within the specimen. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5.000. Static pre-cracking was used.0 kips).5 S5 52 . To further investigate the overload effect. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). Figure 2. Pmax was first increased to 22. As cyclic load testing started.300 N (5.000 cycles of this load level. with two very close to each other. Pmax was then increased to 29.000 N ( 6.000 cycles. and five cracks appeared. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. No new crack was generated during the test. Then.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress.75 inches). At the end of 1.15 Specimen C5 x 8. there was no visible growth of the cracks.

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

16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .

19 and 0.5P5.007 for specimens C3x8. 0. were between 0.5H5. 0. C5x8. C4x8.5H5. According to the limited test results. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value.15 mm.16 mm and 0.013. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. the predicted service load crack openings.5P5 and C6x8. C4x8. As mentioned earlier. Based on these limited tests.16 mm. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. C4x8.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.5H5. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.5H5 was 0. Specimen C6x8.5H5.84 mm for all four specimens.010. were 0.68 mm and 0.008 and 0. were 0. respectively. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1.5H5. respectively. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. the service load crack openings. based on ACI 440. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value. 0.1R-01 criteria.2.26mm.5P5.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction. 0. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .5H5.5H5 and C6x8.5P5. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.0048. 0. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.5H5 and C5x8. In group P. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. a kb value of 0. at least for the bars tested in this investigation.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. C5x8. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. respectively.17 mm.6 MPa (4000 psi).

56 . and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does. with increasing load cycle counts. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD.21 and 2.20. 2. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. 2.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. which disappears after unloading.18).18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding.19.

Based on the experimental results. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2. As can be seen in Figure 2.6 KN) 57 .5H5 C5x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .100 0. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs. 0. with increasing load cycles counts. 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. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.2 KN Pmax=15.respectively. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.20.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 0.19 and 2.400 C3 x8 . but at a decreasing rate.5H5 0.200 0.

200 0.150 0.2 C3 x8 .E+00 1.E+03 1.1 0.15 CMOD (mm) 0.5H5 0.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5H5 C5x8 .5P 5 C 4x8.6 KN) 0.5P 5 0.300 C 3x8.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.E+05 1.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 C4 x8 .E+01 1.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.0.E+04 1.2 KN Pmax=15.5P 5 C 5x8.100 1.5H5 C6 x8 .6 KN) 58 .2 KN Pmax=15.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.E+02 1.5P 5 0.

5H5.5P 5 C6 x8 .5P5 0.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5. C5x8. The first stage is crack development. Specimens C3x8.1 0. C3x8. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.5P5 about 10. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.5H5 and C6x8. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks. 59 .2 C3 x8 .0.5P5 0.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5H5 and C5x8. C4x8. It took specimens C6x8.5P5 C4 x8 .5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. during this period of crack development.5P5. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).5H5. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.

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

27. 2. 2.1 0. which is discussed later.05 0.15 0.5P5.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.2 0.30 and 2. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.28. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 . This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.8 4 1.0 0 0 1. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .5P5.29.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.for the single crack. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2. 2.

1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.1 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 9 8 8 .15 0.2 Figure 2.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .0 0 0 2 .0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .0 0 0 1.0 0 0 .15 0.05 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.05 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.0 0 0 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 2 8 0 .

05 0.1 0.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 140.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.3 0.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.2 0.4 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.2 0.1 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.

000 900.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .2 0.1 0.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 900.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.2 0.05 0.25 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.15 0.15 0.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.

14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.050.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.2 0.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.000.05 0.15 0.000 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 600.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .2 0.000 1.1 0.

00E-06 4.32 and 2.20E-05 8.5H5 C6 x8 .5H5 C4 x8 . The pseudo energy loss per crack. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.33). The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . friction. at unit width.5H5 1. micro-cracking. etc. 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. From Figure 2.00E-05 C3 x8 .32 and 2.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. damping.33. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.00E-06 0.5H5 1. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section. 2.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 .

5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.00E-05 5. 67 .5H5.00E-06 0.5H5 and C6x8. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.00E-05 C3 x8 . as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.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. Similarly in group P.5P5 C4 x8 .5H5 and C4x8.50E-05 1. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased. generally speaking.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.50E-05 2. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .5P5 C6 x8 . The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.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.

as shown in Figure 2. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.5H5.15 CMO D (mm) 0. Similar results were obtained in group P. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .000 cycles of service level fatigue loading. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.34).000 load cycles.2 0. For specimen C5x8. For specimen C6x8.5H5. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 KN Beam C5x8. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.5H5 68 . It would appear that relatively modest overloads.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.37.35).25 Figure 2.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. up to 40% over service load levels.1 0. a 30% overload was applied after 180.36 and 2.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.

1 0.2 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.2 CMO D (mm) 0.5H5 20 1.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.25 0.5P5 69 .36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 0.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.3 Figure 2.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.4 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.1 0.05 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .

05 0.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. as shown in Figure 2.1 0. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. at the working stress level.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .000 cycles. Only after 10.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22. for the Isorod rebars.2 0. 70 .0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.15 0.37 0. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. there was fatigue hardening. At the same time.38. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. and CMOD started growing again. In the subsequent loading cycles.000 cycles of loading.3 KN Beam C6x8. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated.

since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.35 0.5H5OL.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8. However.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.15 0.Comparing group H.5H5M (Pmin=2.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.20 0. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.05 0. 0. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8. Compared with FRP bars. C5x8.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5H5 and C5x8. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.5P5. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5H5M Figure 2.30 0.5S5 and C5x8.10 0.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.00 1 -0. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.5P5.5H5 and C5x8. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.25 CMOD (mm) 0.

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

02 0.06 Figure 2.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0. unlike FRP RC.5S5 73 .04 0.08 0.000.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.05 0.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 . At the same time.04 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.000 280.40.02 0.1 Figure 2.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.03 CMO D (mm) 0.01 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.06 C MO D (mm) 0.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.000 1.

5P5 and C5x8.00E-06 1.00E-06 0.00E-06 2.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen. for specimen C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per crack. sometimes.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. 74 .5S5 and C5x8.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5S5 Thus far. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.5P5OL and C5x8.41. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8.00E-06 4. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8. 7.5S 5 C5x8.5H5. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. at unit width.00E-06 3.00E-06 6.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.

until one million cycles had elapsed.000 cycles. they were very close to each other. no plastic CMOD was acquired.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. In specimen C5x8. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size.5H5M shown above in Figure 2.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. as shown in the photo.5P5. In addition. In other words. At around one million cycles. which was 115mm (4.42 Specimen C5 x 8. 75 . there was a crack at midspan.000 cycles. But. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. however. after 10. the elastic CMOD became less.Figure 2. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70.42. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. as more cycles were applied.000 cycles. due to operation problems.. Unfortunately. it began to stabilize.

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

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

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

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

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

5P5 C4x8. As mentioned earlier. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. however.5mm (0. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. The height is the true height of a crack.16 C3x8.5P5 C5x8. and the debonded length subsequently decreases. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section.the table below. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2.21 0.19 0.23 0. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. Interestingly. A small base dimension. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. The justification of the model is as follows.17 0. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.17 0. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0.3).22 0. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model.1 in).5P5 C6x8. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. to account 81 .15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3.

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

20 0.5P5 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. Normally.24 0. 83 . Also.20 Efic 27.5P5 C5x8. It is another possible indication of a size effect.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. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation. Efic. below.20 0.24 0.5P5 C6x8.20 0.The Young’s modulus. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks. However.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.2.20 0. Specimen C3x8.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.5P5 C4x8. 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. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.

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

In the diagram above. the result is as follows. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). 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). the following equations are obtained. ⎡ 1 h − ac Ec (h − a − ac ) 2 ⎤ wb ⎥ M = Pf ⎢(hb − c1 − a) + b 3 3 A f E f h − a − c1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ where Pf is the force within FRP bar. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. (3-6) 85 . ac stands for the crack length. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. 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.

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

The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows.32( c ) 2 − 13. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively.39( ac a a a ) + 7. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1.12 − 1. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation. after = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results. L is the spacing of cracks.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. and N is the number of cycles. ∆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). ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . the following equation is obtained.1( c ) 3 + 14. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . 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.

54( 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.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.17 − 28. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.63 + 25.22( c ) + 34.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5. P is the concentrated load.04(1 − c )5 + 1. ) = 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 ) = 0.88(1 − c )5 − 2. hb is the beam height.16( c ) − 31. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.G( a c a c a c a c ac . The angle α has the following expression. D was 610mm (24 in). 88 .46 + 3.04( c ) 2 + 14. M is the bending moment.84(1 − c )5 + 0.06( c ) + 0.

006407 0.00654 0.5P5 C6x8. the hinge assumption is justified. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.5H5 C4x8. with relative differences all less than 10%. we have the following equation.5P5 0.006973 × 12 = 0.01302 × 6 = 0.00696 0.5 72 0.00127 = 0. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.5P5 C5x8.00119 = 0.01121 × 7. the following equations are obtained. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.3. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).5H5 C5x8.5 72 0.S. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.00128 = 0.5 = 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .00109 5.0011 5.0011 5 72 Table 3.

The results were shown in Figure 3. depending on the ingredients and curing process. with possibly different initial crack lengths. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987).8. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. units. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. using specimen C5x8. 2. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves.76. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. the exact spacing of cracks is random.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. Three different C values were used. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction.25x10-4. namely. 6.S. To address these variables with uncertainties. corresponding to 2x10-16. First. The parameter m was set to be 3. In the case of multiple cracks. 6.6x10-17 and 3.76x10-4. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. which will be determined based on experimental results.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . the opening increment only changed by 0.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.5H5 as a prototype. 7. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method.

C was therefore fixed at 6. It was found that crack opening growth was sensitive to the initial crack length although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to initial crack length.76. and that each was completely different from the others. Obviously.86. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6.66. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. 3.01mm less. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%.5 in).76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3.86. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. The crack opening increment. did not change more than 0. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. the model is insensitive to C. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. however. 91 . The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm.76 and 3. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm.were similar to each other.76x10-4 and m at 3. Due to the aforementioned difficulties.003mm. 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.9. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. The final crack opening increment might be 0.

The width of specimen C5x8.13. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated.4MPa.25 in). the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. The error for crack opening increment was about 0.6MPa to 41.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. yet all cracks stop at the same length. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. Finally.12 and 3.4MPa.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.002mm less. the values of Ef .76x10-4 and m of 3. approximately.3Ef were examined. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. The plots are shown in Figure 3. The crack opening growth. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. 34.15Ef and 1.5MPa and 41. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . The height of specimen 92 . 1. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm.11. As Ec increased from 27. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. Values of Ec were set at 27.6MPa.10 and 3. with fixed C of 6.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve.76. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. The crack opening increment was approximately 0. The plots are shown in Figure 3. with a difference of about 40mm.001mm less. however. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef .

001mm less. and vice versa. with 6mm less beam height. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. In summary. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation.C5x8. however.25 in).5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. The plots are shown in Figure 3.14 and 3. and specimen size. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. 93 .15. This model is most sensitive. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. For other variables. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. crack length. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. due to the nature of the exponential function.

76x10-4) 94 .9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.

11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.76) 95 .5H5 (C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.

5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76) 96 .13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.

Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) 97 .76x10-4 m=3.

all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. For parameters C and m in Paris equation. a fixed value of C was set to be 6.18. Similar results are shown Figure 3. since m is the exponential term. To simplify the model. units. which illustrates a size effect.16 to 3. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. all specimens except C6x8. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987).5H5.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ).23.19 to 3.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed.22. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller.S. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length. For both thin and thick specimens. The results are listed from Figure 3. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. 98 . As the goal was to simulate the experiments. A summary was shown in Figure 3. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. For specimens of group H. using a brute force approach. In other words.

the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. When the specimen width increases. and.5H5. In the case of FRP concrete. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. Figure 3. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. m=3. C=6. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. however.76x10-4.48 99 .

5H5.76x10-4.57 Figure 3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.76x10-4.5H5.76 100 . m=3. C=6. C=6.Figure 3.

76x10-4. C=6.5P5.76x10-4. C=6.39 Figure 3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. m=3.Figure 3.55 101 .19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.5P5. m=3.

C=6.Figure 3.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.5P5.88 102 .5P5.76x10-4. C=6.74 Figure 3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.76x10-4. m=3.

23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .4 Group H Group P 3.6 3.4 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.8 m Value 3.

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

2. the following assumptions are made. The wheel load is 71. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack.7 m (105 in).86 MPa (125 psi).5m (20 in).2.2 m (86 in) and 2. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. The corresponding strip widths are 1. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. with a lateral spacing of 1. 2. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs.5P5.6 m (12 feet).6. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows.8 m (6 feet). 1) The values of girder spacing are 1.bars. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. i..7 m (66 in).8 m. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick. 105 .7 m (9 feet) and 3. For the purpose of simplicity. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3.e. which represent the majority of bridges in service.1. and the width of the loading area is always 0. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO.5-1 in AASHTO. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.

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

implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.8m.Figure 4. The tensile stress also decreased significantly. From the stress contour plot. 107 .2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.3. 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. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.

the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3. Two cases of girder spacing.6m girder spacing was also analyzed.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.Figure 4. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8m. the effects of girder spacing were examined. The results are illustrated below.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 108 . 2. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m.7m and 3.

7m.Figure 4.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .

6m.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.

9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m.10. 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. regardless of the girder spacing. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. The magnitude of 111 . The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. In Figure 4. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. Next. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab.Figure 4. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied.

0 ksi). 100mm Bar Spa. 100 1.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. including crack opening and slab deflection.6m Girder Spa. rather than the static ultimate strength. are durability and serviceability. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design.7m Girder Spa.4 0.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89.2 0.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. 100mm bar Spa.6 0. 150mm Bar Spa. 120 3. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.0MPa (13.2 1. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars.1 MPa (10. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles.8 1 1.8m Girder Spa. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. therefore.6m Girder Spa.3 ksi). The remaining issues. The maximum rebar stress at 3. 2. 100mm Bar Spa. 3.stress at the assumed 3.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.

the entire diaphragm was removed.051mm (0.0020 in). Compared with the maximum 0. At the girder spacing of 1. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. Finally.0023 in).22mm (0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2.8m girder spacing. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. was added at each diaphragm location. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.051mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar.00202 in).21mm (0. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.055mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. a top diaphragm bar. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000.0085 in). which should be acceptable.0072 in).0019 in). the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0083 in). The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.0022 in). under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck.058mm (0.18mm (0.0073 in). 113 .5 in2). which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.048mm (0.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.5mm suggested in ACI 440. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1. to 0.19mm (0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip.

00303 in).077mm (0.13 mm (0.0031 in).077mm (0.055 in). the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.0032 in). Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. which.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.089 mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.021 in).108mm (0. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0.53mm (0. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. again.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. should be acceptable. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.0042 in).0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1.4mm (0. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.080mm (0. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.5 in2).

and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440.0063 in). under the design truck load and lane loads.4m and 1. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory.02 in). 1.62 KN (17 kips). presumably.2m. at 150mm spacing. 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). The strip width is.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. 115 . which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440.5mm (. namely an opening of less than . its expected conservatism. The axle spacings are 3.16 mm (0.6m. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. 9. there are four legal loads. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar.2m. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. due to its simplicity and.6m (12 ft). however. somewhat arbitrary. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. which is composed of one axle load of 53. In the State of Ohio. and due to their ineffectiveness.sake of simplicity. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.

5 in). it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness.3m (60 ft) long. especially including discrete rebars. The second and third axles are 142.5m. The front axle load is 35. The model bridge was single span of 18. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. The design truck is composed of three axles. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load.producing a total length of 15. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load.27m (14 ft). Similar to slab strip model. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. such as 5C1. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. With the fictitious material representation. which would generate too many elements. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. Due to the large size of the structure. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi).5 KN (32 kips). it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. The spacing between the 116 . There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. the slab was supported by three girders. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location.6 KN (8 kips).

8m (6 ft). The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. a slab strip model under the same condition was created.11. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip.4. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. relative to the actual imposed stress field.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression.081mm. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.12. spanning the two girder spacings. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. using the fictitious material model.35 KN/m (0.05m (10 ft). In the case of single span bridge. in the bridge model. Compared with Figure 4. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.15m (30 ft). The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.27m (14 ft) and 9. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. minimum spacing of 4. For comparison purposes. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. with no diaphragms.053mm.64 Kips/ft). The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3.11 and 4. In Figure 4.

The single “dome” was split into two again. 2. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.15.crack opening prediction.8m.19.20. as expected. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression. Without diaphragms.6m spacing. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4.8m (6 ft) to 3.6m (12 ft).14.15 through 4.6m (15 ft). The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. Finally.13 and 4. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. there was always one compression “dome”. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4.7m and 3.041mm. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. and excessive crack opening predictions.6m. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. as an indication of the arching effect. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.058mm. As the girder spacing changed from 1. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.

119 .22 for the bridge model with 1. 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. Even at a girder spacing 3. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed.21 mm.6m (12 ft). the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution.21. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. the maximum final crack opening was 0.of the same model without diaphragms. Even including an impact factor of 1. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. as shown in Figure 4. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab.3. Nevertheless. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing.41mm. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit.8m girder spacing. The model is shown in Figure 4.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated.

Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4. 120 . No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.8m.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.

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

Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 2.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.7m.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4.Figure 4.

Figure 4. Figure 4.6m. (Girder spacing 3.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight.

8m Girder Spa. 2.w / Diaph.No Diaph.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .w / Diaph.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4. 3.No Diaph. 0.7m Girder Spa.w / Disph.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. 3. CMOD (mm) 0.6m Girder Spa.2 2.7m Girder Spa.No Diaph.6m Girder Spa.8m Girder Spa. 1. 0.3 1.Figure 4.

21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.04 0.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0. (Girder spacing 1.0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .8m.08 CMOD (mm) 0.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4. 1.06 0.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.

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

the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. respectively. as discussed below. at girder lines. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. As a result. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. ρ = 0. are resisted by larger concrete sections. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. 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. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. 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. although temperature and shrinkage effects.0018 × 60.000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength. In the longitudinal slab direction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 2.E. Bakis. Shah. Vol.Bibliography 1. Qureshy. O. Benmokrane. JCTRER. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. S. Texas.2. January 1998. Houston. S. 20. Vol. B. No. Al-Dulaijan. M. Swartz. pp. 1996 4.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”.. Compilation 33. Nanni. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. Chaallal.B. 2000 3. Committee 440. 80-87 8. SEM-RILEM International Conference. 1987. A. USA. R. ACI Committee 215. 2001 5. American Concrete Institute. June 17-19. 1995 7.91. ACI Structural Journal. C. M. 1. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. S. “440. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. A. Baluch. Boothby. A. American Concrete Institute. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. pp 29-37. Masmoudi. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. S. American Concrete Institute. No.K.P. 136 . 1992 6.H.

E.66. August. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. L. Philleo. R. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. Journal of Composites for Construction. February. Detroit. Kupfer.5. pp137-144. Shah.E. No. A. 1993. pp 40-51. Balaguru.9. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. Graddy. 16. J. John C. Publication SP-75. No. ACI Journal. T. August 2000.1. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. pp 659-673. The University of Texas at Austin.1. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Larralde. No. 15. Gergely. 2000. Vol. R. Richard E. No.87-117. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Journal of Composites for Construction.P. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. Vol. 12. May. Causes. H. G. S. Center for Transportation Research. H. 17. C. Tarhini.2. Editor S.2. 1997. Vol. Vol. M. C. Vol. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. G.5. May 1997. Frederick. 13. B. Manfredi. August 1969. SP-20. Vol. No. 14. Cosenza. 10.K. Ned H. 1982 11. 137 . American Concrete Institute.2. Bakht. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Klingner. R. pp.P. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”.3. pp 139-147. Burns. K. Mabsout. Hilsdorf. pp 83-87.4. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. H. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. Lutz. P.3. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. American Concrete Institute. Fatigue of Concrete Structures.

483-491. 2. ACI Structural Journal. 1987. S. C. Vol. S. R. S. French.M. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”.C.18. Inc. Journal of Structural Engineering. Publication SP-75. pp.. Beim. National research Council. American Concrete Institute. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. K. pp. Huang. P. Beim. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. 21. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. Texas.M.P.C. Vol. A.P. Detroit. 1997. Shield. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. Transportation Research Board. pp. C.A. 86.3. 24. Swartz. Shah. 1982 138 . Washington D. S. Swartz. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”.C. NCHRP Project No. S. Perdikaris. Zokaie. Nutt. Shah. Vol. Oct. 114. SEM-RILEM International Conference..K. Houston. Swartz. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. P. T. No. 20. No. July-August 1989. C. Perdikaris.N. A.4.E.. S. Perdikaris. 1987 19. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. C.C. 12-26. S. Shah. S.E. March 1988. 591607. P. pp 381-388. 1995 23. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. R. June 17-19.E. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”.P. ASCE. John Wiley & Sons. USA. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. 64-69 22. Editor S.

H. Transactions of ASME. 1963 29.C.E. P. Hota V. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. Paris Productions Inc.11. P. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”.K. 26. G. ACI Structural Journal. edited by P. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Banthia and P. Paris. Experimental Mechanics. J. M. pp129- 134. S. C.. Hu.V. Tada. 27.24. Vol.98. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”. Vijay. Montreal. pp. Vancouver.G.528-534. Buckland. P. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges.S. GangaRao.2. Journal of Basic Engineering. June 1984. Paris. No. Vol. Experimental Mechanics. K. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. pp. Brett.6. 1985 30.G.25. Swartz. F. S. Fartash. Canada. Swartz.22. No. Canada. N. 28. 2001 139 . No.412-417. H. Vol. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. November 1982. 2002. C. Vol. Second Edition.85.E.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful